Wednesday, July 12, 2000 - 3:00 p.m. - Evening

Multistate Research Committee (with working dinner) - Virginia Clark

Thursday, July 13, 2000 - 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

North Central Regional Association

1.0 Call to order and Introductions - Tom Payne
Present: Steve Pueppke, University of Illinois; Eldon Ortman, Purdue University; Cathy Good, Gerald Klonglan, Don Reynolds, Mary Winter, Wendy Wintersteen, University of Iowa; George Ham, Virginia Moxley, Kansas State University; Ian Gray, Gary Lemme, Doreen Woodward, Michigan State University; Sarah Greening, Phil Larsen, Al Sullivan, University of Minnesota; Mike Chippendale, Tom Payne, Ken Schneeberger, University of Missouri; Rita Kean, Darrell Nelson, Dale Vanderholm, University of Nebraska; Virginia Clark, Cole Gustafson, North Dakota State University, Steve Slack, Ohio State University; Fred Cholick, Kevin Kephart, South Dakota State University; Margaret Dentine, University of Wisconsin; Adrianna Hewings, USDA/ARS Midwest Area; Bob Holm, IR-4 Program, Rutgers University; Terry Nipp, AESOP Enterprises, Inc.; Madelyn Alt, Richard Lower, Executive Director's Office

2.0 Approval of March 2000 Minutes - Tom Payne
(Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/march00min.htm)
Minor changes were made prior to the meeting. The minutes were approved.

3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Tom Payne

No additions to the agenda.

4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Tom Payne

5.0 Executive Director's Report - Richard Lower

6.0 ESCOP Reports - Tom Payne
6.1 Status of ESCOP Activities, i.e., Reorganization, Committee Activities, Report of April ESCOP Meeting - Fred Cholick
6.2 Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee - Eldon Ortman
6.3 GPRA/POW Update - Darrell Nelson
6.4 SARE Update - Steve Waller/Darrell Nelson
6.5 FY 01 Budget and Legislative Subcommittee - Terry Nipp/Tom Payne/Richard Lower
6.6 Science and Technology Subcommittee Activities - George Ham

7.0 Multistate Research Committee - Virginia Clark
7.1 MRC Report - Virginia Clark
7.2 National Manual - Please print off and bring a copy to the meeting for discussion. You can find this at: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/draftdoc.htm - Click on "Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities"

8.0 Discussion on Security for Biotechnology Research - Kevin Kephart/All

9.0 Rural Development Center - Cornelia Flora or Representative

10.0 NCS-3/IPM Grant Awards for FY 00 - Eldon Ortman

11.0 IR-4/NRSP-4 Program - Robert Holm

12.0 Agency Reports
12.1 ARS - Adrianna Hewings

13.0 Plans for September NCRA Meeting - Tom Payne

14.0 Nominations Committee Report - Dale Vanderholm/Margaret Dentine/Carol Meeks

15.0 Resolutions Committee - Cole Gustafson

16.0 Announcements

• AHS/ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP Meeting - Denver, Colorado - August 7-9, 2000
• ESS Fall Meeting - New Orleans, Louisiana - September 26, 2000
• SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop - New Orleans, Louisiana - September 26-28, 2000
• NCRA Fall Meeting - New Orleans, Louisiana - September 28, 2000
• ESCOP Executive Committee Fall Meeting - New Orleans, Louisiana - September 28, 2000
• NASULGC - San Antonio, Texas - November 13-15, 2000
• NCRA March Meeting - Kansas City, Missouri - March 13-15, 2001

17.0 Summary and Review of Assignments - Tom Payne

• The NCRA received "official" notification from CSREES concurring with the recommendations of the NCRA of the three approved NC projects resulting from the March NCRA meeting.
• Participated on ESCOP Chair's Advisory Committee and NCRA teleconferences.
• Appointed a subcommittee of George Ham, Darrell Nelson and Eldon Ortman to organize the emeritus meeting of past directors.
• Finalized contract with Daryl Lund to become the Executive Director for the NCRA on January 8, 2001.
• Appointed Eldon Ortman, as the NCRA representative, to SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop to discuss the value of regional organization(s) and ESCOP committee(s) for the SAES system.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None. Jerry Klonglan, Iowa State University, indicated that the Former Directors' Reunion was a success! See list of participants. The directors indicated they would like to have another reunion in another four years.

• The Executive Director has attended the following meetings since the NCRA met in mid-March:
  • Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center Board Meeting
  • Tainan, Taiwan, March 31, 2000 - April 7, 2000
  • Executive Directors' Meeting - April 17-18, 2000 - Chicago, Illinois
  • ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting - April 24-26, 2000 - Memphis, Tennessee
  • BOA/Budget Committee Meeting - May 22-23, 2000 - Washington, DC
• The Executive Director's office has participated in reviewing and revising numerous versions of the "Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities" and has been involved in many teleconferences related to this document since the March NCRA meeting.
• We have directed most of our efforts to planning, agenda development, logistics of meeting site arrangements, and related activities for numerous teleconferences, meetings and other ESCOP/NCRA operations.
• Forwarded a letter to the ESCOP chair recommending Eldon Ortman for membership on FQPA Advisory Committee.
• Forwarded a letter to ESCOP chair recommending Gary Lemme for membership to the ESCOP/ACOP leadership development advisory committee.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None. Dr. Jerry Klonglan was nominated to be a representative on the Human Subjects Research Committee but received an e-mail message from ESCOP indicating they received wrong information and only two representatives from the NASULGC family were needed and that he was relieved of this assignment.

• Core committees have been active see committee/subcommittee activities at ESCOP web site.
  • Budget and Legislative Committee. Coordinate with Planning Committee in identifying priorities and initiatives at SAES Workshop. Continue to develop aggressive and organized budget with assistance of AESOP. Implementation of Section 401 and 406.
  • Advocacy and Marketing Committee. Hold meeting after ESCOP and April 27. See ESCOP web site for background material agenda item 3.
  • Science and Technology. Food Safety Subcommittee has been appointed and Daryl Lund and Dave McKenzie have agreed to serve as chair and vice-chair. The ESCOP/ECOP Farm Crisis Task Force is being reconfigured. Ag Biotechnology Task Force was asked to prioritize the list of 12 recommendations and suggest an action plan.
  • Partnership Committee. Excellent discussion with CSREES representatives and Administrator Charles Laughlin have been held with ESCOP and ECOP. The continuation of this dialogue is critical to strengthen the partnership.
  • Planning Committee. Planning priority-setting session similar to last years at the SAES Workshop is September. See agenda in ESCOP Minutes item 9 for background.
• CSREES Administration Update. Items discussed included RFP for Section 406, Sections 401 and 406, and proposed guidelines for the Multistate Research Funds. We need to identify ESCOP representatives to meet with OBPA, OMB, and CSREES to better define what the needs are and how the system might address needs. Suggest a meeting prior to mid-October. Part of continued dialogue.
• Initiation of Advisory Committee to help clarify the intent of published guidelines regarding Section 105 and 204 of AREERA. An ESCOP, ECOP, and CSREES working group has been identified.
• Overviews by AESOP. Terry Nipp and general budget items, BOA budget document, and issues from D.C. perspective.
• Reallocation and Multistate Funds. The following resolution was adopted: "The ESCOP requests that CSREES revise their allocation process so that the total Hatch funds allocated to each individual AES remains the same and that 25% of this allocation be designated for use as multistate research funds." This resolution is to be transmitted to CSREES administration for consideration.
• C-FAR. Dr. Joe Coffey attended the second meeting on developing a national C-FAR effort and has agreed to take some preliminary steps and make inquiries. He will present information to ESCOP during the September SAES workshop.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: A discussion was held about the regional and national committee structures. This discussion will continue at the joint COP meetings in Denver, Colorado. The major goal is to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

1. Expert IPM Decision Support System -- The Pest Management Information Decision Support System (PMIDSS)

The Pest Management Information Decision Support System (PMIDSS) is designed to be used for information collection and dissemination and to provide access to information for research program decision makers and others. PMIDSS provides a platform to integrate data bases and to utilize information for decision support to answer questions on policy. research priorities. and educational queries relate,d to pest management and pest management programs. At this stage of development, the system is available via the world wide web for use by scientists within USDA and targeted individuals at Land Grant Universities; however, the user base is expected to expand. PMIDSS is driven by a user's selection of a crop followed by a pest that impacts that crop. Two questions are then posed and the user may review the available information derived either from databases and/or from prior evidence which has been placed in the system by experts. The questions posed are: Is this a significant pest problem? and, Is there an available and effective pest management tactic even after regulatory action triggered by the Food Quality Protection Act that may eliminate existing tactics? Currently, the prototype version accesses the EPA Registration Database, IR4 Minor or Specialty Crop Database, the CRIS Database, (all via CD-ROM) and a National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy database on pesticide usage. Other database access is projected: a resistance database is under construction and access to the NAPIAP National Database and other databases are planned.

Funding mechanism: Special Research Grant (Funded in FY 2000 at $177,000)

2. Integrated Pest Management & Biological Control - Regional Integrated Pest Management Program (RIPM)

This program provides competitively-awarded grants to support research on the development of new pest management tactics, the validation of new tactics in a production setting, and delivery to producers, their advisors and other pest managers through IPM education and training programs. The success of RIPM is the result of a regional approach which builds strong partnerships and ensures effective use of resources because they are better targeted to address the most critical pest management needs in the region.

Funding mechanism: Special Research Grant (Funded in FY 2000 at $2.731 M)

3. Minor Crop Pest Management (IR-4)

The IR4 project is the principal public effort supporting the registration of pesticides and biological control agents for use on minor crops. IR-4 provides coordination, funding and scientific guidance for both field and laboratory research to develop data in support of registration packages to be submitted to EPA. The program has been responsible for data to support 1,970 food use clearances (1,023 in the last 10 years), 3,225 ornamental crop registrations, and has supported research on 17 biopesticides which has resulted in 10 minor crop registrations. IR- 4 relies on commodity producers, state and federal research scientists and extension specialists to submit pest control needs important to the agricultural community. These needs are evaluated by industry registrants and EPA and are prioritized for purposes of research funding by national committees of agricultural scientists.

Funding mechanism: Special Research Grant (Funded in FY 2000 at $8.990 M)

4. Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP)

The Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP) was established in fiscal year 1996 as the primary vehicle to respond to the environmental and regulatory issues confronting agriculture. The purpose of this program is to develop replacement tactics and technologies for pesticides under consideration for regulatory action by EPA, and for which effective alternatives are not available. As the FQPA is implemented, this program will become more critical as a support base for pest management technologies, and additional funds will be required to maintain a pipeline of alternatives. The program is structured to fund short-term projects aimed at adaptive research and implementation of tactics which have shown promise in previous testing. The focus of the program is primarily towards replacement of individual tactics in a pest management program on a single crop basis, and not towards entire crop or crowing system pest management issues. For example, this program might fund an implementation program aimed at replacing an organophosphate insecticide in potato with a new and safer insecticide.

Funding mechanism: Competitive Special Research Grant (Funded in FY 2000 at $1.623 M)

5. Regional Crop Information and Policy Centers Program

Recent scientific advances and the healthy pace of innovation in the agricultural biotechnology and chemicals industries are providing pest managers with new tools and novel tactics to ensure a safe, nutritious, economical food supply for the American public, while maintaining a strong, competitive agricultural economy. Many of these new tools, while highly effective, significantly increase the complexity of pest management systems. A current and long- range challenge is to determine, through sound science, potential long-term risks and benefits of these new tools, including GMOs, in agriculture. Today, some markets are demonstrating consumer resistance and cynicism toward biotechnology. Since crops, pests, and weather patterns differ so greatly from region to region within the United States, no single national public policy, research program, or regulatory approach to pest management will be universally effective across all agricultural regions. It is also not necessary, nor an efficient use of public and private resources, for every state with similar production regions to organize and support repetitive, competing and often duplicate pest management program efforts. Accordingly. this new program will establish three Regional Crop Information and Policy Centers as pilot prototypes based on current high priority needs for the following commodity groups: (1) vegetable crops. (2) fruit crops. and (3) major acreage crops. Centers will be established based on a fair and open competitive application and selection process. Criteria for selection includes the expertise present on site, the commitment to accomplish the mission of the program, and the importance of the commodities to the selected site.

Funding mechanism: Special Research Grants (Not funded in FY 2000)

6. NRI Funded Pest Management Research

Insects, microbes, nematodes, and weedy or invasive plants in agricultural environments often have significant effects on agricultural productivity and sustainability causing major damage each year to crops, forests, rangelands, and livestock. The ability of the United States to produce, store, ship and trade food and other products of agriculture is limited by the degree to which pests can be controlled. Although vital to the health of agriculture, pest control also can have negative effects. Environmental damage can occur as chemical contamination due to pesticide use. Pests can prevent the acceptance of U.S. agricultural products in foreign commerce. The NRI Pest Management Research Initiative supports the development of fundamental knowledge needed to form the basis of novel pest management strategies for new or emerging pests or for replacement of obsolete pest management practices. Moreover, pest management of the future must be improved while simultaneously reducing our dependency on pesticides. This step is one of many toward the goal of sustaining agriculture and our natural resources. In contrast, microbes can significantly benefit agricultural crops, forests, and rangelands. They help plants obtain and use nutrients required for optimum plant growth and development. They also help defend plants from diseases and harmful insects. The goal of NRI is to support fundamental and mission-linked research on the biology of insects. microbes, nematodes, and invasive plants. as well as the interactions between these organisms and plants of agricultural importance.

Funding mechanism: National Research Initiative Competitive Grants (Approximately $14.5 M was funded by NR1 on Pest Management related research in FY 2000)

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS

7. Pesticide Impact Assessment - Pest Management Centers

USDA has placed a high priority on the establishment of regionally-based Pest Management Centers as a means of strengthening its connection with production agriculture, research and extension programs, and agricultural stakeholders throughout the United States. Since passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, USDA and EPA have recognized the need for a pest management information network that can quickly respond to information needs of the public and private sectors. When fully functional, Pest Management Centers will help USDA and its partner institutions identify, prioritize and coordinate a national pest management research, extension and education program implemented on a regional basis. The development of Centers will occur through a defined three year step-wise process. This process will begin in FY 2000 with the formation of geographically-based consortia from the north central, northeastern. southern and western regions of the United States to first establish a national pest management information network, and then to plan regional Pest Management Centers. Successful projects will conduct a competitive process to identify key pest management information contacts within states to form an operating network. Beginning in FY 2003, the national pest management information network will be coordinated through the Centers as they are developed within the regions. The Centers will be defined by agroecological or crop production regions that together define the principle agricultural production zones in the country and address the broad spectrum of pest management needs within each region. A primary goal will be to implement all "Integrated Activities" pest management programs through the Centers. Pesticide Impact Assessment Program funds will be used to implement and support the information network and create a plan for regional Centers. Pest Management Centers will be the focal point for team building efforts, communication networks, and stakeholder participation within a given region. Pest Management Centers will promote open communication, exchange of information and resources, collaboration, and integration of activities among individuals, institutions, states, and regions into coordinated efforts around common themes that span institutional or geographical boundaries. Pest Management Centers will bring together and help focus the institutional and individual expertise needed to successfully address a range of pest management issues confronting farmers and other pest managers (e.g., regulatory restrictions development of pest resistance, invasive species, and biotechnology). When fully implemented, Pest Management Centers will maximize the availability of dispersed expertise, reduce duplication of effort, enhance inter-disciplinary and multi-organizational efforts, and provide regional expert information, technology, and education upon which production agriculture, government agencies, and agricultural stakeholders can draw.

Funding mechanism: Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program (Funded in FY 2000 at 4.541 M)

8. Crops At Risk from PUPA Implementation (CAR)

Several crops and cropping systems face potentially severe economic impacts as a result of the impending loss of certain pesticides through implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). In the short term, these are mainly small-acreage fruit and vegetable crops due to the current elimination or restriction on organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. However, in the relatively near future, many more crops, including the large-acreage grain, forage and fiber crops, will be impacted as well, when additional pesticide groups are addressed in the FQPA. The Crops at Risk Program is an intermediate-term research and extension program with the at-risk crop or cropping system as the focal point. Development of new multiple-tactic IPM strategies designed to assist in the transition period for agriculture will be the goal of the program. For example, peaches may be the focus of a program to redefine pest management systems all the way from insecticide applications made before bud break to methods of post-harvest disease management. The commodity and pest management profiles being developed by State-level agencies under guidance from the Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) will be used to prioritize a list of crops potentially at risk within each state. State priorities will then be assessed at the regional level to identify crosscutting challenges and opportunities for multi-state cooperation. The resulting assessments will serve as the basis for priority setting for a competitive special research grants program under the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program, to be coordinated through CSREES in consultation with OPMP.

Funding mechanism: Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program (Funded in FY 2000 at $1.0 M)

9. FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP)

Global markets for food products demand high quality at competitive prices. Growers are faced with meeting these market demands in the face of ever-increasing production costs coupled with decreasing or unstable commodity prices. Added to these constraints is the threat posed by implementation of the FQPA over the next decade. Many of the pest management tools growers have depended on in the past may no longer be available in the future. The EPA has already listed the organophosphate class of chemistry as a priority for use restrictions, and the carbamates and B2 carcinogens are next priorities. Over half of the chemical pest management tools used by growers today are contained in one of these three groups of chemistry. FQPA implementation poses an immediate threat to pest management in fruits and vegetables and stored grains. Within the next few years, all crops will face similar threats. Growers face extreme uncertainty over which pest management tools will remain in their arsenal and how to combine those with new technologies such as big-engineered crop innovations and precision agriculture. There is a critical need to devise pest management systems which consider all aspects of crop production from the planted seed to the marketed product. This new approach to risk mitigation will have a food production system focus. integrating food safety and water quality considerations as impacted by the FQPA. The program will involve the major acreage crops including corn, soybean. wheat, cotton and rice as well as the fruits and vegetables most important in the human diet, especially the diets of infants and children. Emphasis will be placed on development and implementation of new and innovative pest management systems designed to maintain crop productivity and profitability while meeting or exceeding environmental quality and human health standards. The outcome goal of this long-term effort is to eliminate or minimize pesticide residues in key foods and in ground and surface water used for human consumption. In this program, research and implementation projects will be conducted as part of the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program to help the nation's farmers respond to the challenges they will face as FQPA is implemented over the next decade. These will be long-term projects and will evolve from in-depth discussions of research needs and priorities involving all stakeholders. Projects will be multi-state or regional in scale and typically involve multiple cropping systems with emphasis on enhanced stability and sustainability of pest management systems. A major goal of this effort will be the development of big-intensive pest management programs utilizing advanced understanding of cropping system biology and ecology. For example, the western corn belt could be the focus of a project designed to evaluate crop rotational options, pest prevention and avoidance techniques, pest monitoring strategies. and new pest population suppression tactics. The aim of such a project would be to develop a new approach to managing pests with reduced pesticide residues in crops, soil, and water while improving economics and sustainability for the grower.

Funding mechanism: Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program (Funded in FY 2000 at S4.0 M)

10. Methyl Bromide Transition Program (MBTP)

This is a new program designed to support the discovery and implementation of practical pest management alternatives for commodities affected by the methyl bromide phase-out. The program focus will be on short-term projects developing management technologies, integrated and systems approaches, and extension delivery programs for methyl bromide alternatives that support commodities at risk. These activities will involve basic and applied agricultural research designed to deliver and demonstrate the practicality and economic feasibility of new technologies and will be conducted at research facilities, extension centers arid grower demonstration plots. Since most pre-plant methyl bromide alternative research is presently conducted outside of universities with agriculture programs, this new program will provide a competitive basis of support for research and extension delivery within all any accredited U. S. college or university. Technology transfer of ARS and land-grant university applied research into practical management alternatives for methyl bromide will occur through cooperative extension activities.

Funding mechanism: Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program (Funded in FY 2000 at $ 2.0 M)

11. Invasive Species Program

Annually, billions of dollars are lost because of the invasion of noxious and exotic plant, animal, insect, disease, and other microbial pests. No land or water regime is immune from invasive problems and the nation is both losing income and incurring expenses to curb the problems. Currently, CSREES has one competitive grants program that specifically addresses invasive weeds, and others that include invasive species as just one aspect of the program. However, the effort is piecemeal and woefully inadequate given the magnitude of the problem. These programs focus on discipline-specific research with little integration of research with extension and education as a comprehensive management strategy. This gap in the integration of research disciplines with outreach specialists, land managers, and policy makers is the focus of this new program to develop guidelines and provide resources to stimulate and coordinate invasive species interests on both a national and an ecoregional scale. This new program will support the integration of research, extension, and education activities with representative individuals, groups and agencies at a local level through a new competitive grant program designed to address invasive species issues on an ecoregional basis. This new program targets invasive species issues through an ecosystem-centered, collaborative process that prioritizes investment needs, based on analysis of risk and potential economic return for research, education, and extension programs. The new program calls for a consortium of research scientists, land managers and policy makers to rank-order invasive species problems using science-based criteria to assess environmental and economic risks. and select priority activities for funding. National coordination will be provided by ecoregional and CSREES representatives.

Funding mechanism: Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program (Not Funded in FY 2000)

12. Organic Transition Program

The organic marketplace has grown at an estimated 20 percent per year in recent years, and is increasingly attractive to producers looking for profitable alternatives to low commodity prices. A major impediment to many farmers considering the move from conventional to organic practices are concerns about practical and economical ways to maintain yields, particularly the availability of pest management tools that meet the needs of a certified organic production system. The development and adoption of biointensive or biologically based pest management tactics would address many of the certified organic production needs. The Organic Transition Program supports the development and implementation of biologically based pest management practices that mitigate the ecological, agronomic and economic risks associated with a transition from conventional to organic agricultural production systems. Funds will be distributed through a competitive process administered by CSREES and implemented in partnership with the regional Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) and Integrated Pest Management programs.

Funding mechanism: Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program (Not Funded in FY 2000)

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

13. Pest Management -- Extension IPM Implementation

This program is focused on moving knowledge and technologies from researchers into the hands of farmers as quickly as possible. Alternative pest management strategies are demonstrated and evaluated in commercial production settings to help farmers gain confidence in these new tactics. This program supports a base program in each state that makes it possible to accelerate the transfer of proven IPM methods from researchers to implementation by farmers, crop consultants. and other end-users as they face the transition to FQPA implementation. An IPM coordinator is supported at each land-grant university to develop and help coordinate IPM research and extension programs. Agricultural producers, consultants, and other pest managers are provided education and assistance through consultations, clinics, workshops, conferences, demonstrations, field days, seminars, and a wide variety of publications and video productions.

Funding mechanism: Smith-Lever 3(d) formula and Special Grants (Funded in FY 2000 at $10.783 M)

14. Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT)

The program is a risk reduction and mitigation program, and focuses on the reduction of pesticide exposure to applicators, drinking water, and consumers, thereby minimizing the risk cup effect and allowing for continued registrations of critical pesticides. Each year state extension pesticide coordinators and county agents train over 500,000 growers and commercial applicators in the proper use of pesticides and keep them informed about issues such as the Food Quality Protection Act, ground water concerns, food safety and basic instruction in Integrated Pest Management. Total numbers of growers and commercial applicators who participate in PAT programs have increased each year. The PAT program has expanded to provide pesticide safety education programs for homeowners, farm workers and health care providers. FQPA requires that aggregate and cumulative exposures be considered as part of the risk assessment. Because exposures can occur from contaminated drinking water and residential pest management programs as well as from pesticide food residues, it is critically important that pesticide applicators and other users be properly trained. Furthermore, because the PAT program is mandated in most states. it serves as an important vehicle to introduce growers and commercial applicators to the concepts of integrated pest management, water quality protection, endangered species protection and farm worker protection programs.

(Not Funded in FY2000)

NEW PROGRAMS BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE FY 2002 PEST MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO

15. Bio-based Pest Management Technology Trials

Interest in bio-based pest management practices and strategies continues to grow as growers and pest managers adjust to new restrictions on conventional pest control practices, pursue environmentally-sound production practices, and consider certifiable organic production opportunities. While many bio-based pest management technologies have been developed, few have been widely tested for efficacy in standardized uniform trials and promoted through field-scale demonstration plots across a range of locations characteristic of a particular cropping/production system the way that agrochemicals have been supported and promoted. This leaves many interested growers and pest managers without the field validation data they need from their production region to make informed decisions about bio-based pest management tactics. The Bio-based Pest Management Technology Trials Program will become the principal public effort to Support the development of regional efficacy data for bio- based technologies traditionally not included in standardized regional efficacy trials. This includes technologies such as biological control, host plant resistance, cultural control and habitat management. The program will provide coordination, funding and scientific guidance for both field and laboratory research to develop efficacy data and implementation protocols in support of local production needs. The program will rely on producers, pest managers, state and federal research scientists and extension specialists to identify the bio-based pest control needs important to the local agricultural community. These needs will be evaluated and prioritized for purposes of research funding by a diverse group of stakeholders including industry representatives, pest managers, and relevant state, federal and public interest groups.

Proposed funding mechanism: Special Research Grant or Integrated Activities

16. Bio-based Pest Management Education and Training

The Bio-based Pest Management Education and Training program will provide education and training to growers and pest management professionals throughout the country in the latest tactics and strategies that support and promote bio-based pest management. Each year state IPM coordinators and acknowledged bio-based pest management experts will train growers and pest managers in the availability and proper use of bio-based technologies and inform them about related issues such as food safety, invasive species, host plant resistance, and habitat management. This program could be expanded to provide bio-based pest management education programs to homeowners, farm workers and health care providers as interest demands. This program would serve as the principal vehicle for introducing growers and pest managers to the latest concepts of sustainable production practices.

Proposed funding mechanism: Smith-Lever 3(d)

Program	Description	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
(1) Pest Management Information Decision Support System (PMIDSS)	Database system for collection and dissemination of pest and pest management information	$0.177	$0.177	$0.260
(2) Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control Special Research Grant	Special research grant to support regional IPM programs with focus on issues selected by regional IPM committees	$2.731	$2.731	$2.731
(3) Minor Crop Pest Management (IR-4)	Minor use pesticide registration assistance	$8.990	$8.990	$8.990
(4) Pest Management Alternatives (PMAP)	Short-term research to discover replacements for individual pest management tactics lost to FQPA	$1.623	$1.623	$4.200
(6) NRI Funded Pest Management Research	Fundamental and Applied research on the basic biology and management of pests (insects, nematodes, pathogens, weeds)	$14.000	$14.500	$16.00
(7) Pest Management Centers (PIAP funding line)	Regional based pest management centers would be developed to provide two-way connection with between stakeholders and the USDA	$4.541	$4.541	$4.640
(8) Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR)	Intermediate-term research and implementation - transitions for crops or cropping systems focus	$0	$1.000	$3.000
(9) FQPA Avoidance and Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP)	Multi-state, long-term, bio-intensive research to enhance stability and sustainability of pest management systems	$0	$4.000	$10.000
(10) Methyl Bromide Transition Program (MBTP)	Short-term research to identify and implement replacements for methyl bromide	$0	$2.000	$5.000
(13) Extension Integrated Pest Management Application	IPM implementation through state extension programs - mostly formula funding	$10.783	$10.783	$12.269
(14) Pesticide Applicator Training	This program provides training to stakeholders in all states and territories which contributes positively to risk mitigation and transition issues	$0	$0	$1.5
TOTAL		$42.84	$50.35	$70.3

• Each SAES is required to report by July 1, 2000 the option that they have chosen to implement Section 204 of AREERA for Hatch Act funds. There are four options provided on the form entitled "Establishment of Target Percentages for Multistate Extension and Integrated Activities". Most SAESs will elect Option A which is targeting 25% of Hatch Act funds for multistate programs.
• Each SAES is required to report by July 1, 2000 the proportion of their Hatch Act funds that will be used to satisfy AREERA Section 204 requirement for integrated research and extension activities. The form entitled "Supplement to the 5-year Plan of Work for Multistate Extension Activities and Integrated Activities" will be used to make a five-year projection of Hatch Act fund investments in integrated activities.
• The first Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results will be due March 1, 2001.
• A Supplement to the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results, Multistate Extension Activities and Integrated Activities will be due March 1 each year and must be submitted as a summary of the integrated research and extension planned programs or activities (Hatch Act funds) that have been used to satisfy the requirements of AREERA Section 204.

Guidance relating to these reports is given in the document entitled "Administrative Guidance for Multistate Extension Activities and Integrated Research and Extension Activities" at the following web site:

http://www.reeusda.gov/part/areera/multi501.htm

Action Requested: Submit reports as required by CSREES.

Action Taken: After considerable discussion about the Plan of Work, the 25 percent issue relating to joint integrated activity was very frustrating and further discussion with CSREES is required. Also, any concerns about the format for the annual reports should be directed to Fred Cholick. The following motion was passed: "The NCRA leadership work to get an audience with AESOP and CSREES to discuss fiscal accounting procedures and programmatic documentation in relation to multistate projects and joint integrated programs. The issue is auditability vs programmatic accountability."

FY 00 Preproposals Received by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
14	11	17	7	5	14	15	16	14	24	7	18	2	164
FY 00 Preproposals Invited to Submit Full Proposals by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
2	3	6	2	2	5	5	5	2	9	1	5	0	42
Note: Includes one Ohio proposal submitted as a result of a previous planning grant
FY 00 Proposals Received by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
2	3	6	2	1	5	4	4	2	6	1	4	0	40
Note: Includes one Ohio proposal submitted as a result of a previous planning grant.
FY 00 Proposals Recommended for Funding by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
1	0	5	1	0	3	2	1	1	2	1	2	0	19
Note: Includes one Ohio proposal submitted as a result of a previous planning grant and one Iowa PDP proposal that was shifted to the research/education category.

* Professional Development Program
The following tables indicate submission statistics and funding recommendations by state for FY 00 Professional Development Program proposals. Recommended projects deal with, among other things, nutrition education, marketing initiatives, website development, local food systems, whole-farm planning, and speciality forestry products. Total funding for the eight projects being recommended is $390,209.

FY 00 Proposals Received by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
3	1	6	2	2	3	3	4	1	2	1	1	0	29
Note: Includes one Ohio planning grant.
FY 00 Proposals Recommended for Funding by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
2	0	1	1	0	0	1	2	0	0	1	0	0	8

* Producer Grant Program
The following table indicates submission statistics by state for the FY 00 producer grant program. Funding recommendations for this grant category will be made at the June 21-23 Administrative Council meeting.

FY 00 Proposals Received by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
9	12	27	15	26	36	21	26	10	37	10	11	0	240

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

• If you have been following AESOP's News from the Hill, you know the status of the budget.
• We are in the process of updating the membership of the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee (originally the membership was for two years).
• Gale Buchanan is the Chair of the Board on Agriculture Budget FY 02 Committee and will continue through the FY 03 budget; John Nye is Vice-Chair and will become chair for FY 04 and 05.
• Bob Moser remains chair until the close of the FY 01 budget.
• The role of CFERR in the BOA budget activities is unclear.
• We must give serious consideration to the development of multi-agency requests. Procedure for accomplishing this is under review.
• Budget process would gain significantly by limiting the number of lines, i.e., special grant activities.
• Formula funds will continue to be a high priority.
• Considerable support for limiting new initiatives to those that have a strong legislative champion to make it happen.
• Schedule for FY 02 budget activities is tight and has much earlier deadlines than normal. The penultimate budget will be due by December&nbsp1, 2000.
• Gale Buchanan, Fred Cholick, Bob Moser and myself make up an ad hoc committee to develop recommendations for a structure including AESOP, CARET, the BOA budget committee, etc., to better serve the budget effort. The recommendation is being developed and will be presented at a meeting of the AHS in Denver before the joint meeting in August.

_____

• Genome Initiative
  
  • The first genome document is entitled "Functional Foods" and can be found at: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/subcom00.htm#genomics
  • Dr. Colin Kaltenbach, Chair of the Genomics Steering Committee, charged AESOP with the implementation plan. AESOP has been visiting with Washington personnel and the responses have been very positive - people are intrigued and want to talk about collaboration/workshops. The counsel from the White House is to move ahead!

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: Need to continue to watch "News From the Hill" for budgetary updates.

• Dr. Cholick's agenda brief (agenda brief 6.1) for a listing of the ESCOP Core Committees.
• Have solicited names from directors and CSREES for the following task forces:
  • GMO - Chaired by Daryl Lund. The final report is available at: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/subcom00.htm#agbio
  • Food Safety - Chaired by Daryl Lund. The final report is available at: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/subcom00.htm#foodsafety
  • Rural Communities and Farm Crisis - The task force has just been formed.
  • Social Sciences - The task force has just been formed.
• Randy Woodson, Purdue University, will become chair after the meetings in New Orleans in September.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

• Need to be careful when dealing with the press.
• At one state, the campus police department has a full-time person for bioterrorism that meets periodically to increase campus and public security.
• Keep labs locked.
• Need to have departmental training - what to do if you see anything/anyone suspicious; how to handle harassment telephone calls; how to handle media calls.
• Need to remove phone numbers; photos of personnel and equipment and locations of field trials from web sites.
• One campus established a web site with background information for the media http://www.biotech.msu.edu.
• One campus has been working with the Department of Agriculture, Farm Bureau and has done training with Extension agents; have had some federal and state briefings.
• Campus police have changed their routes by going to out-of-the-way places; custodial has also had some training. One station has plain-clothed police.
• Among our region, there has been communication between the police departments.
• Need to keep research backup at a different physical location.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: An issue that was brought up was if we should deal with this quietly and discretely or make it an issue? This topic will be discussed at the Experiment Station Section meeting in September in New Orleans, Louisiana.

I. Invest in Farmers and Ranchers
a. Developing and promoting biobased products and energy
The NCRCRD is working with the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, the Land Stewardship Project, and the Institute for Agricultural Trade Policy to examine community implications for moving to a more biobased economy. Such issues as community implications of various forms of carbon sequestration credits, alternative community institutional structures to promote locally-based bio-based industries, and institutional and organizational mechanisms to link biobased materials, chemicals and energy to a biodiverse agriculture and a diverse community will be explored. (External funding)
b. Biotechnology and GMO perspectives
The formation of advocacy/action coalitions around different issues related to biotechnology, particularly genetically engineered plants is critical to the process of developing and maintaining a trusted and high quality scientific base. The NCRCRD is building a methodology and database of issues and the advocacy coalitions surrounding them in order to aid this rapidly developing science have positive impacts on rural people and communities
d. Sustainable Agriculture and Organic Farming
· The NCRCRD, building on base research with Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) on Quality of Life and Sustainable Agriculture, the USDA Forest Service on indicators of sustainability, and the Environmental Protection Agency on social indicators, is partnering with the Agriculture Research Service Soil Tilthe Lab to determine a) the most meaningful indicators of soil quality for agricultural decision making and b) the best way to represent those indicators for use by farmers and crop advisors, including Cooperative Extension, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and farm management firms. (external funding)
· Working with the Farming Legal Action Group (FLAG), the NCRCRD is tracking the use of farm counselors and farm advocates in Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota and on American Indian reservations. Our analysis of this data will be used to identify policies and community institutions best able to help small farmers remain in farming or to exit in sound financial shape and remain as productive members of the community in the face of increasing global competition and decreasing commodity prices. (external funding)
· Working with a consortium of universities, we have presented a proposal to shorten the value chain in livestock production and meat marketing in order to enhance the well being of small farmers and rural communities.

IV. Invest in the Environment and Renewable Resources
h. Water quality and animal waste management programs
1. In conjunction with the University of Minnesota's College of Agricultural, Food and Environments Sciences and the Environmental Quality Board of the State of Minnesota, the NCRCRD is expanding its research on the impact of different structures animal agriculture on communities looking at changes over time in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.. This builds on research conducted by the NCRCRD in a review of existing research for the Citizen's Advisory Committee of the Environmental Quality Board of Minnesota involving colleagues from Iowa, Missouri, and North Dakota as well as research done with the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture and colleagues from the same states. (external funding)
· In partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency, the NCRCRD is conducting research on the characteristics of different contexts, processes and impacts of community- based drinking water quality protection. Building on an annotated bibliography (available on the web at http:www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu) of social indicators related to environmental quality, we are conducting comparative analysis of community water protection programs based on these indicators in order to build a model of successful linking of information of water quality threats to effective local action to protect drinking water quality. (external funding)
i. Watershed development
Building on previous research with the University of Illinois and the Resource Conservation and Development Districts of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, we are working with a consortium of private and public sector institutions to development a model of participatory development of alternative watershed futures and the community and farm level changes needed to bring them about. (external funding)

V. Invest in Children, Youth and Families
j. Improving welfare of individuals, families, and communities through social and behavioral research
· The NCRCRD is working closely with the system-wide Workforce Development Initiative. Our research focus is to determine what community-level interventions, from creation of good jobs and preparing an appropriately qualified labor force combined with reducing the barriers between good workers and good jobs, which include transportation, child and elder care, health services, and affordable housing are most effective in reducing poverty and enhancing community economic vitality. (external funding)
· Building on our network of researchers and extension educators involved in working with the growing minority populations in rural areas of the North Central Region, we are developing action research models for enhancing community diversity for sustainable communities.

VI. Invest in New Markets and Quality Communities
k. Rural policy and improving communities through rural development
· Working with USDA/Rural Development, the NCRCRD has developed and implemented a suite of indicators of the impact of a place-based poverty reduction initiative, the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) program. We have comparatively analyzed the socio-political and economic contexts in which each program was established, the processes of development and implementation of the strategic plan and the development impacts, including local empowerment, growth of economic opportunities, formation of new partnerships and poverty reduction. (external funding)
· Building on our work with USDA/CSREES and the Department of Commerce on helping rural governments and businesses address potential Y2K problems, we have used the contacts made to develop an e-commerce initiative, with particular focus on remote rural areas and American Indian reservations. Our research will involve linking e-commerce for firm development creating "bridging" social capital for economic development - to building "bonding" social capital for community development. (external funding)
· Building on the practical expertise development in the creation, application and revision of our "Take Charge" curriculum for community and economic development, we will conduct a systematic review and evaluation of leadership development materials and the applicability in areas of persistent poverty and long-term population decline. (external funding)

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None. Please give feedback to Dr. Cornelia Flora about the priorities.

PI	University	Title	Budget
			Research	Extension
Foster, Rickey	Purdue University	Alternative Control Strategies for Seedcorn Maggot in Melons in the Midwest	x	.
Dieleman, J. Anita	Kansas State University	Post-Control Weed Competitiveness as Input into a Weed Management DS	x	.
Liburd, Oscar	Michigan State University	Protecting High Value Fruit from Key Rhagoletis Species	x	.
Boehm, Michael	Ohio State University	Optimization and Field Testing of Biocontrol Agents Active Against Fusarium Head Blight of Wheat & Barley	x	.
Heimpel, George	University of Minnesota	Flowering Cover Crops and Biological Control of Cabbage Pests	x	.
Brook, Roger	Michigan State University	Role of Precision Agriculture Technology in the Biological and Environmental Monitoring Components of Potato IPM	x	x
Jordan, Nicholas	University of Minnesota	Implementation of Integrated Weed Management through Collaborative Learning	x	x
Munkvold, Gary	Iowa State University	Prediction of Gray Leaf Spot Severity for Improved Management in Corn Seed and Grain Crops	x	x
Herms, Daniel	Ohio State University	User-Friendly Decision Tools for Predicting Insect and Weed Phenology	x	x
Medlin, Case	Purdue University	Reducing Herbicide Input and Increasing Economic Output with Site-Specific Weed Management	x	x
Pasian, Claudio	Ohio State University	Partnering Ohio State University Interns and Ohio Greenhouse Floriculture Producers in Demonstration IPM Programs	.	x
Ratcliffe, Susan	University of Illinois	Interactive IPM on the Internet	.	x
Weinzierl, Richard	University of Illinois	New References for Organic and Low-Chemical Pest Management in Midwest Fruit Crops	.	x

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Name	State Where Worked	Address	Phone
Acker, Duane	South Dakota	66344 Troublesome Creek Road Atlantic, IA 50022	712-243-4757
Aldrich, Richard	Missouri	Box 236 Marcell, MN 56657	218-832-3820
Anderson, Don	North Dakota	Route 4, Box 126 Pelican Rapids, MN 56572	218-863-8755
Betsinger, Signe	Minnesota	211 Second Street, NW, Apt. 807 Rochester, MN 55901	507-281-8513
Ewing, Solan	Iowa	1922 Northcrest Circle Ames, IA 50010	515-232-4813
Feltner, Kurt	Kansas	PO Box 87 Pinedale, WY 82941	307-367-2387
Fischer, James	Michigan	104 Barre Hall Clemson, SC 29634	864-656-3140
Gast, Robert	Michigan	3805 Viceroy Drive Okemos, MI 48864	517-349-7918
Holt, Donald	Illinois	170 EASB, 1101 Peabody Drive Urbana, IL 61801	217-244-7197
Kleis, Bob	Nebraska	6520 Sumner Lincoln, NE 68506	402-489-3902
Kolmer, Lee	Iowa	4118 Phoenix Ames, IA 50014	515-292-0707
Leland, Jr., Stanley	Kansas	420 Shelle Road Manhattan, KS 66502	785-537-7710
Mahlstede, John	Iowa	2841 Greensboro Ames, IA 50014	515-292-9600
Mitchell, Roger	Missouri	502 W. Lathrop Road Columbia, MO 65203	573-443-4244
Moore, Ray	South Dakota	207 17th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006	605-692-2877
Omtvedt, Irv	Nebraska	8315 Coachmans Court Lincoln, NE 68510	402-489-6146
Pesek, John	Iowa	1304 Marston Ames, IA 50010	515-232-3655
Pfander, William	Missouri	11201 I-70 Dr., Northeast Columbia, MO 65202	573-474-5997
Sahs, Warren	Nebraska	1230 N. 37th Street Lincoln, NE 68503	402-466-3237
Topel, David	Iowa	2630 Meadow Glen Road Ames, IA 50014	515-294-6304
Walsh, Leo	Wisconsin	601 Ozark Madison, WI 53705	608-238-0898