Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

The following topics were discussed at the meeting. -EPA update of IPM related activities -Extension Directors Update of IPM activities -Changes at the NSF IPM Center and what opportunities for interaction for NEREAP exist -NE IPM Center and Grants programs update -NEREAP and national IPM impact assessment projects  Funding of 2 projects will allow cooperation in the next year among states for impact assessment. -Brief state funding situations/reports  soft copies provided for some states -Election of 2011 Chair (James Dill is 2010 Chair)  Joanne Whalen was elected chair for 2011 -Most of the discussion focused on the new competitive process for IPM funding among the states and the results of the 2009-2010 round. In general, with a couple of exceptions, states in the northeast region were successful in obtaining the same or higher funding under the competitive process. Specific recommendations that NEREAP could make to USDA CSREES for the next RFA were discussed. After extensive discussion, a vote was taken on input to be made to the listening process for the 2010-2011 RFA. James Dill, 2010 chair, sent the following list of agreed upon inputs to the RFA listening process: 1. Two phase RFA Coordination- competition achieved by measuring proposal against a standard list of criteria. Should be multiple years of continuing funding at $75,000 per year for 4-years, based on available funding each year. 2. Enhancement categories: No formulaic category caps; No restrictions on the number of categories for which one can apply; Add 3 categories--- livestock, wildlife and possibly a miscellaneous (as a place for other IPM programming doesn't fit into listed categories) pest management categories. 3. Roll other CSREES extension-oriented funds into EIPM. 4. Cap the total amount for each state's proposal at $300,000 per year 5. Allow for language promising interstate collaboration without using subcontracts or roll collaboration funds into coordination (see #6) 6. Better define collaboration and its documentation in the rfa or remove collaboration completely as a criterion "and we would suggest moving the $25,000 into coordination-so we now have $50,000 and would only have to remove $25,000 from the enhancement funding part of the proposal) 7. Better informed panelists concerning the mission of Extension and on the nature and operation of an IPM program and better knowledge of the RFA especially concerning the use of the logic model for evaluation, which was a guideline but not required and everyone who didn't use the logic model was chastised.

The following activities and impacts (according to the planned milestones) were realized in the reporting period for NEREAP -NEREAP-IPM met on 3/23/09 and prioritized and discussed emerging issues, shared experiences and plans, devised regional responses to national issues, coordinated collaborative, multistate activities, and reported IPM impacts. -A work group for IPM impact assessment submitted a proposal and was funded to be active during 2009 to assess IPM impact regionally. The first meeting is scheduled for May 8. -Petzoldt and Dill (current chairperson and chairperson elect) attended the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy/Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP/ESCOP) National IPM Committee. -Petzoldt and Dill served on the Steering Committee and the Advisory Committee of the Northeast IPM Center. -This report was submitted 4/27/09.

None