Integrated Multistate Activities – Eric Young and Ron Brown

• Types of Multistate Activities
• Roles and Responsibilities of Administrative Advisors
• Expectations for Extension Component of SERAs
• Review Criteria for Appropriate Integration

Agenda Item J1.
Introductions and States' Budget Situations

Presenter: All

Background:

Most states in the southern region are facing budget issues either in FY09, FY10 or both. Some institutions have had all personnel take non-paid furloughs; others have restricted out of state travel and hiring; and others have implemented various actions to deal with budget restrictions.

As part of participant introductions, Experiment Station and Extension Service directors will provide brief state by state highlights of their budget situations.

In meeting discussion:

• As part of participant introductions, Experiment Station and Extension Service directors provided brief state by state highlights of their budget situations.
  
• AL 14% additional 9% additional 3%
• AK 2-2.5% increase one time. Next year expecting cut
• FL $9.6M reversion
• GA 6% in 2008, 9.2% 2009 year, 2010 expecting 2-4% additional
• KY 9% 2009, 2% additional in mid year. Expect next year both to be permanent
• LA 4.4% now with a plan in July for an additional 20%
• MS  NA
• NC 7.7% in 2008-2009 one time, may be permanent in 2009 – 2010. Governor has frozen travel and most funds last Friday
• OK legislation still in session plan for 0 -5% reversion. Oil revenues have been stable
• Puerto Rico new government in January. Proposed cuts $6M over the next 3 years.
• SC 30% reversion proposed
• TN July 2008 2% lower, non recurring 3.5% in 2009, 8.5% in July 2009.
• TX no cut in FY09, speculation flat to up a few percent in FY10.
• VA Extension and Exp station 5%
• Virgin Islands. 4% and 10%

Action Requested: Information only.

Agenda Item J2.
Farm Bill Implementation, New Administration & Congress

Presenter: Tim Sanders

Background:

Title VII of the 2008 Farm Bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) requires establishment of the National Institute for Food and Agriculture or NIFA by October 1, 2009. The Statement of Managers in the Conference report states congressional intent that The Institute “will be commensurate in stature with other grant-making agencies across the federal government, such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. The Managers intend for The Institute to be an independent, scientific, policy-setting agency for the food and agricultural sciences, which will reinvigorate our nation’s investment in agricultural research, extension, and education.” To accomplish these objectives, “all authorities under CSREES are transferred to NIFA, and all programs currently under CSREES will continue under the Institute.

After the Farm Bill was enacted, the BAA’s Policy Board of Directors established an ad hoc panel, the Farm Bill Implementation Assistance Committee (FBIAC), to provide input and assistance to USDA as it moved to implement the various provisions of Title VII of the FCEA08. The FIBAC provide formal recommendations to USDA on five separate occasions:

• Agriculture & Food Research Initiative (09-24-2008)
• Specialty Crops Research Initiative (10-28-2008)
• Science Roadmap (08-26-2008)
• Structure of NIFA and REEO (10-27-2008)
• Structure of NIFA response to CSREES RFC (1-27-2009)

To view these documents: www.create-21.org/implementation.htm

In addition, the FBIAC, BAA, and Cornerstone, continue to work with career staff at USDA and Obama staff—transition and current—on USDA/NIFA structural concerns and provided recommendations for personnel and operations. FBIAC continued to work with House and Senate offices and the professional staff of the Agriculture Committees with regard to USDA implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill:

• Sought technical corrections to several 2008 Farm Bill provisions
• Participated in numerous conference calls with the FBIAC and its leadership
• Worked with NASULGC staff to facilitate the initial meeting with representatives of the system and the REEO division chiefs on Dec. 8
• Arranged and attended a meeting between House and Senate Agriculture Committee staff and representatives of the system to discuss the 3(d) issue on Dec. 8

The Land-grant system and Cornerstone are working with a new set of actors as the Obama administration continues to form its team and to forge changing policies. Click here for a summary of some key positions that may be relevant to research and extension

In meeting discussion:

• FBIAC is working on responses
• The announcement of the Undersecretary for REE and Director of the National Institute has been delayed.
• The name most prominent for Undersecretary is Rajiv J. Shah, MD from the Gates Foundation.
• Congress
• Democrats 50 plus majority, first time clear majority in a long time
• House Democrats have an agenda they’re pushing
• Senate Democrats have 59 votes and need 60 votes to prevent filibuster
• There’s a big difference between the House and Senate
• Administration wants to push earmarks back to ’96 level, House is agreeing.  Senate does not agree
• Stimulus bill was done completely by Congressional leadership and appropriations committee was not involved until the end
• Details on FY’10 released on May 11th
• Ag budget may be done by Thanksgiving
• All mandatory funds were maintained in ‘09
• FY’10 budget – BAC is working to concentrate on themes rather than lines so CSREES and LGU can work together, particularly in FY’11

Action Requested: Information only.

Agenda Item J3.
CSREES, NIFA, and AFRI Report

Presenter: Frank Boteler

Background:

Dr. Frank Boteler, CSREES liaison to the southern region will provide an update of CSREES, NIFA, and AFRI, using the attached report.

In meeting discussion:

• Influence of REEO will be primarily dependent on budget priorities
• NIFA Director reporting to Secretary would put them in a better position
• Emphasize the role of science

Action Requested: Information only.

Agenda Item J4.
Working with the New REE Structure

Presenter: Frank Boteler, Ed King and Tim Sanders

Background:

The new Farm Bill has mandated a number of changes in the structure of the USDA Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area.  The Under Secretary is now also the USDA Chief Scientist appointed by the President for six years.  CSREES is being transformed into the National Institute for Food and Agriculture with a Director who is also appointed by the President for six years and reports to the Under Secretary.  In addition, the Under Secretary’s office has been organized into six Divisions, known collectively as the Research, Education, and Extension Office (REEO), that are responsible for coordinating all activities of the REE Mission Area.  The six Divisions, each headed by a Division Chief, are:

• Renewable energy, natural resources, and environment
• Food safety, nutrition, and health
• Plant health and production and plant products
• Animal health and production and animal products
• Agricultural systems and technology
• Agricultural economics and rural communities

The REEO is charged with assisting the Under Secretary in three primary areas: Strengthening science and science leadership, improving national coordination, and enhancing outreach and awareness; across all of USDA’s intramural and extramural research, education and extension activities.  Implementation of this charge will be guided by an REE roadmap, which is to be developed by mid-September, 2009.  Stakeholder responses to the questions listed below, which will appear in the Federal Register soon, will provide input and direction to the REEO Division Chiefs as they develop this roadmap.

REEO Questions for Stakeholders:

1. What types of current and future critical issues (including those affecting citizens, communities and natural resources) does Agriculture face that no USDA entity could address individually?
2. What criteria should USDA use to prioritize science (i.e., research, education and extension) investments to address these issues?
3. How might USDA better coordinate science among its various agencies and with its partners?
4. Provide examples where agricultural sciences are successfully coordinated for maximum benefit. Why are they successful?
5. Provide examples where agricultural sciences are not coordinated effectively. Why is coordination lacking?  What are the barriers?
6. What else might USDA do to improve coordination of science; enhance its ability to identify issues and prioritize investments; and elevate its role in science implementation and coordination?

The purpose of this session is to hear the perspective of the three presenters on how we can take advantage of the new structure to enhance the partnership and working relationship between the LGU system and USDA/REE and to have an open discussion on this topic.

In meeting discussion:

• Influence of REEO will be primarily dependent on how it directs budget priorities
• A lot depends on if NIFA actually becomes a national institute in NIH/NSF sense or remains an sub agency within the REE mission area
• NIFA Director reporting to Secretary would put them in more influential position
• Elevate role of science in REE
• Achieve deeper integration
• More collaboration with outside entities

Action Requested: Information only.

Agenda Item S1.
Call to Order, Welcome, and Approval of Agenda

Presenter: Clarence Watson

Action Requested: Approval of agenda

Action Taken: Meeting agenda approved. (Morrison/McLellan)

Agenda Item S2.
Approval of September 22, 2008 SAAESD Meeting Minutes and Interim Actions

Presenter: Clarence Watson

Background:

Minutes from the September 22, 2008 fall meeting in Traverse City, MI

Interim Actions:

• Appointed John Liu (AL) as the Southern Region Representative to the ESCOP Science and Technology Committee
• Appointed Bill Brown (TN) as the Southern Region Representative to the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee
• Appointed Bob Shulstad (GA) as the Southern Region Representative to the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee
• Appointed Bill Brown (TN) as Southern Region Representative to the ESCOP NIMSS Oversight Committee
• Appointed Bill Brown (TN) as Southern Region Representative to the One Solution Stakeholder Group
• Appointed Bill Brown (TN) as Administrative Advisor for the Southern Region for NRSP-1 "Research Planning Using the Current Research Information System"
• Appointed Mark Cochran, (AR) as the Southern Representative on the Southern Rural Development Center Board of Directors.
• Appointed John Liu, (AL) as Administrative Advisor to SERA17 “Minimizing Agricultural Phosphorus Run-off Losses for Protection of the Water Resource”
• Appointed John Russin, (LA) as Administrative Advisor to SERA25 “Turf”
• Appointed George Askew, (SC) as Administrative Advisor to SCC-80 “Plant Breeding ”
• Appointed Jonathan Edelson, (OK) as Administrative Advisor to S-1034 “Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and Weeds”
• Appointed Steve Workman, (KY) as Administrative Advisor to SERA-6 "Methodology, Interpretation, and Implementation of Soil, Plant, Byproduct, and Water Analyses"

Action Requested: Approval of minutes and interim actions.

Action Taken: Meeting minutes approved. (Morrison/McLellan)  Interim Actions approved (McLellan/Morrison).

Agenda Item S3.
ARS Report

Presenter: Ed King and Darrell Cole

Background:

In meeting discussion:

• 3 to 4 new programs for FY’09
  • New programs
    • Cereal rust disease
    • Colony collapse disorder
    • Fish viruses
  • FY’09 budget increase
    • 300,000 for NC – cereal rust
    • 100,000 for LA  - colony collapse
    • 200,00 for TN – fish viruses
  • SY’s flat and staring to decrease through attrition
  • Line item programs in ARS budget were all cut 6%
  • $42 Million for earmarks will continue to be reduced
  • No details for FY’10 yet
  • Priorities for ARS
    • Childhood obesity
    • Climate change
    • Bio fuels
    • World hunger
  • Will ag research be a priority with new administration?

  Action Requested: Information only.

Agenda Item S4.
Budget & Legislative Report

Presenter: David Boethel, Bob Shulstad, and Bill Brown

Background:

The Budget and Legislative Committee has a full complement of members with Bruce McPheron stepping in as the chair elect. The committee will hold monthly conference calls on the 4th Tuesday of each month.  The BAA- Budget and Advocacy Committee met Feb. 9-10 in Washington DC to discuss priority setting and processes for upcoming budget years.

Status of budgets

• FY 2009 Budget: An omnibus budget bill was developed shortly after the Stimulus Bill was completed. The final appropriations mark is as follows: Hatch, $207,106,000; AFRI, $201,504,000; McIntire-Stennis, $27,535,000; Evans-Allen: $45,504,000; special grants, $84,449,000. There will be an additional $112,000,000 in mandatory research programs e.g. SCRI, biomass, etc.
• FY 2010 Budget: Obama submitted his budget to Congress on April 13th.  Priorities: STEM, Human nutrition, obesity, biofuels, environmental sustainability
• FY 2011 Budget: OMB has made requests to Departments.  According to Colien, the numbers look good.

BAC Process
The BAC approved the proposed process and timeline.
The Policy Board is seeking to discourage proliferation or expansion of the list of BAA priorities to obtain a focused list of a few priorities.

2010 Priorities Discussion
All lines must have support from the section presenting; there was a vote of the group to include any item on the list of priorities. This committee and the EDs reviewed the one page justifications for Hatch, AFRI and McIntire-Stennis and modified as needed.  Two categories were created: Targeted Budget Lines and Other Initiatives Supported by the BAC.  For 2010 budget details see http://www.nasulgc-bac.com/kb.htm 

Themes document
The BAC will be using a themes document in the future (see below). There was some discussion about not including specific programs or institution types because doing so might limit the vision for the program. There is very strong support for leaving such citations in the document. The Budget and Legislative Committee is currently discussing how to best present the ESS priorities (see ESCOP B&L Priorities Discussion document for details).

THEMES AND ISSUES DRIVING BUDGET PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
(Budget and Advocacy Committee working document as of 2/17/09)

1. Competitive, Sustainable and Productive American Agriculture
1. Food and agriculture security
2. Profitable farms and rural economies
3. New technologies
4. Success in a competitive global agricultural environment

Budget and Advocacy Recommendations:

• Increase the capacity of all land grant institutions to provide innovative and responsive research and extension on competitive, sustainable, profitable farms and rural economies.
• Allocate full funding for new programs in organics and specialty crops at mandatory levels.
• Significantly expand AFRI funding for integrated studies of plant and animal production systems.
• Continue to expand funding for innovative technology transfer and information systems, for example eXtension.
• Support investments that expand our system’s reach to nontraditional and underserved farms and agribusinesses, beginning farmers, and other new sources of talent and innovation, for example, by growing the capacity of 1890 and 1994 land grants.
• Enhance funding to strengthen the capacity of the Land Grant system to contribute to and function effectively in a globalized agricultural economy.

2. Food Systems, Nutrition and Wellness
1. Nutritional behavior and education
2. Food safety
3. Global food security

Budget and Advocacy Recommendations:

• Substantially increase AFRI funding for nutrition, food safety and food-related behavior.
• Build university research and extension capacity in food systems and wellness.
• Sustain recent gains in the land grant system’s capacity to meet demands for nutrition education.
• Contribute to the global imperative for improved food security, better nutrition, and good health as a matter of national security and well-being.

3. Sustainable and Renewable Resources
1. Biofuels and bioproducts
2. Energy efficiency and conservation
3. Soil, air and water quality in a changing climate
4. Ecosystem services of forest, range and agricultural lands

Budget and Advocacy Recommendations:

• Support full funding of new mandatory Farm Bill programs related to biofuels and the bioeconomy.
• Grow the nation’s capacity for natural resource-related research and extension by growing funding for critical budget lines, for example, McIntire-Stennis.
• Expand climate change research partnership.
• Build university research and extension capacity in energy efficiency and conservation.

4. Workforce Development and Education
1. Develop the next generation of scientists and professionals for food, agriculture, and natural resource stewardship
2. Youth education and the STEM pipeline
3. Diversity and access to high quality educational opportunities

Budget and Advocacy Recommendations:

• Review and evaluate all current USDA programs supporting instruction and academic programs, for example, Institution Challenge Grants and Graduate Fellowship Grants, with the goal of significantly expanding support for education by NIFA.
• Invest in NSF-IGERT-like programs within AFRI.
• Increase funding to sustain the instructional capacity of all institutions providing food and agriculture education.
• Increase funding to expand access of underserved and nontraditional constituents, for example, programs delivered by 1890s, 1994s, Hispanic-serving and other land grant institutions.
• Increase support for programs that incentivize collaboration among agricultural institutions, including those that build distance and web-based learning resources.
• Enhance support for science-based programs, like SET, in 4-H.
• Support programs designed to strengthen collaboration in agricultural science and education with partners around the world.

In meeting discussion:

• Small budget lines – how to handle – put in AFRI
  • Themes will be used to justify the budget lines

  Action Requested: Inforamtion only

  Action Taken: Put small budgets in AFRI with specifics in report language to reduce number of lines. (Guthrie/McLellan) approved

  Action Taken: Themes – Production, Nutrition, Resources and Workforce – details for these themes should be left to individual states interaction with their delegation.  Need talking points document for each theme that can be customized by delegation (Shulstad/McLellan) approved

Agenda Item S5.
Communication & Marketing Report

Presenter: Jerry Arkin, Mary Duryea, and Ron Lacewell

Background:

At it's November 10 meeting the ESCOP Executive Committee decided to deactivate the ESCOP Communication & Marketing Committee and put all it's effort in this area through the System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee.  The Podesta Group was contracted in April 2008 to carry out a marketing campaign for the LGU system.  Below is a letter (with attachments) from ESCOP Chair Steve Pueppke reporting on the first year's activities and evaluation feedback to Podesta and next year's marketing plans.

In meeting discussion:

• Marketing materials should concentrate on serious science, not dumb-down the topics so average person can understand

Action Requested: For Information

Agenda Item S6.
Science and Technology Report

Presenter: Nancy Cox and John Lui

Background:

The Committee met on February 3-4, 2009 in Washington, DC. The Committee met jointly with the Social Science Subcommittee on the afternoon of February 3.  The Minutes are posted at
http://www.nera.umd.edu/ESCOPSciTechFeb2009/Feb2009Minutes.doc

NIFA Research Priorities
The Committee used the results of the survey and discussion at the ESS annual meeting to develop a set of recommendations to NIFA leadership concerning research priorities for AFRI and the funding initiatives from the Farm Bill.  ESCOP Chair Steve Pueppke sent the recommendations and the results of the survey to Dr. Colien Hefferan on November 19, 2008.

Multistate Research Award
The 2008 award was given to NC-229 “Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Disease: Methods for Integrated Control, Prevention and Elimination of PRRS in United States Swine Herds”. The group was honored at the NASULGC Annual Meeting in Chicago on Nov. 9-11, 2008. The 2009 announcement was released on December 19, 2008. The deadline for submission to the regional associations was February 27, 2009. The Committee will receive the regional association nominations by April 30 and will submit its recommendation for the national winner to the ESCOP Executive Committee by May 15.

Science Roadmap
A major focus of discussion of the February 3-4 meeting, including the joint session with the Social Science Subcommittee, was the development of a process for developing a new Science Roadmap. It was decided that rather than attempt to simply update the previous Roadmap and a new Roadmap should be developed.  However, the information collected during the last process and subsequent updates will be used as background. A subcommittee with members from both the S & T Committee and SSSC under the leadership of Travis Park prepared a proposal for utilizing the Delphi process for identifying and confirming grand challenge areas and respective research objectives for the Roadmap.  The proposal can be seen at http://www.nera.umd.edu/ESCOPSciTechFeb2009/ESCOPSciRoadmapProposalFeb2009.doc

It is proposed that deans, directors of research, Extension and academic programs in 1862, 1890 and 1994 institutions, and key faculty in each institution be asked to participate in the process. It was also suggested that this part of the process could be managed by the PBD Emerging Issues and Future Direction Task Force to insure buy-in from the entire system. Once the challenges and objectives are confirmed, the Committee will work on identifying current gaps in knowledge and resources, strategies and metrics to measure progress.
Future Meetings
The next face-to-face meeting of the Committee will be in February, 2010 in Washington, DC. The Committee plans to again meet jointly with the Social Sciences Subcommittee.

Action Requested: Information only

Agenda Item S7.
MRC Report

Presenter: David Morrison

Background:

1.) Background:
The Southern Multistate Research Committee is composed of Ed King, Tom Klindt, David Morrison (Chair), `Craig Nessler, Clarence Watson, and Eric Young.  During the 12-month period since the 2008 Spring Meeting, the MRC reviewed and approved 5 S-project proposals (S1040 – S1044) and 1 SCC proposal (SCC13) with most of this activity occurring in the summer and fall of 2008.  Four of the five S-project proposals reviewed were approved upon initial review, which indicates an improvement in the overall quality of proposals received by the MRC compared with previous years.  The MRC continues to urge AAs to provide proposal writing committees with copies of Appendix H (the MRC Evaluation Form), which will alert these committees to the evaluation criteria being used by the MRC and should increase in the number of proposals approved upon initial MRC review.

The following is a current status report, prepared by Donna Pearce, of MRF activities sorted by termination date.  This information is also available on the southern directors’ web site.
STATUS OF TERMINATING MRF PROJECTS, SCC’s and SERA’s

2.) Background: The MRC held its annual meeting on February 1, 2009, in Atlanta, GA in conjunction with the annual SAAS meeting. Members of the SERA Review Committee (SERA-RC) also were invited to attend to facilitate discussion on extension-related activities and expected outcomes for all types of MRF activities.   Attendees were:  MRC – David Morrison, Clarence Watson, Tom Klindt; SERA-RC – Reuben Moore, Susan Barefoot, Jimmy Henning and Eric Young (member of both).

The following items were discussed:

A. Extension/Outreach Expectations for Multistate Projects

1. For SERA projects, extension activities need to be significant and balanced with research activities. There needs to be at least one objective that is extension focused with associated methods and expected outcomes.
2. S and CC projects need to have an outreach/education plan that identifies specific stakeholders and describes how the activity’s outcomes will be relayed to them in a useable manner.
3. SERA-RC has refined the SAAESD guidelines to reflect the requirement for extension activities, but the NIMSS Appendix B. instructions do not indicate any difference for a CC and an ERA.
4. Eric agreed to talk with the other EDs about modifying the instructions in Appendix B. to have separate instructions for CCs and ERAs.
5. Examples of good SERA proposals need to be identified to help AAs see what is expected.
6. SERA expectations will be discussed as a joint session agenda item by Eric and Ron Brown at spring meeting in San Juan (Agenda Item J6 – morning of April 15).

Action Requested:  For information

B. National Excellence in Multistate Research Award (SAAESD Nominee)

1. Using the process and criteria for selection of our regional nominee approved at the 2008 Spring Meeting, the MRC reviewed the 3-page nomination forms of four S projects that were submitted for consideration.  These four projects were: S-294, S-1030, S-1032, and S-1039. 
2. conference call was held on March 31, 2009, in which all MRC members participated.  The four submitted projects were discussed and ranked

Action Requested: 

1. The MRC recommends that SAAESD approve S-1039 (Biology, Impact, and Management of Soybean Insect Pests in Soybean Production Systems) as the Southern Region nominee for the National Excellence in Multistate Research Award (see attached nomination document)
2. NOTE: This is the same proposal SAAESD submitted last year for national consideration.

Action Taken:  S-1039 nomination – approved

Agenda Item S8.
Executive Director's Report

Presenter: Eric Young

Background:

SAAESD

Farm Bill Implementation Assistance
The five regional research Executive Directors are participating on NASULGC’s Farm Bill Implementation Assistance Committee to represent the region’s research directors’ interests in this activity.  This committee was formed last September and has been submitting comments and suggestions on behalf of the BAA to the REE Under Secretary’s office and others with regard to implementing all aspects of the 2008 Farm Bill within the REE Mission Area.  The EDs usually compose the initial drafts of these documents, which are subsequently reviewed and revised by the whole committee.  Comment documents have been submitted on the Specialty Crops Research Initiative, National Institute for Food and Agriculture, REE Roadmap, Under Secretary/Chief Scientist position, Research, Education, and Extension Office, unrecovered indirect costs as SCRI match, and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.  We are also working with the PBD Emerging Issues Task Force to develop a series of white papers on future high priority issues as input to the REE Roadmap.

Southern Region Bioenergy
I represented SAAESD at a listening session conducted by SAFER on the Southern Bioenergy Roadmap and continue to act as the primary communication contact for SAAESD’s membership in that organization.  The Southern Bioenergy Roadmap was released in February 2009 and copies of the executive summary will be distributed at the spring meeting.  The full Roadmap can be seen at http://www.saferalliance.net/projects/roadmap.html.

SAAESD and ESCOP Web Sites
The new SAAESD web site is complete and the transition from the old site should be done by the spring meeting.  The direct URL for our new site is http://saaesd.ncsu.edu  the site is completely redesigned to be more user friendly to navigate and locate information commonly required.  Also, as the host of the ESCOP web site, we have converted the entire site to HTML so that adding to and editing the site is very easy and may be done remotely by the other regions’ Administrative Assistants in addition to Donna.

Integrated Multistate Projects
Ron Brown and I continue to work on enhancing the quality of our integrated multistate projects, particularly the SERAs, through better defining and communicating the expectations for extension oriented outcomes and integration of the research and extension activities.  We also are working with the SERA Review Committee to refine the criteria we use to evaluate the potential for integration in SERA project proposals.  Toward this end, the SERA Review Committee and the Multistate Research Committee had a joint meeting in February during the SAAS conference.  This meeting led to the agenda item on integrated multistate activities during our second joint ASRED/SAAESD session at the spring meeting.

Vegetable Crops Initiatives
SAAESD is supporting the National Vegetable Crops Initiative, which is a partnership of industry, academia and government formed in fall 2006 to develop a strategic plan for the continued growth and sustainability of the vegetable crop industry in the United States.  This is part of an effort by CSREES national program staff to identify high priority issues and needs across all specialty crops.  The NVCI official host is now United Fresh in D.C. and David Gombas, Senior Vice President is the Secretary.  I am a member of the steering committee representing SAAESD.

Grantsmanship Workshops
SAAESD is again co-sponsoring the CSREES Competitive Programs and Writing Successful Grants workshops this fall Washington, D.C. with NERA in October.  Also, our office will manage the travel grants offered by CSREES to participants of minority serving institutions; including soliciting applications, reviewing applications along with Dan Rossi of NERA, approving grant awards, processing travel reimbursements, and disbursing funds.

Food Systems Leadership Institute
I’ve completed the Food Systems Leadership Institute program designed to improve leadership skills within the context of the entire food system.  I found the three residential sessions, conference call seminars, and interaction with other participants quite valuable and informative for enhancing my leadership and knowledge of the food system.  My individual project was to provide primary leadership for planning and implementing of the 2008 New Deans, Directors, Administrators, and NPLs Orientation Workshop program and coordinating the program with relevant aspects of meeting facilities and infrastructure arrangements.  Leadership roles included developing program session topics and content; indentifying and inviting presenters; communicating workshop information to potential participants; facilitating program flow and supporting speakers on site; and coordinating post-workshop evaluations.

NAREEE Advisory Board Specialty Crops Subcommittee Listening Session
The NAREEE Board Specialty Crops Subcommittee began holding listening sessions last fall to receive stakeholder input on specialty crop industry priorities.  The first three sessions were scheduled for northwest and northeast, so I contacted NAREEE Executive Director to inquire about holding a listening session in the south.  The subcommittee was agreeable and the University of Florida research and extension administration offered to host.  The listening session occurred on March 13 in Orlando at the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association headquarters.  Over 25 industry and university leaders involved with specialty crops production, sales, research, and extension attended the session and offered comments to the subcommittee members.

SAAESD Assignments
NRSP-8, National Animal Genome Research Program, Administrative Advisor
S-1014, Mineral Controls on P Retention and Release in Soils and Soil Amendments, Administrative Advisor
AC-6, Horticulture, Administrative Advisor
SERA Review Committee
Joint Cotton Breeding Advisory Committee, Tecoman Winter Nursery Steering Committee, and Cotton Winter Nursery Executive Committee
Southern Region IPM Center Steering Committee
Southern Region Water Quality Program Advisory Committee
T-STAR Caribbean Basin Advisory Group
Liaison to the Association of Southern Region Extension Directors
Liaison to the Association of Research Directors (1890s)

ESCOP

BAA Policy Board of Directors System Integration Task Force
The System Integration TF was asked by the PBD to assist CSREES in its Farm Bill-mandated streamlining of the Plan of Work and Annual Report process.  As lead ED support for the System Integration TF, I met initially with Robert MacDonald and Bart Hewitt of the CSREES Office of Planning and Accountability to determine how to proceed on this issue.  It was agreed that Bob and Bart would draft a plan for how CSREES staff would interface with LGU research and extension representatives to implement 5-year reviews of the POW/AR process with the objective of obtaining recommendations on streamlining the reporting processes.  The draft plan would be reviewed and revised by the Task Force and ultimately presented to the PBD for endorsement.   This was accomplished over the past six months through a series of meetings, conference calls, and electronic reviews and the final plan was approved by the PBD at their meeting on March 10.

USDA/REE Energy Strategic Plan
I participated on the Goal 1 (Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource-based Energy Production) Leadership Team during the first year implementation of the USDA/REE Strategic Energy Science Plan.  This involved developing action plans and targets for this goal and participating in the REE Energy Summit in October 2008.  Implementation of this plan is currently on hold pending appointment of the new REE Under Secretary and their direction on how to proceed.

BAA Policy Board Structural Changes
The Administrative Heads Section has proposed changes in the PBD membership composition which includes adding the Budget & Advocacy and Farm Bill Committees’ chairs and the ESCOP and ECOP chairs as voting members and eliminating the non-land grant and insular institutions’ voting positions.  The BAC and FBC membership will also be changed to reflect the same representation.  All of these changes will be decided by a BAA vote within the next couple months.  In addition, the AHS will be hiring an Executive Director to work with their section and support the chairs of the PBD and its standing committees.  The research and extension EDs will continue to support the ESS and CES representatives on these committees and work with the new AHS’s ED to increase involvement of the AHS in day-to-day BAA activities.

NRSP Issues
Submission of two proposals for new NRSPs this year has raised some questions regarding the initial regional reviews of new proposals and whether or not the current guidelines ensure a thorough and effective review and input to the NRSP Review Committee deliberation.  Also, there continues to be a lack of consensus among the directors regarding the purpose and criteria for a legitimate NRSP activity.  As the ED support for the NRSP-RC, I will be working with the chair, Craig Nessler, and the committee to develop recommendations for modifying the NRSP Guidelines to address these issues which will be discussed at the ESS meeting in September.

ESCOP Chair-elect
I am working with Clarence Watson and the other EDs to develop the SAES/ARD workshop program for this September’s meeting in Oklahoma City.  As ESCOP Chair-elect, Clarence has the responsibility for local arrangements for this year’s regional and ESS business meetings and workshop and for the workshop program.

ESCOP Assignments
BAA Policy Board of Directors (support for ESCOP representative)
NASULGC Farm Bill Implementation Assistance Committee
National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee (Executive Vice-Chair)
BAA System Integration Task Force (Executive Vice-Chair)
NIMSS Oversight Committee (Chair)
NRSP Review Committee (Executive Vice-Chair)
BAA Farm Bill Committee
Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies Advisory Committee
National Multistate Coordinating Committee
eXtension Internal Partners Advisory Council

ESCOP Officers
Chair – Steve Pueppke (MI State)
Chair-elect – Clarence Watson (OK State)
Executive Vice Chair – Arlen Leholm (NCRA)
Past Chair – Bruce McPheron (Penn State)
Section Representative to BAA Policy Board of Directors – Nancy Cox (UKY)

Next Meeting
ESCOP, July 29-30, Minneapolis, MN (Joint COPs Meeting)

Action Requested: Information only.

Agenda Item S9.
Monsanto’s Sustainable Yield Initiative

Presenter: John Purcell, Technology Director

Background:

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S10.
Industry Constraints on Variety Testing and Biotech Crop Research

Presenter: Reuben Moore and Rick Roeder

Background:

Until last year hybrid rice company RiceTec, the only company with commercial rice varieties, provided hybrid seed and a small amount of funds to include their commercial varieties in the Arkansas Rice Variety Trial (yield testing, N requirements DD50, disease testing, etc). For the most part the Arkansas Rice Variety Trial contains rice submissions from the public programs at Arkansas and LSU and the information is shared publicly.  Starting last year RiceTec asked University of Arkansas researchers to sign research agreements that asks us to acknowledge their IP rights, to not do seed quality or seed blending research, to not subject their seed to any DNA analysis, to review research results prior to publication in performance testing publications, to review plot locations and layout/protocols of trials, and to consent legal jurisdiction to Texas.  Basically they want us to sign a seed grower agreement. The problem in all this is our farmers depend on unbiased, objective, and fair testing of all commercial seed to make their seed selections for the next growing year.  In addition they also now refuse to pay fees to test their seed. LSU and Mississippi State also have the same problems and concerns about testing rice hybrid varieties.

Reuben Moore and Rick Roeder will introduce this issue for open discussion.  For general information on the concerns regarding restrictions on biotech crop research see the recent NY Times article “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research”

In meeting discussion:

• SCC-33 group has discussed issues like this
• Limit type of research

Action Requested: Should SAAESD develop a common response to these restrictions?

Agenda Item S11.
New NRSP Proposal - National Animal Nutrition Program

Presenter: Nancy Cox

Background:

A new NRSP is being proposed entitled National Animal Nutrition Program.  To view the proposal and propsed budget click here. The merits of this proposal will be discussed and comments/questions sent to the NRSP Review Committee to be considered in their deliberations.

Click here for PowerPoint.

In meeting discussion:

• Database for feed
• Web based information center
• Coordinating for each species with committee
• Need to see increasing industry support and decreasing MRF support
• NRC is not maintaining updated information
• Does NRC have a plan to update the databases?  What is their intention?
• Importance of info is clear but appropriate funding is key question
• 1 Million program with $350,000 MRF support
• Need to re-do the budget
• Meat check off funds go to end product support, not production

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S12.
New NRSP Proposal - The Specialty Crop Regulatory Assistance Program

Presenter: David Boethel and Mark McLellan

Background:

A new NRSP is being proposed entitled The Specialty Crop Regulatory Assistance Program.  To view the proposal and proposed budget click here. The merits of this proposal will be discussed and comments/questions sent to the NRSP Review Committee to be considered in their deliberations.

In meeting discussion:

• IR-4 type mechanism for biotech specialty crops
• Some comments on funding as others
• Lack of funding support from industry
• ARS will also be dealing with this
• If biotech is going to benefit non-major crops mechanism for this has to be made available
• Needs more partnership with industry

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S13.
NRSP-1
Research Planning Using the Current Research Information System (CRIS)

Presenter: Bill Brown

Background:

NRSP-1 Budget Request Summary

In meeting discussion:

• New front end for CRIS for 416/417 with some new information
• Testing in May and rollout in Fall
• Budget the same

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S14.
NRSP-3
The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)

Presenter: Bill Dugas and Rich Grant (NRSP-3 member, Purdue)

Background:

Please see the NRSP-3 Renewal Proposal and the Budget and Narrative for this project for more background.

Click here for the 2007 annual report.

In meeting discussion:

• $50,000 is < 2% of funds
• NRSP mechanism is important for other 98% of budget

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S15.
NRSP-4
High Value Specialty Crop Pest Management

Presenter: Mark McLellan for Mary Duryea

Background:

For over 45 years, the IR-4 Project (NRSP-4) has been the major resource for supplying pest management tools for specialty crops by developing research data to support registration clearances.  IR-4 is a national multi-state project designed to link and facilitate research efforts with land grant universities, SAES, CSREES, ARS, commodity organizations and the crop protection industry. 

Specialty crops include most: vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs, spices, floral, nursery, landscape, turf and Christmas trees.  They are high value/low acreage crops and make up about 33% of U.S. agricultural production and $45 billion in sales.

Some 2008 Accomplishments include:

• 999 Specialty Crop Use Registrations: US EPA established 241 permanent tolerances based on IR-4 submissions. These decisions support 999 new specialty crop use registrations for conventional and reduced risk pest control.

• Biopesticide Programs Funded 29 Projects: The Biopesticide Grant Program funded 29 research projects to provide data to support expansions on a number of biopesticide registrations.  IR-4’s efforts supported 18 new or modified products which could provide 128 new biopesticide uses. 

• 3,095 Ornmental Species Impacted by IR-4 work: The Ornamental Horticulture Program data supported 7 new registrations and  1 registration amendment from EPA.  These 2008 successes impacted 3,095 plant species.

• Ornamental Program Provides $1.2 billion to the US GDP:  In 2007, a Michigan State University study reported that the IR-4 Food Use Program contributes $7.7 billion annually to the US gross domestic product (GDP).  In 2008, a report found that the IR-4 Ornamental Program provides an additional $1.2 billion to the US GDP.

• Combined Work with Canada Increases Productivity:  In 2008, the IR-4 Project conducted 19 cooperative studies with Canada’s Pest Management Centre.  These included 47 Canadian and 137 US IR-4 field trials.  The shared workload saves both countries and leads to internationally harmonized pesticide tolerances for the US and Canada. 

ACTIONS:
NRSP-4 Project Extension Request:
The Project, NRSP-4: High Value Specialty Crop Pest Management was approved for the period of October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2009.  To develop a strategic plan and accomplish the CSREES formal review, we asked for and received a one-year extension with a new expiration date of September 30, 2010.

In December, 2008, we held a Strategic Planning Workshop with stakeholders.  We have developed a strategic plan that is currently being reviewed and will be part of the CSREES formal peer review of the NRSP-4 project in May, 2009.  During the review, the panel will be able to examine progress since the last review and evaluate the new 5-year strategic plan.  IR-4 will then be able to include the findings of the CSREES review panel and the strategic plan in the NRSP-4 Project proposal to be submitted in the fall, 2009.

NRSP-4 Budget Request Summary:
Attached is the budget request summary for NRSP-4 for FY 10.  Please note, the request for FY 10 is the same amount ($481,182) stated in the Project Statement that was previously approved. The off-the-top, multi-state funds that NRSP-4 receives are provided to partially cover the salaries of senior management and their support team at the national coordination headquarters office located at the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.  All research activities for NRSP-4 are funded in total by CSREES Special Grants, ARS contributions and unrestricted gifts.

NRSP-4 Budget Request Summary

In meeting discussion:

• Huge return on investment

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S16.
NRSP-5
National Program for Controlling Virus Diseases of Temperate Fruit Tree Crops

Presenter: Reuben Moore

Background:

NRSP will terminate at the end of September

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S17.
NRSP-6
Inter-Regional Potato Introduction Project: Acquisition, classification, preservation, evaluation and distribution of potato (Solanum) germplasm

Presenter: Richard Guthrie

Background:

PROGRESS AND PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
A. Introduction of New Stocks

• John Bamberg and Alfonso del Rio (US Potato Genebank) had a successful collecting expedition to the Guadalupe Mountain National Park (GMNP) in west Texas in late September of 2007 (supported with extramural funding from USDA). They collected four new populations. These were the first S. stoloniferum germplasm from Culberson County, TX and first potato collections from Eddy County, NM.
• A total of 5 accessions were assigned PI numbers in 2007: one primitive cultivar from Peru and 4 accessions collected from the SW United States. These accessions are now available from the NRSP-6 Solanum germplasm collection.
• The NRSP-6 web page (http://www.ars-grin.gov/nr6) has been updated to include all new stocks and screening information. Clients who have ordered from NRSP-6 in the past four years are contacted three times per year informing them of new materials that are now available either as true seed, tubers, in vitro plantlets, or herbarium samples. A new service we are offering is dried ground leaf samples for DNA testing. For foreign requesters this is useful since there are no quarantine restrictions on dried tissue.

B. Preservation and Increase of Stocks

• In 2007, a total of 155 accessions were increased as botanical seed populations. A total of 672 potato spindle tuber viroid (PSTVd) tests were performed on seed increase parents, seedlots and research materials. Germination tests were performed on 1120 accessions, ploidy determinations were made on 35 accessions, and tetrazolium seed viability tests were done on 55 seedlots.
• Progress was made on several international collaborative projects. We are working with CIP on a project to assess the impact of agrichemicals on pollen and seed viability of wild species (oral presentation at the PAA07). Agrichemicals depress reproduction and diversity of wild potato germplasm, suggesting remote populations should be targeted for future collecting by genebanks. John Bamberg visited Peru in May 2007 to harvest calcium and frost plots. A low cost source of calcium applied to research plots located in the highlands of Peru resulted in an increase yield of 60% for some clones. Work is now being planned to identify genetics of stocks that respond well to added calcium.

C. Classification

• Dr. Spooner et al. have published and are working on five different areas of potato research: 1) molecular markers for genebank studies, 2) cultivated potato origins, 3) relationships in wild tomatoes and potatoes, 4) the predictive power of taxonomy relative to disease resistance data, and 5) a linkage map showing late blight in wild potatoes.

BUDGET (FY 2007-08)

PROPOSED BUDGET (FY 2009-10)

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S18.
NRSP-7
A National Agricultural Program for Minor Use Animal Drugs

Presenter: Garry Adams

Background:

Please see the NRSP-7 Renewal Proposal and the Budget Summary for this project for more background.

In meeting discussion:

• Approve a 2 year budget up front to get ahead of curve

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S19.
NRSP-8
National Animal Genome Research Program

Presenter: Eric Young

Background:

NRSP-8 Budget Request Summary

Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S20.
S-009 Report and Budget Request

Presenter: Jerry Arkin

Background:

MULTI-STATE RESEARCH PROJECT S-009
PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION

Crop collections of importance to the Southern Region have been supported since 1949 through a joint partnership, designated as Multi-State Research Project S-009, between the USDA, ARS, Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit and the Southern State Agricultural Experiment Stations. For 60 years, the S-009 Project has served as a major component of the National Plant Germplasm System, and its activities have markedly improved crop technology in the Southern Region, the U.S., and abroad, by providing plant genetic resources and associated information to scientists and educators.

Accomplishments for 2008:

• The collection totals 88,820 accessions of 1,509 species and 253 genera with 87.1% available for distribution and 95.5% backed up at Ft. Collins, CO.
• Currently, 58,665 accessions or 68% of the seeded collection have at least one inventory sample stored at -18 C.  Seed longevity is improved by storage in -18 C rather than 4 C.
• Germination tests were conducted on 11,253 accessions.  Since 2002 (when germination testing began), tests have been conducted on 56,584 accessions (65.6% of collection).
• A total of 30,883 accessions (13,563 in S-009 region) were distributed in 882 orders to users worldwide in 2008.  This is the highest number of distributions since 2003.
• Genetic diversity in the sweet sorghum and mung bean collections was characterized utilizing SSRs, TILLING, and/or Eco-TILLING. A real-time (RT) PCR assay was developed to detect sweetpotato leaf curl virus and over 300 sweetpotato accessions were tested for presence of this virus.  A RT-PCR assay was developed to identify high oleic acid in peanut, and peanut accessions and F1 crosses were tested for high oleic acid.
• Peanut germplasm line CRSP-14 was released by USDA-ARS and University of Georgia.  This germplasm resulted from crossing South American landrace peanuts with adapted varieties, and provides new resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus and leaf spots.
• A plant exploration trip was conducted in southern Florida to collect several native populations of switchgrass.  These collections increased the genetic variability of the U.S. switchgrass collection, which has been widely requested for use in biofuel research.
• Peanut accessions were characterized for variation in resveratrol (antioxidant) content and oil and fatty acid composition.  Accessions of several legume species were characterized for anthocynanin index and flavonol composition.  Castor bean accessions were evaluated for oil content. Accessions with high oil content were identified for possible biodiesel utilization.
• A total of 200 accessions of chile pepper were evaluated for capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin content.  These are the major compounds that contribute to pungency (heat) levels in pepper fruit.  Methods to control pepper mild mottle virus in pepper accessions were evaluated.  Two markers were selected for use in chile pepper species identification from evaluations of several chloroplast and nuclear DNA markers.
• Characterization and evaluation data were taken on over 1,100 vegetable, peanut, legume, warm-season grass, annual clover, and other accessions in the field.
• Additional accomplishments are reported in the S-009 annual report and minutes (www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=9592).

Financial Situation:  Though significant accomplishments have been achieved, financial resources for this project are becoming a major concern.  Since 2004, several full-time positions (one curator/plant pathologist, bioinformatics support, and several technicians) have been terminated when vacant and fewer students/part-time employees have been hired in order to maintain financial resources for operations.  In 2008, two federal peanut technicians left and their positions were terminated.  Personnel have been reassigned to cover these losses, but it is impacting operations.  Regenerations are reduced for crops with extensive labor or supply requirements, such as peanuts which had 50% fewer regenerations last year than 5 years ago.

S-009 Budget Request
Increase the S-009 FY2010 personnel budget in the amount of $8,000 for part-time labor for seed
regeneration for a total S-009 FY2010 budget of $417,723.  This budget proposes no increase in salary for personnel based on the University of Georgia salary projections.

Plant Gentric Resources Conservation and Utilization Funding Request for FY10

Action Requested: Approval of S-009 FY2010 Budget Request.

Action Taken: S-009 budget approved (McLellan/Nessler)

Agenda Item S21.
SAAESD Excellence in Leadership Award Presentation

Presenter: Clarence Watson

Background:

Clarence Wastson, SAAESD Chair, will present the annual SAAESD Leadership Awards.

Action Requested: None

Action Taken: Drs. Tom Klindt, TN and David Morrison, LA were presented the SAAESD Leadership Award

Agenda Item J5.
BAA Policy Board of Directors Report

Presenter: Nancy Cox and Jon Ort

Background:

Items from the Policy Board Meeting on March 10-11, 2009 in San Antonio, TX will be discussed briefly. For more details see the notes from that meeting below.

1. Chair Remarks

• NASULGC assessment increase discussion led AHS to set up Organizational Review Committee (Scott Smith, chair)
  • Peter has withdrawn request for assessment increase, but asked for support for a NASULGC energy initiative, PBD will consider this request
    • Peter said that NASULGC’s energy initiative needs to compliment institutions’ efforts in this area
    • Initiative proposal is being developed now
• Inclusion of funds for AFRI in the stimulus package was worked on hard by Cornerstone and others, but AFRI money dropped out in conference
• NIFA director needs to report to Under Secretary because that position is congressionally confirmed and therefore will carry more weight in D.C. than the director position.  This reporting line has been accepted by PBD as appropriate

2. CSREES Report

• Deputy Secretary nominated but confirmation hearings not scheduled yet.
• NIFA transition is in progress to prepare for the new Director, who will have at least a couple options for the detailed organizational structure
• Preserving a few open positions for Director to fill
• FY 2010 budget draft should come out April 13, base budget looks solid, increases in programs that benefit rural areas
• Approaching $100 Million per year of funds that come from other agencies through CSREES under various cooperative agreements
• One way to increase NIFA budget would be to seek funding for a large new initiative jointly with another agency

3. Assessments

• Invoice went out in January at same level as ‘08

4. Cornerstone Contract

• Renewed contract for FY‘09 and are in discussion on new contract for FY‘10

5. BAC Report

• Cornerstone has done a great job
• FY‘09 budget up ~ $45 Million
  • 4 % average increase in formula lines
  • $10 million increase in AFRI
• FY‘10 discussion started with 14 system priorities and ended up with 13
• Cornerstone did 2-pager information sheets for use with Congress, again with details needed for budget request form to help staffers
• CARET meeting this year went much better, simpler message, choose one or two of system’s priorities and work on them with their delegation
• Three overarching priorities for FY’10
  • Adequate capacity funding
  • AFRI up to authorized level
  • Mandatory programs at full funding
  • Also, any increases contained in the President’s budget will be backed
• BAC also identified “endorsed” budget lines that aren’t part of system priorities, but will be supported
• Thematic approach for FY‘11
  • Choose a few real issues to push and translate them into budget lines
  • Four themes emerged
    • Sustainable production
    • Natural resources
    • Work force development
    • Renewable energy

6. Farm Bill Committee

• Farm Bill implementation Assistance Committee was created as an ad hoc group, but needs to be reconciled with the Farm Bill Committee
• Farm Bill Committee currently only has a chair, DC Coston
• Farm Bill Committee needs to be reappointed now, sections need to provide nominations for representatives
• Farm Bill Implementation Committee will terminate when regular Farm Bill Committee is reappointed

7. System Integration Task Force

• Working with Bob MacDonald and Bart Hewitt on a 5-year review process for the POW/AR to help streamline those processes and make the reports more useful to all
• Review team will be composed of 10 LGU reps, including directors and reporting/accountability staff, and 5 CSREES reps
• Motion to approve proposed POW/AR review process – approved unanimously

8. Emerging Issues Task Force

• Bobby Moser is chair
• Task force met and discussed how to provide input into REE Roadmap
• Initially developing a response to REEO operational questions is the priority, these will appear in Federal Register soon
• Programmatic based white papers will be developed over the next few months, which will be given to REEO and used by BAC to help set future budget themes

9. Exhibit on Hill

• 32 exhibits in 38 available spaces
• Congressional attendance was lower than past years
  • 500 - 600 people total
  • ~10 Congressional members
• Doesn’t seem to have the intended Congressional impact, so poor cost/benefit ratio
• Motion to not support the Exhibit on Hill in future  - Scott Angle/Phil Baird - approved

10. International Programs Report

• NASULGC initiative for Africa, RFP got > 300 proposals
• Two new CRISPs being developed
  • Horticulture and Water
• Also a nutrition one will be developed in future
• Lugar/Casey food assistance act is moving forward, ad hoc LGU group has helped edit this bill

11. Joint COPs and Policy Board of Directors Meeting

• PBD on Tuesday July 28 in Minneapolis
• Budget and Advocacy Committee on July 27
• Joint COPS on July 29-30

12. NASULGC Conference

• November 17-20, D.C.
• Part of Administrative Heads Section concern is expense of conference and lack of time to do BAA and section business

13. Policy Board of Directors Elections

• APS (current rep has renewable term)
• CES
• 1890 (current rep has renewable term)
• Non-Land Grant (not if membership changes are passed by BAA)

14. FSLI and LEAD 21

• Currently new FSLI class has 22 enrolled and LEAD 21 has 65
• Both programs are operating on the margin of what is economically feasible
• Should there be a system assessment to partially support the base costs of these leadership programs?
• FSLI advisory board may need to be reconstituted now that Kellogg grant has terminated so it represents the various groups supporting this program
• May need to examine if FSLI and LEAD 21 should be restructured to be more integrated and gain some cost efficiencies

15. Administrative Heads Section’s Organizational Review Committee Recommendations

• Key drivers
  • Dissatisfaction with NASULGC meeting format and schedule
  • Relationship with CSREES federal partner
  • Proposed increase in NASULGC assessment and overhead rate
• Budget and Advocacy Committee membership and lack of true priority setting
• Administrative Heads Section felt they were too uninvolved in BAA activities
• Five recommendations

1. Enhance relationship between Policy Board of Directors, Budget and Advocacy Committee and Farm Bill Committee

• PBD should review and approve committees’ key actions
• Move to accept, Nancy Cox/Scott Angle – approved unanimously

2. Policy Board of Directors membership changes

• Add Budget and Advocacy Committee and Farm Bill Committee chairs
• Add ECOP and ESCOP chairs
• Drop non-Land Grant Universities and insular institutions’ voting positions
• Original recommendation amended to provide non-voting position for insular institutions
• Move to accept, as amended to include a non-voting seat for insular institutions, Scott Angle/Jon Ort – approved for BAA vote, 6 yes, 2 no, 1 abstained

3. Membership of Budget and Advocacy Committee and Farm Bill Committee should reflect representation on Policy Board of Directors
• Move to accept, Ken Esbenshade/Nancy Cox – approved for BAA vote, 6 yes, 2 no, 1 abstained

4. Administrative Heads Section needs to increase leadership role in BAA business and other activities

• Move to accept, Ken/Phil – approved unanimously

5. (a) Policy Board of Directors should negotiate a formal MOA with NASULGC that defines BAA/NASULGC relationship and rights & responsibilities of both (b) An Executive Director position should be established to serve Administrative Heads Section and Policy Board of Directors

• Move to accept (a&b), Jon/Nancy – approved unanimously

• Board on Agriculture Assembly vote on Rules of Operation change
• Background and recommended changes for items 2 & 3 above will be sent out to BAA voting members by April 2
• Ballot will follow 30 days later with the two items as separate votes
• Negotiating committee to develop MOA with NASULGC
• Representatives from the five Sections, 1890 and 1994 representatives
• Two or three members of this group would do actual negotiations
• One new consideration for this MOA is that extension section has approved changing their national support staff to be 1 FTE with an office in DC and ¼ time of each regional ED dedicated to national level work.  However the location of national person in DC will be put out for bid and may not be at NASULGC.
• Section labeled “Note B” in Organizational Review Committee report will act as a preliminary outline for MOA

16. Budget and Advocacy Committee Chair Elect Position

• Dan Dooley had to resign from this position because he has been assigned additional duties at UC
• Jack Payne will contact possible replacements

17. CARET/Administrative Heads Section & Policy Board of Directors Meetings

• CARET/ Administrative Heads Section will be February 21-24 – Keybridge Marriott in DC
• Policy Board of Directors meeting – March 9-10 - Albuquerque

18. NASULGC Annual Conference

• Early registration $400.00
• Board on Agriculture Assembly time slots
  • Monday morning for Board on Agriculture Assembly
  • Monday afternoon for section meetings
  • Tuesday 10-2:00 pm for Policy Board of Directors

19. System Communications and Marketing Implementation Committee Conference Call

• Paul Coreil gave a summary of 2008 marketing efforts
• Motion from SCMIC to have the Committee report to the Policy Board of Directors
  • Motion tabled until BAA vote on changes in PBD membership
• Motion to ensure coordination between Budget and Advocacy Committee and Communications and Marketing Committee by appointing a BAC member to SCMIC – approved unanimously
  • Jack Payne will talk with Scott Smith to identify someone on the BAC that will be liaison with SCMIC
• Policy Board of Directors will wait to be sure this activity is sustainable before considering reconstituting the System Communications and Marketing Implementation Committee as a Policy Board of Directors task force

Action Requested: For Information only

Agenda Item J6.
Integrated Multistate Activities

Presenter: Eric Young and Ron Brown

Background:

For the benefit of the many new research and extension directors, a brief presentation will be given on the various types of multistate activities in the regional multistate portfolio.  Also, the roles and responsibilities of administrative advisors (both AES and CES) assigned to these activities will be reviewed and discussed.  A PowerPoint outlining the information to be presented can be downloaded here.

The second part of this session will focus on the expectations for the extension component of an integrated extension/research multistate activity (SERA) and the criteria used to evaluate a proposed integrated activity.  In 2004, the extension and research directors appointed a task force to make recommendations on how to enhance the integration aspect of SERA’s.  The context for this action included the following:

• There is an increased expectation for multistate cooperation
• There is an increased expectation for tangible outputs from research and extension
• There is wider use of information technology tools for information sharing, which can enhance the productivity of face-to-face meetings
• There is an expectation that SERAs continue to serve the purpose of sharing information on what each state is doing, but also to use the opportunity to plan and conduct other collaborative activities that improve research and extension in the region.

The task force’s recommendations have been implemented and the quality of SERA’s has generally improved over the past five years.  However, it is appropriate that the expectations and evaluation criteria of these integrated multistate activities be reviewed and refined as necessary at this time.  As background for this discussion, portions of the current guidelines and evaluation criteria for a SERA are listed below and the PowerPoint outlining information for this discussion can be downloaded here.

Purpose:
The two southern Associations, Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (SAAESD) and Association of Southern Region Extension Directors (ASRED), employ a mechanism to facilitate cooperative activities within the Southern Region. The designation for this purpose is the Southern Extension and Research Activity (SERA).

SERAs are intended to bring together researchers and extension specialists sharing a common problem, issue, or disciplinary interest. The general objective is to provide a functionally integrated forum to coordinate joint activities to address stakeholder needs.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts:
For each objective, identify any tangible outputs in research (eg. publications, collaboration, standard experimental protocols) and/or extension (eg. multistate programming, educational materials, modules), with output indicator(s) that will reflect in a quantitative or qualitative manner that the objective has been achieved. Provide approximate target date(s) for outputs.

For each objective, discuss the expected outcomes and/or potential impacts of the proposed activity. Examples of possible outcomes/impacts include, but are not limited to:

• Coordination of specific research and/or extension programs.
• Exchange of ideas and/or information/data.
• Generate interest in a specific research and/or extension area (e.g., a symposium or workshop).
• Publication of joint research and/or extension articles and/or review articles on a common issue.
• Evaluation and standardization of methods or techniques leading to the development of a common protocol or best management practice.
• Identification of critical/key research and/or education issues.
• Development of multistate curriculum materials for training of staff or customers.

SERA Evaluation Criteria:

1. Goals and objectives clearly stated and appropriate to an integrated activity involving research and extension.
2. There is a good potential to attain the integrated objectives and plan identified in the activity.
3. Potential outcomes from the activity are identified for both research and extension.
4. Activity is not duplicative with existing activities and addresses priorities in both research and extension.
5. Activity has moved beyond individual activities and ideas to a collective, integrated activity with appropriately balanced involvement of research and extension participants.

Agenda Item J7.
Southern Rural Development Center Report

Presenter: Bo Beaulieu, SRDC Director

Background:

The Southern Rural Development Center seeks to strengthen the capacity of the region's 29 land-grant institutions to address critical contemporary rural development issues impacting the well-being of people and communities in the rural South. Center goals are to:

• Stimulate the formation of multi-state research teams
• Coordinate the development and revision of educational materials and maintain a centralized repository of educational resources
• Organize and deliver high priority rural development research and educational workshops/conferences
• Provide leadership for the preparation of science-based rural development policy reports
• Build partnerships that link the South's land-grant university system with other key entities committed to rural development activities in the region

The SRDC released its new strategic priorities in 2007 and Dr. Beaulieu will report on recent activities that that the Center has launched that are designed to advance the Center and the Southern LGU’s work in these priority areas.  The three strategic priorities are; (1) Fostering civic-minded communities; (2) Building economically vibrant communities; and (3) Expanding opportunities for distressed and low-wealth communities.

Click here for PowerPoint presentation

Action Requested: Information only

Agenda Item J8.
Southern Region IPM Center Report

Presenter: Jim VanKirk, SRIPMC Director

Background:

SRIPMC status:  SRIPMC is mid-stream in the current 4-year funding cycle. We were relieved to learn that the new Farm Bill did not necessitate a re-competition of the IPM Centers RFA sooner than expected.
ipmPIPE:

• Background: the ipmPIPE (Pest Information Platform for Education and Extension) originated in 2005 in response to the threat of Asian soybean rust, an invasive disease pest of soybean and other legumes. The public funding effort since then has been managed through a series of contracts with Jim VanKirk, Director of SRIPMC at NCSU.
• Budgets: The public program was funded for 2006 ($2.77m), 2007 ($3.5m) and 2008 ($5.0 m) completely through USDA-RMA (Risk Management Agency) funds. This year RMA drastically slashed its contribution to $500,000. USDA-CSREES will contribute approximately $150,000. The program is redistributing and using remaining funds from previous years. The Soybean Check-Off has provided approximately $350,000 annually for several years and will slightly increase that amount this year. We are not projecting the ability to continue soybean-related components of this program beyond 2009 unless other funding sources are identified.
• Components: In 2007 the soybean rust component was followed by soybean aphid and “other legume” components. In 2008 a competition resulted in the addition of two components. CDM (cucurbit downy mildew) ipmPIPE, managed by Dr. Peter Ojiambo, NCSU Plant Pathology, is active across the US east of the Mississippi including parts of Canada, and is funded through 2010 ($900,000 total). The Pecan ipmPIPE, managed by Dr. Marvin Harris of TAMU Entomology, is active across 9 states of the pecan belt, and is funded through 2010 (approximately $450,000).
• Long term: the ipmPIPE Steering Committee and many partners continue to do what we can to make this vital and productive program sustainable. Doing so without a sustainable federal budget commitment is increasingly difficult.

Smith-Lever 3(d) Extension IPM funds. This year for the first time, federal support for state Extension IPM programs used a competitive funding process. This change, along with the timing of the competition, caused great concern. Key points that you may have already heard from your own IPM Coordinator include:

• Problematic timing issues with the RFA. USDA staff intends to address these.
• Southern states in general took the greatest financial hit from this change. It appears that funds formerly designated for “cotton states” have essentially been redistributed across the country.
• Recommendations from Southern IPM Coordinators stated at the March 26 listening session are echoed for the most part by other regions:
• Increase the cap on “coordination” component
• Remove caps on all commodity-related components
• Allow for mini-grants programs and similar approaches that enable IPM Coordinators to facilitate and catalyze IPM research, extension and education
• We did not reach consensus about overall per-state fund limits.

Friends of Southern IPM Awards: This small program is a resounding success. We spend minimal funds recognizing and rewarding honorees. As a result we have an opportunity to distribute timely, positive news stories that highlight both the excellent work of Land Grant universities and partners as well as the IPM approach. Award winners for this year are: Scott Ludwig, TAMU: IPM Educator; Amy Fulcher, UKY: Future Leader; Chris Mills, NC: IPM Implementer ; North Carolina Western Christmas Tree IPM Program, NCSU: Pulling Together; Southern Region School IPM Working Group: Bright Idea
Grants Programs: SRIPMC runs the internal IPM Enhancement Grants program, manages the competition for the S-RIPM program, and contributes to review of regional relevance for the PMAP program.

• IPM Enhancement Grants: Approximately $400,000 annual. 50% of SRIPMC direct funds are passed on through the IPM Enhancement Grants programs. The competition for this program is currently in process, but I may be able to share results by the day of the presentation.
• S-RIPM (Regional IPM Grants programs): Approximately $800,000 annual. FY 2009 competition completed but results not announced yet by USDA. Proposals submitted were back up (34) after a down year last year. Funding recommended for 2 Extension-only ($68,029), 3 research-only ($436,016) and 2 res/extension ($292,310). Five institutions recommended for funding. Recall that our region is the only one to use the evaluation project type – no proposals of this type were submitted.
• PMAP (Pest Management Alternatives Program): Approximately $1.4 million annual. This competition is currently in process. The RFA is occurring later in the calendar than usual, with a proposal submission deadline of mid-April. SRIPMC contributes regional priorities for the RFA, provides relevance rating of proposals from the Southern Region, and the Director observes and assists the technical panel.

The National Science Foundation Center for Integrated Pest Management (CIPM) was established in 1991 as an industry-member supported center to serve a lead role in technology development, program implementation, training, and public awareness for IPM. Today, the center is an active unit within the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at NC State University and is redefining itself as a non-membership entity to bring greater balance to its advisory panels and programs. Concurrently, the center is taking steps to function as the national IPM center to complement and promote Regional IPM Centers and other IPM stakeholders. CIPM’s recently revised mission is to foster the development and implementation of sustainable integrated pest management programs nationally and internationally through its newly described core functions to (1) manage and support research, extension and education programs (2) deliver science-based information (3) develop knowledge-based applications and (4) initiate and facilitate collaboration and action among IPM stakeholders to address urgent national topics and gaps. CIPM is an active grants management and IT partner with industry, the US government, foreign governments, and universities, resulting in an annual budget of over $7,500,000 and the employment of approximately 30 staff.

Click here for PowerPoint presentation

Action Requested: Information only.

Agenda Item J9.
Southern Regional Water Program

Presenter: Craig Runyan, So. Reg. Water Quality Planning Committee Chair

Background:

A presentation will be given on the overview of the Southern Regional Water Program. Click here for the Executive Summary Work Plan and Accomplishment Report

Click here for PowerPoint presentation

Action Requested: For information only

Agenda Item S22.
Chief Operating Officers Meeting Report

Presenter: Clarence Watson

Background:

In meeting discussion:

• Same budget as ‘09
  • Will not renew NC-FAR membership
  • Will renew SAFER membership

  Action Requested: None

Agenda Item S23.
Best Practices Session – Budgeting for New Faculty Hires

Presenter: Bill Dugas and Richard Guthrie

Background:

This will be a semi-structured discussion centered on issues related to budgeting for new faculty hires; including start-up packages, spousal hires, inter-college spousal hiring, technician and graduate assistant support, etc.  The session will begin with brief (10 min) explanations of case studies on this issue by Bill Dugas (TAMU) and Richard Guthrie (Auburn).  These opening remarks will be followed by open discussion about director’s experiences with this issue, including current situations, successes and failures, new ideas, barriers, etc.

In meeting discussion:

• Texas A& M University
• AES is separate from university so support decisions are independent
• Click here for Statistics for New Faculty Hires at Texas A&M University
• Auburn 
• All new hires are 9 months
• The hires get 2 years worth of summer salary during 1st 5 years
• Can spread that over more than 2 summers
• 12 month faculty can convert to 9 month
• Converted all faculty to 9 month at 100% salary 2 years ago in order to raise salaries
• Spousal hires are up to college on individual bases 
• No annual leave on 9 month appointment
• Commodity grants with no overhead are often used to pay summer salaries
• There are no 100% extension faculty at Auburn

 IDC return percentages:

• AL
•  Institution – pay for services plus 15%
• AES – 0%
• College – 85%
• AR
•  Institution –
• AES –
• College –
• Department -
• FL
• Institution – pay for services are ~ 53% of IDC
• AES – 100%
• VP – 50%
• Dean – 25%
• Department – 15%
• PI – 10%
• GA
• Institution – 22%
• College – 50%
• Department – 10%
• Provost – 28%
• KY
• Institution – 85%
• College – 10%
• Department – 5%
• LA
• Institution – 0% pay services
• LSU Ag – 25%
• AES – 25%
• Department – 25%
• PI – 25%
• MS
• Institution –  pay for services
• AES –  50%
• College – 0%
• Department – 50%
• OK
• Institution – 55%
• AES – 45%
• Department – 75% of 45%
• PR
• Institution –            
• AES –                all get a part if research
• College –                 is on campus
• Department –
• AES – 100% if off campus
• TN
• Institution – 0%, pay for services
• AES – 100%
• Department – 50%
• TX
• AES –
• VA
• Institution –
• AES –  52%
• College – 48%, 8% for leases
• Department -
• VI
• Institution – 100%
• AES – 0%

Action Requested: Information only

Agenda Item S24.
Best Practices Session –Research Faculty Technical Support

Presenter: David Boethel

Background:

This will be a semi-structured discussion centered on issues related to research faculty technical support; including appropriate level, sharing technicians, partial salary, etc.  The session will begin with brief (10 min) explanations of case studies on this issue by David Boethel (LSU).  These opening remarks will be followed by open discussion about director’s experiences with this issue, including current situations, successes and failures, new ideas, barriers, etc.

In meeting discussion:

• LSU
  • Transitioned all hard funded tech positions to 25% soft money
  • New faculty get 100% funded tech for 3 years then goes to 75%
  • Same for on and off campus
  • VA
    • All new staff will be university employees rather than state employees, which gives more flexibility
    • New faculty get ½ technician for 2 years then have to fund their own technician after 2 years with soft money

  Action Requested: Information only

Agenda Item S25.
Budget Reduction Impacts on Off-Campus Research Sites Survey Results

Presenter: Craig Nessler

Background:

Click here for PowerPoint

Action Requested:

Agenda Item S26.
2010 Spring SAAESD Meeting in Virginia

Presenter: Craig Nessler

Background:

In meeting discussion:

• We have been invited to meet jointly with WAAESD for the spring meeting in 2010.
  • Some of the places mention are VA and HI
  • Eric will work with Mike Harrington and Clarence Watson and propose two or three possible venues for the two associations to consider

  Action Requested: None

   

Agenda Item S27.
Resolutions Committee Report

Presenter: Rick Roeder

Background:

Resolution in Appreciation will be offer to Dr. Hector Santiago and the University of Puerto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station.

Action Requested: None

Action Taken: A resolution of appreciation was read for Dr. Hector Santiago and staff of the University of Puerto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station for their roles in hosting the SAAESD Spring Meeting.  A round of applause approved the resolution.

Agenda Item S28.
Fall SAAESD and ESS Meetings and ESS Workshop, Announcements, etc.

Presenter: Clarence Watson

Background:

The next SAAESD meeting will be Monday, September 14, 2009 in Oklahoma City, OK, just prior to the Experiment Station Section meeting and the SAES/ARD Workshop.

ESS/SAES/ARD Workshop and SAAESD Meeting - Oklahoma City, OK - September 14-17, 2009

In meeting discussion:

• SAAESD will meet on Monday, September 14th from 3:00 to 5:00 pm
  • ESS and Workshops will take place on Tuesday and Wednesday

  Action Requested: None

  Meeting adjourned at 10:10 am.