Joint ASRED/SAAESD Meeting

April 2-4, 2007

Lexington, KY

Minutes

Participants  |  Action Items  |  Agenda

Participants

SAAESD: Jerry Arkin, GA George Askew, SC James Bannon, AL Susan Barefoot, SC David Boethel, LA Kira Bowen, AL Mark Cochran, AR Lisa Collins, KY Nancy Cox, KY Roger Crickenberger, NC Bill Dugas, TX James Griffin, LA Richard Guthrie, AL Winston Hagler, NC George Hochmuth, FL Mark Hussey, TX Tom Klindt, TN Steve Leath, NC Mark McLellan, FL

David Monks, NC Reuben Moore, MS David Morrison, LA Roland Mote, TN Craig Nessler, VA Donna Pearce, SAAESD Jonathan Pote, MS Jim Rakocy, VI Rick Roeder, AR Bob Shulstad, GA Clarence Watson, OK Eric Young, SAAESD Liaisons: Darrell Cole, ARS – Athens, GA Ed King, ARS – Stoneville, MS Dan Kugler, CSREES Other guests: Cindy Montgomery, VA

Action Items

Agenda Item S1- Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions: Meeting agenda approved (Morrison/Crickenberger), fall meeting minutes approved (Klindt/Morrison), and Interim Actions approved (Morrison/Cox).
Agenda Item S6- MRC Report: Impact statement requirement policy was approved (MRC/Boethel)
Agenda Item S18- S-009 Report and Budget Request: S-009 budget approved (Arkin/Cox)
Agenda Item S21- SAAESD Excellence in Leadership Award Presentation: Drs. Vance Watson and Nancy Cox were presented the SAAESD Leadership Award
Agenda Item S23- Resolutions Committee Report: A resolution of appreciation was read for Dr. Nancy Cox and staff of the University of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station for their roles in hosting the ASRED/SAAESD Spring Meeting.  A round of applause approved the resolution.
 

AGENDA

Monday, April 2

11:30 – 1:00 pm	Joint Welcome Lunch
	University of Kentucky Welcome – Scott Smith, Nancy Cox, and Paul Warner

1:00 – 3:00 pm	Joint ASRED and SAAESD Meeting

1:00 – 1:10	J1	Call to Order and Introductions – Fran Wolak and Susan Barefoot
1:10 – 1:40	J2	USDA Energy Programs – Gale Buchanan or Jim Fischer (USDA/REE)
1:40 – 1:50	J3	CSREES Report – Dan Kugler (USDA/CSREES)
1:50 – 2:30	J4	FY’08 President’s Budget Proposal and Farm Bill/CREATE-21 Legislation – Jim Richards (Cornerstone, Inc)
2:30 – 3:00	J5	Development, Public Relations, and Advocacy – Keith Barber (Clemson)

3:00 – 3:30 pm	Joint Break
3:30 – 5:00 pm	SAAESD Meeting

3:30	S1	Call to Order, Welcome, and Approval of Agenda, Minutes and Interim Actions–– Susan Barefoot
3:30 – 3:50	S2	ARS Report – Ed King and Darrell Cole (USDA/ARS)

	ESCOP Committee Reports (Action items only, activities in agenda briefs)

3:50 – 4:00	S3	Communication & Marketing – Jerry Arkin, Mary Duryea, and Ron Lacewell
4:00 – 4:10	S4	Budget & Legislative – Tom Klindt and David Boethel
4:10 – 4:20	S5	Science & Technology – Nancy Cox and Clarence Watson
4:20 – 4:40	S6	MRC Report – David Morrison
4:40 – 4:45	S7	NIMSS Update – Eric Young and Donna Pearce
4:45 – 5:00	S8	Executive Director’s Report – Eric Young

6:00 pm	Joint Reception

Tuesday, April 3

6:30 – 8:00 am	Joint Breakfast
7:00 – 8:30 am	SAAESD Chief Operating Officers’ Breakfast Meeting
8:30 – 10:00 am	SAAESD Meeting

8:30 – 8:40	S9	Chief Operating Officers’ Meeting Report – Susan Barefoot
8:40 – 9:00	S10	National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee Report – Jerry Arkin

	NRSP Reports and FY’08 Budget Requests

9:00 – 9:10	S11	NRSP-1 – Roger Crickenberger
9:10 – 9:20	S12	NRSP-3 – Steve Leath
9:20 – 9:30	S13	NRSP-4 –George Hochmuth for Mary Duryea
9:30 – 9:40	S14	NRSP-5 – Reuben Moore
9:40 – 9:50	S15	NRSP-6 – Richard Guthrie
9:50 – 10:00	S16	NRSP-7 – Garry Adams

10:00 – 10:30 am	Joint Break
10:30 – 12:00 pm	SAAESD Meeting

10:30 – 10:40	S17	NRSP-8 – Eric Young
10:40 – 10:50	S18	S-009 Report and Budget Request – Jerry Arkin
10:50 – 11:50	S19	Best Practices Session – Germplasm Release Policies – Susan Barefoot
11:50 – 11:55	S20	ASRED Liaison Report – Paul Coreil
11:55 – 12:00	S21	SAAESD Excellence in Leadership Award Presentation – Susan Barefoot

12:00 – 8:30 pm	Joint Lunch, Tour, and Dinner (off site)

Wednesday, April 4

6:30 – 8:00 am	Joint Breakfast
8:00 – 10:00 am	Joint ASRED and SAAESD Meeting
	Reconvene Joint Session – Susan Barefoot and Fran Wolak

8:15 – 8:30	J6	BAA Policy Board of Directors Report – Nancy Cox and Jon Ort
8:15 – 8:30	J7	ASRED and SAAESD Joint Database – Ron Brown and Eric Young
8:30 – 9:00	J8	Southern Rural Development Center Report – Bo Beaulieu (SRDC Director)
9:00 – 9:30	J9	Southern Region IPM Center Report – Jim VanKirk (SRIPMC Director)
9:30 – 9:40	J10	2009 Joint ASRED/SAAESD Meeting in Puerto Rico – Ariel Ramirez and Hector Santiago
9:40 – 10:00	J11	Follow-up on FY’08 Budget Coordination of Bioenergy in the Southern Region – Eric Young and Ron Brown

10:00 – 10:30 am	Joint Break
10:30 – 12:00 pm	SAAESD Meeting

10:30 – 11:30	S22	Best Practices Session – Hiring and Supporting Mid-Level Management – Tom Klindt
11:30 – 11:40	S23	Resolutions Committee Report – Rick Roeder
11:40 – 11:50	S24	2008 Spring SAAESD Meeting in Tennessee – Tom Klindt
11:50 – 12:00	S25	Fall SAAESD Meeting, Announcements, etc. – Susan Barefoot

12:00 – 1:00 pm	Joint Lunch
1:00 – 2:00 pm	SAAESD Meeting (if needed)

Agenda Briefs

Agenda Item J1.
Call to Order and Introductions
Presenter: Fran Wolak and Susan Barefoot
Background:
Fran Wolak , Chair of the Association of Southern Region Extension Directors, and Susan Barefoot, Chair of the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors, will call to order the joint session.
Action Requested: None
Agenda Item J2.
USDA Energy Programs
Presenter: Jim Fischer
Background:
In meeting comments:

• USDA Energy Science and Education Workshop
  • Will be held in September
  • Directors will be invited through ESCOP
  • Invitation only workshop to keep it small
• We want feedback on the Energy Science and Education Strategic Plan from the directors

Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item J3.
CSREES Report
Presenter: Dan Kugler
Background:
In meeting comments:

• Ralph Otto is now the Deputy Administrator
• IR-4 program is going competitive
• Rural Development Centers, SARE, and Aquaculture funding will all be done as usual

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item J4.
FY’08 President’s Budget Proposal and Farm Bill/CREATE-21 Legislation
Presenter: Jim Richards
Background:
In meeting comments:

• CREATE 21
  • Will be introduce in the senate
  • As soon as it’s assigned a bill # we’ll need support from the system
  • Congress hopes to have the Farm Bill completed by September
  • During current Farm Bill they spent 18 billion less than forecasted, so the funds that will be made available for next Farm Bill will probably be less

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item J5.
Development, Public Relations, and Advocacy
Presenter:Keith Barber
Background:
NAADA Applied: How This Organization Can Serve in Changing Times
The discussion topic will define the role of the National Agricultural Alumni and Development Association (NAADA).  It will also explore ways to incorporate student services, alumni relations, development and volunteers into the existing responsibilities of extension and research faculty and administrators.  It will also examine how strategic and contextual plans might include these areas in a more integral manner.
Click here for the NAADA PowerPoint
Action Requested: For information only.
Agenda Item S1.
Call to Order, Welcome, and Approval of Agenda, Minutes and Interim Actions
Presenter: Susan Barefoot
Background:
Minutes from the September 25, 2006 Fall meeting in Lake Tahoe, NV
Interim Actions:

• Appointed Mark McLellan, (FL) as Administrative Advisor to S1028 “Ecological and genetic diversity of soilborne pathogens and indigenous microflora”
• Appointed Roger Crickenberger, (NC) as Administrative Advisor to SERA20 “Southern Conservation Tillage Systems Conference”
• Appointed Doug Archer, (FL) as Administrative Advisor to SERA14 “Development and Evaluation of Bunch and Muscadine Grapes for Fresh Market, Juice, Wine and Other Products”
• Appointed Bruce Pinkerton, (SC) as Administrative Advisor to SERA8 “Fescue Endophyte Research and Extension”
• Appoionted Hector Santiago, (PR) as Administrative Advisor to SERA12 “Southern Forest Insect Work Conference”
• Appointed Al Wysocki, (FL) as the southern representative to the SRDC Technical & Operational Advisory Committee.
• Appointed Winston Hagler, (NC) as the southern representative to the U.S. Wheat & Barley Scab Initiative Steering Committee.
• Appointed Craig Nessler, (VA) as Administrative Advisor to S_temp1482 (NEW SCC replacing OLD S1001) “Development of Plant Pathogens as Bioherbicides for Weed Control”
• Appointed George Hochmuth, (FL) as the southern representative on the SRDC Board of Directors until 2011.

 
Action Requested: Approval of agenda, minutes, and interim actions.
Action Taken: Meeting agenda approved (Morrison/Crickenberger), fall meeting minutes approved (Klindt/Morrison), and Interim Actions approved (Morrison/Cox).
Agenda Item S2.
ARS Report
Presenter: Ed King and Darrell Cole
Background:
In meeting comments:

• All ARS areas will be reduced in budget if the President’s proposal is passed
• Biggest issues are the budget reductions
• Department and Agency is discussing how to use the earmark funds in ’07 that were put into ARS regular budget
• MidSouth had 41 projects at 45 million total earmarked
• Program staff is looking at 300 plus projects to determine which are earmarks and which are “unrequested” funds
• OMB has a definition for earmark and a different one for unrequested add-ons
• Other than earmark change, ’07 budget is the same as the ’06 budget

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item S3.
Communication & Marketing Report
Presenter: Jerry Arkin, Mary Duryea and Ron Lacewell
Background:
Information below is the ESCOP Agenda Brief from the ESCOP February 27, 2007 meeting.
The ESCOP Communications and Marketing Committee met February 20, 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. Jerry Arkin brought the meeting to order and gave an update of the ESS meeting at Lake Tahoe, Nevada in September 2006. Jerry Arkin and Bill Ravlin indicated that at the Lake Tahoe meeting ESCOP had approved $10,000 to begin the exploration of the development of a Strategic Communication and Marketing Plan for ESCOP.
Bill Ravlin reviewed the draft of “A Marketing Strategy for the State Agricultural Experiment Station System: Request for Applications”. Five major topics were considered:

1. What are we trying to achieve with a marketing strategy/plan?

• Must result in more sustainable financial resources. Both competitive and formula/capacity. (Similar to CREATE 21)
• Must communicate the value and relevance for the 21st Century.
• Must change perceptions
  • Cutting-edge research and delivery
  • Scientific breakthroughs
  • High-impact transformational education

2. Who do we focus on first?

• Congress
  • Senate and House Agricultural Committees
  • Senate and House Agricultural Appropriation Committees
  • Senate and House Appropriation Committees
• OMB
• USDA Under Secretaries
• Executive Office for Science and Technology (OSTP)
• Link to our lobby firm
• Link to CFAR
• Link to CARET and industry leaders

3. What characteristics do we want in a marketing firm?

• Conduct a targeted search for firms that:
  • Have a background in science and learning
  • Have marketed science discovery on a national and international basis
  • Seek help from entities in our universities that have had success, e.g. Medical Schools, NSF.
• Tim Sanders, Cornerstone Government Affairs, was asked input on what we     should seek most from a marketing firm. Sanders suggested the following:
  • This firm must know “The Hill” and have a key understanding of how Congress is influenced.
  • This firm must be able to take key marketing messages back to the home districts of the members of Congress we want to influence. “Remember, in the past 20 years, members of Congress have increasingly demonstrated what matters to them most is what happens in their district or state.”
  • We should focus or target about 25 to 30 key members of Congress.
  • Tim Sanders, Cornerstone Government Affairs, agreed to provide our committee with the names of several marketing firms who could meet our criteria.

4. Linking to CREATE 21

• The marketing strategy should help provide a basis for advancing CREATE 21.

5. Specific next steps

• Refine the RFA and take to ESCOP next week for discussion and endorsement.
• Plant seed with ECOP about potential synergy
• Funding Strategies
  • First, ESS needs to fund
    • The search process (already approved for $10,000)
    • Fund firm to design strategy
    • Seek recurring and sustained dollars—with a three-year review of progress.
  • Stage one of the effort should focus on ESCOP with possible involvement from ECOP and ACOP
  • Stage two could include foundations and support from industry and a broader marketing effort.

The communication and marketing committee believes by focusing the target audience initially on key members of congress and their local districts that we would have a limited target and be able to utilize the communications expertise already in place in the experiment stations to provide access to the local districts. In this way, the committee considered feasibility and felt that this would be the most cost effective approach to marketing our system.
In response to a request from the NCRA logo Jerry Arkin, Bill Ravlin and WendyWinterstein provided designs from their institutions to help initiate a discussion on a SAES logo. The logos provided were professional and very thought provoking. It was decided that selection of a logo was premature in light of structural changes in USDA REE and the proposed strategic marketing plan that is under consideration for development. There was considerable discussion favoring further study of a more appropriate name than Agricultural Experiment Stations. One name that had traction and appeal to all was Agriculture Research and Development. It was felt that this name might have wide appeal to both research and extension folks.
Agricultural Science on the Hill Exhibits: Bill Ravlin moved and Cameron Hackney seconded a motion that the Communication and Marketing Committee recommend to ESCOP that we discontinue “Agricultural Science on the Hill Exhibits” because members of congress have reported to members of our committee that this effort is not effective. The motion passed unanimously by the committee. Possibly some of the resources for the Science on the Hill effort could be put into a more successful marketing effort.
The Communications and Marketing Committee is seeking the following action from ESCOP:

1. Endorse the “Request for Applications” document that would effectively start the search for a marketing firm to help develop a strategic communications and marketing plan proposal and budget.

1. The Communications and Marketing Committee recommends to ESCOP that the Science on the Hill Exhibit be discontinued.

Click here for the Marketing Strategy for State Agricultural Experiment Station System: Request for Applications document
In meeting comments:

• Key marketing effort for system comes from commodity groups, so they need to be included in plan to reinforce the message.

Action Requested: None.
Agenda Item S4.
Budget & Legislative Report
Presenter: Ton Klindt and David Boethel
Background:
FY 07 Budget Continuing Resolution
As you are aware from prior communications, the CR funds most departments, agencies, and accounts of the federal government — including USDA and CSREES — at their F.Y. 2006 funding levels. However, the CR contains no earmarks, and some $126.9 million in”special grants” and $58.1 million in “federal administration” (compared to F.Y. 2006) are not included within the CR.
Through the hard work of the NASULGC system, Congress has retained these funds within the CSREES budget, providing one-time increases for a number of programs including Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Evans-Allen, NRI, 1994s Research, 1890s Capacity Building, 1994s Research, Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c), EFNEP, 1994s Extension, Indian Reservation Agents, 1890 Facilities, and 1890s Extension. (In addition, all of the Integrated Activities line items were funded at 2006 levels.) Overall the net increase for research and education activities was $1.143 million over 2006. Funds provided through the various formula programs will be subject to the existing rules. These will some flexibility in carrying over funds into next year.

	FY’06 ($ m)	’07 CR ($ m)	Increase/decrease ($ m)
Hatch	176.969	322.597	145.628
McIntire-Stennis	22.008	30.008	8.000
Evans-Allen	37.215	40.680	3.465
NRI	181.170	190.229	9.059
Special Research Grants	126.941	0.000	-126.941
Federal Administration	49.966	10.083	-39.883

Complete information on the CR can be found at:
http://www.nasulgc-bac.com/advocacy_reports/2007/01-30.htm
New Rules for Special Grants
On February 9, 2007 House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey released a memo announcing changes to the earmarking process. Included in the changes are increased transparency, a deadline for requests, the request must be signed by the member, and most importantly the expectation that these types of request will be reduced by 50% for 2008.
President’s FY 08 Budget

• Hatch funds (agriculture research) would be decreased by $12.5 million from the FY 2006 appropriation to $164 million, with $98 million to be directed to a new competitive multi-state program. The effective reduction to base funding is approximately 62 percent.
• McIntire-Stennis (forestry research) funding would be reduced by $1.5 million to new level of $20.5 million, with $13 million going to a new competitive multistate program. The effective reduction to base funding is approximately 66
  percent.
• The Evans-Allen program would see a slight increase from 37.215 million to 38.331
• Animal Health and Disease (Sec. 1433) funding would again be eliminated in FY 2008.

BAC Action on FY’08 Budget
The BAC met in Washington DC Feb 12-13 to develop strategies for the ‘08 Budget and unanimously decided to take the following positions on these issues:

1. We oppose elimination of the Animal Health and Disease program and recommend that it be funded at the F.Y. 2006 and anticipated F.Y. 2007 level of $5,006,000.
2. We recommend Hatch funding at the projected F.Y. 2007 rate of $322,597,000.

• This is a very large increase for Hatch, which was funded at $176,969,000 in F.Y. 2006.
• (The F.Y 2007 increase resulted from the elimination of CSREES earmarks.)
• We support the Administration’s proposal for a $98,597,000 new competitively awarded multistate grants program within the $322,597,000, leaving $224,000,000 to be distributed under the regular Hatch formula (including 25
  percent for multistate efforts).
• There was strong and unanimous support for no decrease in Hatch funding as distributed by formula, and should Congress eventually appropriate less than what we’ve requested ($322,597,000), the reductions should come from the new competitively awarded multistate grants program.

3. We recommend McIntire-Stennis funding at the projected F.Y. 2007 rate of $30,008,000.

• This is a significant increase for McIntire-Stennis, which had been funded at $22,008,000 in F.Y. 2006. (Again, the F.Y 2007 increase resulted from the elimination of CSREES earmarks.)
• We recommend that $5,000,000 of the $30,008,000 total in our recommendation be directed – as the Administration has proposed – to a new competitively awarded grants program, with the remaining $25,008,000 distributed according to the regular formula.

4. We support the Administration’s request for an increase in funding for the National Research Initiative (NRI) to a level of $256,500,000. Included within this amount for the NRI is $45,130,000 in funding for seven Sec. 406 programs that were previously displayed in the CSREES budget under the “Integrated Activities” heading. There are some compelling reasons for this action:

• The President’s Budget Request provides a unique opportunity to grow two important Sec. 406 programs by $2,844,000, ($2,006,000 for the National Integrated Pest Management Initiative (NIPMI) and $838,000 for the National Integrated Water Program).
• Funding for the current Sec. 406 program areas is explicitly broken-out within the CSREES “Budget Justification” document submitted to Congress and therefore represents a firm commitment on the part of the agency to keep them intact after an administrative move to the NRI.
• Inclusion of the Sec. 406 programs within the NRI provides better opportunity for programmatic growth and flexibility. (The $3 million increase proposed this year by the Administration – the first ever for Sec. 406 programs – is evidence to support this conclusion.)
• Finally, current Sec. 406 program organization/management is expected to continue under the NRI authorities, as has been repeatedly stated by top CSREES officials. They believe that these programs are highly-functioning and among
  their strongest. They do not intend that they be weakened, but rather positioned in a funding category that can grow these critical and successful efforts, with demonstrated results, showing how extension, research, and education can be
  successfully integrated.

Complete details of the BAC proposal can be found at:
http://www.nasulgc-bac.com/documents/FY2008/The_Numbers.pdf
One pagers have been developed along several thematic areas:
1890 Land-Grant Programs at CSREES , 1994 Land-Grant Programs at CSREES ,Teaching and Extension Programs at CSREES , Increased Research and ExtensionCapacity, National Research Initiative, Expanded Food & Nutrition Education Program, EXtension
ESCOP Priorities FY ‘09
The Budget and Legislative Committee has completed the priority setting process for the’09 budget cycle. The process employed by the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee to obtain input is working effectively. There was an initial on-line survey (strawman draft) followed by face to face discussions at the ESS Annual Meeting which was again followed up with an on-line survey. Any addition of broad issues to the priorities listing will be done with the opportunity for input from all directors.
Overarching Priorities:

• The Directors overwhelmingly (88%) indicated that maintaining capacity for research through base funds (Hatch, Evans-Allen, McIntire-Stennis, and Animal Disease) is the top priority. Increasing funding for the NRI with emphasis on integrated activities was a distant second (12%)
• The Directors (66%) indicated that focusing formula funds on specific topics in order to gain increases in these funds was not desirable.
• The Directors (65%) supported the concept of matching new formula funds with existing formula funds to leverage money for an important program.

Action Requested: Information Only
Agenda Item S5.
Science and Technology Report
Presenter: Nancy Cox and Clarence Watson
Background:

1. ESS Priorities for the NRI

In response to ESCOP’s charge, the Science & Technology Committee developed a process to provide input on NRI priorities from the experiment station directors.  The process involved two steps, an initial on-line survey available to experiment station, extension, and academic program directors, followed by a session at the fall SAES/ARD Workshop composed primarily of experiment station directors.  The updated Science Roadmap for Agriculture challenges and objectives served as the framework for these discussions and subsequent recommendations.
Recommendations for NRI priorities from the Workshop attendees were compiled and edited by the Science & Technology Committee and the final ESS recommendations were approved by the ESCOP Executive Committee at it’s meeting during the NASULGC annual conference.  These recommendations were sent to Anna Palmisano, Deputy Administrator for NRI, and copied to Colien Hefferan and Gale Buchanan on November 15, 2007.
The following Roadmap objectives were recommended as high priority areas for NRI funding.

• Develop sustainable production systems that are profitable and protective of the environment, including finding ways to optimize the integration of crop and livestock production systems.
• Improve crop biomass quantities, qualities and agricultural production efficiencies.
• Develop technologies to improve processing efficiency of crop bioproducts.
• Eliminate food borne illnesses.
• Develop better methods to protect the environment both on and beyond the farm from any negative impacts of agriculture through optimum use of cropping systems including agroforestry, phytoremediation, and site-specific management.
• Develop more environmentally friendly crop and livestock production systems that utilize sustainable weed, insect, and pathogen management strategies, along with feeding strategies that promote environmental stewardship.
• Stimulate entrepreneurship and business development in rural communities and new forms of economic activity built around regional trade associations, rural cooperatives, and local production networks.

Also included in the ESS recommendations were very specific areas for each objective that are high priority for research focused or integrated proposals.  In addition, the ESS recommended that the number of NRI program areas should be decreased and the scope of each program area be broadened.
The S&T Committee will follow up with Anna Palmisano and other NRI administrators to determine how the ESS recommendations were used in developing the FY 08 RFA and what modifications in process or format could be done in the future to make them more useful.

2. Next Meeting

Dan Rossi, the new ED in the northeast region, will now support the S&T Committee.  The committee will meet by conference call this spring and then face-to-face after the NRI RFA is released.
Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item S6.
MRC Report
Presenter: David Morrison
Background:
The Southern Multistate Research Committee is composed of Tom Klindt, David Morrison (Chair), Craig Nessler, Clarence Watson, and Eric Young.  During the 12-month period since the 2006 Spring Meeting, the MRC has reviewed 10 S-projects.  Six of them have been approved to date, but most were not approved upon initial review.  The most common deficiencies observed by committee members were as follows: 1) failure to discuss accomplishments achieved under the previous project (if for a replacement project) and relating these to those areas needing further research in the new project, 2) failure to clearly indicate the level of participation of participating institutions for each objective, 3) failure to adequately indicate collaboration and interdependence among participants. AAs are urged to provide proposal writing committees with copies of Appendix H (the MRC Evaluation Form), which will alert these committees to the evaluation criteria being used by the MRC. This should help facilitate an increase in the number of proposals approved after initial MRC review.
The following is a current status report, prepared by Donna Pearce, of MRF activities sorted by termination date.  This information is also available on the southern directors’ web site.

STATUS OF TERMINATING MRF PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES

Projects scheduled for termination September 2006:

S-295 Susan Barefoot, SC	Enhancing Food Safety Through Control of Food-Borne Disease Agents	Approved SDC313. NIMSS # S_temp 1082. Sent to AC-2 & 4 9/21/04. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/3/04. Sent back to AA on 11/30/04. Extended for 1 year to September 30, 2006.Submitted for peer review on 10/12/06. Return to AA for revisions on 11/20/06.
S-300 Roger Crickenberger, NC	Improved Methods to Combat Mosquitoes and Crop Pests in Rice Fields	Extended for 1 year to Sept. 30, 2006. NIMSS# S_temp1382. Sent to SAC-12 on 1/18/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 5/12/06. Sent back to AA on 5/16/06. Submitted for peer review on 6/26/06. Return to AA for revisions on 7/21/06. Submitted to MRC Committee for review 8/21/06. Return to AA for revisions on 9/05/06. Resubmitted to the MRC Chair on 9/22/06. Approved regionally as S1029; sent to CSREES 10/11/06.	S1029
S-304 Clarence Watson, OK	Genetic improvement approaches to sustained, profitable cotton production in the United States	Approved SDC317. NIMSS# S_temp1142. Sent to AC-1 on 3/23/05. Sent to Executive Committee on 5/16/05. Sent back to AA on 6/1/05. Request 1 year extension on 6/27/05. Extended 1 year to September 30, 2006. Submitted for peer review on 7/19/06. Return to AA for revisions on 9/27/06. Submitted to MRC Committee for review on 10/11/06. Return to AA for revisions on 10/26/06. Re-submitted to MRC Chair for approval on 2/7/07.
S-1005 Rick Roeder, AR	Sources, Dispersal and Management of Stable Flies on Grazing Beef and Dairy Cattle	Approved SDC322. NIMSS# S_temp1362. Sent to AC-2 on 8/8/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 8/23/06. Sent back to the AA 9/12/06. Submitted for peer review on 9/22/06. Return to AA for revisions on 10/17/06. Submitted to MRC for review on 2/7/07.
S-1006 Rick Roeder, AR	Insect and Manure Management in Poultry Systems: Elements Relative to Food Safety and Nuisance Issues	Approved SDC322. NIMSS# S_temp1362. Sent to AC-2 on 8/8/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 8/23/06. Sent back to the AA 9/12/06.Submitted for peer review on 9/22/06.Return to AA for revisions on 10/17/06. Submitted to MRC for review on 2/7/07.

Projects scheduled for termination September 30, 2007:

S-1000 Ron Lacewell, TX	Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture	Extended for 1 year to September 30, 2007. Approved SDC326. NIMSS# S_temp1562. Sent to AC2 and AC5 on 10/20/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/16/06. Sent back to AA 11/30/06.
S-1003 Craig Nessler, VA	Variety and Quality Evaluation of Virginia-Type Peanuts	Extended for 1 year to Sept. 30, 2007. Approved as SDC328. NIMSS #S_temp1622. Sent to AC1 & 11 on 2/12/07. Sent to Executive Committee on 3/15/07. Sent back to AA on 3/19/07.
S-1004 Roland Mote, TN	Development and Evaluation of TMDL Planning and Assessment Tools and Processes	Approved SDC324. NIMSS# S_temp1522. Sent to AC1, AC5, and AC7 on 10/17/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/9/06. Sent back to AA on 11/27/2006.
S-1007 Roland Mote, TN	The Science and Engineering for a Biobased Industry and Economy	Approved SDC325. NIMSS# S_temp1523. Sent to AC5, AC7, and AC13 on 10/17/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/09/06. Sent back to AA on 11/27/06.
S-1008 Nancy Cox, KY	Genetic Selection and Crossbreeding to Enhance Reproduction and Survival of Dairy Cattle
S-1010 David Boethel, LA	Dynamic Soybean Pest Management for Evolving Agricultural Technologies and Cropping Systems	Assigned a writing committee for the rewrite on 11/21/2006.

Development Committees
SDC313 Susan Barefoot, SC	(S-295) Enhancing Food Safety Through Control of Food-Borne Disease Agents	Approved SDC313. NIMSS # S_temp 1082. Sent to AC-2 & 4 9/21/04. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/3/04. Sent back to AA on 11/30/04. S295 extended 1 year to September 30, 2006. Submitted for peer review on 10/12/06.  Return to AA for revisions on 11/20/06.
SDC317 Clarence Watson, OK	(S-304) Genetic improvement approaches to sustained, profitable cotton production in the United States	Approved SDC317. NIMSS# S_temp1142. Sent to AC-1 on 3/23/05. Sent to Executive Committee on 5/16/05. Sent back to AA on 6/1/05. Submitted for peer review on 7/19/06. Return to AA for revisions on 9/27/06. Submitted to MRC Committee for review on 10/11/06. Return to AA for revisions on 10/26/06. Re-submitted to MRC Chair for approval on 2/7/07.
SDC319 Mark Hussey, TX	(S-303) Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and Weeds	Approved SDC319. NIMSS# S_temp1242. Sent to AC-1 & AC-12 on 5/16/05. Sent to Executive Committee on 6/29/05. Sent back to AA on 71/05. Submitted for peer review on 8/29/05. Peer reviewed 10/7/05. Submitted to MRC on 1/13/06 – incomplete. Return to AA for revisions and completion on 1/17/06. AA and writing committee are in the process of completing proposal and will resubmit to MRC. Re-Submitted proposal to MRC on 6/20/06. Return to AA for revisions on 7/27/06.Revisions submitted on 10/25/06. Return to AA for revisions on 11/8/06.
SDC320 Rick Roeder, AR	(New) Integrative Functional and Physiological Genomics of Poultry	Approved SDC320. NIMSS# S_temp1302. Sent to AC-2 on 9/9/05. Sent to Executive Committee on 9/27/05. Sent back to AA on 10/19/05. Submitted for peer review on 10/17/06. Sent back to AA on 11/30/06 for revisions.
SDC321 Nancy Cox, KY	Water Quality Issues in Poultry Production (from W195)	Approved SDC321. NIMSS# S_temp1301. Sent to AC2 & AC5 on 9/21/05. Sent to Executive Committee on 10/19/05. Sent back to AA on 10/25/05. Submitted for peer review on 7/11/06. Sent back to AA for revisions on 8/21/03. Submitted to MRC for review on 2/7/07. Sent back to AA on 2/26/07 for revisions.
SDC322 Rick Roeder, AR	Flies Impacting Livestock, Poultry and Food Safety	NIMSS# S_temp1362. Sent to AC-2 on 8/8/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 8/23/06. Sent back to the AA 9/12/06. Submitted for peer review on 9/22/06. Return to AA for revisions on 10/17/06. Submitted to MRC for review on 2/7/07.
SDC323 Roger Crickenberger, NC	Improved Methods to Combat Mosquitoes and Crop Pests in Rice Fields	Extended for 1 year to Sept. 30, 2006. NIMSS# S_temp1382. Sent to SAC-12 on 1/18/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 5/12/06. Sent back to AA on 5/16/06. Submitted for peer review on 6/26/06. Return to AA for revisons on 7/21/06. Submitted to MRC Committee for review 8/21/06. Return to AA for revisions on 9/05/06. Resubmitted to the MRC Chair on 9/22/06. Approved regionally as S1029; sent to CSREES 10/11/06.	S1029
SDC324 Roland Mote, TN	Modeling for TMDL Development, and Watershed Based Planning, Management and Assessment	NIMSS# S_temp1522. Sent to AC1, AC5, and AC7 on 10/17/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/9/06. Sent back to AA on 11/27/2006.
SDC325 Roland Mote, TN	The Science and Engineering for a Biobased Industry and Economy	NIMSS# S_temp1523. Sent to AC5, AC7, and AC13 on 10/17/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/09/06. Sent back to AA on 11/27/06.
SDC326 Ron Lacewell, TX	Improving the Sustainability of Livestock and Poultry Production in the United States	Extended for 1 year to September 30, 2007. NIMSS# S_temp1562. Sent to AC2 and AC5 on 10/20/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/16/06. Sent back to AA 11/30/06.
SDC327 Richard Guthrie, AL	Improvement and Sustainability of Channel-Blue Hybrid Catfish Embryo Production and Performance	NIMSS #S_temp1542. Sent to AC2 on 1/25/07.  AC2 chair and members have forwarded proposal on to 3 aquaculture department heads for review on 2/8/07. Sent to Executive Committee on 3/6/07. Sent back to AA on 3/12/07. Submitted for peer review on 3/15/07. Return to AA for revisions on 3/26/07. Submitted to MRC Committee for review 3/26/07.
SDC328 Craig Nessler, VA	Peanut Variety Quality Evaluation Program	Extended for 1 year to Sept. 30, 2007. NIMSS #S_temp1622. Sent to AC1 & 11 on 2/12/07. Sent to Executive Committee on 3/15/07. Sent back to AA on 3/19/07
SERA’S & SCC’s Scheduled for Termination September 30, 2007

SCC72 Nancy Cox, KY	Enhancing Reproductive Efficiency in Cattle
SERA006 Mark Hussey, TX	Methodology, Interpretation, and Implementation of Soil, Plant, Byproduct, and Water Analyses	NIMSS# S_temp 1642. Sent to AC-1 on 2/23/07.Sent back to AA on 3/14/2007 for revisions.
SERA011 Reuben Moore, MS	Review and Coordination of Oilseed Rape Research Programs in the Southern Region
SERA012 Hector Santiago, PR	Southern Forest Insect Work Conference
SERA025 George Hochmuth, FL	Turf
SERA027 Dewayne Ingram, KY	Nursery Crop and Landscape Systems	NIMSS#S_temp1602.  Sent to AC-6 on 2/7/07. Sent to SERA Review Committee on 2/16/07.

New Projects Being Proposed
NEW SCC Nancy Cox, KY	Nutritional Factors Affecting Equine Productivity	NIMSS#S_temp1462.
NEW SCC Craig Nessler, VA	Development of Plant Pathogens as Bioherbicides for Weed Control	NIMSS #S_temp1482 (old S1001).  Sent to AC11 on 1/8/07.  Sent back to AA on 2/7/07.
NEW SCC David Morrison, LA	Sustainable Small Ruminant Production in the Southeastern U.S.	NIMSS #S_temp1582.
NEW SERA David Morrison, LA	Beef Cattle Production Utilizing Forages in the Southeast to Integrate Research and Extension Programs across State Boundaries	NIMSS #S_temp1422. Sent to AC-1 & AC-2 on 8/14/06.  Sent back to AA on 9/5/06.  Sent to SERA Review Committee for approval on 11/30/06.  SERA Review Committee recommends approval.  Waiting on SAAESD /ASRED Directors approval at spring meeting.
NEW SERA Reuben Moore, MS
NEW SDC Richard Guthrie, AL	Improvement and Sustainability of Channel-Blue Hybrid Catfish Embryo Production and Performance	Approved SDC327. NIMSS #S_temp1542. Sent to AC2 on 1/25/07.  AC2 chair and members have forwarded proposal on to 3 aquaculture department heads for review on 2/8/07. Sent to Executive Committee on 3/6/07. Sent back to AA on 3/12/07. Submitted for peer review on 3/15/07.

Action Requested:  For information
2.) Background:
The MRC held its annual meeting on February 5, 2007 in Mobile, AL in conjunction with the annual SAAS meeting.  The following items were discussed:

1. Merging the SERA Review Committee with the MRC

• Merging the two committees would be more complicated and could divert some attention away from research function of the multistate projects
• Suggest the next time a SERA Review Committee or MRC member needs to be replaced, the Association do so with someone already a member of the opposite committee
• Ask ASRED for general agreement to ED’s office for adding extension members to southern multistate activities (Appendix E) with OK of department head or extension director

B.  Annual Reports (SAES-422)

• NIMSS will not send a meeting authorization if the annual report from the previous year has not been submitted and approved by AA; AAs should encourage multistate activity participants to be timely in SAES 422 submissions

1. ARS representation on MRC     

• Supported the idea of continuing ARS representation on the MRC; ED will ask Ed King and Darrell Cole to appoint an ARS Research Leader from the southern region to our MRC

1. Multistate project impact statements

• Impact statements will be required for S projects and optional for SCCs and SERAs
• Use western region’s guidelines and some of north central region’s impact statements as examples
• Preliminary impact statement due after 3rd year
• Final impact statement due after final year
• Due dates will be 60 days after annual meeting in 3rd year or final year
• Final impact has to be submitted before final MRC approval for replacement project is granted
• Preferably the final impact statement will be available for AC’s when they review request for DC to rewrite project.
• Notice of impact statement submission will be sent to Administrative Advisor of the AC’s that originally reviewed the DC request or SCC/SERA proposal

Click here to view the North Central Region’s Impact Statement web site
In meeting comments:

• Ed King will serve as the ARS member on the Multistate Research Committee

Action Requested: The MRC moves for adoption of a new policy by the SAAESD that would require Impact Statements be prepared by all S projects in the 3rd (preliminary) and final year of all MRF projects and that they must be submitted before final MRC approval of a replacement project is granted.
Action Taken: Impact statement requirement policy was approved (MRC/Boethel)
Agenda Item S7.
NIMSS Update
Presenter: Eric Young and Donna Pearce
Background:
Brief update since last meeting:

• Project titles were added to NIMSS>>Directory>>CSREES representatives
• The Multistate Guidelines and NIMSS Manual were updated
• There was overwhelming support, as indicated from recent regional association meetings of the experiment stations, for the increase of NIMSS funding for FY 07-08 to $50,000. The request will be incorporated into the NRSP-1 request for off-the-top funding.
• NIMSS programmer, Judy Sun left NERA on December 15, 2006.
• Natalie Moy agreed to increase her time commitment.  She’s currently working part-time for NERA and paid on an hourly basis.
• The new NERA ED, Dr. Daniel Rossi, will decide if he thinks we need a fulltime programmer, and if we have enough funds to hire one (even with the increase to $50,000 for NIMSS support).
• The following sections have been incorporated on the Project Homepages:
  • Officers: Will only appear on the homepages if the AA’s have assigned officers.
  • Photos and Links: Project editors and AA’s will now have the capability to upload, edit and delete up to five links and photos rather than sending them to the System Administrators. Advisors can assign up to three editors to manage their homepages in NIMSS.
  • Date Last Modified: This will appear at the bottom of each section being viewed by the user.
• Natalie has restored the function of “Submit Proposal as Final” in the draft/edit screen of temp projects.

 
Action Requested: For information only.
Agenda Item S8.
Executive Director’s Report
Presenter: Eric Young
Background:
SAAESD
FY ’07 Federal Continuing Resolution
The four regional research Executive Directors assisted Cornerstone in its successful effort to maintain the research and extension special grants and administrative grants funds within the CSREES budget base for FY ’07 by facilitating collection of financial, personnel, and programmatic impacts from experiment stations.  After the Continuing Resolution was passed, the EDs met with Colien Hefferan and CSREES business officers to discuss ways to ease the impact of distribution of research special grants funds through the Hatch formula.  Dr. Hefferan agreed that they would allow maximum flexibility in use of the additional Hatch funds within the constraints of the Hatch legislation.  Also, she agreed that there would be no Plan of Work amendment required although the additional funds would have to be accounted for in the 2007 Annual Report of Results and Accomplishments.  In addition, Dr. Hefferan agreed that the Multistate Project system may be used where appropriate to allow expenditure of Multistate Research Funds on special grant programs that involved multiple states.
SAAESD Web Site
We are beginning the process for a complete redesign of the SAAESD web site to make it more user-friendly and contemporary in its function and appearance.  As new designs are considered, several southern directors and administrative assistants will be asked to review and comment on various aspects.  Also, our new web site will be developed and reside on the servers used by the Southern Region IPM Center and the NCSU IPM Center.  These servers are housed in the office suite where SAAESD is located and are maintained by IT personnel on site.  This will make maintenance and upgrading much more efficient than with current college server and support system.  In addition, the expertise spreadsheet and outlying research station database will be moved from MSU to this server and the new directory database will be accessible.
Experiment Station Database
ASRED has maintained a financial and personnel on-line database hosted by TAMU extension since 2005, to which directors submit data annually in numerous areas.  This database allows extension directors, business officers, and others with access to easily obtain state-by-state data and regional averages that can be used as comparison for university, state, and federal reports and many other purposes.  Last fall SAAESD approved collecting similar data for the experiment stations, which includes some data elements identical to those collected by extension and some unique to research.  TAMU extension has now developed a parallel database for the southern region research directors and the first research data entries will be done this year in late summer or fall, depending on the state’s fiscal calendar.
Directors may preview this web site at http://eit-data.tamu.edu/essr/slog/index.asp. The login information (username/password) that can be used to view sample data is: user-id – eric_young@ncsu.edu, password – raleigh  When you log in, you will see five records in the database that are there just for testing purposes; the numbers are totally fictional.  Each experiment station director’s office will be given a unique username and password for use with this database, both for data entry and retrieval.  Detailed guidelines will be distributed as a PDF file, but a copy can also be downloaded from this link, SAAESD Database Guidelines.
Vegetable Crops Initiatives
SAAESD is supporting the National Vegetable Crops Initiative, which is a partnership of industry, academia and government formed in fall 2006 to develop a strategic plan for the continued growth and sustainability of the vegetable crop industry in the United States.  This is part of an effort by CSREES national program staff to identify high priority issues and needs across all specialty crops in anticipation of increased federal funding in that area
Cotton Winter Nursery
In response to infrastructure needs to support the Cotton Winter Nursery at the Tecoman Experiment Station, Colima, Mexico, the Southern Experiment Station Directors and ARS jointly committed $25,000 per year for five years to support these needs.  Funds over the past year have been used to finish payment for the drip irrigation system, purchase of a 16″ laboratory roller gin for long staple cotton and small samples, and repair of the saw gins.  During the winter nursery visit this February, the nursery manager and the INIFAP research station superintendent again expressed strong gratitude for these funds and emphasized how vital they were to sustaining the nursery operation and the 56 year old Mexican-American cooperation.
ASERTTI Initiative to Improve DOE/EERE State-level Collaborations
As a spin-off from my involvement in the NASULGC/DOE collaboration, I have had numerous contacts over the past year and a half with the current chair (John Anderson, Advanced Energy, Raleigh, NC) and Executive Director (David Terry) of ASERTTI (Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions).  This contact lead John and David to ask me to organizing two presentations at their conference last October on topics of interest to their membership, SunGrant and the SAES multistate research project system.
From conversations during the fall meeting, it became clear that, similar to the land grant universities, ASERTTI leadership is also very interested in seeing the degree of collaboration between DOE/EERE and state-level energy research entities enhanced.  To that end, I worked with David Terry to develop two concept papers.  One describes a new position in DOE/EERE, a Director of State and Local Collaboration, to work with external energy research and extension partners to both serve as a point of contact for these entities and a voice within EERE regarding their capabilities, activities, and interests.  The other paper describes a State and Local Energy Collaborative pilot program, which would provide competitive, cost-shared funds to encourage state and local energy interests (e.g., universities, energy institutions, energy offices, local governments, governors offices) to work together on an expedited, voluntary basis to align project priorities within general technology areas defined by EERE program managers.  Both of these concepts have been endorsed by NASULGC and have been presented to the DOE/EERE Assistant Secretary for his consideration.
Grantsmanship Workshops
SAAESD is co-sponsoring the CSREES Competitive Programs and Writing Successful Grants workshops this fall Washington, D.C. with NERA in early October 2007.  Also, our office will be managing the travel grants offered by CSREES to participants of minority serving institutions; including soliciting applications, reviewing applications along with Dan Rossi of NERA, approving grant awards, processing travel reimbursements, and disbursing funds.
SAAESD Assignments
NRSP-8, National Animal Genome Research Program, Administrative Advisor
S-1014, Mineral Controls on P Retention and Release in Soils and Soil Amendments, Administrative Advisor
AC-6, Horticulture, Administrative Advisor
Joint Cotton Breeding Advisory Committee and Tecoman Winter Nursery Steering Committee
Southern Region IPM Center Steering Committee
T-STAR Caribbean Basin Advisory Group
Southern Region Small Fruit Consortium
Liaison to the Association of Southern Region Extension Directors
Liaison to the Association of Research Directors (1890s)
ESCOP
NRI Priorities
The Science & Technology Committee was charged with developing a process for experiment station directors to have formal input into annual NRI program priorities. The updated Roadmap challenges and objectives were used as the framework for the recommendations that were given to NRI.  Preliminary input on priorities was obtained from experiment station, extension, and academic program directors through an on-line survey.  Breakout groups at the SAES/ARD Workshop in September used this input to further refine the experiment station directors’ recommendation to CSREES on NRI funding priorities for 2008.  These priorities were summarized in a document sent to Anna Palmisano and copied to Colien Hefferan and Gale Buchanan in mid November.
ESS Annual Meeting and SAES/ARD Workshop ad hoc Committee
The ESCOP Chair appointed an ad hoc committee, consisting of one director from each region and the EDs, to consider how the ESS annual meeting and SAES/ARD workshop could be modified to me more beneficial to attendees.  This committee has met once by conference call, changes being considered include using a consensus agenda for ESS business, holding best practices sessions to share management experiences, and providing more time for informal interactions. FY 09
ESCOP Federal Budget Priorities
From a recent budget priorities survey, Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Animal Health, and the NRI remain the top budget priorities for the Experiment Station Section.  Below are the Section’s programmatic priority areas for FY 09 (as of Feb 6, 2007).

1. Biobased Economy

1. Bioconversion and Biofuels
2. Tie:  Feedstocks and Development/Utilization of Bioproducts
3. Tie: Economics/Policy and Energy Security
4. Land-use Issues/Policy

2. Environment (tie with #3)

1. Water Quality/Quantity
2. Sustainable Agriculture Systems
3. Tie: Rural Communities/Land Use Issues and Global Climate Change
4. Invasive Species
5. Agricultural Mechanization

3. Food, Nutrition and Health (tie with #2)

1. Tie: Food Safety and Obesity/Consumer Behavior
2. Functional foods/Nutraceuticals
3. Innovative Plant/Animal Technologies and Systems

4. Food Agrosecurity

1. Rapid Detection of Threat Agents
2. Risk Assessment
3. Facility/Personnel Security

ESCOP Assignments
BAA Policy Board of Directors (support for ESCOP representative)
National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee (Executive Vice-Chair)
Partnership Working Group
NIMSS Oversight Committee (Chair)
NRSP Review Committee
NIAS Board of Directors
NASULGC – DOE/EERE Collaboration Project 5 Committee
BAA Farm Bill Committee
National Multistate Coordinating Committee
eXtension Internal Partners Advisory Council
ESCOP Officers
Chair – Ron Pardini, (UNV-Reno)
Chair-elect – Bruce McPherson (Penn State)
Executive Vice Chair – Mike Harrington (WAAESD)
Past Chair – Al Parks, (PVA&MU)
Section Representative to BAA Policy Board – Nancy Cox (UKY)
Next Meeting
ESCOP Executive Committee, July 24-26, Philadelphia, PA (Joint COPs Meeting)
In meeting comments:

• Cotton Inc is concerned that some universities are refusing grants due to the royalty sharing clause in the agreement
  • There is also concern over some IP licensing restrictions
  • Universities want to be able to manage IP rights on germplasm shared with other institutions
  • UArk is in conversation with CI and hopes to work out differences very soon
• The directors can use the multistate Rapid Response (500 Series) to help them manage their MRF Hatch funding during this unusual fiscal year, if they have a research project that was previously funded by an earmark and involves multiple istates
  • Rapid Response project has a maximum two-year life, at which time it must be converted to an S, SCC, or SERA, or it will terminate.
  • The review process is much shorter and can be done in 2 to 3 weeks before sending to CSREES for final approval
  • Guidelines and procedures can be found on our website in Infobook / National Guidelines

Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item S9.
Chief Operating Officers’ Meeting Report
Presenter: Susan Barefoot
Background:
In meeting comments:

• Eric and Donna were commended for a job well done
• Approved a $20,000 per year total assessment increase beginning in 07/08.  Invoices will reflect the new amount for each institution prorated on the same bases as current assessment
• Approved Eric’s participation in the Food Systems Leadership Institute class

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item S10.
National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee Report
Presenter: Jerry Arkin
Background:

NPGCC Recommendations on National Plant Germplasm System Funding

Click here for a Powerpoint summarizing the recommendations from the NPGCC for funding the regional germplasm centers, NRSP-5 and NRSP-6 and for improved communication.  Click here for a document describing the rationale for the NPGCC’s recommendations.
The NPGCC was charged by ESCOP to determine if there are other funding models that the directors should consider for providing resources to the 4 regional germplasm centers and the 2-NRSPs contributing to the National Plant Germplasm System.  Four models or alternatives were considered by the NPGCC as possible alternatives to the present funding mechanism:

1. Creation of single NRSP

The NPGCC considered the possibility of the creation of a single NRSP to cover the activities of the 4 regional germplasm centers and the 2 NRSP activities in question. This would result in a single annual budget request to the directors; however the NPGCC does not recommend this approach for the following reasons:  The NPGCC does not recommend that the directors consider this option, and has concluded that it is rife with issues that will not result in a stronger commitment to the regional germplasm centers specifically or to the NPGS in general.

1. Incorporation of NRSP-5 and NRSP-6 into regional off the top

In this model, we considered the possibility of moving the funding for the NRSP’s into one or all of the regional germplasm center accounts that support the regional centers, thus the two NRSP’s would become divisions or a sub-contract of one or more of the germplasm centers.  Such an effort would require subcontracts and some process for regional review and approval. While an alternative, it has some of the same concerns as those for option 1, and as such the NPGCC does not see any advantages for this approach and does not recommend such.
C. Full funding of the 4 regional germplasm centers by USDA-ARS
This option was briefly considered, that is, relinquish the SAES commitment to the regional centers and allow these activities along with the activities that are conducted within NRSP -5 and NRSP-6 to be fully undertaken and funded by USDA-ARS. As a committee the NPGCC does not think that this is a viable option. It is important that the AES directors have input into the germplasm system because their faculty are the single largest users, i.e., stakeholders, of the NPGS.

1. Continue Current Funding Mechanisms

This might be addressed as “Staying the Course”, however after much discussion and deliberation, the NPGCC recommends that the directors continue to fund the 4 regional germplasm centers through the same mechanism as we have used in the past, that is, each of the regional associations has responsibility for one of the regional germplasm centers and develops and approves an annual budget for support of a component share of this activity, in collaboration with USDA-ARS. We believe that none of the other alternatives offers an approach that is any better that the present funding system that is in place, and in fact, we think that the alternatives would in the long term be more difficult to manage, would potentially lead to conflicts between the regions and would result in less local input to this critical activity, where we presently have an active partnership with USDA-ARS.
The NPGCC undertook considerable discussion about the future of the 2 NRSP’s that have seen significant decline in off the top funding and as a result are at some risk of closure, NRSP-5 (Develop and Distribute Fruit Tree Clones Free of Viruses and Virus-Like Agents) and NRSP-6 (Inter-Regional Potato Introduction Project).  The NPGCC recommends that ESCOP in the 2008 commitments to NRSP-5 and NRSP-6 seek to realign the off the top funding recommendations more closely to that allocated for 2006, e.g., NRSP-5 (approximately $145,000) and NRSP -6 (approximately $150,000).
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and Standard International MTA
The United States is considering whether to ratify the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IT).  The United States government supports the Treaty’s objectives, and subsequently signed the treaty in 2002.  For the United States to ratify the treaty and become an IT Party, the treaty must first receive the advice and consent of the Senate.  The Executive Branch is currently deciding whether to transmit the IT to the Senate for its consideration.  Stakeholder consultations are an important part of this decision-making process.  We would greatly appreciate your input about whether the U. S. should ratify the IT, the potential impact of ratification on your organization, or other comments.
Background
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is designed to promote food security by committing its Parties to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) critical for global food security.  The Treaty establishes a system of facilitated access (the Multilateral System) to those resources, and a mechanism for equitable sharing of the benefits generated by sustainable use (the standard Material Transfer Agreement or MTA).
The Multilateral System (MLS) covers genebank collections of 35 crops and 29 forages, which are in the public domain and under the management, and control of national governments.  Examples include genetic resources in genebanks run by national governments that are Treaty Parties and in the genebanks of the International Agriculture Research Centers, e.g., CIMMYT, and IRRI.  Genetic resources in the U. S. National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) will become part of the Multilateral System if the U.S. becomes a Treaty Party.
Under the Treaty, the Parties agree to provide other IT Parties facilitated access to covered plant genetic resources through the Multilateral System.  The MLS does not govern domestic transfers of plant genetic resources, e.g., distributions of genetic resources from the NPGS to U. S. researchers.  The U.S. obligation to provide facilitated access would be implemented by the NPGS, which has generally provided researchers and breeders worldwide free and unrestricted access to its plant genetic resources. So, this treaty obligation for the most part simply highlights existing U.S. practices.
Under the Treaty, Parties must use a standard Material Transfer Agreement for all transfers under the MLS.  The MTA specifies that (i) the PGRFA is to be used solely for research, breeding and training for food and agriculture and not chemical, pharmaceutical and/or other non-food/feed industrial uses; (ii) plant genetic resources accessed under the MLS continue to be conserved and made available; (iii) benefit sharing provisions apply; and (iv) the MTA is to apply to any subsequent transfers of plant genetic resources.  Importantly, whether or not the U. S. becomes a Party to the Treaty, researchers and breeders in the U. S. will receive genetic resources from other nations and from International Agricultural Research Centers (e.g., CIMMYT or IRRI) that are accompanied by the standard Material Transfer Agreement.  All subsequent transfers of the PGRFA will be accompanied by the MTA, and all subsequent uses of that material will be subject to the terms of the MTA.
The PGRFA users who commercialize products developed from the PGRFA are encouraged to contribute financially to a multilateral fund, administered by the Governing Body of the IT and the FAO, which will support PGRFA conservation and sustainable use, especially by farmers in developing nations.  Those users who commercialize such products but restrict their use in research and breeding are required to make a payment to the multilateral fund in the amount of 0.78% of gross sales of the product.
In conclusion, we have not identified any significant negative ramifications for the U. S. becoming a Party to the IT.  In contrast, there are several tangible advantages:

1. Becoming a Party would provide U. S. researchers and breeders access, under uniform conditions, to key PGRFA held by other nations and by IARCs.
2. PGRFA would be transferred pursuant to the MTA, eliminating the need for lengthy ad hoc access and benefit sharing negotiations.
3. If the U. S. were to become a Party, it could more strongly represent the interests of the U. S. research community, especially for expanding the number of crops covered by the IT, and for refining the terms of the MTA.
4. Historically, the US has been strongly committed to the primary goals of the IT: conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA and equitable sharing of the benefits generated by PGRFA use. As a Party, the US would be more widely and formally recognized for its past and current contributions to conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA.
5. If the U. S. were to become a Party, that would strengthen the IT as a desirable alternative to the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty which is not tailored to the specific, unique needs of the international agricultural research community.

Questions to stakeholders
Ratification of the International Treaty:
1) What might be potential benefits to the university agricultural research community resulting from U.S. ratification of the International Treaty?
2) If the U. S. became a Party to the IT, would that cause the university agricultural research community any problems or difficulties?
3) Does the university agricultural research community support U. S. ratification of the IT?
Standard Material Transfer Agreement:
1) Will the current terms of the MTA permit your faculty to use material from the IT Multilateral System in research and breeding?  If not, why not?
2) Were the U. S. to become an IT Party, what refinements to the MTA should the U. S. advocate?
 
Action Requested: Approve the recommendations from the NPGCC for improved communication and funding of the regional germplasm centers, NRSP-5 and NRSP-6.
Comments relative to the international treaty standard material transfer agreement.
In meeting comments:

• Regional funding of regional germplasm projects is okay
• International treaty Standard MTA – more comments are coming

Agenda Item S11.
NRSP-1
Presenter:Roger Crickenberger
Background: NRSP-1, Research Planning Using the Current Research Information System (CRIS)
 
NRSP-1 Budget Request Summary
In meeting comments:

• Increase in NIMSS budget is okay
• Funding – 75% USDA and 25% Multistate
• 08 budget request is fine

Action Requested: None.
Agenda Item S12.
NRSP-3
Presenter:Steve Leath
Background:
NRSP-3, The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)–A Long-Term Monitoring Program in Support of Research on the Effects of Atmospheric Chemical Deposition
BRIEF PROJECT SUMMARY
The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) provides quality assured data and information on the exposure of managed and natural ecosystems and cultural resources to acidic compounds, nutrients, base cations, and mercury in precipitation. These data support decisions on air quality issues related to precipitation chemistry and are used by scientists, policymakers, educators, and the public. Data are freely available via the Internet, which enables on-line retrieval of individual data points, seasonal and annual averages, trends plots, concentration and deposition maps, reports, manuals, and other data and information. (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu).
2006 HIGHLIGHT
Annual Meeting. NADP 2006: Effects of Deposition in Coastal and Urban Environments was the theme of the scientific symposium accompanying the committee and subcommittee meetings held in Norfolk, Virginia, on 24-26 October 2006. The meeting attracted 132 registered participants and featured 32 plenary and 35 poster presentations. NADP Vice Chair Maggie Kerchner organized invited speakers into five topical areas over two days, complemented by an evening session with posters that addressed the many uses of NADP data (see meeting proceedings http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/proceedings/NADPpro2006.pdf ). The opening session featured scientific presentations on the importance of atmospheric deposition in affecting estuarine water quality and urban runoff, and on the airborne pollutants affecting air and precipitation chemistry in coastal and urban areas. Atmospheric deposition accounts for as much as 20-40 percent of the nitrogen entering some East Coast estuaries. Speakers during the session on critical loads made it clear that NADP data are invaluable in assessing the amount of chemical deposition that occurs in the Class I areas that our nation
seeks to protect and conserve. The two-day symposium followed a day of meetings by the three NADP Subcommittees, Quality Assurance Advisory Group, and Executive Committee. NADP Chair Kristi Morris convened the annual business meeting (seehttp://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/meetings/fall06/tc2006.pdf for a meeting summary). The Technical Committee amended decision-making in the Program by having subcommittees report directly to the Executive Committee for action rather than to both the Executive and Technical Committees. This recommendation was brought forward by an ad hoc committee tasked to streamline governance by eliminating redundancies in the decision-making process.
Extension/Education. (1) The Executive Committee recognized the International Center for First-Year Undergraduate Chemistry Education (ICUC) as an institutional participant in the NADP. ICUC partnered with the NADP Program Office to produce a Spanish translation of the NADP brochure, Nitrogen in the Nation’s Rain, which is available on-line athttp://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/brochures/nbrochespanol.pdf. ICUC Quarterly published an article featuring NADP in its June 2006 edition. (2) The Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium at the University of North Dakota produced a video on acid rain that features an NADP pH map to show where acid rain occurs. The video was shown in the public TV series “Our Changing Planet,” designed to promote education and understanding of planet Earth. The series airs on 29 stations and is taped for delayed broadcast on 14 others.
Internet usage. Scientists, policymakers, educators, students, and others are encouraged to access data at no charge from the NADP Web site (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu). This site offers on-line retrieval of individual data points, seasonal and annual averages, trend plots, concentration and deposition maps, reports, manuals, and other data and information about the program. In 2006, the number of registered Web site users rose to nearly 32,000, 33 percent at universities, 28 percent at government agencies, and 19 percent in elementary and secondary schools. Data downloads numbered 23,664, an increase of 27 percent from 2005. The site received more than 1.4 million hits, and the number of color concentration and deposition maps viewed in 2006 rose by nearly 30 percent, topping 121,000.
Informing Policy. In the 2006 progress report on the United States – Canada Air Quality Agreement, the binational Air Quality Committee used NADP data to evaluate progress under the agreement’s Acid Rain Annex. Since signing the agreement in 1991, U.S. and Canadian governments have acted to reduce acidic precipitation by requiring sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions reductions. Between 1991 and 2004, Canadian and U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions decreased by about 33 percent. Over this 14-year period, NADP NTN and AIRMoN data showed similar reductions of sulfate deposition. The number of states receiving 20 kilograms per hectare per year or more of sulfate deposition dropped from twelve to one. A 20-percent reduction of U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions similarly was accompanied by halving the area receiving nitrate deposition of 15-20 kilograms per hectare per year. A recent analysis estimates that these reductions greatly
exceed the costs of emissions controls. The report acknowledges that “without substantial atmospheric deposition monitoring networks, it would be impossible to accurately track and confirm that air quality improvements are taking place.”
Emerging Issues. In November 2004 the USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issued the first report of Phakopsora pachyrhizi, commonly known as Asian Soybean Rust (ASR), in the continental United States. ASR is an obligate fungal parasite that can result in significant losses in soybean and other leguminous crops. From infected plants, ASR spreads through the aerial release and dispersal of spores. These airborne spores can be scavenged in and below clouds and deposited by rain on uninfected host plants hundreds of kilometers from an existing infection. During the 2006 growing season, NADP partnered with the USDA Cereal Disease Laboratory (CDL) to look for ASR spores in NTN samples. With partial support from the Agricultural Research Service, the weekly samples from 110 eastern-U.S. NTN sites were filtered in
entirety. Filters were desiccated, sealed in petri dishes, and sent to the CDL, where they were assayed for an ASR-specific DNA sequence using nested real-time PCR. From mid-May through August, the CDL reported 271 filters positive for ASR, some in areas where ASR was later reported on soybean or kudzu. These data are being examined to study spore dispersal and the spread of ASR.
Publications. An on-line database that lists citations using NADP data is accessible athttp://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/bibsearch.asp.
PLANS FOR 2007/08
Serving science and education. The NRSP-3 seeks to continue to support researchers and educators by providing up-to-date quality-assured data and information on nutrients, acidic compounds, base cations, and mercury in precipitation. Plans are underway to redesign the Home Page and Web site. The redesigned site will be better organized, making additions and changes less cumbersome. It will feature ready access to maps and tabular and graphical data summaries. The Program Office will continue to develop data products that target user needs. Program Office staff members will continue to work with the author of a chapter on acid rain to appear in the next edition of the general chemistry textbook, Chemistry in Context, published by the American Chemical Society in cooperation with McGraw-Hill.
Supporting informed decisions on air quality issues. The NADP National Trends Network (NTN) currently measures aqueous ammonium in precipitation and the Clean Air Status and Trends Network measures particulate ammonium; however, there are no routine, regional-scale, gaseous ammonia measurements in the U.S. NADP is planning an initiative to add passive ammonia samplers at co-located NTN and CASTNet sites, beginning in 2007. One-week samples, matching the NTN sampling schedule, would be collected at ~20 sites. Also, there are no airborne mercury measurements, yet estimates suggest that dry deposition of airborne mercury may be three times wet deposition in some areas. Recognizing the need for routine, regionally representative measurements to evaluate these estimates and examine the spatial distribution and temporal trends of airborne mercury, the NADP Executive Committee endorsed a limited study for measuring airborne elemental, reactive gaseous, and particle-bound mercury in 2007.
Responding to emerging issues. Plans are underway to continue collaborations with USDA-CDL scientists to assay filters from NTN samples for fungal spores. The CDL will apply real-time qPCR to look for DNA sequences specific to various rust pathogens. During the winter, filters from 24 sites in Gulf Coast states (and Georgia) and 7 sites in Mississippi River Valley states as far north as southern Illinois will be tested for Asian Soybean Rust and possibly wheat stem (Puccinia graminis) and stripe (Puccinia striiformis) rusts. With the onset of the 2007 growing season, plans are to expand this effort, once again, to approximately 100 eastern-U.S. sites, focusing on ASR.
NRSP-3 Budget Request Summary
In meeting comments:

• 100 or more attend annual meeting
• Website has over 32 thousand users
• Half a million budget
• 08 budget request is fine

Action Requested: For Information only.
Agenda Item S13.
NRSP-4
Presenter: George Hochmuth for Mary Duryea
Background:
NRSP-4, High Value Specialty Crop Pest Management
For over 40 years, the IR-4 Project (NRSP-4) has been the major resource for supplying pest management tools for specialty crops by developing research data to support registration clearances.  IR-4 is a national multi-state project designed to link and facilitate research efforts with land grant universities, SAES, CSREES, ARS, commodity organizations and the crop protection industry.
Specialty crops include most: vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs, spices, nursery and landscape plants, turf and Christmas trees.  They are high value/low acreage crops and make up about 46% of U.S. agricultural production and $43 billion in sales.
2006 was another highly successful year for the IR-4 Project. The accomplishments were many and include:

• 189 new tolerances were approved through US EPA. IR-4 data supported 804 clearances for conventional crop protection products.  These clearances support 156 priority project clearance requests submitted by IR-4 Project stakeholders.
• IR-4 data supported 21 Emergency Exemptions (Section 18 clearances). These are ongoing research projects but due to the critical nature of the pest management void, immediate short-term approvals were requested by the states and granted by EPA.
• IR-4 Headquarters Study Directors submitted 175 data packages and/or petitions to EPA. This is a single year record number of submissions.
• IR-4 Regional/ARS and other cooperating analytical laboratories completed 80 analytical summary reports.
• IR-4 Field Research Centers and other research sites successfully completed 650 field trials with the shipment of residue samples.
• IR-4 Quality Assurance Unit completed reviews on 98 Final Study reports.
• EPA Biopesticide and Pollution Prevention Division approved 2 packages that support registrations on 306 food crops and numerous ornamental crops. This, together with the 804 clearances on conventional crops made 2006 a record year for IR-4 clearances, a total of 1,110 new uses!
• Six biopesticide petitions, amendments or data submissions were made to EPA.
• IR-4 received 113 Biopesticide Research Funding Proposals.  These were reviewed and 44 proposals were funded.
• EPA Health Effects Division reviewed and approved three crop group expansion documents. Additionally, three proposals to modify and expand the established crop groups were submitted.
• IR-4 conducted over 1,300 trials with greenhouse and field ornamental.
• IR-4 has submitted eight ornamental data packages to registrants.

NRSP-4 Budget Request Summary
Attached is the budget request summary for NRSP-4 for FY 08.  Please note, the request for FY 08 is the same amount ($481,172) stated in the Project Statement that was approved in September 2004. The off the top, multi-state funds that NRSP-4 receives are provided to partially cover the salaries of senior management and their support team at the national coordination headquarters office located at the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.  All research activities for NRSP-4 have been funded in total by CSREES Special Grants, ARS contributions and unrestricted gifts.
In meeting comments:

• 2006 was a record year for NRSP4
• 08 budget request is fine

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item S14.
NRSP-5
Presenter: Reuben Moore
Background:
National Program for Controlling Virus Diseases of Temperate Fruit Tree Crops
2006 Accomplishments and Impacts:
NRSP-005 is a national program committed to minimize the adverse effects of viruses in orchards of the United States by providing virus-free propagation material of important temperate tree fruit varieties from domestic and foreign sources through traditional and innovative methods of virus testing and therapy, and by forging collaborative relationships with government agencies, universities and industry to help maintain U.S. agricultural productivity, market competitiveness, balance of trade, and a diverse, wholesome and affordable food supply.
Virus detection:  A Shiro plum clone was discovered that is more sensitive to American plum line pattern virus than the standard clones used for years by NRSP-005 and other quarantine programs (USDA-APHIS, CFIA).  The standard clone of Shiro plum is a marginal indicator for this virus in the greenhouse and often only a mild yellowing occurs on the leaf tip margin.  There are currently no alternative testing procedures for this virus that have been validated. However, this new selection shows extensive venial net chlorosis and line patterns when inoculated with virus.  This new virus indicator will continue to be evaluated by this and other programs for its utility as a greatly improved virus indicator plant.
Virus sensitivity screening:   NRSP-005 continues to evaluate the sensitivity of new potential cherry rootstocks for severe hypersensitive reactions to common viruses.  Candidate clones ‘VSL2’ and ‘LC52’ are of Russian origin, and died in the presence of either of the two common pollen-transmitted cherry viruses.  Sweet cherry trees on ‘L2’ rootstock from the same breeding program or on mazzard rootstock were tolerant of the viruses in this test.
Distribution of virus-tested budwood:  NRSP-005 provided over 500 virus-tested varieties to research and industry from July 1, 2005 to April 1, 2006.  These included 25,000 buds of proprietary, non-proprietary and foreign clones bringing the total distribution over the past 20 years to 630,000 buds in response to 2,400 requests.  In the past year, budwood was distributed to over 80 clients located throughout the country and internationally.  They represent universities, nurseries, fruit growers and government regulatory agencies.  Thousands of the virus-negative buds were provided to establish foundation material in certification programs for subsequent distribution to orchards throughout the country.
Distribution from the virus collection:  Beyond the distributions for fruit production, many other types of tissue were distributed to scientists for research purposes.  Virus-infected fruit, leaves, seed, flowers, seedlings, pollen and trees were sent to scientists at land-grant universities and government regulatory and research agencies.
New clone acquisitions:  In the last season, 79 stone and pome fruit cultivars were submitted to NRSP-005 for virus testing and virus elimination.  These numbers are significantly lower than in past years, likely as a result of the doubling of service fees charged for these services.  The largest proportion of the introductions was from foreign sources.  Varieties were submitted for testing only as part of the on-going qualification program for certification in California.  Approximately one-third of the clones submitted to the program in the last two years were infected with virus, viroids, phytoplasma and/or Xylella.
Impact statements:
1.  As a result of the virus testing and elimination program of NRSP-005, 79 new cultivars will be available to U.S. nurseries and producers that are free of known viruses.

2. Since 40% of clones submitted to NRSP-005 are infected with at least one virus-like agent, the distribution of 25,000 virus tested buds that will in turn be increased for subsequent tree production for planting in orchards represents a significant reduction in the virus-load imposed on U.S. fruit tree production.
3. Our virus sensitivity screening program has made the industry aware of two rootstocks that, if they had been commercialized and introduced into the U.S., would have resulted in significant premature tree death as a result of their hypersensitive reaction to common viruses.
4. Distribution of reference virus-infected material to research scientists facilitates the advancement in virus identification and detection, ultimately leading to better disease management possibilities.

Publications:  A book chapter has been prepared for publication in 2006 by Guerra and Eastwell describing phytoplasma diseases of temperate fruit crops and their detection.
Click here for the NRSP5 PowerPoint
NRSP-5 Budget Request Summary
In meeting comments:

• Agree to go back to ’06 budget level beginning in 08

Action Requested: Information Only.
Agenda Item S15.
NRSP-6
Presenter: Richard Guthrie
Background:
NRSP-6, Inter-Regional Potato Introduction Project: Acquisition, classification, preservation, evaluation and distribution of potato (Solanum) germplasm
Objective:  Potato genebank, like others in NPGS has the simple objectives to “acquire, classify, preserve, evaluate, distribute, utilize” potato germplasm.
Inputs and approaches:  NRSP-6 budget 1999-2005 at about $162K.  NRSP-6 project for FY06-10 began 5-year reductions scheduled at $150K, $110K, $75K, $50K, $50K.  Multistate inputs had supported all service aspects, but also “research” in the form of evaluation, particularly grad student support.  Historic (25+ year) WI input of support for both “tech” and “professional” staff of about 1.2 FTE scheduled for about 1/3 FTE reductions in both FY07 and FY08.  ARS provides service support, but historically, the idea was to supply research/evaluation in the partnership with SAES.  ARS also extends project mission to include “utilize”—i.e., prebreeding or enhancement studies.   Genebank FY07 CRIS expecting continuing resolution funding at FY06 level.  In response to expected overall reduced funding, new ARS genebank CRIS as being written will eliminate objectives to do technical research (that makes preservation efficient) and evaluation (that makes the germplasm more practically useful), retreating mainly to service aspects of conservation of germplasm and data plus distribution (see Genebank Outlook below).
Accomplishments

1. SERVICE
   a. Genebank-related workload & impact 2002-2006  (see NRSP6 Annual Reports for details http://www.ars-grin.gov/ars/MidWest/NR6/ >> “Administrative Reports”)

Unit’s germplasm distributed: 35,978 (30 countries)
Seed increases:  879
Tissue culture collection transfers: ~ 20,000
Germination tests: 6,093
Tetrazolium seed viability tests:  264
Virus tests:  3,900
Ploidy determinations: 162
Foreign visitors:  25
US cultivars released with genebank stocks in pedigree:  24
Collecting trips to southwest organized and led:  5
Publications cited for research using genebank stocks:  649

2004. Personnel accomplishments
      National Plant Germplasm System support worker of the year award (this is a formal national competition which includes several hundred potential candidates and includes a cash award):  Winner:  Martin 2003, Fernandez 2004.  Germplasm (GRIN) database development advisory committee: Of about 100 professional database workers in the National Plant Germplasm System, Schartner is one of 8 invited to serve on this national committee.  Del Rio represents US in inter-genebank meetings in Germany, Chile, Peru; invited to speak on genetic diversity management research in Spain, Peru.  Bamberg USDA/ ARS performance ratings = “Outstanding” in 2002, 2003 and 2005; and “Superior” in 2004.
2005. RESEARCH Activities and Discoveries 2002-2006
      (These organized by Lead Scientist Bamberg.  Not listed is work by ARS scientist D. Spooner stationed in Madison who also has service appointment do taxonomy, manage herbarium, and collect; and does taxonomic research).

Tested frost tolerant enhancement population in Peruvian highlands
Initiated tuber calcium breeding
New trait:  tuber pH (screening finds range ~ 4.9 to 6.2—nutrition? disease? processing?)
Antioxidants (discovery and enhancement with tuberosum-friendly megistacrolobum)
New trait: anticancer Potato Carboxypeptidase Inhibitor (survey screening)
New trait:  tuber potassium as anti-sodium/hypertension (survey screening)
New technique:  US field tuberization of short-day wild species (tests in HI, NC, TX, FL)
New trait:  tomatine as anticancer (screen and enhance from tuberosum-friendly okadae)
Show agrichemical impact on in situ reproduction of wild species (coop with Peru)
Assess enhancement for cultivar-potential of our ga1 gibberellin dwarf mutant
Genetic comparison of published GA mutants (pito, ga2 likely  = ga1)
Discover “crazy sepal” floral mutant and genetic studies (sepals-only complete sterile)
New comprehensive genetic diversity metric (devise and test)
Eco-geo parameters as predictors of gendiv (sucrense and verrucosum as models)
Assess seedlings selection as point of diversity loss in genebank (not observed in inbreds)
Test representativeness of easy collection sites using AZ sky island models
Start cooperative Jelly End resistance screening
Test DNA marker based core collection vs useful traits in microdontum
Discover purple-less pigments mutant in fendleri (distribution and genetics)
Discover gibberellin – calcium interaction
Confirm genetic parity of in situ populations and first genebank seed increase
62 new populations of wild potato in southwest USA (discover, collect and document)
Start cooperative anticancer rat feeding trials with andigena and pinnatisectum
Show genetic parity of reputed duplicates in US vs Russian and Peru potato genebanks
Show that extreme frost tolerance in commersonii has no cytoplasmic basis.
Discover putative apomictic behavior in jamesii

3. PUBLICATIONS
   18 peer reviewed papers and 15 abstracts published
   see http://www.ars-grin.gov/ars/MidWest/NR6/contact.html > “cv07.doc”

Genebank 2007-2011 Outlook
NRSP6 and Genebank CRIS led by Lead Scientist Bamberg– expected activities:
Acquire – collecting from the wild USA.  This is inexpensive work that captures unique germplasm that will be a perpetual resource in the collection.  It reaps valuable opportunities to better understand how the diversity of germplasm in the genebank relates to that of wild sources.  Acquire-enhance.  Will select, segregate and advertise mutants and other useful stocks we have previously identified by screening of raw germplasm.  Acquire-exchange.  Will actively survey stocks available from other institutional and private sources, solicit priorities from US germplasm users, and pursue incorporation of the most important materials into our genebank.  Preserve-physical propagules.  Will minimize loss of populations and genes.  Distribute germplasm & info.  Will continue free, rapid access to all germplasm, even custom orders of non-standard amounts or forms to the extent that resources allow.  Preserve-documentation.  Will professionally gather and manage the accuracy, completeness, and availability of supporting information about the germplasm.  Leadership.  …In Potato Assn of Amer; Tech Advisory, Crop Germplasm, and Plant Germplasm Operations Comms., Am J Potato Res Editor in Chief.
In the future, the anticipated reduction of base funds is expected to necessitate a retreat from the following “research” activities that have, in the past, enhanced the genebank’s reputation and impact.  That retreat will be mitigated to the extent that extramural grant funds can be acquired:
Train.  No grad or undergrad “intern” students.  Utilize.  No studies to test prospects for enhancement of traits (e.g., cold hardiness, tuber calcium, antioxidants, GA mutants).  Evaluate-screen.  No in-house or cooperative screening research to identify new useful traits (GA, floral, pigment mutants; high tuber calcium, potassium, anticancers) or to locate new sources of other traits (late blight, antioxidants).  Preserve-diversity mgt R&D.  No research to show us the impact of genebank management decisions on collecting, preserving and evaluating diversity.  Preserve-technology R&D.  Research to identify best practical genebank techniques (e.g., germination, tuberization, flowering, crossability) will be minimized.
NRSP-6 Budget Request Summary
In meeting comments:

• Agree to go back to ’06 budget level beginning in 08

Action Requested: For Information only.
Agenda Item S16.
NRSP-7
Presenter: Garry Adams
Background: A National Agricultural Program for Minor Use Animal Drugs
The NRSP7, Minor Use Animal Drug Program, has been funded via a special grant that was included in the President’s Budget. Unfortunately the funding for this crucial program was combined with all of the other special grants in the Continuing Resolution resulting in the loss of these funds. The result is that NRSP7 is in danger of losing staff with more than 65 years of combined experience. Accordingly, the Administrative Advisors for NRSP7 sent a request for one year emergency off-the-top funding of $547,720 to maintain the program.
The NRSP Review Committee met by teleconference to discuss the situation and arrive at a recommendation. In doing so the following points were noted:
· All states clearly benefit from this important program
· The funding requested is for one year only.
· Each of the lead institutions (CA, FL, IA, NY-C) have all incurred dramatic decreases as a result of the CR.
· A special off the top assessment would result in all states sharing the burden
Since the NRSP funding requests are approved by a vote the ESS, we recommend that an electronic ballot be conducted following the spring meetings of the regional Associations where this issue would be discussed. The NRSP Review Committee will recommend a special off the top assessment for FY 2007 of either 50% of the amount requested ($271,360) or 67% of the amount requested ($363,622), based on the discussions at the regional association meetings.
For more details on NRSP-7 and their emergency request, see this letter from the Administrative Advisors.
FY 07 budget request summary.
In meeting comments:

• Agree to emergency funding in 07 based on national vote
• Seems that 50% would sustain project

Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item S17.
NRSP-8
Presenter: Eric Young
Background:
National Animal Genome Research Program
NRSP-8 is functioning very well.  The technical committee and other interested faculty meet yearly in conjunction with the Plant Animal Genome Congress in San Diego, usually the second week in January (this year Jan 13-14).  The meeting involves 1 and 1/2 days of workshops by species followed by a half-day business meeting.  The current NRSP-8 project terminates Sep 30, 2007, so a writing committee was appointed consisting of the various species coordinators with Mary Delany (UC Davis) as chair.  The new project will follow the same format but will involve some new and/or updated objectives, depending on the species.
 
NRSP-8 Budget Request Summary
In meeting comments:

• 08 budget request is fine

Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item S18.
S-009 Report and Budget Request
Presenter: Jerry Arkin
Background:
PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION
Crop collections of importance to the Southern Region have been supported since 1949 through a joint partnership, designated as Multi-State Research Project S-009, between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit and the Southern State Agricultural Experiment Stations. For over 57 years, the S-009 Project has served as a major component of the National Plant Germplasm System, and its activities have markedly improved crop technology in the Southern Region, the U.S., and abroad, by providing plant genetic resources and associated information to scientists and educators.
Accomplishments for 2006:

• The collection totals 86,150 accessions of 1,483 species and 248 genera with 84.5% available for distribution and 93.0% backed up at Ft. Collins, CO.
• Currently, 53,509 accessions or 62.1% of the collection have at least one inventory sample stored at -18 C.  Seed longevity is improved by storage in -18 C rather than 4 C.  Most seed of the accession is stored at -18 C and a distribution sample is stored at 4 C.  Since 2001, all original seed and seed of new regenerations is in -18 C storage at Griffin.
• Germination tests were conducted at Griffin on 8,793 accessions.  Since 2002 when the first germination testing was conducted at Griffin, germination tests have been conducted on 37,065 accessions or 43.0% of the total collection.
• A total of 18,906 accessions (6,082 in S-009 region) were distributed in 630 orders to users worldwide in 2006.
• Molecular characterization utilizing SSRs was conducted on the peanut, lablab, lespedeza, and mung bean collections.  Genetic characterization studies utilizing TILLING on sorghum and Eco-TILLING on mung bean were conducted.  Molecular studies were conducted on minor as well as major crops as encouraged by the S-009 Technical Committee members.  HPLC studies to quantify flavonoids in accessions of different legume species were continued.
• The entire chile pepper collection was screened for the presence or absence of pepper mild mottle virus which is a seedborne virus of peppers.
• Characterization and evaluation data were taken on over 1,450 vegetable, peanut, legume, warm-season grass, and other accessions in the field.
• Additional accomplishments are reported in the S-009 annual report and minutes (www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=9592).

S-009 Budget Request
Increase the S-009 FY07 personnel services budget in the amount of $9,694 for a total S-009 FY08 budget of $412,211.  The requested increase reflects a 3% increase in personnel expenses based on The University of Georgia salary projections.
Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization Funding Request for FY08
 
Action Requested: Approval of S-009 FY08 Budget Request.
Action Taken: On motion/second (Arkin/Cox) the S-009 budget was approved.
Agenda Item S19.
Best Practices Session – Germplasm Release Policies
Presenter: Susan Barefoot
Background:
This will be a semi-structured discussion centered on germplasm release policy issues; ie intellectual property protection, exclusive licenses, faculty/breeder rewards, foundation seed producers, etc.  The session will begin with brief (10 min) explanations of case studies on this issue by Mark McLellan (UFL) and Roger Crickenberger (NCSU).  These opening remarks will be followed by open discussion about director’s experiences with this issue, including current situations, successes and failures, new ideas, barriers, etc.  This session will be 45-60 minutes and followed soon after by a break to allow for immediate casual conversations and contacts between directors.
Click here for Mark McLellan’s UF Breeders & our Germplasm Release Program PowerPoint
Click here for Roger Crickenberger’s Germplasm Release Policy PowerPoint
In meeting comments:

• Bid process can cause legal difficulties.
• Put in place an invitation to negotiate process.
• Breeders drive the process through revenue coming back to their programs and to them.
• It is possible to cancel contract if a company is not performing according to agreement.
• Florida companies have to pay a minimum royalty even if no sales that year.
• Because experiment station holds the PVP, any litigation for license infringement has to be filed by the station representative, not the licensee.
• Have to be careful to be able justify who a variety is licensed to in order to avoid complaints from other interested companies.
• Georgia legislature considered forcing universities to license to Georgia companies first, but it didn’t pass.
• Differentiation is made between graduate student and undergraduate student involvement in variety development.  Graduate students are considered employees and have to sign over any invention rights to the university prior to employment while undergrads do not do this.
• TAMU has to use the same process and royalty distribution formula for plant varieties as for inventions with utility patents.
• It is possible for multiple companies to join in a single license.  They may share equally or not usually they have different markets.
• ARS release policies are driven by use and distribution, rather than royalty return.
  • Breeder can get up to $2,000 up front plus 25% of royalties returned.
  • University partner can share in royalties also.
  • A more definitive policy is being developed and will be on the ARS web site soon.
  • The ARS Office of Technology Transfer handles all the releases and negotiations.

Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item S20.
ASRED Liaison Report
Presenter: Paul Coreil
Background:
Highlights for ASRED Liaison Report to SAAESD – April, 2007
 ASRED Officers
As of November, 2006 Dr. Fran Wolak, Clemson University assumed the Chairmanship of ASRED. Dr. Paul Coreil is past chair. Dr. Larry Arrington, Florida, is Chair-elect and Dr. Millie Ferrer, Florida, is Secretary.
Summer ASRED Meeting
For the first time, ASRED held its summer directors’ retreat via distance technology. The meeting was judged to be a success.
Extension Visits to Key Constituency Groups
At its fall 2006 meeting, ASRED decided to schedule director/key faculty visits with national constituency groups. Visits have been made to several and reports of the meetings are very positive.
eXtension
Dr. Paul Coreil is the current Chair of the Governing Council and of the eXtension Foundation board. eXtension now has 22 Communities of Practice with three that have been released publicly. Additional CoPs will be publicly released soon.
Excellence in Extension
Dr. Paul Warner, Kentucky, has led a national Excellence in Extension Taskforce that has developed criteria and benchmarks to measure excellence in Extension. These common criteria will allow Extension directors to make decisions about their Extension Services in comparison to regional and national norms.
Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item S21.
SAAESD Excellence in Leadership Award Presentation
Presenter: Susan Barefoot
Background:
Susan Barefoot, SAAESD Chair, will present the annual SAAESD Leadership Awards.
 
Action Taken: Drs. Vance Watson and Nancy Cox were presented the SAAESD Leadership Award
Agenda Item J6.
BAA Policy Board of Directors Report
Presenter: Nancy Cox
Background:
A brief report will be given on items of interest from the BAA Policy Board of Directors meeting held March 13-14 in Dallas, TX.
Next PBD face-to-face meeting will be July 24-26 at the Joint COPs meeting in Philadelphia, PA
Action Requested: For information only.
Agenda Item J7.
ASRED and SAAESD Joint Database
Presenter: Ron Brown and Eric Young
Background:
ASRED has maintained a financial and personnel on-line database hosted by TAMU extension since 2005, to which directors submit data annually in numerous areas.  This database allows extension directors, business officers, and others with access to easily obtain state-by-state data and regional averages that can be used as comparison for university, state, and federal reports and many other purposes.  Last spring SAAESD approved collecting similar data for the experiment stations, which includes some data elements identical to those collected by extension and some unique to research.  TAMU extension has now developed a parallel database for the southern region research directors and the first research data entries will be done this year in late summer or fall, depending on the state’s fiscal year.
For SAAESD directors (and anyone else interested) the SAAESD database web site is available for testing.  The URL for logging in is:
http://eit-data.tamu.edu/essr/slog/index.asp 
Login information (user-id/password) that can be used to view sample data is:
User-id –  eric_young@ncsu.edu
Password –  raleigh
When you log in, you will see five records in the database that are there just for testing purposes; the numbers are totally fictional.
It is understood that when this data is used in public presentations, only regional averages will be used, rather than individual state data.  The state-by-state data is password-protected on line, but is accessible to each of the region’s director’s offices.  The extension and research directors will decide the extent to which individual data elements should be accessible and shared between extension and research offices between states within the region and beyond.  Also, because the two databases have some common elements there may be some tables and/or graphs that integrate the data, which directors would like generated routinely.
In meeting comments:

• Data may be shared publicly only as regional averages
• Individual state data is for internal use only
• Extension is looking into expanding database to be nation wide

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item J8.
Southern rural Development Center Report
Presenter: Bo Beaulieu
Background:
The SRDC Director will unveil the Center’s new strategic blueprint and discuss the activities being proposed to fully implement the plan over the next 3-5 years. In addition, updates will be provided on the National e-Commerce Extension Initiative and the eXtension Entrepreneurhip effort that the SRDC is taking a lead role in coordinating across the U.S.
Click here for the SRDC’s Unveiling a New Blueprint for the Rural South Strategic Plan PowerPoint
Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item J9.
Southern Region IPM Center Report
Presenter: Jim VanKirk
Background:
Click here for the Southern Region IPM Center Update Powerpoint
Action Requested: Information only.
Agenda Item J10.
2009 Joint ASRED/SAAESD Meeting in Puerto Rico
Presenter: Ariel Ramirez and Hector Santiago
Background:
In meeting comments:

• Possible meeting places
  • San Juan, Isle Verde area – closer to other stuff
  • Rio Grande
• Same time of year as usual

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item J11.
Follow-up on FY’08 Budget Coordination of Bioenergy in the Southern Region
Presenter: Eric Young and Ron Brown
Background:
In meeting comments:

• Eric will send out a draft inventory survey to the directors for comments and will send out the final survey around April 16th with a two week deadline for return
  • Add college to department section
  • Add comment section
  • An ad hoc group of 8 directors (4 research and 4 extension) will work with Eric and Ron to develop strategy for coordination
  • Suggestion to create a SERA to coordinate Bioenergy efforts in our region

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: Tom KlindtThis will be a semi-structured discussion centered on hiring and supporting mid-level administrative leadership; ie department heads, research center directors, etc.  The session will begin with brief (10 min) explanations of case studies on this issue by Clarence Watson (OK State) and David Boethel (LSU).  These opening remarks will be followed by open discussion about director’s experiences with this issue, including current situations, successes and failures, new ideas, barriers, etc.  This session will be 45-60 minutes and followed soon after by a break to allow for immediate casual conversations and contacts between directors.

  • Oklahoma State University
    • We are in the process of replacing 5 department heads, 1 SAES assistant director, 3 CES assistant directors, and research unit head.
    • Department head application pool is very swallow.
    • Interim heads are commonly needed, but sometimes are hard to find in department.
      • At MS State, associate or assistant directors are frequently asked to be interim heads.
      • At OSU, occasionally another head is asked to lead two departments.
    • Spouse issues need to be brought forward very early in hiring process.
    • Start-up packages are good incentives.
      • Offer position(s) to fill after hired.
      • Funds for major equipment or other program support.
    • Have to get faculty buy-in for new head and the faculty must have realistic expectations for that head.
    • After hiring mentoring is very important.
      • AES director should give them details on all aspects of the experiment station.
      • Regularly scheduled meetings with director during the first year are very helpful and supportive.
    • Training in business and budget management is very important since many new heads don’t have this experience.
    • Developing a little more of a personal relationship with a new head outside of office can often help with adjustment to administration.
  • Louisiana State University
    • If institution is under financial emergency, it’s not a good time to hire middle management.
    • Need to sell institution to the candidate, using both faculty and stakeholders.
    • Stakeholders can help with hiring, but it’s better if they are not on the search committee.
    • LSU doesn’t offer true startups for heads, but try to direct some extra resources to the department of new hire.
    • Department heads have 3 distinct bosses with separate reporting lines.  This has to be recognized as possibly confusing and conflicting for a new head.
    • Have been successful at merging units and putting the most experienced head in charge of new unit.
    • Need to seriously consider head from industry, especially if it’s a solid unit, cause they can bring a whole different perspective and make a good department even better.
    • LSU also has seven regional directors/managers of research/extension, so this adds another layer of administration that a new head has to be familiar with and interact.
    • Whether or not a head should keep their research program active depends on department size and complexity.
    • Ag Center is starting an internal leadership program for mid-level management.
  • Mississippi State University
    • Created administrative associates that work in administration for approximately a year.
      • Helps identify faculty that are interested in administration.
      • Work in dean/directors office prior to holding any other formal administrative position.
      • Potential associate is asked to write statement about what they can offer administration.
      • Included in dean/director meetings, college administrative sessions, etc.
      • These associates usually have by-passed the head position, so when an interim head is needed they are often asked to do that assignment.
      • It’s a good idea to listen to those who call and recommend someone as an administrator because they usually have some unique insight into that person’s abilities.
• In meeting comments:
• Background:
• Agenda Item S22.
  Best Practices Session – Hiring and Supporting Mid-Level Management
• Clemson University
  • Research and extension are a separate agency from academic programs and have a different administrative structure.
  • Administration has been downsized significantly over the past decade.
  • Now have Program Managers that manage both research and extension in major program areas
  • Use leadership programs (LEAD-21 and FSLI) to help enhance leadership skills and include them in college administration activities and meetings.
  • Need to explore new types of administrative positions and structures that some AES’s are using.
  • Why is candidate pool so small for vacant head positions?
    • Is there a different culture now that downgrades administrative positions?
    • Center director positions are much more attractive than department head.
    • Heads used to get some block funding that they could use for program initiation and improvement, but that has generally disappeared.
    • Now most heads just allocate space and deal with problems.
    • Need to figure out a way to give heads some discretionary resources to allocate.
• New Dean and Director Workshop in DC during the fall of odd numbered years is very useful for new administrators.
• Associate/Assistant heads can help prepare someone for head or other administration position.
  • Disadvantage to moving someone up in this way is that it gives a perception outside the university of always hiring inside.
• University climate has changed from a service ethic to a resource-gathering mode, which makes head position much more difficult and less satisfying.
• College administration should make an effort to meet with faculty that have leadership potential and talk to them about possibilities in administration and the positive aspects of those positions.

Action Requested: Information only.
 
Agenda Item S23.
Resolutions Committee Report
Presenter: Rick Roeder
Background:
A Resolution in Appreciation will be offer to Dr. Nancy Cox and the University of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station.
Action Taken:  A resolution of appreciation was read for Dr. Nancy Cox and staff of the University of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station for their roles in hosting the ASRED/SAAESD Spring Meeting.  A round of applause approved the resolution.
Agenda Item S24.
2008 Spring SAAESD Meeting in Tennessee
Presenter: Tom Klindt
Background:
In meeting comments:

• The 2008 SAAESD Spring Meeting will be held March 31 – April 2 in either Knoxville or Nashville, TN
• Meeting will be from Monday noon to Wednesday noon with a ½ day tour hopefully at the Oak Ridge National Lab

 
Action Requested: None
 
Agenda Item S25.
Fall SAAESD Meeting, Announcements, etc.
Presenter: Susan Barefoot
Background:
The next SAAESD meeting will be Monday, September 17, 2007 in Philadelphia, PA, just prior to the Experiment Station Section meeting and the SAES/ARD Workshop.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 am