ESCOP MEETING March 4-5, 2002 Conference Room #3 (First Floor) NASULGC Headquarters, Suite 400 1307 New York Avenue Washington, DC 20005 Phone 202-478-6040 / FAX 202-478-6046

Sunday, March 3 CARET Meeting, 8:00 - 5:00 Doubletree Hotel Crystal City (300 Army/Navy Drive, Arlington, VA). Visitors are welcome.
AGENDA
Monday, March 4
7:00		Continental Breakfast - Hosted by NASULGC
8:00		Call to Order - Richard Heimsch
8:05	1.	Approval of Agenda  Approval of Minutes: July, 2001 http://www.escop.msstate.edu/minutes/min7-01.htm Approval of Interim Actions
		STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
8:15	2.	Advocacy and Marketing Committee - J. Fischer
8:30	3.	• ECOP/ESCOP Image Enhancement - R. Pardini
8:45	4.	Science and Technology Committee - R. Woodson
9:00	5.	Budget and Legislative Committee - R. Jones
9:15	6.	• Legislative Affairs Contract and Management (2002) - R. Jones
9:30	7.	Partnership Committee - DC Coston
9:45	8.	Planning Committee - E. Young
10:00		Break
10:30	9.	BAA and Policy Board Update - C. C. Kaltenbach
		LIAISON REPORTS/DISCUSSIONS
10:45	10.	CSREES Report - C. Hefferan
11:15	11.	AESOP, Farm Bill and Budget Status - T. Nipp
12:00	.	Lunch - Hosted by NASULGC
1:30	12.	NASULGC - M. Neufville [No Report]
1:45	13.	ERS - S. Offutt [No Report]
2:00	14.	ARS - E. Knipling
2:15	15.	NAPFSC - P. Brown
2:30	16.	NASULGC Board on Veterinary Medicine - O. Fletcher [No Report]
2:45	17.	NASULGC Board on Human Sciences - D. Andrews [No Report]
3:00		Break
3:15	18.	ACOP - R. Lewis
3:30	19.	ECOP - C. Fehlis
3:45	20.	ICOP - E. Price
4:00	21.	CARET - K. Perry [No Report]
		ACTION ITEMS
4:15	22.	Changes in Multistate Guidelines -  Rapid Response Projects - T. Helms
4:45	23.	• NIMSS - D. MacKenzie
5:00		Recess - Dinner on Your Own
Tuesday, March 5
7:00		Continental Breakfast - Hosted by NASULGC
8:00	24.	Partnership Taskforce - DC Coston [Included in Partnership Committee - Item 7]
		PENDING ITEMS
8:15	25.	Ag and Biosecurity Task Force - D. Thawley/D. MacKenzie
8:30	26.	ESCOP Meetings Special Committee - D. Lund
8:45	27.	Science Roadmap - C. C. Kaltenbach, D. MacKenzie, M. Harrington
9:00	28.	Multiple Activity Programs (MAPs) - C. C. Kaltenbach
9:15	29.	NRSP Survey Project Update - G. Cooper/Social Science Research Center [PowerPoint Presentation]
		FUTURE MEETINGS
9:30	30.	2002 Combined COPs - B Onume Okezie [No Report]
9:45	31.	2002 ESS and Workshop - D. Lund
10:00		Break
10:15	32.	Regional Meetings
		REGION REPORTS
10:30	33.	Association of Research Directors - C. Brooks
10:45	34.	Northeast Region - S. Angle
11:00	35.	North Central Region - V. Clark Johnson
11:15	36.	Southern Region - V. Watson
11:30	37.	Western Region - J. J. Jacobs
11:45		Lunch - Hosted by NASULGC
1:15	38.	Alliance for Animal Genome Research - K. Eversole/R. Wyse [PowerPoint Presentation]
1:30	39.	(Open slots for items added to the agenda.)[No additional items]
2:00	40.	Wrap up Discussions and Assignments - Richard Heimsch
2:15		Adjourn

Agenda Item 1
Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions

Presenter:  Richard Heimsch

Background: Dr. Richard Heimsch, 2002 Chair of ESCOP, called the meeting to order and requested approval of the following items:

•  Agenda
•  Minutes from the  July, 2001 meeting in Minneapolis, MN (http://www.escop.msstate.edu/minutes/min7-01.htm)
•  Interim Actions taken on behalf of ESCOP since September 27,2001, are as follows:
• 11/26/01 - E-mail to James Jacobs appointing him as ESCOP liaison to ECOP
• 12/17/01 - Letters with copies of A Science Roadmap for Agriculture sent to the following:

2/21/01 - Letter to Eldon Ortman thanking him for the GAO report (GAO-01-815) on Agricultural Pesticides and requesting that he develop a response to the GAO report.

1/7/02 - Letters to Annie King and B Onume Okezie asking for ACOP’s and ICOP's participation in a new taskforce that will work to implement the recommendations of the 2000 Partnership Workshop

1/7/02 - E-mail to Steve Pueppke appointing him as ESCOP liaison to ECOP Budget and Legislative Commitee

1/7/02 - E-mail to Gary Lemme appointing him as ESCOP liaison to ACOP

1/7/02 - E-mails to DC Coston and Lee Sommers appointing them as ESCOP representatives to Partnership Taskforce

1/22/02 - Letters to Eldon Ortman and Richard Wootton acknowledging outstanding work in leading the Joint ESCOP-ECOP CSREES Environmental Initiative Task Force

1/22/02 - Letter to Randy Woodson requesting ithat the Science and Technology Committee initiate a review of the ESCOP-ECOP-CSREES Environmental Initiative Task Force Report.

1/31/02 - Letter to Mortimer Neufville on behalf of Richard Heimsch and Lyla Houglum requesting $2,000 to be released from the NASULGC Legislative Affairs account for membership in the National C-FAR.

1/31/02 - Letter to Colien Hefferan informing her of the appointment of DC Coston and Lee Sommers to the new Partnership Task Force.

Action Taken: Agenda, minutes and interim actions were approved as presented. Agenda Item 2
Advocacy and Marketing Committee

Presenter: James Fisher

Background: The committee has not met since it last reported (in November, 2001 to the ESCOP Executive Committee). Two ongoing activities are progressing.

1. The Committee has served as a resource to the Science Roadmap summary development. Comments were shared with the summary developers. Additionally, A & M has proposed to work on an additional one-pager version suitable for congressional staff and elected officials.
2. A series on how to communicate the benefits of research outcomes to decision makers is being sponsored by the Committee. One publication has been approved by the Committee, and will be published by NASULGC. The title of that publication is “Stating the Impact of Research”, and will include text plus a videoCD of an exemplary presentation.. Two other topics are being developed on “Communicating With Congress” and “The Mission of the Land Grant University”.

The Committee requests that ESCOP give consideration to alignment with the new committee structure of BAA. The point to be considered is BAA’s committee structure is “Budget and Advocacy”. ESCOP presently splits these responsibilities; an action taken after trying to contain these assignments in one large Budget, Legislative, Advocacy, and Marketing Committee.

Options include having a separate ESCOP committee to focus just on Marketing, while having advocacy joined to budget and legislative activity, to match better with BAA. Discussions with BAA, AESOP, Enterprises, and ECOP should be encouraged, to help set out the options and assess the costs and benefits of these options.

Action Requested: A & M requests ESCOP assign responsibility for investigating the current ESCOP committee structure vis-à-vis budget, legislative, advocacy, and marketing, with the intent of making recommendations back to ESCOP on possible reconfigurations.

Action Taken: See Agenda Item 40

Agenda Item 3
ECOP/ESCOP Image Enhancement

Presenter: Ronald S. Pardini

Background:
The National Impact Writing Team will meet in Washington, D.C. March 4-8, 2002 to compose Impact 2002.

CSREES Terry Meisenbach
ECOP   Keith Smith, Ohio
ESCOP Ron Pardini, Nevada
ACOP  John Hammel, Idaho

Action Requested: For Information

FYI:  Western Region Impact Assessment

On February 12-14, 2002 the WCC 208 - Western Region Impact Statement Development Committee met in Ft. Collins, CO and has decided to create a web based impact report entitled “Best of the West.”  The web site will include pictures, links back to the mentioned states and a printer friendly format.  There is interest in including sound bytes.  The newly developed web site may be viewed at www.ag.unr.edu/wri/ and will include the following impact categories:

· Competitive Agriculture
· Economic Development
· Education for Life
· Fighting Disasters
· Food Safety
· Good Nutrition
· Lifestyles
· Waste Management
· Water Quality

This web site will also be linked to the National Impact site.

CSREES Terry Meisenbach
WAAESD Michael Harrington
WED  Milan Rewerts, Colorado
WAAESD Ron Pardini, Nevada
WAP  John Hammel, Idaho

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 4
Science and Technology Committee

Presenter: Randy Woodson

Background:
The Committee met in February and developed five broadened topics. The reports have been consolidated from the Biotech Taskforce.

There is a task force on biobased products. Of interest is the DOE's roadmap for science on biobased products. The Science & Technology Committee needs to think about its implementtation for agriculture.

Food Safety - need leadership to get it moving.

Need areas of science that Science & Technology may be missing. Examples may be nano-technology, climate change and livestock genomics. The implications of emerging areas of science should be studied.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional Discussion: The committee may need to set goals by certain dates as the Office of Information Technology (OIT) does. The Science & Technology Committee should reference the "Science Roadmap" whenever possible. The OIT has a strategic plan to reference. However, the "Science Roadmap" is not a strategic plan and also does not have information on biosecurity.

Agenda Item 5
Budget and Legislative Committee

Presenter: Richard Jones

Background:  Report for the ESCOP BUG/LEG Committee-Richard Jones, Chair, Darrell Nelson, Chair-designate

Since the last report of the B/L Comm, we have held two teleconferences, one to decide operating procedure (12/13/01) and the other to review the President's budget (02/07/02). The following actions were taken:

Operating Protocol for B/L Comm:
(1) An Executive Committee will consist of Chair, Chair-designate, Executive Vice chair, ECOP representative to the committee, and advocacy firm representative.
(2) A calendar was established for teleconferences and deadlines for action for 2002.
(3) The Chair-designate will track on legislative affairs of interest to ESCOP and this committee.
(4) The B/L Comm will consider a recommendation to the ESCOP Exec Comm re: reorganization of ESCOP committees to parallel those of BAA after operating experience in 2002.

Other Items:
(1) Sun Grant Initiative(SGI): Kevin Kephart informed Daryl Lund that CSREES has asked Kevin for initial information on the SGI and has allocated $523,802 for a planning grant to SDSU. The purpose of the planning grant is to establish the parameters for a competitively funded SGI. Planning will be conducted by South Dakota State University, University of Tennessee, Oklahoma State University, Oregon State University and Cornell University.
(2) Follow up to SUNEI: Chair of B/L recommended that ESCOP chair ask the Sci/Tech Comm to follow up on SUNEI report.
(3) The B/L Comm developed and transmitted to the A/M Comm the budgetary impact of the Science Roadmap for Agriculture.
(4) Farm Bill. The Senate and House both passed a Farm Bill. It is now in conference committee.  The good news is the amendment that was added re: IFAFS. From Terry Nipp:  "The Senate passed an amendment introduced by Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to limit payments to farmers and ranchers to  $275,000 annually. The funds recaptured by this payment cap are designated for distribution to a food stamp, beginning farmer programs, and IFAFS. The last draft language we have had access to put the IFAFS increase at $100 million annually, raising total IFAFS funding to $225 million. The passage of this amendment would also supercede the funding block placed on IFAFS in FY02."  Fy '02 funding would be $130M.
(5)  Science Roadmap for Agriculture:  The B/L Comm provided a report to the Advocacy and Marketing Committee on the impact of the Science Roadmap on federal funding for research in agriculture.  The B/L Comm endorses the Science Roadmap as a guide for setting priorities for budgets.  The Roadmap is assumed to be a guide for N-CFAR and NASULGC initiatives.

President's Budget:
(1) The B/L polled its members regarding the recommendations for CSREES budget (see following recommendation from Terry Nipp to BAA/BAC). The major concern is the elimination of the IFAFS funds and the apparent off set  by an increase  in the NRI.  If this action holds throughout the budget process, the B/L Committee recommends a change in the description for the use of the NRI funds so that more practical research can be targeted (as the programs were described in the IFAFS program).  The B/L  Committee also recommended to the BAC that the components of the agrosecurity request be prioritized in the event that the budgeted increase is less than $225M.  Results were to support the recommendations for distribution of the CSREES increase as Terry has described them. Memo from Terry to Tom Payne and Fred Cholick: During the BAC Teleconference we decided to endorse the President's proposed increase of $120 million for the NRI, with the stimulations that we still supported IFAFS and that we would not support the increase in the NRI at the cost of IFAFS. We also talked about leaving the NRI out or our recommended increase of $212 million to address agro-security.

As we've been editing the draft 1-pager, we've been pondering our numbers as well. If we recommend the increase in the NRI of $120 million AND support an increase of $212 million for agro-security AND we support the restoration and expansion of IFAFS with a $100 million increase...we're approaching half a billion dollars in increases. Somebody might not believe us.

One option we've worked on would be to include the proposed increase of $120 million for the NRI in our budget, with the proposal that it all be dedicated towards agro-security issues. We've redistributed some funds and we've ended up with a net proposal of $225 million, which is higher that $212 million but less than $332 million (120+212). In doing this, we followed ICOP's request to be left out and we kept the Extension numbers as they were. Only ESCOP would be affected by this recommendation, which means smaller proposed increases for Sec. 406 and research formula funds.
(2) The B/L Comm reviewed the one pager developed by BAA/BAC describing the budget request.

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 6
Legislative Affairs Contract and Management (2002)

Presenter: Richard Jones

Background:
A document that outlines NASULGC and AESOP responsibilities is available on the ESCOP web page under AESOP Plan of Activities (2002).

The ESCOP and ECOP Chairs have been involved in development of a contract with AESOP.

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 7
Partnership Committee

Presenter: DC Coston

Background:
The Partnership Committee and the Partnership Taskforce are separate entities.

The initial meeting of the new Joint Task Force has not been held awaiting appointment of all representatives. After the taskforce is populated, CSREES will convene the first meeting and an acting chair will be appointed.  The Western Executive Director will be a permanent representative. Two representatives have been named by ESCOP and one more is to be named.

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 8
Planning Committee

Presenter: Eric Young

Background: The minutes of all Committee meetings and various working documents are available on the Committee web site at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/plan00.htm#Action

Continuing the ESCOP-PC’s charge of linking planning with budget development, future research priorities were identified by the Directors at the September, 2001 SAES/ARD Workshop in Idaho.  The resulting deliberation established Agrosecurity as the highest priority area for an ESCOP budget initiative.  Details of the Workshop priority setting can be found in a PowerPoint presentation accessible from the ESCOP Workroom.

The ESCOP-PC coordinated a request distributed to 45 directors of state agricultural experiment stations in 1862 and 1890 institutions to estimate the appropriate mix of faculty expertise that will be required to address each challenge area identified in the “Science Roadmap for Agriculture”.  Twenty-two directors responded with estimates for each field of science in each challenge area.  This information was passed to the Budget and Legislative Committee to develop and justify federal budget requests to increase the agricultural research system’s capacity and support in expertise/discipline areas with the greatest need.

As a follow-up on two action items from the Partnership Workshop held in February 2001, the ECOP / ESCOP Joint Planning Committee (JPC), including several CSREES representatives, developed a joint document describing a shared vision for the partnership and a process for establishing joint national initiatives.   This document was subsequently accepted by the ESCOP and ECOP Executive Committees and by CSREES.  The vision is as follows:

Vision
The Partnership functions in an environment of harmony and trust and creates alliances around mutual issues and opportunities. These alliances create and expand mutual programs, projects and activities to better serve the public.
Definitions
Partners: Partners currently refer to the cooperative extension system, agricultural experiment stations, academic programs, international programs and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES).
Alliance: An alliance exists when two or more Partners and/or other entities develop a mutually agreed upon written program or project based on a priority issue which is intended to result in joint outcomes.

The complete document is available at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/partnership-vision.pdf

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 9
BAA and Policy Board Update

Presenter: Colin Kaltenbach

Background:
The newly structured Policy Board of Directors had its first working meeting on January 16-17, 2002.  Because of the large number of issues to be addressed it was not able to address all of the potential issues, however, a number of actions were taken.  Considerable time was devoted to working on the Policy and  Procedures for the Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC) ?the main points are: future hiring of the advocacy firm (s) will be done by bidding; the firm will be  directly responsible to the BAC; CARET will be responsible to the Policy  Board but virtually all activities will be coordinated through the BAC; all  units who participate in the BAC will be expected to pay an assessment  (amount yet to be determined); Sections will be allowed to establish  separate assessments (for activities outside or beyond the traditional  Title 8 efforts) but they will be expected to coordinate the billing with  the Board Assessment such that NASULGC will forward only one billing per  year to each State. I think these are the major items of interest in this  regard-let me know if you have specific questions.

Another item of major interest involves the residual $’’s (it appears  this will be something on the order of $400,000 total, to be split with  ECOP) from the current assessment at the end of this year. It is proposed  that the following occur: 50% of the residual will be available to ESCOP  and ECOP effective 1/1/03. An additional 25% will be available effective  1/1/04 with the remaining 25% provided on 1/1/05. The payment schedule  will be reviewed at the end of 03 to see if the cash flow is sufficient at  that time to return the final 25% at an earlier date. The Board feels this  represents a good faith effort to return all monies that are due ESCOP/ECOP  and at the same time provide the necessary funds to keep the advocacy  program funded during the transition. The manner in which the funding is  accumulated and spent requires that there be a significant residual at the  end of each year to cover expenses prior to the receipt of the assessment  the following year. It has taken some time to accumulate the necessary  residual under the current system and it will also take some time to do so  under the proposed new assessment scheme (details of the assessments will  be established in subsequent meeting and probably won’t be totally  finalized until after the first bidding process for the advocacy firm. The  new assessment will cover some operational dollars for the BAC and for CARET).

The Board also addressed administrative structures and reporting lines with respect to CARET. Currently, CARET members are appointed by AHS at the state level and CARET essentially answers to the AHS group at both the state and national level.  CARET is staffed by NASULGC and it works with our advocacy organization in an informal and less than structured manner.

Under the proposed new structure  CARET members will still be appointed at the state level by the AHS group and the heads would remain the principal point of contact at the state level. This will change at the national level. CARET will be directly responsible to the Policy Board but day-to-day communications and working relationships will be through the Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC) with the Vice Chair of the BAC serving as the principal contact person. The advocacy organization or organizations as the case may be will also be directly accountable to the BAC.  The Policy Board feels this proposed structure will increase communications and strengthen our collective efforts.

CARET will have a specific operating budget.  The budget request will be developed by the BAC, reviewed by the CARET Executive Committee and submitted to the Policy Board for approval.  All assessments to cover the costs of CARET and the BAC will be determined by the Policy Board.  The NASULGC office will continue to collect the assessment and serve as the “banker” for these activities.

The Policy Board also briefly reviewed other suggestions and questions submitted by the CARET leadership including the issue of increasing the number of CARET delegates in the larger states.  In view of the time limitations for adequate discussion it was felt that the current policy should remain in place for the moment except that special consideration should be given for expanding the CARET representation on initiatives where “key” sates need more advocacy .  The issue of staffing was also briefly discussed but until the new structure is in place it did not seem appropriate to initiate changes in the staffing pattern.  Finally, the Board  felt that expanding the September CARET Executive Committee meeting to include representatives from “key” states would be appropriate.

Dr. Gale Buchanan, Chair of the Board has asked me to serve as the official liaison from the Board to CARET. I am pleased to accept that assignment.  Finally, to set up a staggered membership we drew straws for one and two year  terms. I drew a one year term so ESCOP will have to submit candidates  again for an election this September. I also inherited the Vice Chair  position which means I will chair the BAA Program Committee for the  Annual NASULGC Committee. I will need considerable input from ESCOP  including some thoughts on what the theme of the program should be and who  we might entice as speakers. This is also our year for nominating  speakers for the Hatch Lecture so we need to be thinking of candidates.

Action Requested: For information

Action Taken: Approved motion to go on record that ESCOP is comfortable with the conveyed plan of handling residual funds in the advocacy account: 1/2 in 2003, 1/4 in 2004 and 1/4 in 2005.

Agenda Item 10
CSREES Report

Presenter: Gary Cunningham

Background:

ADMINISTRATOR'S QUARTERLY UPDATE Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
March 3-5, 2002

CSREES REORGANIZATION

On January 30, 2002, the Department of Agriculture approved a reorganization plan for CSREES that will make partnership activities an agency-wide function, position us to better coordinate. database; activities, and utilize information technology to manage federal grants processes, and improve: planning and accountability.
"The plan also allows us to restructure communications activities and take advantage of opportunities to explore new systems and concepts with our university partners, such as the idea of e-Extension. And, most importantly, with this reorganization we will expand the influence of National Program Leaders and Managers in agency operations.
We plan to have our initial implementation completed by March 10, 2002, when new Deputy Administrator assignments will be official and personnel realignments complete. We have begun recruitment actions for 12 new leadership positions created in the reorganization plan and hope to begin filling those positions in March, with all to be completed by the end of summer. Before the initial changes are implemented, we will share with our staff and partners a list of whom to contact for what functions, as well as a new phone directory.

RODNEY BROWN NAMED USDA DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR REE

Agriculture Secretary ANN M. VENEMAN recently announced the selection of RODNEY J. BROWN as Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics (REE). "Rodney Brown brings to USDA extensive knowledge in agriculture, research and extension programs," said Secretary Veneman.
Recently Brown chaired the Board on Agriclture of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), during which time he establisehd formal links with the Interuniversity Council on Agriculture in Europe. For the past year, he served as senior program liaison between Earth Science Enterprise of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and USDA's CSREES. Brown has served as professor and dean of agriculture at Utah State University for the last 8 years.

Brown has received many honors including: the American Dairy Science Association Pfizer Inc. Award for Cheese and Cultured Products Research; the Utah State University Leone Administrative Leadership Award; the G. Malcom Trout Visiting Scholar from the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University; and the Utah State University President's Diversity Award.
A native of Utah, Brown received his B.S. from Brigham Young University, his M.S. degree in nutrition and food science from Utah State University, and his Ph.D. in food science from North Carolina State University.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS' MEETING SET FOR APRIL 7-11 IN KANSAS CITY

The 2002 CSREES Administrative Officers' Meeting will be held April 7-11 in Kansas City, MO. The conference will give higher education administrators a chance to listen to and meet with CSREES personnel about the agency's programs, grant processes, and partnerships.
Kansas State University and Haskell Indian Nations University will host the meeting, which will take place at the Westin Crown Center Hotel. Reservations made at the hotel with the group "CSREES Administrative Officers' Meeting" will be $115 for a single room and $125 for a double room. These rates will apply until March 6, unless the room block is sold out before.

Conference registration should be available beginning the week of February 11. For more information, including agenda and registration, click on http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/csrees/.

2001 PLAN OF WORK REPORTS DUE MARCH 1

Annual Plan of Work Accomplishment Reports for 2001 are due to CSREES by March 1, 2002. The guidance for the 2001 report is the same as for the 2000 report. Information is available on the CSREES website at http://www.reeusda.gov/part/areera. Click on "New 2001 Report Guidance." Questions should be directed to BART HEWITT (bhewitt@reeusda.gov).

2003 CSREES ON-SITE REVIEW REQUESTS DUE APRIL 30

Requests for CSREES on-site reviews for FY 2003 (October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003) are due by April 30, 2002. The agency letter and the forms to request and justify reviews are available on the CSREES website: http://ww-v.reeusda.gov/part/csrees_reviews/FY2003rev.pdf. Institutions scheduling and then canceling reviews for FY 2002 must resubmit review requests; for FY 2003. Questions should be directed to ROSA MONROE (rmonroe@reeusda.gov).

APPLICATIONS FOR FY 2002 TRIBAL COLLEGES EXTENSION SERVICES PROGRAM

CSREES is seeking applications from all 1994 Land-Grant Institutions for the FY 2002 Tribal Colleges Extension Services Program. About $3,142,000 is available from CSREES in FY 2002 for the tribal colleges to conduct non-formal education and outreach activities to help meet the needs of Native American people and to provide essential services to their communities.
Awards will be made in one or more of the following base program areas: agriculture; community resources and economic development; family development and resource management; 4-H and youth development; leadership and volunteer development; natural resources and environmental management; and nutrition, diet, and health. Applications are due by April 12, 2002. For further information, contact JOAN F. GILL at 202-720-6487 or jgill@reeusda.gov, or visit the CSREES website at http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/f mding/ourfund.htm.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

CSREES Employment opportunities are posted and updated regularly at the following web address: :http://www.reeusda.gov/hrd/hrdmob.htm

NEW MEMBERS APPOINTED TO NAREEEA BOARD

USDA recently announced the appointment of 11 individuals to fill openings on its National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory (NAREEEA) Board.

The Board is composed of 30 members, each representing a specific category related to farming or ranching, food production and processing, forestry research, crop and animal science, land-grant institutions, food retailing and marketing, rural economic development, and natural resource and consumer interest groups, among many others.
Appointees, by category, are as follows:

• Category E: National Animal Commodity Organizations, PAUL C. GENHO, Vice President, King Ranch, Inc., Kingsville, TX, and Former Chair, National Cattleman's Beef Association.
• Category H: National Food Animal Science Societies, JEFFREY D. ARMSTRONG, Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, and President, American Society of Animal Science.
• Category I: National Crop, Soil, Agronomy, Horticulture or Weed Science Societies, MARTIN A. MASSENGALE, President Emeritus, Foundation Distinguished Professor, and Director, Center for Grassland Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (reappointed).
• Category N: 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, including Tuskegee University, McARTHUR FLOYD, Research Director, School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Associate Director, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, and Professor of Soil Microbiology, Alabama A&M University.
• Category O: 1994 Equity in Education Land-Grant Institutions, JUDITH DAMS, Dean, Academic Affairs, Dull Knife Memorial College, Lame Deer, MT.
• Category P: Hispanic-Serving Institutions (2-year term), CASTELL VAUGHN BRYANT, President, Miami-bade Community College North Campus, Miami, FL.
• Category T:  Food Retailing and Marketing, GEORGE H. HOFFMAN, President and CEO, Restaurant Services, Inc., Coral Gables, FL.
• Category U: Rural Economic Development, WALTER J. ARMBRUSTER, President, Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, IL.
• Category W: National Consumer Interest Groups, BARBARA STOWE, Dean Emeritus, College of Human Ecology, Kansas State University, former Senior Advisor, AESOP Enterprises, Ltd., Washington, DC (reappointed).
• Category V: National Forestry Groups, GEORGE SAMUEL FOSTER, JR., Dean,College of Forest Resources, Director, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University.
• Category Y: National Conservation or Natural Resource Groups, PETER H. RAVEN, Director, Missouri Botanical Garden, and National Medal of Science recipient.

For further information, contact DEBORAH HANFMAN, Executive Director, NAREEEA Board Office (202-720-3684 or smorgan@reeusda.gov).

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 11
AESOP, Farm Bill and Budget Status

Presenter: Terry Nipp

Background:

Building Budget Support though Polling and Message Testing
AESOP Enterprises, Ltd.
3/4/02

Congressman, the Administration, industries and public interest groups routinely conduct political surveys or polls. These polls are used to gauge public opinion on critical issues in key Congressional Districts, key states, regions and nationally. Polls are used in formulating policy positions and political strategies. These political surveys can be used to develop budget priorities and to test "messages" for public interest in particular issues.

Example

If we want to direct the interest of a Congressional Appropriations Subcommittee towards increasing funding for food safety research, we could identify half a dozen Members on the Subcommittee who might be predisposed to support food safety research. We could then identify the pollsters that these Congressmen use or trust to do their political surveys - many if not most Members use these pollsters as they formulate their political campaign strategies. These firms could be utilized to conduct polls in the District or State that would demonstrate how much a public concern there was among constituents and whether they would support more funding for food safety research. It is one thing for us to say food safety research is important, it is quite another matter if a pollster the Congressman trusts reports that 87% of the regular voters in a Congressional District are concerned about food safety and that 72% believe a substantial investment in research would demonstrate a genuine effort to address the problem. Getting elected is a consistent goal for Congressman. Targeted polling can demonstrate to a Congressman or Senator how support for research can help them get elected.

Challenges

While polling is common to many industries and interest groups, it is not familiar territory for universities. Similarly, pollsters often do not understand research issues, particularly agricultural research issues. Some significant planning and preparation time would be necessary to insure that a poll or survey was designed and targeted in a way that would yield useful results. As well, careful planning will be necessary to keep costs to a manageable level.

The Charge

The ESCOP Marketing and Advocacy Committee asked AESOP to explore how polling and political surveys might be used to build support for agricultural research, in the event that ESCOP, the BAA or the BAC might wish to utilize this tool in the future. AESOP has had several meetings with political polling and marketing firms, making it clear that we are only in the "exploratory" phase. Two distinct processes became apparent: public opinion polling and message testing.

Public Opinion Polling

Political pollsters use different tools depending on the size of the District or State, the issues being studied, and the resources of the client. Pollsters use door-to-door interviews, automated and personal telephone surveys, home mailings, and even shopping mall interviews. Public opinion polling helps define the "big picture items," identifying which issues are resonating with the public: food safety, water quality, rural economic development, etc. Once identified, a particular "hot button" issue can be followed up in more de~il to see how constituents view more research on a topic. This combination of general survey work with targeted follow up would lead to our being able to say something like "Mr. Congressman, 82% of the farmers in your District believe that there should be more funding for agricultural research to develop new uses for their products." Or, "Senator, 67% of the registered voters in your state apparently do not believe you've done enough to address water quality concerns in the state and 73% of these voters believe that it investing more funding in water quality research would demonstrate a commitments on your part to address this issue." Polling is not "lobbying" per se, but it certainly is used to show a Congressman or Senator why they should support funding for a particular research issue.

Many of these firms do regular constituent polls for specific Congressman and Senators and they are willing to add a mix of questions into their regular survey instrument on behalf of a client that does not want to bear the cost of separate polling.

Message Testing

Once a critical issue is identified as important to half a dozen key Members, it can be "tested" as a national initiative. Some recommended steps by two films follow.

Use a combination of qualitative and quantitative surveys, including focus groups, one-on-one interviews, a small national survey and a few questions on a Congressional omnibus survey.

1. Focus Groups

   Conduct a minimum of four focus groups among opinion elites of the general public. Opinion elites are respondents between the ages of 25-55, with higher levels of education and income, are on the Internet and are involved in their communities or pay close attention to the news.

2. One-on-One Interviews

   Conduct at least 20 one-on-one interviews among key people who know about, are involved, and impacted by the identified field of agricultural scientific research. These type of interviews allow us to go even more in-depth than the focus groups by asking individuals about what's important to them, how the field affects them and connecting this back to what's important about agricultural scientific research. It gives a more detailed look at individual attitudes and feelings about key messages.

3. National Survey

   Roughly once a month, the firm conducts a national survey of 800 Adults or Registered Voters (depending which works best for clients) called a national omnibus. These surveys have multiple clients and cover many different topics. This allows a client to get national data on key questions for less money than conducting their own individual national survey.

4. Congressional Omnibus Survey

   A different research firm conducts a survey of 150 Congressional Hill staff three to four times a year. This survey is an omnibus, which means multiple clients add questions onto the survey. In the past, some of our clients have bought additional questions on this survey to gauge how their messages work among people on the Hill. This provides a good comparison to the general public when deciding which messages work best. We suggest adding roughly three to five questions onto this survey.

   Costs

   Understandably, the firms did not want to "lock-in" to any specific price until a more detailed proposal was on the table and it was possible to estimate a time frame for proceeding. We have the impression, however, that it would be possible to develop a project that would combine polling work in the states of half a dozen key Congressmen, develop budget messages, and test them nationally for $60 to $100 thousand, depending on the breadth and depth of the survey work. This would be a very different approach to budget development and advocacy for us, but it is apparently a very common approach by many. AESOP could proceed working with these firms to develop more detailed proposals working with the ESCOP Marketing and Advocacy Committee.

   An additional document was circulated "Invest in Agro-Security." An addendum page may be developed with three tables: (1) proposed $ on issue basis; (2) issues and funding; and (3) list of funding mechanisms.

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 14
   ARS Agency Report

   Presentor: Dr. Edward B. Knipling, Acting Administrator, ARS
   Background:

   • Leadership/Personnel Update
   • Homeland Security
   • Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Proposal (summary Attached)
   • Other Items
   
    

   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF  AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH  SERVICE FY 2003 President's Budget ($ in 000)
   SALARIES & EXPENSES
   FY 2002 Appropriations Act			$979,464
   Proposed Increases:
   	Program Initiatives:
   	Emerging, Reemerging, and Exotic Diseases of Plants and Animals	$13,357
   	Agricultural Genomes	6,900
   	Biotechnology Risk Assessment	3,600
   	Biosecurity Research	5,000
   	Research to Control Invasive Species	2,700
   	Agricultural Genetic Resources	4,000
   	Managing Wastes to Enhance Air and Water Quality	5,000
   	Biobased Products/Bioenergy from Agricultural Commodities	9,000
   	Global Climate Change	6,500
   	Agricultural Information Services	2,000	58,057
   	Operational Needs:
   	Restoration of 2002 Pay Costs	$18,756
   	Pay Costs, 2003	16,613
   	FECA Surcharge Proposal	234	35,603
   	Total, Proposed Increases		93,660
   Proposed Decreases:
   	Reduction in Base Funding	$15,000
   	Terminate FY 2001 Congressional Add-Ons	34,282
   	Tenninate FY 2002 Congressional Add-Ons	55,204	-104,486
   Net Change			-10,826
   Transfer in Estimates:
   	GSA Rent	$2,807
   	Employee Pension and Annuitant Health Benefits	42,641	45,448
   	Total, FY 2003 Salaries and Expenses		1,014,086
   BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
   	Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Greenport, NY		$2,000
   	Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD		4,180
   	National Agricultural Library		7,400
   	U. S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC		3,000
   	Total, FY 2003 Buildings and Facilities		16,580

   Staff Years 2001 (Actual)2002 (Est.)2003 (Est)

                                   7,934                             8,518                        8,470
    

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 15
   NAPFSC

   Presenter: Perry Brown

   Background:
   The NASULGC Forestry Section/NAPFSC has completed a busy year in which we have pursued the following items:

   1.  Worked with a brought into membership the four year forestry programs at Alabama A&M and Southern University.  These are the first 1890 institutions affiliated with
   us.
   2.  Actively worked for funding increases in McIntire-Stennis, RREA, NRI, and other programs and RREA was increased about one-third.
   3.  Continued leadership of the Coalition for Sustaining America's Non-Federal Forests.
   4.  Participated in planning the Forest Science Summit scheduled for May 2002.
   5.  Continued activities with the USDA Forest Service and others on workforce planning issues.
   6.  Continued activity with the Society of American Foresters on forestry accreditation issues.
   7.  Helped to sponsor the Natural Resources Education Symposium at NC State in March 2002.
   8.  Provided testimony on forestry, research and education issues to the US Congress and USDA.

   The NAPFSC Executive Committee is meeting in Washington, DC March 4-6 and we are making final our budget request numbers for FY 2003 at that time.
    

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 18
   ACOP

   Presenter: Roger Lewis

   Background:
   I. Budget 2003

   A. President’s Budget recommends an increase over the 2002 appropriations of:  $1.1 M for the Challenge Grants Program and $0.5 M for the National Needs Fellowship Program.  This is a total of $1.6 M increase for the Higher Education Programs.

   B. Biosecurity Issues

   NASULGC recommendations include $8 M for Biosecurity Education to be spent by enhancing existing programs (targeting biosecurity education).

   Increased requests for three programs are:
    Challenge Grants:  $5 M
    National Needs Fellowships:  $2 M
    Multicultural Scholars:  $1 M

   II. Reinstitute the Summer Leadership Development Program for ACOP/APS beginning 2003.

   III. Partnering of ACOP/APS with ESCOP and ECOP is a high priority issue with ACOP.  Well designed partnerships will enhance the outcomes of all participating units.  APS is working on a proposal to serve as a prototype for future ESCOP/APS partnering activities.

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 19
   ECOP

   Presenter: Chester Fehlis

   Background:
   The Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) met in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 18-20 followed by the National Extension Directors Conference on February 20-22.  The following items of discussion were highlighted during that meeting and conference.

   1) Homeland and Agri-Security.  Lengthy discussion by a number of individuals including Gary Cunningham, Deputy Administrator for CSREES.  Discussion focused on role for Extension, report by ECOP Budget and Legislative Committee and by Western Region Extension Directors.   Committee named to develop a document on role for Extension to be used with various agencies and organizations.

   2) Board on Agriculture Assembly Policy Board.  Stan Johnson reported on the organizational meetings of the policy board.  ECOP approved the recommendation to allow the Policy Board to use one-half of the ECOP/ESCOP advocacy funds as a bridge until the assessments can be determined and collected for the new BOA Budget and Advocacy Committee.

   3) New Executive Director for ECOP at NASULGC.  Announced the appointment of Dick Wootton of Kansas State University as the new Executive Director for ECOP replacing Myron Johnsrud who is retiring February 28.  Dick will assume that new role in Washington, D.C. on June 3.

   4) Partnership Task Force.  As a followup to the Partnership Conference held in 2001, ECOP has appointed a committee to work with CSREES and other partners in followup to recommendations evolving from that conference.

   5) Vision for the 21st Century Report.  The new national Extension strategic plan was introduced and discussed both at ECOP and the National Extension Directors meeting.

   6) Structure for ECOP.  A workshop to review the mission and structure of ECOP was conducted to determine how ECOP can most efficiently and effectively conduct work for the National Extension System.

   7) Retirement Event for Myron Johnsrud.  A special luncheon was held in honor of Myron for his long and distinguished service to Extension as an Extension Director, Administrator for the National Extension System and Executive Director for ECOP.
    

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 20
   ICOP

   Presenter: Edwin Price

   Background:
   1.  The President's Agriculture budget for FY 2003 contains a $ 1,000,000  line item for International Science and Education Competitive Grants Competitive Grants in international agriculture research.  GASEPA is working to secure this long-sought funding in the forthcoming Congressional appropriations process.

   ESCOP support for this item would be appreciated.

   2.  The current Farm Bill that is now in conference contains an authorization for a new joint FAS/CSREES internship program for students of agriculture at FAS offices around the world.  The program would permit long term relationships between FAS offices and US universities under which a set number of interns (probably 1-2) might be placed each year in an FAS office.  FAS would provide office space, research support and supervision, but no other financial support.  The student, his/her university or other externa sources would provide airfares, subsistence and other costs. The new program would complement the current fully funded program which requires competition for a few slots each year.

   ESCOP support would be appreciated.

   3.  Dr. Tim Phillips of Texas A&M University has been named to receive the 2002 BIFAD Chairman's Award for Excellence in International Agriculture Research.  The award recognizes Dr. Phillip's work to mitigate the effect of aflatoxins in animal feed by the use of clay in contaminated feeds. Dr. Phillips was nominated through the leadership of the Peanut Collaborative Research Program based at the University of Georgia.

   4.  Administrator Andrew Natsios of USAID is giving strong indications that agriculture will figure importantly in future US foreign assistance programs.  Discussions continue for the purpose of strengthening the USAID-University partnership, and partnerships between universities and the International Agriculture Research Centers.  To that end, Mr. John Swanson of the agriculture office within the new Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade Bureau, USAID, is attending ESCOP today.

   5.  Considerable attention is being given by USAID to the rehabilitation of agriculture in Afghanistan.  Early efforts are being coordinated by the International Center for Agriculture Development in the Dry Areas.  Areas of emphasis are expected to be seed supply, water, livestock and agriculture education.

   6.  Ms. Emmy Simmons has been nominated to be the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade (EGAT).  Her confirmation hearing is (was) set for March 28. The appointment of a new BIFAD Board is expected.
    

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 22
   Changes in Multistate Guidelines - Rapid Response Projects

   Presenter: T. J. Helms

   Background: Statements in the Multistate Research Guidelines regarding USDA/CSREES and Regional Association approval of Rapid Response Projects are incorrect in describing the procedures. These were reviewed by the National Multistate Coordinating Committee (NMCC) during its November 2001 in Atlanta.  Subsequent to the NMCC meeting the following amendments were reviewed and approved by the Executive Directors and Dr. George Cooper, Deputy Administrator, for presentation  to ESCOP:

   1. Amend the sentence at the top of page 6 ("Neither CSREES nor regional association approval is required") to read:  "Proposals are forwarded electronically by the Executive Director to the Multistate Research Office, CSREES for review and approval."  Explanation:  CSREES must be in the approval channel because Rapid Response Projects are, in fact Multistate Research Projects.  Expenditure of formula funds require approval by CSREES, where these funds will support the efforts of the rapid response project.

   2. Amend the statement regarding "Authorization" in Appendix F (p. 26) from "Administrative Adviser" to "Chair of the Regional Association." Explanation:  Since proposals are submitted to CSREES through the Executive Director by the Chair of the Regional Association and the Chair is, technically, the initial Administrative Adviser for the activity, he/she is the person who authorizes the activity in behalf of the petitioning Directors and the Regional Association(s).

   3. Amend Appendix N (p. 42) by insertion after "Proposal is forwarded electronically to …. CSREES" of the following:

   (Left Side) Approval of the Activity with Notification to Directors of Paticipating Stations, the Chair of the Regional Association, and the Executive Director.

   (Right Side) Multistate Research Office, CSREES

   Action Requested: Approval of amendments

   Action Taken: Amendments Approved

   ---

   Agenda Item 23
   NIMSS

   Presenter:  David MacKenzie

   Background: NIMSS has 277 registered users to date from all over the country.  The NIMSS User Manual was posted on January 31, 2002.  Several proposals have been submitted online and are undergoing review.  The NIMSS’ Appendix E was used to submit participation commitments in majority of these proposals. Entering current multistate projects/activities’ data are also well underway for all the four regions.

   Phase II is almost complete.  In addition to the User Manual, new features/functions have been added to NIMSS since it was previewed in Idaho at the ESS Meeting in September 2001.  Among these are:

   · homepages for each of the multistate projects/activities
   · directory of station directors, advisors, CSREES Reps, and participants
   · search for accomplishments and impacts from annual reports
   · search for extension participants by program

   The remaining activities under Phase 2 are automating the CSREES-part of the approval process and building an “Ask the Experts” webpage.

   A demonstration is scheduled at CSREES, Waterfront Centre, on April 18, at 1:30pm.  A NIMSS Workshop will also be presented by Rubie Mize at the 2002 CSREES Administrative Meeting in Kansas City, Missouri on April 10.

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 25
   Ag and Biosecurity Task Force

   Presenter: D. Thawley/D. MacKenzie

   Background:
   In a letter to the Homeland Security core Task Force members ESCOP Chair Richard Heimsch wrote:

   The ESCOP Executive Committee has recently identified probable areas of focus for the task force, which are given below. I convey these for your consideration:

   • To recommend guidelines/policies and procedures that should be adopted across the SAES to insure that our research materials, data-bases, and microbial germplasm collections are secure and to reduce the probability that they will become source materials for terrorists.

   • To determine the capacity of SAES both in terms of human resources and universitybased infrastructure that can be brought to bear to address agrosecurity issues and problems that may emerge,

   • To help formulate how the SAES and USDA/ARS can collectively and cooperatively work together to provide enhanced agro-security for the Nation.

   • To identify research needs and opportunities in the agro-security arena and to help define research and program initiatives that may support enhanced funding for agro-security in the U.S.

   The Task Force has met several times and held a few conference calls to conduct its business. We have drawn on the knowledge of others and shared our own experiences. All of this exchange has caused us to rethink several positions on bio-terrorism and biological warfare vis-a-vis the Land Grant University system, our vulnerabilities as institutions, and the threats to U.S. agriculture.

   We see strategic biological warfare as distinct from bio-terrorism. In the case of strategic biological warfare the intention would be to harm or destroy a nation's capacity to fight (by striking at public health, destroying food security, or an injuring an economy). The intention of bio-terrorism would be more likely come as an attack on public confidence, and to instill public fear. Thus, the choice of organisms is very different for the two forms of warfare. Upon the advice of others we have abandoned attempts to produce a list of organisms of greatest threat. Moreover, such a list might prove difficult to keep confidential.

   The establishment of the White House Office of Homeland Security may help us in the organization of a concerted SAES response. The appointment of former USDA/ARS Administrator Floyd Horn (responsible for Food, Agriculture and Water) will give us an excellent point of contact.

   The Task Force is developing two White Papers: ("A White Paper on Agro-Security" and "A White Paper on Site Security")
   •  How our research laboratories and research farms can be made secure.

   • How the resources on the SAES System can be focused on providing Agrosecurity.

   We see the need to work together to provide security standards for our research facilities. Some suggested approaches are to create: bio-security templates; security guidelines; advisory notes; checklists; and HACCP-like risk management processes. We are also looking toward a system of having a single SAES point-of-contact, most likely the Director or his/her designate. Additionally, ARS has confirmed their willingness to assist the SAES system in developing such a security standards for our research facilities. Training courses and selected site examples are likely means of disseminating this information.

   We see a need to conduct an inventory of SAES research capacity and expertise relevant to agrosecurity, along with a system for providing access to those intellectual resources. Threat assessment, threat prevention, biological monitoring systems, intervention systems, and assessment of incidences need to be organized in partnership with key federal and state agencies. Important to the creation of any agro-security system is the need for a hierarchical structure that can accommodate state and federal initiatives along with provisions for information security.

   Additionally, we see a role for SAES faculty in training state and federal agency staff (and others) in bio-security relevant topics. We also see a central role to be played our extension partners in a national detection and response system. Disease and pest clinics, animal diagnostic clinics, private crop consultants, veterinarians, and others could contribute to a national "monitoring and early warning system".

   The development of the White Papers should include statements on the funding necessary to mobilize these SAES's responses.

   Future Activities: The Task Force is proposing to meet with the Secretary of Agriculture to explore her interests in engaging the Land Grant Universities in the War on Terrorism. Are there factors that are preventing the Department from accessing our resources and capacities?

   We are planning to deliver to Homeland Security Officer Floyd Horn the two White Papers noted above (the need to secure our facilities; and, how we can address the threats to U.S. agriculture), once completed.

   We are also drafting a set of anticipated Q and As on Agro-Security for anticipated interactions with Congress.

   Action Requested: For information.

   Action Taken: Approved acceptance of the document on "Site" - How our research laboratories and research farms can be made secure - pending finalization of the document.
   

   ---

   Agenda Item 26
   ESCOP Meetings Special Committee

   Presenter: Daryl Lund

   Background: At the ESCOP Executive Committee meeting in Coeur d'Alene a special committee consisting of the five EDs (Daryl Lund, David
   Mackenzie, Sam Donald, Tom Helms, and Mike Harrington) and the five regional chairs (Ian Gray, Mark Mount, Carolyn Brooks, Vance
   Watson and Jim Jacobs) was appointed to determine if the calendar of meetings could be more rational resulting in reduction of cost and
   time. A conference call was held January 14, 2002, with the following results.

   The attached calendar was generated by the analysis of meetings which a significant number of directors attend. Analysis of attendees at
   the various meetings results in the following conclusions:
   (1) Directors who serve on the ESCOP Executive Committee attend 2 Executive Committee meetings plus 5 additional meetings either
   regionally or nationally.
   (2) All directors attend 5 meetings either regionally or nationally (4 if the region does not hold a summer meeting).

   Although it is not readily apparent how the number of meetings can be reduced, the following situations were analyzed:

   1. Videoconferencing: Consideration of tele- or videoconferencing was analyzed by Mike Harrington with the following report from Mike.
                                          Web-Based Video Conferencing
                                          Mike Harrington February 2002

   Each participant needs a desk-top system consisting of a camera and associated hardware and software. Depending on the source, these
   units cost about $500 each.   Each participant then connects with a distant participant or to a central server which manages the group
   conference. At present this technology is generally limited to smaller groups except as noted below. There is limited support for Mac users
   due to the camera limitations. In addition, older Macs may not have the necessary speed or RAM capabilities to support video
   conferencing. Web access, server quality and speed at the particular institution have a big impact on the quality of conferencing.

   Minimum desktop system requirements: 500 MHz Pentium III or better recommended, 64 MB RAM, CD-ROM Drive for software
   installation, High Speed Network / Internet access for video conferencing, available PCI slot, and Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, NT 4.0, XP.

   Current Status

   1.  Hosted Conferences

   There are companies that “host” conferences usually involving an annual contract with the major cost factors being number of minutes
   required and band-width. Costs are about $.30 min./participant plus the contract cost. Most companies of this type push files (e.g. Power
   Point, Excel, etc) to participants via the web while hosting the phone-audio link for the meeting.

   I have not yet located a company that provides an “as needed” service such as ESCOP might need for the executive committee meeting.
   The technology for larger “see you, see-me” conferences via the web is in beta tests and should be more widely available in the near future.
    

   2.  Dedicated Server

   Financial Services Inc. (www.vidnet.org) is marketing a dedicated server that is configured to manage web video conferences. The one
   system costs about $3,500, plus a user license which is dependent on the number of participants desired (25 pax = $20,000, 50 pax =
   $35,000, etc). There is considerable up-front cost and a location as well as an upkeep plan would be needed.

   Final Thoughts

   For the time being, we appear to be slightly ahead of the curve in using this technology for a 30 person meeting. Certainly, this technology
   would have broad use for focused meetings such as special committees or task forces. While there is a considerable savings in not
   attending a meeting, one possible unanticipated cost may be the loss of the face to face interactions that result in value added benefits to
   the system.

   In the future, it may make sense for “the system” to develop a contract with a company for conference time on a monthly basis rather than
   ESCOP doing this alone. Such a contract should be of general use with “the system” including the BAA, Policy Board, Budget and
   Advocacy Committee, Farm Bill Task Force, other COPs, etc.

   2. Summer mini-land grant meeting and summer all COPs meeting: A consideration was made of having a common venue for the
   summer mini-land grant meeting and the national all COPs meeting. Such a meeting could be organized as follows:
   Timetable for Mini Land-Grant and All COPs meeting
   Day 1: Joint session of COPs organized by one of the COPs (in rotation)
   Day 2: Individual COPs meetings
   Day 3: Regional Mini Land Grant meeting Joint Session
   Day 4: Individual regional association meetings for R/E/A/I/Deans/CARET
   Day 5: As above to Noon
   The drawbacks to this proposal are: (1) not all the regions are now meeting as a mini-land grant in the summer, (2) the meeting would be
   very large requiring a large number of meeting rooms, (3) CARET members do not now attend the all COPs meeting (except for those who
   serve as liaison to standing committees), and (4) this scheme does not reduce the time commitment for meetings. Furthermore, it is the
   Regional AHS who organize the regional mini-land grant meetings.

   3. Eliminating the ESCOP meeting in February: This meeting is generally held immediately after the President releases his budget.
   Thus, the agenda for this meeting has traditionally been the ESCOP response to the President's budget. This year the timing is coincident
   so that many of the Directors may accompany their CARET members for the Hill visits and assist in hosting their booths at the Hill
   exhibits. One consideration is to authorize the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee to make the response of ESCOP to the
   President's budget. Due to timing, that was done this year. On the other hand, this is a very important response and having input from the
   entire membership is valuable. The ESCOP membership should consider the timing of this meeting.
    
   
   

   			Meeting Calendar
   Month	Meeting Description	ESCOP Executive Committee	ESCOP Membership	Regional Directors	All Directors	Length of Meeting	Venue
   Feb/March	ESCOP Meeting		x			2 days	Usually with CARET
   March/April	Regional Association Meetings			x		2 days	Regional Office plans
   April/May	ESCOP Executive Committee	x				1-1/2 days	ESCOP Chair plans; could use video conferencing
   July	ESCOP Executive Committee	x(?)				as needed	Joint with all COPs meeting
   	Regional mini-land grant			x		2 days	AHS member in host state arranges
   	All COPS				x	3 days	Rotates among COPs and AHS
   September	ESCOP Executive Committee	x(?)				as needed	Joint with SAES/ARD Wksp
   	Experiment Station Section				x	1/2 day	Joint with SAES/ARD Wksp
   	SAES/ARD Workshop				x	1-1/2 days	Joint with SAES/ARD Wksp
   	Regional Association			x		1/2 day	Joint with SAES/ARD Wksp
   November	NASULGC Annual Meeting				Optional	2-1/2 days	NASULGC
   	ESCOP Executive Committee	x				1/2 day	at NASULGC meeting site

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 27
   Science Roadmap

   Presenter: Colin Kaltenbach, Chair

   Background: To facilitate information exchange about the now completed Science Roadmap, and to gather support for funding the seven challenges, a summary document has been prepared for general distribution. The four-page document has the essence of the Science Roadmap plus information on the human and financial resources that will be necessary to implement to activities described in the Roadmap.

   Credit for this second phase effort goes to Eric Young and his Planning Committee and to Daryl Lund and the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee for figuring out the SYs and dollars represented by the additional activities. Michael Harrington also deserves great credit for engaging Miles Hakoda and Jody Moore (University of Hawaii) and Ron Daines (Western SARE Program) for text editing, layout, and printing.

   The next and final step will be to create a “one-pager” for elected officials and their staff. Jim Fischer, Chair of the Advocacy and Marketing Committee, will organize this activity. This final step will complete what has come to be seen as a very effective enterprise in science road mapping.

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 28
   Multiple Activity Programs (MAPs)

   Presenter: Colin Kaltenbach

   Background:
   New Formula Fund Multiple Activity Programs (MAPs)

   Background

   Obtaining increases in formula funds for Research and Extension has been difficult despite being a priority of the NASULGC budget request. The OMB and others would like to be able to trace any increases in formula funds for purposes of accountability. Priority topic areas such as food safety, biotechnology, or environmental protection are difficult to trace as new outlays under our current system of reporting.

   Purpose

   In response to a concern that the Land Grant System is not able to adequately track the expenditure of new formula funds, earmarked or not, a Task Force was appointed by ESCOP and ECOP to develop a process that would address this issue. The taskforce has developed a series of program descriptions that align with current national budget priorities but can be adapted to fit within each region’s administrative process. Called MAPs (for Multiple Activity Programs), these programs would serve as the organizing frameworks for tracking new formula funded initiatives of national scope, and for reporting results and impacts. Adaptation to regional and institutional needs would be encouraged through modification of the specific strategies within each region. It is believed that the authority to create MAPS exists through the Multistate Research Fund legislation, and that the management of the MAPs through the regional associations would be cost effective. The MAPS process is intended to allow tracking of “new” formula dollars but it could also be developed to track current activities and expenditures in any area of interest to Congress, i.e. Food Safety, Water Quality, etc.

   Four example program descriptions, based on FY02 Board on Agriculture Budget Committee priorities, have been developed by the taskforce. These are: Secure a Dependable Food Supply, Community Opportunities, Investing in an Educated Workforce, and Environmental Balance. These were developed as “framework” proposals that might be used as guidelines to develop, track and report on programs of national scope funded with new formula funds.  It is recommended that the MAPS concept be reviewed and adapted to fit within each region’s administrative process.

   Management

   Key management concepts for the MAPs are as follows. The MAPs would:
    -Be national in scope to address national initiatives
    -Be multistate and multi-disciplinary
    -Be functionally integrated in most, but not all, cases
   -Be handled at regional levels through a system similar to that utilized in the Multistate Research Program wherein projects are developed and approved by the Regional Association.     Fund  management is retained by the individual Director.

    -Allow reporting of accomplishments through the Directors' Plans of Work; however, the regional associations of experiment station and extension directors might establish regional activities (e.g., SERA-IEG) focused on a MAPs topic with scientists and specialists being expected to report at the regional level.  In this situation, Directors would still report accomplishments through their Plans of Work, but report as regional or multi-state efforts, in a form that could be consolidated at the national level. Inputs, collaborations, outputs and outcomes could be collated at the national level for the purposes of reporting to the USDA and Congress.

    -Call for all formula fund increases for a particular MAP to be expended by each state on objectives that contribute to the goals of the particular MAP.
    

   Questions/Issues Still to be Resolved

    1. Specifics for the reporting of the inputs, collaborations, outputs and outcomes have not  been finalized.  This can be accomplished currently through the CRIS system for the Experiment Stations. Most Cooperative Extension offices now provide specific accountability for their 3-D funds so it is assumed that some  system could be developed either through EASE or some other mechanism.

    2. Since the four draft MAPs were chosen as examples, what will be the procedure(s) for identifying future MAPs? What will be their relationship to BOA and BOHS priorities? How will selection of MAPs be coordinated with the current decision making structure of R and E committees/groups?

   3. The MAPS concept has been developed for USDA formula funding primarily.  Is there any reason not to use this program for reporting on funding from sources beyond USDA, particularly for addressing emerging issues?

   Next Steps

   Regional chairs for Extension and Research are asked to work with their regional associations to discuss, modify as appropriate and eventually adopt the MAPs concept.  Ron Brown (Extension) and Tom Helms (Research) are serving as staff to the MAPs Task Force and are available, as are other members of the group, to assist during this process. (Members of the group, in addition to Helms and Brown, are Colin Kaltenbach, Oscar Butler, Mary Gray, Eric Young, Keith Smith, Randy Woodson, George Cooper, and Gary Cunningham). The Task Force appreciates any assistance in developing, refining and implementing this important process.
    

   Multiple Activity Program (MAP)
         Proposal
    

   Activity Number: To be assigned

   Requested Duration: From _____________ to _____________

   Title: Safe and Nutritious  Food Supply

   Statement of Issue and Justification: Americans have the safest, most abundant food supply in the world, thanks to the wonders of science, hard work of farmers, supportive public policies and education, and the vigilance of the nation’s food processing industry.  However a growing world population, coupled with competitive world markets and the blistering pace of technological advances, all motivate America’s agricultural and food processing systems to increase their effectiveness in securing a dependable food supply.

   Developing food to sustain health throughout the world will require synergy between agricultural, medical, behavioral and nutritional sciences.  Scientific breakthroughs in such fields as genomics, cell biology, nutrition, and human behavior have produced dramatic changes in our understanding of the influence of food on individual and public health.  Food and agricultural research has taken us from the most basic treatment of nutritional deficiencies to the identification of diseases that are transmitted by food.  In the process, researchers have been able to discover ways food can contribute to the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases.  The results of this research have contributed not only to the saving of lives, but also to major economic returns in the form of reduced health care costs and improved public health.

   Simultaneously, consumers have expressed strong market choices with cultural, social class, and political preferences for agricultural products.  Increasingly, the agricultural and food processing systems are partnering directly with consumers rather than with commodity organizations for the identification of acceptable market products.  Demands for natural foods, organics and antigenomics are changing the market place and creating anxieties about the safety and dependability of our current food systems.  In addition, recent threats to our national security have raised fears and concerns about agrosecurity and the ability of our systems to maintain a safe food supply.  New developments will need to be communicated to an increasingly critical and anxious public characterized by inadequate understanding of agricultural science.  Retaining public confidence and investments in the work of our research and educational system will require strategic communication.  The increasing sophistication of science must be coupled with an increasing sophistication in targeting audiences with relevant messages about our food supply.
   Our challenge to communicate effectively regarding food choices is illustrated by current health data.  Heart disease is still the number one cause of death in the United States and while some major risk factors are not modifiable most risk factors can be changed or treated through dietary and lifestyle modifications. These risk factors include high blood cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, physical inactivity, smoking, obesity/overweight, diabetes, and stress.  Research on cancer suggests that one-third of the 500,000 cancer deaths that occur in the United States every year is due to dietary factors.  Diabetes currently affects approximately 16 million people in the United States and over 5 million of these people are unaware that they have the disease.  As Hispanics increase in proportion of the United States population, dietary related disease prevention becomes more critical.  Hispanics have twice the prevalence rate of type-2 diabetes than non-Hispanic whites and the debilitating effects of diabetes can be prevented with early detection, improved medical care, and diabetes dietary self-management.  Currently, 4 to 6 million women age 50 years and over are affected by osteoporosis and another 13 to 17 million have osteopenia. These disabilities are largely preventable through a healthy lifestyle that includes balanced diet, weight bearing exercise, and no smoking.  Currently, 1 in 3 American adults are overweight and fat accounts for more than 33 percent of the calories in the American diet.  In the decade since 1989, the amount of soft drinks consumed by men and women have surpassed their intake of milk.  About 57 percent of Americans eat away from home on any given day and these meals are accounting for an ever-increasing total of calorie and fat intake.  As the percentage of elderly population increases to 80 million by the year 2050, nutrition will play an increasingly important role in maintaining the health of the population.  Critical tools for nutrition education include the fourth edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Food Guide Pyramid, and the Nutrition Facts Label.  Information in these tools is still not understood by the majority of Americans and a concerted effort at strategic education can assist the consumer in making wiser dietary choices, therefore reducing the cost of health care, a loss of worker productivity, and an increase in life quality.

   It is estimated that the yearly cost in lost worker productivity due to food borne illnesses is between 20 and 40 billion dollars in the United States.  According to the Healthy People 2010 Initiative, emerging new pathogens, improper food preparation, storage, and distribution practices, insufficient training of retail employees, an increasingly global food supply and an increase in the number of people at risk because of aging and compromised capacity to fight disease, will all play an important role in the increase in food borne illness in the future.  With an increase in number of meals eaten away from home, the responsibility for maintaining safe food is increasingly falling on minimal wage workers employed in the food processing and retail industry.

   Objectives:

   1. Reduce food borne illnesses
     Strategies:
     a. Identify and fully characterize known and unknown food borne pathogens. Develop methods to detect and prevent the formation of fungal and other toxins in foods.
    

    b. Gather data through improved epidemiological surveillance and develop a national database with detailed information about pathogen and toxin levels in a variety of foods at each step of the food production, processing, distribution, and preparation systems.
    

   c. Create comprehensive pathogen models and complete risk assessments.  Estimate the variation in food borne illness accounted for by different processes and integrate probability models with dynamic models.
    

   d. Evaluate existing food production practices to identify high-risk activities and the effectiveness of current controls.
    

   e. Develop new control technologies and strategies including lethal processes to kill pathogens on foods not suitable for heat treatment.
    

   f. Identify food safety practices which control the most serious food borne risks and are most acceptable to food process workers and to the consuming public.
    

   g. Create effective education on food safety risks for food handlers, preparers, and consumers.
    

   2. Enhance human health through diet.
    Strategies:

   a. Identify barriers to healthy dietary adoption and develop effective ways to encourage healthier dietary choices.
   b. Develop biomarkers to identify presence of substances in various foods; quantify intake, absorption and effect of such substances.
   c. Investigate positive and negative biological effects on the human body of various bioactive food components.
   d. Investigate health effects of compounds recently known to effect human health including probiotics and   phytochemicals.
   e. Identify the intake levels at which compounds create risk and establish safe upper bounds for consumption.
   f. Identify food substances that regulate the production levels of genes affecting overall health or chronic disease and design delivery systems to transmit the substance(s) to the appropriate location.
   g. Create healthier foods by using traditional and genomic methods to modify food components.
   h. Increase understanding of the social, psychological, cultural meanings of food, and identify realistic strategies for education to high-risk targeted audiences.
    

   i. Develop multi-media, modular educational materials that will focus on reduction of food-borne illnesses and enhancement of human health through diet.

    Expected Outcomes and Impacts:

   1. Development of new processing technologies and equipment that preserve the quality and safety of foods.
   2. Improved new food products that enhance human health and reduce food borne illness.
   3. Increased sophistication and use of analytical methods of food composition and a data bank of information for use by researchers in creating food products.
   4. New understanding of the relationship between food intake and physical and mental status of individuals throughout the life span.
   5. Improved theoretical basis for understanding behavior related to dietary changes.
   6. Greater understanding of the level and pathways for toxic residues in food products.
   7. New understanding of pathogenic food borne microorganisms and parasites in raw, minimally or inadequately processed and preserved foods.
    Expected Impacts:

   1. A reduction in cost of food borne illness.
   2. Evidence of healthier dietary choices in the population.
   3. A reduction in the incidence and severity of chronic disease influenced by diet.

    Internal and External Linkages:  Education Plan:  Cooperative Extension and the Agriculture Experiment Stations are full partners in this plan.  This integration of activities will ensure that researchable questions of concern to the public are reflected in research objectives and the results are available to intended users in rapid and effective models.  Additional partners will be recruited from the private sector and from state and federal agencies as appropriate.  Examples of other partners include certified crop consultants, pesticide applicators, state and federal service and regulatory agencies, health advocates, and environmental interest groups.

    Governance: A technical committee with an elected chair, secretary, and chair elect will govern the project.  Research and Extension administrative advisors and a USDA/CSREES appointed representative will advise the technical committee on management matters and assist the technical committee on complying with technical reporting requirements and outcome accountability.  Membership on the technical committee will be open to all qualified scientists and Extension specialists and agents willing to address one or more of this project’s stated objectives.

    Budget: Budget to be determined as funding is appropriated by Congress in response to current initiatives.
    
    

   Multiple Activity Program (MAP)
         Proposal

   Activity Number: _____________

   Requested Duration: From _____________ to _____________

   Title:  Educated Workforce

   Statement of Issue and Justification: Today, the entire American workforce including the agricultural system is and will continue to be part of an economic revolution.  Labor market analysts estimate that each year in America one-third of our job roles are in transition, one-third of our technical skills become obsolete, and one-third of workers leave their jobs.  There are dramatic changes in the number of years workers remain in one position or industry and in the relationship American workers have with their places of employment.

   Almost 20 percent of the workforce in this country is involved in the production, processing and distribution of food and fiber.  The preparation of this workforce is not keeping pace with an industry that is approaching assets totaling a trillion dollars.  To address the challenge, the entire agricultural educational system will need to be transformed to assure that workers can acquire skills needed to meet societal needs, as well as achieve personal well- being.  The land grant system stands as a critical leader in meeting the needs for a knowledgeable and skilled workforce and for reaching out to the population at large through workforce preparation programs.  However, the investment needed to insure this transformation and development is woefully inadequate.

   Objectives:

   1. Produce highly skilled knowledgeable graduates in the food and agricultural system, and related areas.
     Strategies:
   a. Enhance the technology based learning requirements in all curricula at the post-secondary level.
   b. Increase the globalization of post secondary education curricula in the food and agricultural sciences and related areas. .
   c. Increase the cross-discipline integrative nature of curriculum and emphasize a problem centered, applied research focus at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
   d. Increase the requirements for skill development in labor management and economics in all areas of Food and Agricultural Science curriculum at the post- secondary level.
   e. Increase the skill requirements in post secondary education for understanding local, state, and federal policy development and the consumer role in the agricultural system.
   f. Increase the Food and Agricultural Science graduates’ understanding of community and political processes as related to the social and economic implication of the agriculture industry.

   2. Increase the effectiveness of off campus and distance education engagement from the land grant system.
     Strategies:
   a. Increase the requirements for service learning, internships, and applied research experiences for agricultural students.
   b. Create an asynchronous method for the delivery of learning modules to targeted audiences away from the campuses.
   c. Create new partnerships between campus-based faculty, community leaders, Extension professionals, and industry leaders for co-learning integrated teams on critical issues.
   d. Create new memorandum of agreements with employers and establish educational delivery models sensitive to the skill development demands of an increasingly sophisticated and mobile workforce.
   e. Develop strategic plans in partnership with leaders of minority and under served communities to increase their access to education and create appropriate models of information delivery, to recruit members of these communities, and enhance the capacity of the communities to continue this educational process.
   f. Create active educational teams including scientists appointed to state agricultural Experiment Stations, enhance the number of these scientists who are active members of graduate research committees and who supervise and direct new applied research endeavors.
   g. Increase the engagement of the land grant university with small business development centers, job training centers, and workforce centers.  Identify shared interests for the delivery of appropriate education and applied research.
    h. Develop multi-media, modular educational materials that focus on workforce preparation.

    Internal and External Linkages: Education Plan:  Cooperative Extension and the Agriculture Experiment Stations are full partners in this plan.  This integration of activities will ensure that researchable questions of concern to the public are reflected in research objectives and the results are available to intended users in a prompt and professional manner.  Additional partners will be recruited from the private sector and from state and federal agencies as appropriate.  Examples of other partners include business and industry, state and federal service and regulatory agencies, labor advocates, economic development organizations and local government representatives.

    In order to cope realistically with the workforce challenge, a comprehensive collaboration must be developed between the agricultural industry, the land grant university, other educational systems and a number of critical targeted audiences.  This coalition can be a powerful structure for guiding applied research endeavors and new models of education in both formal and informal environments.

    Governance: A technical committee with an elected chair, secretary, and chair elect will govern the project.  Research and Extension administrative advisors and a USDA/CSREES appointed representative will advise the technical committee on management matters and assist the technical committee on complying with technical reporting requirements and outcome accountability.  Membership on the technical committee will be open to all qualified scientists and Extension specialists and agents willing to address one or more of this project’s stated objectives.

    Budget: Budget to be determined as funding is appropriated by Congress in response to current initiatives.
    

   Multiple Activity Program (MAP)
   Proposal

   Activity Number: _____________

   Requested Duration: From _____________ to _____________

   Title:   Environmental Balance

   Statement of Issue and Justification: In addition to feeding today’s population, the agricultural production system must protect the future by assuring a healthy and productive biophysical environment.  This requires the balancing of production needs with stewardship responsibilities and mandates that agricultural practices meet high standards for sustainability.  In addition to being profitable, contemporary agriculture production practices must avoid or mitigate the impacts of those inputs which cause environmental damage, practices that extract valuable elements, or applications that leave residues that are harmful or diminish future productivity or present public health risks.  Environmental protection, public health, and natural resource protection as well as providing cheap, abundant and safe food are at the center of the need to design agricultural production systems that are sustainable.

   Increasingly, the American public is critical of environmental impacts attributed to agriculture.  In addition, many citizens question the application of new technologies that limit their consumer choice and create anxiety either due to a lack of understanding of the science involved or the conflicts with their basic social values.  It is increasingly important that food and agriculture systems create models for joint planning and education with the wider community including health, labor and environmental interests.  As the population becomes more urbanized and increasing numbers of congressional and legislative delegations represent non-rural interests, policies which impact agriculture will be determined by a public with a limited understanding of food production systems.  Land grant universities find their engagement in the public changing from a strict technology transfer role to one of negotiated agreements with a public that is increasingly critical and demanding.  A number of environmental regulations need negotiation and flexibility in order to protect the economic sustainability of our agriculture systems.

   Objectives:

   1. Create a Food and Agriculture system that is marked by social, economic, and environmental sustainability.
     Strategies:
   a. Develop and apply new and emerging technologies ranging from molecular biology to global positioning systems to support enhanced decision making and precision agriculture applications by farmers, regional planners, and regulatory officials.
    

   b. Increase the flexibility available to agriculture producers, regional planners, and regulatory officials by providing a variety of tools to encourage environmental stewardship and economic prosperity.  These will include both performance-based and practice based incentives with interagency collaboration and implementation.
   c. Increase research to identify public health and environmental risks from current production practices.
   d. Increase engagement with community members in dialogues about preferred environmental and economic futures and engage in local policy development to support these goals.
   e. Develop multi-media modular educational materials that will focus on food and agricultural practices, which ensure environmental balance.

    Outcomes:
   1. Improved technologies including genetically improved cultivars in breeds and improved production methods with a balance between current and future needs for profitability.
   2. Safer, healthier, and cleaner biophysical spaces for food production systems and community development.
   3. Improved technologies to mitigate the effects of agricultural practices which have created deleterious environmental impacts.
   4. The adoption of safer and sustainable agricultural practices by producers.

    Internal and External Linkages:  Education Plan:  Cooperative Extension and the Agriculture Experiment Stations are full partners in this plan.  This integration of activities will ensure that researchable questions of concern to the public are reflected in research objectives and the results are available to intended users in a prompt and professional manner and are integrated into educational programs for producers, chemical applicators, and other partners.  Additional partners will be recruited from the private sector and from state and federal agencies as appropriate.  Examples of other partners include certified crop consultants, pesticide applicators, state and federal environmental regulatory agencies, health advocates, and environmental interest groups.

    In order to cope realistically with the challenge, a comprehensive collaboration must be developed between the agricultural industry, the land grant university, other educational systems and members of critical targeted audiences.  This coalition can be a powerful structure for guiding applied research endeavors and new models of education in both formal and informal environments.

    Governance: A technical committee with an elected chair, secretary, and chair elect will govern the project.  Research and Extension administrative advisors and a USDA/CSREES appointed representative will advise the technical committee on management matters and assist the technical committee on complying with technical reporting requirements and outcome accountability.  Membership on the technical committee will be open to all qualified scientists and Extension specialists and agents willing to address one or more of this project’s stated objectives.

    Budget: Budget to be determined as funding is appropriated by Congress in response to current initiatives.
    

   Multiple Activity Program (MAP)
   Proposal

   Activity Number: _____________

   Requested Duration: From _____________ to _____________

   Title:   Community Opportunities

   Statement of Issue and Justification: A viable community is characterized by skilled community leadership, sound public policy, economic diversity, responsive community services, active civic involvement, strong schools and medical facilities, and a healthy population of children, youth and adults.   Both urban and rural communities face special challenges that will increase in scope and complexity in the next decade.  The changing economic structures in the United States and the divestiture of responsibility for local services by the federal government have created challenges to communities.  Complex decisions will need to be made at the local level about health care, education, telecommunications, economic development, and delivery of human services.  Many decisions demand specialized information and skilled leaders who can engage in appropriate dialogue to insure decisions that are both pro-active and respectful of and responsive to local needs.

   Approximately, 25 percent of the American population now resides in rural areas and the specific challenges to place bound citizens are complex. Immigration now accounts for more population growth than does births, contributing to increasing ethnic language and social complexities in the nation’s communities. The digital divide shows some rural communities without access to the technology revolution and other communities experiencing a dramatic change in their economic base.  Those rural communities close to major metropolitan areas or to scenic amenities are thriving in new ways; however both rural and inner city communities are vulnerable to the current economic changes. Agriculture, like a number of other major industries, has become consolidated in large corporate structures that often have less loyalty and/or interest in being responsive community partners.  In addition, agriculture, technology, and a number of other current industries are experiencing volatility in their fortunes.  In this economic pattern marginalized communities in rural areas and the central cities are most often impacted by down turns.  In such a climate, it is easy for citizens to feel powerless and community environments to become stagnant and depressed.

   The land grant university system has changed the world in agricultural production, food safety, nutrition, and youth development through farsighted federal and state investments that have fueled the U.S. and world economy.  Similar investments in the lives of communities can insure prosperous communities with viable economies and a positive social fabric.  There is a need to enhance our partnerships with communities and provide information in support of policy and practice changes that are needed as they envision their futures.

   Objectives:

   1. Enhance the vitality of communities.
     Strategies:
   a. Increase the availability of new economic development models appropriate for a variety of communities.
   b. Enhance the quality of leadership and the civic engagement of community members through a variety of partnerships with communities to develop skills and support community dialogue for local planning.
   c. Bring researchers from the land grant campuses to partner with communities in identifying needed areas of research and new models for the translation of existing research findings to facilitate local decision processes.
   d. Increase the effectiveness of all human service models at the community level in health, education, and family relationships through partnering with community planning groups and interagency councils to increase the effectiveness of current resources and identify new efficiencies of service delivery.

   2.  Strengthen Under-Served Communities:
     Strategies:
   a. Create partnerships between the land grant institutions and under-served communities in order to identify local and regional strengths, cultivate the business community in mutual planning and support, and enhance capacity building activities appropriate to each community’s culture and history.
   b. Assist communities in completing their own environmental scan of strengths and capacity in order to identify goals and request assistance in building the capacity of the community to increase its positive energy toward a new future.
   c. Develop multi-media, modular educational materials that will focus on community enhancement.

    Expected Outcomes and Impacts:
   1. The identification or development of a variety of tools available to communities for self-study and reflection to assess the quality of their social institutions economic base, support for workers and their families, civic engagement, and leadership strength.
   2. Development and change in local and state policies driven by identified requests and data from community needs assessments.
   3. Enhanced effectiveness of public-private partnerships and informal/formal models to increase all capital in communities.
   4. Viable economic bases, maintenance of population and positive social indicators in targeted communities including school completion, job retention, mental and physical health, family stability, community participation, and community institutional vitality.

    Internal and External Linkages:  Education Plan:  Cooperative Extension and the Agriculture Experiment Stations are full partners in this plan.  This integration of activities will ensure that researchable questions of concern to the public are reflected into research objectives and the results are available to intended users in a prompt and professional manner.  Additional partners will be recruited from the private sector and from state and federal agencies as appropriate.  Examples of other partners include state and federal regulatory agencies, local government officials, health advocates, and environmental interest groups.

    In order to cope realistically with the challenge, a comprehensive collaboration must be developed between the agricultural industry, the land grant university, other educational systems and member of critical targeted audiences.  This coalition can be a powerful structure for guiding applied research endeavors and new models of education in both formal and informal environments.

    Governance: A technical committee with an elected chair, secretary, and chair elect will govern the project.  Research and Extension administrative advisors and a USDA/CSREES appointed representative will advise the technical committee on management matters and assist the technical committee on complying with technical reporting requirements and outcome accountability.  Membership on the technical committee will be open to all qualified scientists and Extension specialists and agents willing to address one or more of this project’s stated objectives.

    Budget: Budget to be determined as Congress appropriates funding in response to current initiatives.

   ECOP has endorsed the MAPs concept.

   Action Requested: Want feedback regarding endorsement and adoption from the regional associations.

   ---

   Agenda Item 29
   NRSP Survey Project Update

   Presenter: G. Cooper/Social Science Research Center

   Background:
   Provided in PowerPoint presentation.

   Action Requested: For information.

   Action Taken: ESCOP Chair to appoint a body of directors to assemble and develop a strategic plan for the NRSPs. This body is to include the Executive Directors and representatives with appropriate experience with CSREES - up to a total of 20 - to develop a strategic management plan for NRSPs with the goal to report at the Fall Workshop.

   ---

   Agenda Item 31
   2002 ESS Meeting and Workshop

   Presenter: Daryl Lund

   Background:
   
    

   Draft Agenda for the September 22 - 25, 2002 Meeting in Baltimore, MD
   Sunday September 22, 2002
   4:00-6:00 pm	Registration desk is open at Pier 5 Hotel
   6:00-9:00 pm	Opening Reception at the National Aquarium (to be confirmed)
   Monday September 23, 2002
   7:00 am	Breakfast provided
   8:00-12:00	Regional Association Meetings
   12:00-1:30	Lunch provided
   1:30-5:00	ESS meeting
   5:00-6:00	ESCOP Exec Comm Meeting (if needed)
   7:00-9:00 pm	Dinner at Pier 5's Harbor Club
   Tuesday September 24, 2002
   7:00 am	Breakfast provided
   8:30-12:00	Impacts and Benefits from Formula Funds
   	Organized by NERA
   	Reports fromCounter-Factual Studies
   	Balancing the Federal Investment-Formula Funds,
   	Competitive Grants, Special Grants
   12:00-1:30	Lunch provided
   1:30-3:00	Session 1
   3:00-3:30	Break
   3:30-5:00	Session 2
   5:30-6:30	Social Adjustment Hour
   7:00-10:00 pm	Dinner Cruise (to be confirmed)
   Wednesday September 25. 2002
   7:00 am	Breakfast provided
   8:30-10:00	Session 3
   10:00-10:30	Break
   10:30-12:00	Session 4
   12:00-1:30	Lunch provided

   
    

   1.  Session on Managing your research portfolio while state budgets are declining. Eric Young, Planning Committee. 3 - 4 Directors-What they've done, what they are doing!

   2.  Session on Setting and acting on short and long term operational and programmatic priorities.  Eric Young, Planning Committee.  Invited Speaker: Priority setting processes-management paradigms. 3 - 4 Directors-What they've done, what they are doing!

   3.  Session on Biosecurity- Biosecurity Task Force (not suggested by them). What is the current situation in AESs-David Thawley or David Mackenzie.  What might we expect from the Federal Government-Floyd Horn.  ARS as the lead USDA agencyin bioterrorism-Ed Knipling

   4.  Session on a cutting edge research topic-Several speakers on a cutting edge research topic like nanotechnology, herbal botanicals and functional ingredients, NRSP-8, etc. (have the Science and Technology Committee plan the program)

   5.  Session on research agendas from other federal agencies (like NASA, ARS, FDA, NIH, ERS, NRCS, DOE, EPA, etc.)(have the Science and Technology Committee plan the program)

   6.  Session on Intellectual Property-Science and Technology Committee.  Invited expert(s).  Representative(s) from commodity organizations. Case studies from 2-3 Directors.

   7.  Reorganization of CSREES-Colien Hefferan.

   8.  Reports on: (a) NIMSS-David Mackenzie or Rubie Mize, (b) N-CFAR-Joe Coffey and NASULGC Food and Society Initiative-Mort Neufville, (c) operation of BAA-Colin Kaltenback , (d) update on the Science Roadmap (Colin Kaltenback), (e) update on changes in the Multistate Research Guidelines-an ED, (f) What is actually in the Farm Bill-David Mackenzie, (g) MAPs and relationship with Extension-ECOP liaison to ESCOP, ESCOP liaison to ECOP,  and CARET representative to ESCOP (some of these could also be in the ESS meeting).

   9. Session on CSREES Competitive Grants Programs (submitted by Eldon Ortman): CSREES Competitive Grants Process: RFP through
   Accomplishments Report. CSREES Representative provides an overview of the competitive grants programs in CSREES including
   stakeholder and directors' (of SAES) input into program definition. Role of stakeholders in the process of program definition, participation in
   research and project evaluation. Stakeholder impression of the programs. One or two directors describe their stations approach.

   10. Current research topic suggestions (from Darrell Nelson): invasive species, global climate change/carbon sequestration,
   bioenergy/biomaterials, total maximum daily load compliance, animal waste management, e-agriculture and alternative enterprises,
   functional genomics and bioinformatics.

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 32
   Regional Meetings

   Presenters: Regional Representatives

   Background:
   Information on the regional meetings is included in the "Region Reports"  Agenda Items 33-37 below.

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 33
   Association of Research Directors

   Presenter: Carolyn Brooks

   Background:
   • ARD and the 1890 Family will participate in the March 5 th Ag Day on Capitol Hill Reception and display of exhibits. The exhibit will focus on "Taking Biotechnology to Underserved Communities."

   • ARD members are represented on the

    -  National REE Advisory Board (McArthur Floyd of Alabama A&M University).

    -  NASULGC BAA Policy Board and the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Opportunities in Agriculture (Carolyn Brooks of University of Maryland Eastern Shore).

   • Plans are well underway for the 13th ARD Research Symposium which will be held in Atlanta, Georgia on March 29 - April 2, 2003. This Symposium provides an opportunity for students and scientists from our institutions to present their research in the form of posters and papers. ESCOP member institutions, federal agencies, private entities, and others will be invited to participate as exhibitors, speakers, moderators, etc.

    Upcoming ARD meetings:
    -  The spring meeting will be held in Tampa, Florida, April 18-21, 2002.

    - The summer meeting will be held in Anchorage, Alaska, July 31 - August 4, 2002.

   • The Executive Committees of ARD and the Association of 1890 Extension Administrators met in January, 2002 in Washington, D.C.

   • The ARD officers for this year are:
    - Dr. Carolyn Brooks, Chair
    - Dr. Alfred Parks, Chair-Elect
    - Dr. McArthur Floyd, Past-Chair
    - Dr. P.S. Benepal, Secretary
    - Dr. S.K. Pancholy, Treasurer
    - Dr. Willie Rawls, Member At-Large
    - Dr. Samuel L. Donald, Regional Research Director

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 34
   Northeast Region

   Presenter: J. Scott Angle

   Background:
   1. Use of NIMSS in all aspects of proposal submission from drafting to review and submission of participation is well underway in the Northeast.  Seven proposals have been submitted since December 2001, and are under review in NIMSS. The NERA staff have been actively assisting other regions in entering data and answering questions.  They have also participated in trainings conducted via conference call for the Western region.

   2. A survey of videoconferencing facilities in the Northeast was conducted in an effort to reduce face-to-face meetings for the association and its committees. Results of the survey will be reported at the NERA meeting on March 7.  In the meantime, the Multistate Activities Committee will meet with a full agenda via videoconference on March 1. Sites participating are MD, NY-Cornell, NJ-Rutgers and MA.  It is foreseen that majority of the stations in the Northeast have compatible equipment and hence, using this format will be seriously considered for future meetings.

   3. The committee responsible for the implementation of the Northeast Region Selected Regional Priorities have met twice and identified two topics in which efforts for seeking support will be focused:  1. Wildlife Damage and 2. Land Use.  The chairs of the Northeast Extension and Research associations head the committee. The second topic [Land Use (a.k.a., Smart Growth)] will be the theme for the NE Summer Mini-Land Grant Meeting, in Morgantown, WV July 7 to 10, 2002.

   4. A process for creating Northeast Extension and Research projects/activities put forward by Extension will be considered at NERA’s March meeting.  This will facilitate the creation of NERECs, initially to cover creation of joint activities under the five regional priorities that have been identified (January ’01).

   5. The Northeast will be hosting the meeting of the National Experiment Station Section in Baltimore, MD, on September 23-25.  The contract was signed with the Pier 5 Hotel in December and plans are underway for finalizing the agenda and making arrangements for some social functions.  A website will be created in the NERA homepage for meeting registration and hotel information.  This will be available in late March 2002.

   6. The current officers of the NE Association are:
   Chair, Mark S. Mount, MA (2002) ; Vice Chair, Cameron Hackney, WV (2003); Officer-at-large, William R. Trumble, NH (2004); Past Chair, J. Scott Angle, MD (2002)

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 35
   North Central Region

   Presenter: Virginia Clark Johnson

   Background:
   Officers for 2002 are:
    

   J. Ian Gray, Chair
   P. O. Larsen, Chair-Elect
   V. Clark-Johnson, Past Chair
   G. Lemme, Chair, MRC
   •  Highlights of forthcoming meetings:
   -  Spring NCRA Meeting - March 9-11, 2002, Baltimore, Maryland.  Discussion of intellectual property, MAPs, and relationship to North Central Extension Directors

   - Summer joint meeting and NCRA Meeting - July 9-11, 2002, Fond du Lac Tribal College, Duluth, Minnesota.  Collaboration between 1862s, 1890s and 1994s, NCRA/North Central Extension and MAPs.

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 36
   Southern Region

   Presenter: Vance H. Watson

   Background:
   Officers:
   Chair: Vance H. Watson (MS)
   Chair-Elect: Charles J. Scifres (TX)
   Immediate Past Chair: William H. Brown (LA)

   Upcoming Meetings:
   March 25-27 - Savannah, GA
   September 23 - Baltimore, MD (In conjunction with ESS meeting) (If approved during the March meeting, the September meeting will become an annual fall meeting.)

   Chief Operating Officer Changes:
   Robin Huettel - Auburn University (replacing Luther Waters)
   Greg Weidemann - University of Arkansas (has been serving as interim since C. Scifres move to Texas A&M)

   Noteworthy:

   • Southern Region Land Grant meeting for 2002 has been cancelled.
   • A search committee has been appointed (W. H. Brown (LA), Chair) to secure a replacement for T. J. Helms, who is retiring September 30, 2001.
   • SAAESD is changing its election process to have rotation of officers occur following the September meeting.
   • SAAESD is implementing an "Excellence in Leadership" award to recognize those who have served the SAAESD and the Southern and National Land-Grant System with exemplary distinction.

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 37
   Western Region

   Presenter: James J. Jacobs

   Background:
   1. 2002 Officers
   LeRoy Daughtery (NM) – Chair
   Colin Kaltenbach (AZ) – Chair-Elect
   Don Snyder (UT) – Secretary
   Sharron Quisenberry (MT) – Treasurer

   2. Upcoming Meetings
   March 20-22, 2002 – Spring Meeting, Las Cruces NM, to include a workshop on Ag & Biosecurity. Gary Cunningham will attend; Floyd Horn has been invited and is expected to attend.
   July 14-17, 2002, Western Region Joint Summer Meeting, Big Sky, MT

   3. The Western Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (WAAESD) met September 24-27, 2001 in conjunction with the SAES Workshop in Coeur d’Alene, ID.

   4. National Information Management Support System (NIMSS)
   The Western region has all projects on-line in NIMSS and training sessions have been conducted for directors, administrative advisors, and others. RCIC is using NIMSS this year in the project review cycle.
    

   Action Requested: For information.

   ---

   Agenda Item 40
   Wrap up Discussions and Assignments

   Presenter: Richard Heimsch

   Background:
   1. A committee to examine ESCOP committee structures - specifically to align the committee structures with the BAA reorganized structure has tentative appointments of:  Scott Angle (Chair), David MacKenzie (NE-ED), Chairs of the following; Advocacy & Marketing, Budget & Legislative, Planning, Partnership, Chester Fehlis (ECOP Representative), Colin Kaltenbach (ESCOP representative to BAA Policy Board)

   2. A systemwide email is to be sent regarding an increase in class enrollment for the ACOP/ESCOP Leadership Program .

   3. AgroBioterrorism - Taskforce to spend time to add additional sections to the draft documents on agro-security and ways to bring in funds.

   4. The Agro-Security document is to be posted on the ESCOP web site.

   5. The Agro-Security document is to be distributed to the BAA Policy Board and the Budget & Legislative Committee.

   6. NRSP Taskforce is to involve Executive Directors, Chairs of Regional Research Committees, Chair of Planning, G. Cunningham and two others from CSREES, plus 4-5 names from the initial survey group.

   7. ICOP to be contacted regarding the "Science Roadmap."

   8. ICOP to be included in emails regarding the ACOP/ESCOP Leadership Program.

   9. MAPs - Executive Directors are to provide input from their respective regions to Colin Kaltenbach.

   10. There will be no ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting in May.

   Action Requested: For information.