Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Minutes of SERA3-IPM Meeting, Doubletree Hotel, Portland, Oregon, March 23, 2009. The meeting was held in conjunction with the 6th International IPM Symposium. Chairman Henry Fadamiro called the meeting to order at 8:30 am on March 23, 2009, introducing himself and asking everyone in attendance to introduce themselves. Charles Allen was introduced as the new IPM Coordinator from Texas. Jim Van Kirk gave an update on the SRIPM Center. There were no new staffing changes in at the Center in 2008. Grant programs managed by the Center were mentioned including Enhancement grants, state contacts, IPM documents, working groups, and RIPM. The drastic reduction in funding for the IPM PIPE project (from $4.5M to $500K) was noted as was the new Sustainable Homescapes project to which the SRIPMC will provide $25,000 for each of two years for the formation and activities of a steering committee. Tom Melton was appointed the new director of the NSF Center for IPM at NC State. Marty Draper of CSREES headquarters and Norm Leppla, University of Florida, provided information on and led a discussion of the new EIPM-CS program. Common concerns of the Southern Region IPM Coordinators about the new program were the loss of states mini-grant programs, the lack of flexibility state Coordinators have in using the Smith-Lever 3(d) funds, and increased responsibilities of Coordinators without increased financial support. It was noted that annual reporting for IPM Extension activities will be through the USDAS CRIS and not PPRS, which has been discontinued. All agreed that at this meeting SERA3 should produce a statement containing recommendations for improving the EIPM-CS Request for Applications and, thus, the EIPM-CS program. The statement could be presented at the listening session CSREES was holding on this matter later in the week at the IPM Symposium, and also would be submitted to CSREES during the comment period when the agency seeks stakeholder input. This particular discussion led to the following Action Item: ACTION ITEM: A motion was made by Clayton Hollier to forego the oral state IPM reports so that ample time could be spent developing a statement from SERA3 on how the EIPM-CS program could be improved. Doug Johnson seconded. Steve Toth called the question whether written reports could be distributed in lieu of oral reports. Carlos Bogran amended the original motion to include forgoing oral state IPM reports for written reports to allow time for the development of a statement on the EIPM-CS program. The motion passed unanimously. Except for the closing business meeting, the remainder of our annual meeting was spent developing the list of recommendations. The final version of the recommendations is appended to the end of these minutes. The state reports are contained in a pdf document accompanying the minutes. SERA3 Business Meeting: ACTION ITEM: Henry Fadamiro motioned to accept the 2008 SERA3 annual meeting minutes. Gus Lorenz seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. ACTION ITEM: Doug Johnson nominated Carlos Bogran to be the new secretary of SERA3. Clayton Hollier seconded and Carlos was elected unanimously. Knoxville, TN was chosen as the 2010 meeting site for the SERA3 annual meeting. The business meeting ended with a discussion on which members of SERA3 should serve on the Advisory Committee for the Southern Region IPM Center. ACTION ITEM: Henry Fadamiro motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ames Herbert moved the meeting be adjourned and Tom Royer seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 5 pm. Respectfully submitted, Pat Parkman, Chair-elect SERA3-IPM See attachment for recommendations for improving the EIPM-CS request for applications

Seventeen research and Extension scientists and administrators with common interests in IPM discussed ways to advance the field. By holding the meeting at the International IPM Symposium SERA3 members could network with IPM Coordinators and professionals from other Regions, and display impacts of their programs at poster sessions and other Symposium venues. SERA3 developed a list of recommendations to help CSREES improve the FY2010 EIPM-CS Request for Applications and the EIPM-CS program. Recommendations for improving the EIPM-CS Request for Applications Submitted to USDA CSREES by SERA03, the Southern Region Information Exchange Group for IPM (Southern Region State IPM Coordinators) April 2009 1) The new EIPM-CS program is to fund Extension IPM programs and not projects. The emphasis is completely different between these goals and efforts to maintain a working and continual, stable infrastructure are extremely important for the good of IPM now and in the future. 2) Proposed IPM programs should be based on two complimentary levels of funding: a) A base level for coordination that provides multi-year funding for the activities of the IPM Coordinator and/or support personnel. Enable every eligible institution to compete annually for base funding against the standard for an institutional IPM program and, if successful, provide funding for the remainder of the 5-year EIPM-CS funding cycle. The competitive standard is the list of activities for the former state IPM programs. Base level funding should be at least $50,000 per year ($75,000 recommended by some regions). Base level funding may be approved alone or in conjunction with enhanced funding (Areas of Emphasis, including collaboration and special projects). Base funding provides continuity to continuously develop institutional IPM programs. b) An enhanced level for selected Areas of Emphasis and CS that is funded for 1-3 years. Only institutions that receive competitive base funding are eligible to compete for enhanced funding. Enhanced funding is available annually and the duration of grants will be 1-3 years, depending on the projects. Funding in year 2 and remaining years is contingent on continued S-L 3(d) funding. Enhanced funding is available through a typical competitive grant process. 3) There should be no funding request cap for any specific Area of Emphasis and PIs should be able to determine their Areas of Emphasis based on state needs, and not on a predetermined list provided in the RFP. Similarly, special projects should be funded at appropriate levels. 4) Provision should be made for a mini-grants category that supports IPM projects of Extension specialists, county agents and other stakeholders. IPM mini-grants programs have been highly successful and often address emerging and timely issues. Further, mini-grant funding can be used to leverage additional funds for larger projects. Mini-grants constitute a Stakeholder-generated IPM Program that has two important purposes: (1) to provide a means of involving stakeholders and county educators at a local level, and (2) to test new projects on a small scale and with lower investment to determine if they work. 5) Collaboration should be encouraged to meet objectives for selected Areas of Emphasis but should not be a separate category. Administrative costs associated with collaboration should be supported by additional funding, $5K or less per Area of Emphasis or special project. 6) Total requested funding, both base and enhanced levels, should be limited to a single maximum for every eligible institution. 7) Improve the RFA, e.g., clarify and add a checklist of proposal requirements. 8) Provide clear instructions to review panel members. 9) The RFA for 2010 funding should be released in mid-July 2009 with applications accepted for eight weeks after release. 10) A determined effort should be made to justify and obtain significantly more S-L 3(d) funding. A reasonable target is about $20 million.