One Hundred Fifty-Seventh Meeting

March 21-23, 2000

Breckenridge, Colorado

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

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

15. Summary and Review of Assignments - Tom Payne

Agenda Item: 4.0
Presenter: Tom Payne
Agenda Item Title: Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair
Background Information:

As chair of NCRA, I have been involved with the following:

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item: 5.0
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: Executive Director's Report
Background Information:

Since the September 1999 meeting of the NCRA, the Executive Director has participated in the following meetings:

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.

Agenda Item: 6.1
Presenter: Fred A. Cholick
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Report
Background Information:

ESCOP meeting was held February 15-16, 2000 in Washington, DC at NASULGC Headquarters. See complete agenda and minutes at www.escop.msstate.edu/ ESCOP Workroom highlights.


ECOP Legislative Committee Meeting Minutes

February 22, 2000

Stanley R. Johnson, Chair

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
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.


 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.
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.

Agenda Item Number: 6.2
Eldon Ortman
Agenda Item Title:
Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee/NC PIAP

A number of developments and events have contributed to a busy schedule for the subcommittee:

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.



Summary of the ESCOP/ECOP National IPM Committee

September 14-15, 1999

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

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.

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.

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



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

Agenda Item Number: 6.3
Presenter: Eldon Ortman
Agenda Item Title: Image Enhancement

The North Central Region was the pioneer in image enhancement. Dave King has taken a position as Director, Indiana Higher Education Television System. He retains a minimal time appointment with Purdue and was instrumental in image enhancement. The leadership should be at the national level - Ron Pardini, Nevada State University, is leading this activity.

The ESCOP Planning Committee has put a lot of work into image enhancement. The multistate research projects should be at the regional level.

The new SAES 422 forms will serve as a source for image enhancement. The forms will be completed by administrative advisors to regional projects. It will be up to the administrative to make it happen!

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: When the new SAES-422 form is in place, as an administrative advisor to a regional project, please complete these forms in a timely and efficient fashion.

Agenda Item Number: 6.4
Presenter: Darrell Nelson
Agenda Item Title: GPRA/POW

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item Number: 6.5
Presenter: Darrell Nelson
Agenda Item Title: SARE Program

The meeting to review the proposals submitted to SARE is scheduled after the NCRA meeting; the summary of awards will be announced at the July meeting.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item Number: 6.6
Presenter: Tom Payne
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Budget and Legislative Subcommittee

The committee has responded positively to the procedure developed by the Planning Committee for identifying research priorities and advancing initiatives. The procedure used at the SAES Workshop in 1999 will be adjusted slightly and used at the 2000 Workshop.

The committee has met by teleconference and e-mail and discussed the process and working budget document (see agenda below). The committee chair has maintained contact with the Advocacy and Marketing Committee to coordinate joint activities such as C-FAR. The chair or vice-chair have been in weekly contact with AESOP regarding timely budget issues.

The committee chair and vice-chair have participated in several joint teleconferences with ECOP and also with the BOA Budget Committee. We have also been in contact with the CSREES Administration to offer assistance in the development of processes to implement Section 401 and 406. Thus far attempts to meet with ARS have not been successful.

An update on committee activities will be given at the ESCOP meeting.

ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee Teleconference
Thursday, January 20 @ 1:30 CST

1. Roll Call - Lower
2. Review of FY 2000 Budget Process - Nipp (Including the Fund for Rural America and Section 401 $120 Million Competitive Initiative)
3. Update on Status of FY 2001 Process - Payne
4. Review of ESCOP 2001 Draft Budget (attached in Excel) - Payne
5. Plans and Procedures for Developing ESCOP Budget at BOA Budget Committee Meeting in February - Payne and All Committee Members
6. Other Activities Planned for BOA FY 2001 Budget - Payne
7. Summary - Payne

At the ESCOP meeting, Drs. Payne and Lower distributed an updated "Working Copy" of the proposed changes for USDA's CSREES budget in FY01. Dr. Payne discussed changes line-by-line noting how/why ESCOP's proposals were different from the President's proposed budget. In discussions regarding programs in Section 406, an amended motion by Drs. Coston and Ham to add $5 million for "Grazinglands" was approved. Dr. Daughtery will send Dr. Nipp a paragraph regarding the "Grazinglands" addition. This will be included in a concept paper written by AESOP which tells why the issues and dollars requested are important.

Interest was expressed in an historical analysis of Hatch funding to show OMB why increases in base funding are needed. The analysis should show how the system has accounted for the funding it receives. Dr. Helms was asked to prepare this analysis.

Action Taken at the ESCOP meeting: Motion approved (see above) to add $5 million to "Grazinglands" in Section 406. (This vote serves only as a recommendation for consideration by the BOA Budget Committee.)

Following the BOA meeting (February 15, 2000) and the ESCOP meeting (February 15-16, 2000), teleconferences were held with ESCOP, ECOP, BOA and AESOP to finalize the 01 BOA budget and to prepare appropriate documents for CARET and subsequent meetings.

Action Requested:
For information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item: 6.7
Presenter: Dale Vanderholm
Agenda Item Title: SUNEI Update
Background Information:

The SAES/USDA-CSREES National Environmental Initiative (SUNEI) Steering Committee will meet on March 9, 2000. Plans for the coming year will be discussed at that meeting and will be communicated to NCRA during the SUNEI report on the agenda for this meeting.

The SUNEI Executive Committee will meet with CSREES Administrator, Charles Laughlin, on March 9 to discuss CSREES commitments to development of program linkages with other agencies and the role of SUNEI.

Action Requested: Information only. See attached.

Action Taken: None.


SUNEI Project Coordinator Briefing
March 10, 2000

1. Current and Recent Activities:




USDA and Agriculture Partnerships:


LGU Multi-State Research and Education Committees

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.

Agenda Item Number: 6.8
Presenter: George Ham
Agenda Item Title: Food Safety Committee and Farm Crisis Task Force Committee
Background Information:
Approval was given at the September 1999 ESCOP Executive Committee meeting to form task forces for GMOs and Food Safety.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item Number: 6.9
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: Genomics and Genetic Resources
Background Information:

Genomics Subcommittee:
This is under the ESCOP Science and Technology Committee

The Genomics Subcommittee is chaired by Randy Woodson, Purdue University, and is responsible for offering guidance on the sciences of genomics.

An initiative on genomics was developed in January and seeks support dollars for genomics research. The grants will be competitive. The initiative is quite complex and involves support through numerous federal agencies. A steering committee chaired by Colin Kaltenbach, University of Arizona, will offer guidance for implementing the genomics initiative.

Genetic Resources Subcommittee:
This is under the ESCOP Science and Technology Committee

The subject matter involves germplasm diversity and support for gene enrichment and plant breeding.

A plant breeding initiative, joint between public and private sectors, is proposed in a series of documents developed by Ken Frey, Iowa State University. ESCOP has agreed to work on implementing this initiative and has notified Ken Frey of our acceptance of this charge.

Action Requested
: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item Number: 7.0
Presenter: Gerald Klonglan for Willis Goudy
Agenda Item Title: North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
Background Information:

Date: March 22, 2000

To: North Central Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

From: Willis Goudy, (Interim Director, NCRCRD)

The North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (NCRCRD), located at Iowa State University, is one of four regional centers coordinating rural development research and education throughout the United States. The mission of the NCRCRD is to initiate and facilitate rural development research and education programs to improve the social and economic well-being of rural people in the region. NCRCRD also provides leadership in rural development regionally and nationally by identifying, developing and supporting programs on the vanguard of emerging issues.

Examples of NCRCRD efforts are described below and grouped within five program areas.

Program Area 1: Improving Economic Competitiveness, Diversity and Adaptability of Small and/or Rural Communities

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

Program Area 3: Increasing Community Capacity to Deal with Change

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

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

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item Number: 8.0
Presenter: Eldon Ortman
Agenda Item Title: NCS-3/ IPM Grant Awards for FY00
Background Information:

The NC-IPM proposals address the development of improved pest management systems for horticultural and agronomic crops. A primary emphasis is to develop solutions to problems that result from the implementation of FQPA. These types of projects will be funded in regional research ($400,000), research/extension ($400,000), and extension $70,000). Number of proposals received: 30 research, 15 research/extension, and 5 extension.

The Peer Panel will meet in Indianapolis, IN on March 9-10, 2000 to review the proposals.

Action Requested:
Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item No: 10.1
Presenter: Colien Hefferan
Agenda Item Title: CSREES Update
Background Information:

Status of Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) and Fund for Rural America

406 Authority

Plan of Work

National Multistate Research Manual

Action Requested: Information only

Action Taken: None.