Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Multistate Research Committee (Working lunch) - Virginia Clark

6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. - Welcoming Reception for NCRA and Guests

Wednesday, March 22, 1999 - 7:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon
6:30 a.m. - 7:30 a.m. - Breakfast

11:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Executive Session
· Executive Director's Office FY 01 Budget - Tom Payne and Margaret Dentine, UW-Madison Representative
· Executive Director's Position

North Central Regional Association

1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Tom Payne
Members Present: Steve Pueppke, University of Illinois; Gerald Klonglan, Wendy Wintersteen, Iowa State University; Eldon Ortman Purdue University; George Ham, Kansas State University; Jan Bokemeier, Gary Lemme, Doreen Woodward, Michigan State University; Sarah Greening, Philip Larsen, University of Minnesota; Tom Payne, Ken Schneeberger, University of Missouri; Rita Kean, Darrell Nelson, Dale Vanderholm, University of Nebraska; Virginia Clark, Cole Gustafson, North Dakota State University; Mike Brugger, Sally Miller, Skip Nault, Bill Ravlin, Steven Slack, Ohio State University; Fred Cholick, Kevin Kephart, South Dakota State University; Margaret Dentine, University of Wisconsin; Will Blackburn, Eric Roos, ARS, Fort Collins, Colorado; Colien Hefferan, USDA-CSREES; Madelyn Alt, Richard Lower, Executive Director's Office
2.0 Approval of the September 1999 Minutes - Tom Payne
(Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/Sept99min.htm)
A motion was made to approve the minutes; the motion was seconded.
3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Tom Payne
Additional items: 6.7; 6.8; 6.9; and 10.3
4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Tom Payne
5.0 Executive Director's Report - Richard Lower
6.0 ESCOP Report - Fred Cholick
6.1 Status of ESCOP Activities, i.e., Reorganization, Committee Activities, Report of February ESCOP Meeting/ECOP Legislative Committee Meeting - Fred Cholick
6.2 Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee/NC PIAP- Eldon Ortman
6.3Image Enhancement - Eldon Ortman
6.4 GPRA/POW - Darrell Nelson
6.5 SARE - Steve Waller/Darrell Nelson
6.6 FY 01 Budget and Legislative Subcommittee - Tom Payne/Richard Lower
6.7 SUNEI Update - Dale Vanderholm
6.8 Food Safety - George Ham
6.9 Genomics and Genetic Resources - Richard Lower
7.0 Rural Development Center - Iowa Representative and/or Written Report
8.0 NCS-3/IPM Grant Awards for FY 00 - Eldon Ortman
9.0 Multistate Research Committee
9.1 MRC Report - Virginia Clark
9.2 Multistate Research Manual - Please print and bring a copy to the meeting. You can find this at: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/draftdoc.htm

Thursday, March 23, 1999 7:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon
6:30 a.m. - 7:30 a.m. - Breakfast

10.0 Agency Reports
10.1 CSREES - Colien Hefferan

• Status of Section 401 and Fund for Rural America
• Status of Section 406
• Update on Plan of Work Responses
• Other

10.2 ARS - Will Blackburn/Eric Roos
10.3 AESOP Update - Terry Nipp
11.0 Plans for July NCRA Meeting - Fred Cholick/Kevin Kephart/Jerry Klonglan/Tom Payne
11.1 NCRA and Joint Summer Meeting - Jerry Klonglan
12.0 Nominations Committee Report - Dale Vanderholm/Margaret Dentine/Carol Meeks
13.0 Resolutions Committee - Cole Gustafson
14.0 Announcements

• Deadline for ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Program Application - April 15, 2000 [http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/leadership/leadership.htm]
• ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee - April 25-26, 2000
• Risk Communication Superworkshop - Orlando, Florida - May 10-11, 2000
• NCRA and Joint Summer Meeting - Ames, Iowa - July 10-13, 2000
• ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP Meeting - Denver, Colorado - August 7-9, 2000
• ESS Fall Meeting - New Orleans, Louisiana - September 26, 2000
• SAES/ARD Workshop - New Orleans, Louisiana - September 26-28, 2000
• NCRA Fall Meeting - New Orleans, Louisiana - September 28, 2000
• ESCOP Executive Committee Fall Meeting - New Orleans, Louisiana -September 28, 2000
• NASULGC - San Antonio, Texas - November 13-15, 2000

15. Summary and Review of Assignments - Tom Payne

• Executive Committee Teleconferences
  • October 18, 2000
  • December 14, 2000
  • February 28, 2000
• Executive Director's Search and Screen Committee
  • Teleconferences with Committee
  • Interview Candidate
  • Numerous discussions with the Executive Director's Office · Update on Administrative Head Section activities in the North Central Region

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

• ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting, September 30, 1999, Memphis, Tennessee
• Board on Agriculture Budget Committee, October 20-21, 1999, Washington, D.C.
• International Centers Week, October 23-25, 1999, Washington, D.C.
• NRC Board on Agriculture Workshop, November 15, 1999, Madison, Wisconsin
• Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center Meeting, November 29-December, 4, 1999, Tainan, Taiwan
• Multistate Research Manual Meeting, December 7, 1999, Chicago, Illinois
• Multistate Research Manual Meeting and Genomics Meeting, January 5-6, 2000, Washington, D.C.
• GMO Presentation to food industry group, February 7-9, 2000, Tucson, Arizona
• ESCOP Meeting, February 14-16, 2000, Washington, D.C.
• Board on Agriculture Budget Committee, February 15, 2000, Washington, D.C.
• Genome and AID/CSREES Links, February 29, 2000, Washington, D.C.

Efforts on genome initiative, budget, ESCOP Science and Technology Core Committee and Subcommittees, Multistate Research Manual, SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop activities have been covered through teleconferences and e-mails. Our office has served as coordinator and organizer of numerous teleconferences since the start of FY 00. Also, we assisted CSREES in site location and arrangements for the IFAFS meeting in the midwest, Madison, Wisconsin, March 27, 2000 (pending).

The following projects are due to terminate September 2001:

NC-7	NC-220	NCR-101	NCR-180
NC-107	NCR-21	NCR-125	NCR-183
NC-157	NCR-22	NCR-167	NCR-192
NC-208	NCR-65	NCR-168	NCR-193
NC-218	NCR-87	NCR-170	NCT-181
NC-219	NCR-89	NCR-179

The following projects are up for midterm review (NC terminates 2003; NCR terminates 2002):

NC-174	NC-224	NCR-173	NCR-196
NC-189	NCR-84	NCR-174
NC-213	NCR-103	NCR-184
NC-221	NCR-131	NCR-185
NC-222	NCR-134	NCR-194
NC-223	NCR-159	NCR-195

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: As an administrative advisor, if you have a project that is terminating in 2001 or a midterm review is required in 2001, start planning ahead to have your project reviewed by the appropriate NCA committee(s) in time for their annual meetings.

• ESCOP Core Committees
  • Reorganization - the Budget, Legislative, Advocacy, and Marketing Committee was divided into two committees: 1) Budget and Legislative, and, 2) Advocacy and Marketing. Primary reason was because the workload was excessive for one committee. These two committees have and will continue to work together. Terry Nipp, AESOP, is on both of these committees.
  • All core committees have been "very" active. See committee/subcommittee activities at ESCOP web site.
    • Advocacy and Marketing - Image enhancement writing teams, narrative for Budget and Legislative.
    • Budget and Legislative - An aggressive and organized budget from AESOP.
    • Science and Technology - Agricultural Biotechnology Task Force, farm crisis, genomics, genetic resources, pest management strategies, social science and food safety.
    • Partnership - Ongoing dialogue with CSREES.
    • Planning - Joint efforts with ESCOP/ECOP, Director's Workshop establishing priorities - studies of land grant universities and colleges of agriculture is available at ESCOP future web site - Priority planning at September Workshop.

    Many of these efforts are joint ESCOP/ECOP.
    

• Randy Woodson continues to provide leadership for the development of a science road map that will enhance the image and visibility of agricultural research.
• ESCOP-ACOP - Leadership Development - Class 10, deadline is April 15, 2000. Discussed agreement with Triangle Associates.
• ESCOP-ECOP - We have continued to attempt to develop a joint meeting with ECOP to discuss: 1) partnering with agencies other than USDA; 2) develop methodology to enhance CES/SAES involvement in joint, multistate activities.
• ESCOP Liaison Reports - General statement of the working relationships with the COPs and CARET is good. There are a number of joint programs and good communications.
• CoFARM - Coalition of professional scientific organizations, (our scientists) that is working toward increased funding for agricultural research and be a one-voice coalition.
• C-FAR - An effort to use Illinois model at the national level to enhance funding continues under the leadership of Colin Kaltenbach, a meeting is scheduled for March 30, 2000.
• Form 662 - "... As a result of our discussions, a decision was made to continue our requirement for submission of the CSREES Form 662 with all research projects involving recombinant DNA/RNA, research animals, and human subjects. CSREES will continue monitoring the assurance forms submitted with research projects to assist in reducing errors and omissions of essential information. Furthermore, we are committed to developing a streamlined and unified packet of forms for project submissions suitable for electronic transmittals. From letter to Dr. Nelson from Charles W. Laughlin.
• Multistate Research Manual, Version 8, was shared with the multistate research committees in the four regions.
• Section 401 (IFAFS) - Dr. Rodney Foil has provided outstanding leadership for the effort. It is "our" turn to help Dr. Foil to complete the process of distribution of funds. Please provide name for panel leaders and panel members.

Members Present: Stanley R. Johnson, Ronald A. Brown, Nancy H. Bull, Fred A. Cholick, Michael Heard, LeRoy D. Luff, Carl O'Connor and James C. Wade
Members Absent: David E. Foster, Betty Lou Gilliland, Dalton H. McAfee, Jerry G. Schickedanz and Philip M. Schwab
Guests: George Cooper, Donald T. Floyd and Terry L. Nipp
Staff Present: Linda Kay Benning and Myron D. Johnsrud

Opening Comments - Stanley R. Johnson
Johnson welcomed all to the meeting; introductions were made as this was the first face to-face meeting of the committee. He distributed the packet of information he had presented to the ECOP, listing the critical issues with background information for each. (Copies of the packet are being sent under separate cover to Gilliland, McAfee, Schickedanz and Schwab.) The goal of this meeting was to identify action issues and to make assignments of committee members to lead the associated "task forces."

AESOP Enterprises, Ltd. Legislative Contract Overview - Terry L. Nipp, President
Nipp was asked to provide highlights of his legislative consultant contract. Additional detail was provided in the packet distributed at the meeting. Nipp stated that AESOP will focus on the CSREES budget issues; work with other Federal agencies in the arena of agriculture and the environment; track the science policy issues; and monitor emerging issues. Nipp stated there are some areas where the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) will have more interest than the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP), i.e., genome and bioproducts. ECOP will have more interest in the communities and children, youth and families issues.

Critical Issue Discussion - Stanley R. Johnson
Below is a summary of the discussion of the critical issues to be addressed by the committee. Further background information on each issue is contained in the legislative packet. Action items are identified along with the legislative committee members who have agreed or been asked (*) to serve as task force chairs.

Responsibilities of the Task Force Chairs:
· To track the legislation (authorization and appropriations) on the issue. AESOP, Benning and Johnsrud will assist.
· To complete a one to two page briefing piece on the associated issues. A template is attached.
· To keep the Legislative Committee Chair informed of opportunities for strategic input, such as filing testimony, testifying, organizing visits/calls/letters to key Congressional members.

The legislative committee agreed that the ECOP will endorse all of the legislative issues and related initiatives that are listed below, unless other actions are indicated. Specifically, we will aggressively pursue these issues with key Congressional members, the responsible Federal agencies or departments, and the appropriate Congressional committees.

Issue	Status/Action Steps	Task Force Chair
1. Communities	White House is leading this issue; Republications are discussing tax incentives for "new markets." Investigate how Extension and the land-grants can be a part of the tax incentives. Draft legislative language on educational/technical assistance component for land-grants.	Brown/Nipp/AESOP
2. Genome	ESCOP taking the lead; ECOP do educational component; initiative could involve other agencies. Current focus on funding this initiative. Monitor closely; draft educational proposal.	Schickedanz*
3. Biotechnology	This is a public policy education issue with some connection to the genome. FAS is involved through Montreal agreement Need examples of educational programs. Draft legislative language.	Walt Fair, ISU; Johnson/Nipp/AESOP Staff
4. Ag & Environment	In FY2001, Administration is proposing $1.3 billion for NRCS; NRCS educational role needs to be clarified.There is indication that CSREES/Extension not being looked to for education. Draft authorization language stating CSREES should deliver education programs. Work with Conservation Districts - re educational delivery; help technicians be technicians again. Gauge assistance from farm and commodity organizations, Associations, Identify Congressional champion.	O'Connor/Johnson
5. Biofuels, etc.	Executive Order signed between USDA and Dept. of Energy; language is missing educational component. RFP will soon be available. Offer testimony to assist with DOE's Industries of The Future program, authorization and appropriations.	Johnson/Nipp/Faulkner/DOE
6. Crop Insurance	Five risk management centers pursuing funding in Risk Management concert with the System Risk Management position. Suggest five RM centers increase request to $30 million.	Johnson/Nipp
7. Children, Youth, Families	Elementary and Secondary Education Act is being reauthorized. Submitted testimony to Senate in July 1999. Testimony for House is due February 25. Committee to check for regional information.	All
	Kids 2000 has been introduced in Senate by Biden with funding to Boys and Girls Club. Gobeli, CSREES, has submitted information to Biden's staff. Delaware will work with committee. Handle carefully.	Benning/Johnson
	Civil Society is a focus area identified by the Program Resources Ad Hoc Committee. What this means needs to be identified. Prepare short briefing paper.	O'Connor/Floyd
8. Farm Bill	Parts may be revised this year; Rep Combest is holding hearings. Full reauthorization should be done in two years. A section by section analysis needs to be done.	Johnsrud/Luft
9. Animal Waste	The national initiative team is moving this issue forward. Look for opportunities to demonstrate educational effort.	Wade
10. Food Safety	Three areas of effort: Inspection, Import/Export	Nipp/Johnson/Heard*
11. Food Grant	Proposal to target monitized P.L. 480 Title I Food Assistance Fund to establish land-grant-like Universities in nations with systemic food security Problems. U.S. land-grants to be paired with Institutions in these developing nations. $5 million per year for 10 years would be made available for each set of paired institutions.	Johnson/O'Connor/Nipp
12. Manufacturing Extension Program	Department of Commerce is asking to expand MEP into the construction industry. ECOP should encourage expansion into value added agriculture like food and kindred products and lumber and wood products SICs.USDA has in place an MOU with Commerce/NIST/MEP. Ted Maher, CSREES, is working on a paper on this. State Depts of Ag are very interested in this effort. Review Maher paper; arrange visits with MEP. Prepare language to include value-added agriculture.	Brown* Johnson/Nipp
13. Telecommunication	There is a telecommunications interagency proposal that should be followed. Watch for education opportunities designed to get rural areas on the information highway.	Foster*
14. Farm*A*Syst	This group has a role to play in water quality and related environmental issues. Good resource group.	McAfee*
15. Juvenile Justice	Both the House and the Senate have passed bills to reauthorize the juvenile justice programs. Gun control issues have hindered the conference from moving forward. Monitor this closely.	Bull/Nipp

Johnson stated that he would assign other committee members to a task force if they had not identified an area of interest. Those assigned are noted by an asterisk (*) above. Please confirm your availability/willingness. If not assigned or you wish to join the task forces, please notify Johnson and/or Benning. The goal will be to have a template completed on each of the 15 items by March 17, 2000. We will then circulate these templates to all ECOP members and, as appropriate, to state directors/administrators.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: Encourage the directors to read the ESCOP minutes [available at: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/]. SAES directors need to continue the dialogue with their extension directors to increase joint cooperative efforts with other U.S. agencies and to enhance multistate cooperation and how we document joint cooperation.

• There was a `review' of USDA Programs in Pest Management August 30-31, 1999. Keith Pitts hosted the review which was facilitated by the Meridian Institute. Participants included representatives from grower associations, environmentalists, regulators, scientists from universities and the federal government. Pest Management Subcommittee representation was included in the meeting. A primary meeting focus was - the challenges being posed by FQPA. Action items were identified. Meeting summary available on request.
• Frank Zalom and Eldon Ortman convened a meeting of the Pest Management Subcommittee on September 14-15, 1999 in Washington, DC. The Meridian Report was reviewed and the pest management program was reviewed with the USDA personnel who had primary responsibility for pest management programs. Program recommendations were developed and forwarded to Dr. Charles Laughlin (attached as Addenda A).
• Presented testimony and filed a statement December 8, 1999, i.e., Implementation of Section 406 (attached as Addenda B).

Frank Zalom and Eldon Ortman convened a representative group in Washington, D.C. to discuss potential opportunities for pest management with Al Jennings, Director of the Office of Pest Management Policy. He invited some of his and CSREES staff to participate in the meeting. Primary focus of the meeting was the developments, directions and opportunities for pest management programs. At that meeting we learned of the potential appointment of Dr. Harold Coble to a position in OPMP. Dr. Coble is a weed scientist, North Carolina State University, and most recently served as an IPA for Integrated Pest Management, USDA, CSREES.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

ADDENDA A:

Eldon Ortman, Purdue University and Frank Zalom, UC Davis, Co-Chairs

The National IPM Committee has been authorized by ESCOP and ECOP as a subcommittee of Science and Technology, and acts as a liaison from the Land Grants with its USDA-CSREES partners. It is constituted to be advisory to our CSREES partners and back to our regional IPM coordinating committees. The National IPM Committee is composed of scientists and extension educators representing the range of disciplines that comprises the science of IPM. Its membership includes research and extension faculty appointed by the regional ESCOP/ ECOP IPM committees, the regional IPM grants managers, and the regional administrative advisors. The Committee met on September 14 and 15, 1999, at the Aerospace Building in Washington, D.C. CSREES PAS administrator Ted Wilson welcomed the National IPM Committee, and asked Committee members to consider several specific concerns including public perception of agency coordination, and the adequacy of stakeholder involvement. These concerns had been raised in late August at a meeting facilitated by the Meridian Institute consisting of a number of stakeholders who have been involved in the US EPA's TRAK process which has been designed to get input into the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act, a major focus for both EPA and USDA efforts at present. The format for the National IPM Committee meeting included presentations by a range of representatives of most CSREES programs that have a linkage to IPM, each presenting information on their specific part of the CSREES pest management portfolio. The committee also heard presentations from other representatives of other USDA agencies and offices involved in IPM as well as representatives from the US EPA. National IPM Committee members also had an opportunity to report on regional research and extension program, and to hold discussions on issues of significance to IPM in the regions and nationally. Before departing on the second day, they were able to discuss the presentations they had heard from representatives of the Federal IPM programs, and to offer recommendations. After considerable deliberations, the membership of the National IPM Committee offered the following specific recommendations:

Recommendations from the National IPM Committee Meeting of September 14-15, 1999

Staffing:
We urge CSREES proceed with due haste to fill the vacant IPM-IPA position. The National IPM Committee perceives there has been a great benefit to the system from this position.

Communication:
We recommend that CSREES PAS develop the following communication documents:

1. A highly visual public relations piece that briefly describes programs of the CSREES pest management portfolio. The audience would be stakeholders, and decision-makers, Congress and the Land-Grants.

2. A document describing the specific programs in the CSREES funded pest management portfolio intended for distribution to program participants in the agency, pest management people outside of these programs in USDA and in other agencies, scientists at the Land Grants, etc.

3. A document identifying and describing funding opportunities for pest management personnel that are not immediately related to the CSREES PAS pest management portfolio. This would include programs (for example, water quality) which have a goal or objectives where IPM can be a contributor. The audience would be IPM personnel.

We recommend CSREES PAS consider engaging a communications specialist (preferably someone with a journalism background) to generate stories about successes of the pest management programs. A possible approach might be to contract with a Land-Grant institution or writer, or even to do this regionally.

We perceive a need to enhance communication between CSREES and OPMP, and recommend there are regularly scheduled meetings between staff of CSREES PAS and OPMP.

Coordination:
We recommend forming a broadly based pest management committee to consult with the agency in their management of the pest management portfolio. Members would be identified from the 'field', especially the Land-Grants, to represent all aspects of the CSREES pest management portfolio. The committee would be consultative to CSREES and OPMP. The National IPM Committee could take leadership in forming this committee in consultation with CSREES and OPMP. The Committee should plan to meet in the winter of 1999-00.

We recommend that OPMP be aligned with CSREES in an administrative mode to better facilitate interaction with the Land-Grant system. People in Land-Grant system are primary sources of expertise and information needed by OPMP.

Stakeholder Involvement:
We recommend that CSREES PAS consider forming a stakeholder advisory group or a stakeholder focus group intended to provide input on directions and coordination of its pest management portfolio. A method would need to be developed to identify appropriate local and national stakeholders. The Land-Grant partners should be consulted for their experience, representation, etc., in this potential development. The "stakeholders" for pest management programs should be well defined. Stakeholders are already well connected to many Land-Grant IPM Programs, and these could be used as sources for the CSREES advisory or focus groups.

Program Initiatives:
The IPM Committee commends and endorses the new CAR and RAMP program initiatives. The RAMP program, in particular, builds on desires for IPM research and implementation on a cropping systems level. While we urge these initiatives receive the highest priority for new dollars, funding should not come at the expense of other programs.

The "Centers" concept is evolving and represents an interesting initiative which could provide great support for IPM implementation in the field. We see a need for continuing dialogue with the Land-Grants as this initiative moves forward in an authorization process, especially to insure that the "Centers" build upon existing systems and structures in the states/regions and are not duplicative or competitive with them. New funding is essential to moving forward.

Regional Grants Program:
We recommend the RFP for all regional grants programs require a Final report and a brief mid- term progress/status report for multi-year projects.

Eldon Ortman, ESCOP
Frank Zalom, ECOP
Co-Chairs, National IPM Committee

ADDENDA B:

We appreciate the opportunity to share some ideas relative to the implementation of Section 406 of the Agricultural Research Extension and Education Act of 1998. These comments are presented by Eldon Ortman (Purdue University) and Frank Zalom, (University of California). We serve as co-chair of the National IPM subcommittee appointed respectively by Research and Extension Administration leadership of the Land-Grant Schools of Agriculture. The subcommittee has been in place for over a decade, is a broad based group with regional/multistate representation, is multidisciplinary, has multiple missions, and represents diverse cropping systems. We met most recently in mid-September and, based on our deliberations, presented several recommendations in the IPM area to CSREES Administration and to Land-Grant Extension and Research leadership.

Within each region there exists a similarly constituted multistate, regionally based IPM coordinating committee that is constituted similar to the national committee. Members of the multistate/regional committee are part of the National IPM subcommittee. These regionally based committees have several roles, including: a) advising the Land-Grant agricultural administration and our federal partners on potential collaboration; b) providing linkage and coordination between states/regions/national IPM efforts; c) prioritizing research and extension needs; d) developing initiatives; and e) bringing state stakeholder information and dialogue to the regional Land-Grant institutions and their federal partners. Each region manages a competitive IPM grants program in support of the federal partner. In 1993, the regional IPM competitive grants program pioneered the solicitation of joint research and extension projects intended to facilitate local input on research needs and efficient application of the science base. That joint research/extension program has continued in the region since its inception.

The basis for IPM is a distributed state/regional system. The state/regional IPM grants system has been effective in identifying needs at a local level based on established stakeholder relationships. The system is established, has a demonstrated capacity, a performance record and provides a functional network. It would seem beneficial and expedient to directly involve that system in conducting the Integrative Program, or to at least leverage its collective experience as an adviser/partner with CSREES.

The existing national and regional IPM committees could be expanded or modified based on an identified need(s) to meet the requirements and broader goals of the Section 406 Integrated Activity. The regional entities in particular have served the partnership well, and stand ready to be further engaged. The concept of CAR and RAMP came from state/regional/national/federal IPM partnership dialogue. Thus, it would seem beneficial to continue that partnering in implementing the program.

Competitive funding is important and desirable, and we support that approach. However, not all research, information and extension education needs can be met with a program of discontinuous funding. There remains a need to support an infrastructure for applied and maintenance research, for continuous base data collection and for extension education to support the US agricultural, food and natural resources system. We suggest that a tiered approach is beneficial. NRI serves a critical role in supporting scientific discovery and basic investigations. Regional research provides a mechanism for stakeholder input and local involvement in identifying issues and setting research and extension priorities. Infrastructural support is crucial in order to promote coordination and integration of projects and programs that are necessary to support the needs of legal and regulatory programs such as those represented by FQPA, APHIS, etc. These needs are continually evolving, and can require information on a moments notice. Response in this situation is dependent on a funded infrastructure and will not be served by a discontinuous grants program. Funding the infrastructure can also leverage local and industry support of programs since such activities are often more obvious to local stakeholders as it typically addresses their immediate needs. PIAP presents one such example of infrastructural support which provided coordination of data collection to help identify alternatives gleaned from the technical expertise resident in the Land-Grant schools for the FQPA process. IR-4 presents another model of infrastructural support for an applied and directed research program that addresses needs of the US agricultural, food and natural resources system.

In our view, the two-three year competitive grants represent an excellent approach for exploratory research, and building a sound scientific base for specific disciplines. However, it is not well suited to developing and implementing an interdisciplinary IPM system. It is most difficult, if not impossible, to build, implement and enhance a sustainable IPM system with a discontinuous funding process. Similarly, it is difficult to address regional and local needs with centralized priority setting and project review. Section 406 is interpreted as being oriented to providing resources to address the applied, development and functional needs of specific program areas. If that objective is to be realized, we suggest there is a need to evolve a new operational model. We believe, as we have demonstrated through regional IPM programs, that new models are possible and desirable. We stand ready to propose and discuss specific attributes and approaches to build on the current regional IPM Land Grant/CSREES partnership in the development of a program for Section 406.

Submitted by:

Eldon Ortman
Purdue University

Frank Zalom
University of California-Davis

• The GPRA annual report is due in December.
• All states have heard from CSREES regarding their Plan of Work. It was the consensus that if states received funding, the Plan of Work was approved.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

SUNEI Project Coordinator Briefing
March 10, 2000

1. Current and Recent Activities:

EPA:

• SUNEI participated in the NASULGC-EPA Task Force meeting with Norine Noonan on February 28,2000 to discuss the EPA-ORD FY 2000 Budget. Chuck Krueger raised the issue of continued Water and Watershed Funding in the next budget cycle and mentioned NSF and USDA interest. Bob Menzer suggested that if SUNEI helped coordinate another 1890 Grantsmanship Workshop in Texas that EPA-ORD would work with SUNEI on the budget. SUNEI will draft written testimony to support the EPA-ORD STAR Budget, as well as some additional EPA initiatives.
• SUNEI met twice in February 2000 with representatives of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (SUNEI briefing and with the S-273 Committee). Representatives included Jim Hetrick and Nelson Thurman, who were directed by Estella Waldman to meet with us.
• SUNEI delegates met with Chuck Fox, the Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Water (OW) and later with Dov Weitman and Sharon Buck in OW. Mr. Fox suggested that universities should partners with State Agencies, because $300 million in additional funds had been distributed to Departments of Natural Resources/Environment by EPA Regional Offices to implement Clean Water Action Plans. EPA Regional staff are also currently developing local Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL). Plans for non-point pollution in the states and Land Grant University (LGU) faculty may have a role in this process.
• Recently, EPA Region 2 hired an Extension Water Quality Liaison who is working with the EPA Regional CBEP coordinator to select a couple of pilot projects to demonstrate EPA- LGU collaborations. Zane Helsel will serve on this task force.
• SUNEI coordinated 2 panel presentations by the EPA Regional Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) Coordinators for the Joint Directors at the Northeast Mini Land-Grant Meeting in Portsmouth, NH and at the Southern Mini Land-Grant Meeting in Baton Rouge, LA. The purpose of these panels was to provide the Research, Extension, and Academic Program Leadership with some information about EPA's organization structure and strategies for EPA's CBEP program. The hope is that these panels will result in follow- up discussion and opportunities for partnerships between EPA and Land Grant Universities (LGUs) for building educational and technical capacity in localities. Plans are being made to have a similar panel discussion of EPA Regional Office staff at the North Central Mini Land Grant meeting this summer in Ames, Iowa with an emphasis on economic and environmental sustainability.
• SUNEI participated in the Working Landscape Initiative that EPA Region 5 hosted. The group came together to discuss the economic situation in the producer community with the desire to provide assistance, not necessarily grants or handouts, but options for alternative crops, marketing, or practices, etc. and benefits to the environment. Some items that were discussed included information sharing of successful projects, methods, alternative crops, marketing, etc., along with environmental benefits, workshops, watershed pilot projects, and policy and program initiatives. There is another Steering Committee meeting in Chicago on March 7, 2000.
• To follow-up with a directive of the EPA-NASULGC Task Force, SUNEI coordinated an 1890 Hosted Grantsmanship Workshop at Fort Valley State University in Georgia. The purpose of this workshop was to bring USDA, EPA, NASA and other agency grants managers to an 1890 Land Grant Institution to educate faculty from 1890 and 1862 schools about upcoming research and education requests. Another goal was to discuss how 1890 and 1862 institutions could collaborate and partner more effectively to become more competitive for funding.
• SUNEI provided written testimony in support of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program and EPA collaboration with LGUs to the EPA Advisory Board.

NASA:

• The NASA Office of Earth Science (OES) updated SUNEI on their FY2000 Budget and the lack of discretionary funds to fund three additional Geospatial Extension Specialists this year and their inability to fund the State and Local Initiative they had planned to fund in FY2000. OES asked if SUNEI could help facilitate USDA and LGU policy maker involvement in a briefing of Ghassem Asrar on the Geospatial Extension Program to build joint USDA-NASA support around April 10 or 11th. SUNEI will provide written testimony to support OES's Budget. SUNEI has also been in regular communications with the Office of Earth Science (OES). This office issued three research announcements relevant to agriculture and natural resources over the last 2 years: Earth Science Information Partners (ESIPs); Regional Earth Science Applications Centers (RESACs); and Remote Sensing Applications Research in Agriculture, Forestry, and Range Resources Management (SUNEI assisted with the peer review). Ghassem Asrar, the Associate Administrator for OES, has asked USDA to contribute funding to the last solicitation in FY2001, but it doesn't look as if USDA will participate.
• In May, the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, Miley Gonzalez hosted representatives of the NASA Stennis Flight Center at USDA and some commodity groups(Corn, Wheat, Soybean, and Cotton) to discuss plans for a possible Precision Agriculture Research and Education Program. A follow-up meeting at Stennis on August 12- 13, 1999 1ed to a Precision Agriculture Funding Program called Ag 20/20. In November, another Ag 20/20meeting was hosted by ARS in Beltsville, Maryland. A variety of existing programs in precision agriculture were presented at this meeting. Quite possibly, if the one time Section 401 funding is distributed, there may be some funding that REE would be directed to put into this program.
• To bolster relations with Stennis and the precision agriculture community, SUNEI coordinated a joint NASA-Stennis/LGU poster on precision agriculture at the January 2000 Farm Bureau Mtg. NASA-OES, Space Grant, and LGU Cooperative Extension Services are working together to pilot three Geospatial Extension Agents in Arizona, Mississippi, and Utah. These positions have all been recently filled. Three more extension specialist in geospatial technologies will be piloted in FY2001 at different LGUs. There will be an April 2000 meeting of this group.

DOE:

• SUNEI delegates met with Bob Harris at DOE and Ron Buckhalt at USDA who are working together on the interagency research and education Bioenergy Initiative that the Administration kicked off with an Executive Order in August 1999. This Initiative includes bioproducts from agriculture and natural resources, as well as biofuels and biomass energy. DOE will host staff persons from USDA to working in their Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office to better coordinate efforts. There will likely be funding for this initiative, but exact program and funding decisions have not been determined. The Senate passed authorizing legislation in February for this Initiative, but the House has not considered the legislation as of March 2000.
• On August 29-30, there will be a meeting called Carbon: Exploring the Benefits to Farmers and Society in Iowa. A variety of LGU, USDA, DOE, and other individuals are coordinating this. The National Corn Growers Association may also have similar plans for a series of workshops that deal with carbon sequestration.
• SUNEI shared the Carbon Sequestration Roadrnap and the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan with a cadre of LGU scientist involved in this research. The CSREES representative to the Global Change Task Force submitted comments to DOE's request for USDA review.

USDA and Agriculture Partnerships:

• SUNEI is an Ag-Earth Partner for the second year and is sponsoring 18 water quality exhibits for Earth Day Activities in Washington in April 2000. The Project Coordinator has been asked to serve as the Policymaker Education Chair and will develop congressional and association relationships through this role.
• SUNEI made comments to USDA on the implementation of Section 406 the new Integrated Account to encourage regional management of the program along with a variety of other ESCOP representatives on December 2, 1999.
• CSREES representatives briefed SUNEI on plans that USDA will implement the President's Executive Order on Invasive Species. In response, CSREES has discussed possibilities for an ecoregional invasive species program for FY2001.
• SUNEI continues to attend the USDA Remote Sensing Coordination Committee (RSCC) and report relevant information to the SUNEI Geopsatial Technical Advisory Committee (GTAC). The GTAC will continue to provide input to the CSREES Representative on the RSCC. Likewise, SUNEI keeps the SUNEI Weather and Climate Technical Advisory Committee (WCTAC) abreast of USDA Weather and Climate Coordination Committee (WCCC) activities.

NSF:

• SUNEI met with Margaret Lienen, the new environmental liaison at NSF on February 17, 2000. Dr. Lienen expressed interest in continuing the Waters and Watershed Program. She also stated that NSF is concerned with archiving of environmental data and long term collection of consistent and standard data. Dr. Lienen stated that the LGUs should participate in a workshop of the LTER sites in August in New Mexico on these issues, and that there should be better exchange between LTER and SAKS datasets. In particular, reliable weather station information and the upgrading of monitoring equipment was a consideration for NSF at this time. We also discussed the possibility of her participating in the joint ESCOP Summer meeting in Denver. There is also another meeting in New Mexico in June in which LGUs might want to participate.

LGU Multi-State Research and Education Committees

• In coordination with the WCTAC meeting in Washington, SUNEI reported to the NC-94 Committee on Weather and Climate issues. The WCTAC has prepared a draft white paper on Weather and Climate Research and Education needs of LGUs.
• SUNEI reports to the NCS-5 Water Quality Committee when they meet in D.C.
• SUNEI assisted the S-273 Water Hydrology: Development and Applications of Comprehensive Ag Ecosystem Models Committee with their Washington, D.C. meeting by lining up speakers from different agencies to meeting with the group.
• SUNEI intends to facilitate communications between the NE-187 Turf Pesticide Committee and EPA-OPP.
• SUNEI will prepare a listserv of participating Animal Waste Initiative faculty and will engage the S-275 Animal Waste Committee in preparing a consortia animal waste proposal under Natural Resource Management of Section 401 Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAS).
• SUNEI will engage the W-190 Water Quality project which is predominately natural resource economists, NE-187, NCS-5, and S-273 to ask their interest in putting together a national water quality proposal under the Integrated Account (406) to address some of the research, monitoring, and modeling issues of TMDLs and the necessary education of land use owns to meet the new Clean Water Action Plans that states have been funded through EPA Regional Offices to develop.
• The Project Coordinator has been invited to both Virginia Tech and Cornell Universities to participate in funding seminars to discuss interagency partnering efforts and federal research and education initiatives that are being developed.

2. Broad Plans for the Upcoming Year:

SUNEI will continue to strengthen and broaden the engagements with EPA and NASA and will expand partnership activities to include other agencies (e.g., DOE, EPA-OW, NOAA, NRCS, and the Forest Service). We also intend to continue to dialogue with OSTP and participate in relevant USDA Remote Sensing and Weather and Climate coordinating committees. SUNEI will continue to identify and communicate with LGU faculty experts in different environmental areas, announce funding opportunities, and serve in a liaison capacity for LGU faculty with federal environmental agencies.

There is an interest in assisting EPA and NASA and other agencies with their budget efforts that would directly benefit the SAES and LGU System programs. SUNEI has been working to define an environmental portfolio that would be used to select priority areas in different agencies. AESOP has also asked SUNEI to identify specific funding lines in agencies where the LGU System can have an impact on congressional testimony. Both EPA and NASA have requested matching funds for mutually beneficial competitive grants programs. No formal mechanism appears in place for appropriate budgeting. Recently, SUNEI representatives contacted the ESCOP and ECOP Budget chairs to discuss the concept of the Section 406 Integrated Activities account and its impact on the water quality lines for interagency leveraging, but it doesn't appear that this strategy will come into fruition. SUNEI will focus its efforts this year on specific environmental funding initiatives in a variety of agencies that may benefit LGUs. SUNEI might also work with the broader NASULGC effort to track federal funding lines for environmental research and education dollars.

3. Requests for Approval of Special Activities:

Due to the fact that SUNEI may need to approach the Directors with a realigned Strategic Proposal for funding, the Project Coordinator asks that the Steering Committee consider the Discussion Paper on the Redirection of SUNEI and provide the Secretariat with some guidance for a revised Strategic Proposals to be submitted to ESCOP for their review this summer in Denver.

• The final version of the GMO was done in February.
• Daryl Lund, Cornell University, is the chair of Food Safety Committee with about 20 committee members.
• A penultimate draft will be sent within the next two weeks.
• At the April 2000 ESCOP Executive Committee meeting, the committee will look at the proactive aspects of the Farm Crisis Task Force and hope to develop a plan.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

• Constructed the Workforce Preparation Initiative System Assessment, which is a web-based searchable file that provides leads to curricula and expertise on workforce development throughout the United States.
• Initiated a review of potential e-business/e-commerce applications in rural areas with implications for farmers and agribusinesses.
  · Participated in a national forum for rural leaders on how telecommunication can be used to build communities.
  · Identified issues of accessibility to broad-band communications in rural communities.
• Enhanced home-based businesses through training extension personnel to work with them and co-sponsored an innovative home-based business conference.
• Funded research resulting in four reports on the success of self-help tools related to both traditional and fledgling economic development policies.
• Initiated revisions in Take Charge, a popular publication that leads participants through a community action process.
• Supported regional participation in a conference on equity capital crucial to the future of rural America sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
• Assisted the National Small Stores Institute in a collaborative effort to help retailers become more competitive.
• Provided coordination for the food technology centers at land-grant universities to meet the needs of micro food entrepreneurs and linked nonprofit organizations working with such entrepreneurs with the technical expertise in food processing and product development in universities.
• Created new partner organizations with sustainable agriculture groups and small farmers to provide quality ingredients to micro food processors and developed a user-friendly electronic communication tool so that micro food entrepreneurs may more easily access regional food technology resources.
• Identified labor-force retention as a major constraint in value-added rural enterprises and worked with state programs to help communities and firms retain workers.
• Integrated community development extension within the region with manufacturing extension.

Program Area 2: Linking Natural Resource Industries, including Agriculture, with Community and Environmental Resources

• Created a web-based annotated bibliography on community and watershed indicators of environmental quality and social well-being, resulting in measures that can be used to conserve, protect and enhance communities, watersheds and water quality.
• Created a workbook for measuring the local and regional impacts of economic and community development processes used to enhance rural community sustainability.
• Assisted participants in a local community food project in understanding and evaluating progress toward development of a secure community food system.
• Identified measures of local and regional impacts of economic and community development processes used to enhance sustainability of rural areas.
• Co-sponsored with the other Regional Rural Development Centers a conference on the impact of urban sprawl on conservation efforts.
• Stimulated the creation of an urban-based food system that enhanced both the and income generation opportunities of low-income residents in rural and urban areas.
• Located and reported measures of local and regional impacts of economic and community development processes used to enhance rural sustainability.

Program Area 3: Increasing Community Capacity to Deal with Change

• Provided Y2K outreach services through train-the-trainer programs for those serving agriculture producers and manufacturers, small-business owners, 1994 tribal colleges, and rural government officials.
• Created a guide for mapping the spiritual and cultural assets of Native American students.
• Forged linkages between rural and urban grassroots leaders through a program on strengthening rural-urban connections.
• Created a community process for measuring success in community-building efforts.
• Designed a community-based process for dealing with key rural issues, including economic development and land use.
• Identified and shared existing extension efforts in community-based programs in workforce preparation, including welfare to work, work to work, and school to work.
• Facilitated research design and training for a regional research project on the impacts of welfare reform on households in rural areas.

Program Area 4: Increasing Social Viability through Enhancing the Self-reliance of Families and Communities

• Evaluated the rural Empowerment Zone (EZ)/ Enterprise Community (EC) Initiative as a locality-based program to reduce rural poverty and increase community empowerment and provided EZ/ECs with tools necessary to do continuous self-evaluation.
• Participated in a public issues dispute resolution symposium that developed methods to build local capacity to handle controversial issues.
• Identified and shared across the country existing Cooperative Extension efforts in community-based programs in workforce preparation, including welfare to work, work to work, and school to work.
• Facilitated research design and training for a regional research project on the impacts of welfare reform on households in rural areas.

Program Area 5: Facilitating Development of Policies that Enhance the Well-Being of Rural People and Small Towns

• Strengthened relationships with State Rural Development Councils in the region by attending local and national meetings and sponsoring regular conference calls among SRDC directors.
• Initiated research to determine what happens when a new frontier of agricultural technology is combined with a new frontier of telecommunications and information technology.
• Co-sponsored participation in the rural health community development training academy that developed community-based efforts related to rural health systems.
• Consulted on sustainable communities at a conference intended to broaden the range of partners served by the regional rural development centers and others.
• Started efforts to build capacity with the 1994 tribal colleges in the North Central region.
• Identified necessary social factors for the success of alternative value-added agricultural enterprises in rural areas.
• Analyzed ways to increase the autonomy of local areas to set their own agendas for a sustainable future and mobilize resources to build toward those futures.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

• The basic issue is a deep-seated animosity within congressional appropriators.
• Mandatory money is a source of many things; the money becomes available sooner when it can be spent. There was no methodology in place that gave the appropriators any oversight.
• In 1999, the appropriators put language in the bill so that they could not manage the money and did not realize that it had a two-year length.
• There is no fear in losing the Fund for Rural American grants that were made in January; the initiative funds are not yet obligated.
• The House is upset about this and has language prohibiting it. There is speculation that it is staff driven; not member driven.
• Critical issues:
  • The Senate is opposed to any type of supplemental bill. If they deal with the supplemental bill later in the year the money would be available.
  • The bill that the language prohibiting funds is supplemental and does not offset any restrictions on spending.
  • It is better to push forward and claim use of the funds. There are no matching funds.
  • The Secretary of Agriculture has sent a letter to both the House and Senate reiterating that we have use for the IFAFS and FRA.
  • A supplement to the RFP will be published and the date for proposals will be extended until May 22 (this is not definite - check your e-mail messages for updates). CSREES is expanding the call for proposals to include an additional area that relates to pest management programs.
    • Genomics and biotechnology (were two separate parts of the law that were incorporated). Expecting to emphasis a few consortia projects, particularly in genomics but will still have single PI projects also. Hoping to fund between 100-120 consortia projects. Biotechnology area - answering straight forward questions that persist - animal and human implications, public concerns, etc. Do not want to overlap with what NSF/NIH is doing in the genome area. Expecting about $5 million on genomics.
    • Nutrition and health and food safety. The expectation is that the bulk will concentrate on nutrition. Looking at the work that focuses on plant and animal nutrition. A unique area is behavioral issues in nutrition. The Secretary is very committed to understanding the eating patterns, i.e., what is the relationship between obesity and mothers and the development of obesity with children; do obese mothers overfeed or under feed their children because of their weight issues, etc.
• The public meetings for IFAFS will not happen but the web-based program training may happen; uncertain as to when.
• The focus on new uses for agricultural products is complementary to the biobased information.
• Environment and natural resources. Will be adding an additional program - 14.5 in the RFP. This will focus on a number of issues related to the proliferation of regulatory constraints on pesticides.
• Farm efficiency and profitability - will be looking at relevancy to small and medium size farms. A lot of emphasis will be to link research and extension.

406 Authority

• This issue is much more controversial to extension than research.
• Six areas of funding: water quality; food safety; PIAP; IPM; FQPA, methobrome

Plan of Work

• Moving forward on the issues with POW.
• George Cooper has changed the date until June 1, 2001. The first annual report will be due December&nbsp31, 2000.
• There are four POW reports on the CSREES web site that CSREES thought were good.

National Multistate Research Manual

• Consensus in Washington/federal level is that it is done. What we have now is close to what the product will be.

Action Requested: Information only

Action Taken: None.