Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

The group met for the morning session in conjunction with NCA 10. There were comments about, and a demonstration of, the very extensive new NCRA web site for data collection and reporting, a comment on the new Great Lakes Northern Forest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit CESU being hosted at Minnesota, comments about Extension programming in the region, comments from Washington (from Larry Biles and Bruce Menzel), and a discussion of the need for a midterm of the Integrated Riparian Project (NC 230). We feel that the mid-term evaluation would not be useful at this time because the project has had little activity, at least partly due to limited funding from the Directors.
Meeting as NCA 23, Scott presented the agenda for the day and the minutes for 2002. Bob Gates moved approval of the minutes, Chuck Scalet seconded. Passed.

1.Scott Craven commented that we had invested a great deal of time and energy working with the Directors to advise on a new Administrative Advisor and were delighted that Susan Stafford, the new Dean at Minnesota, had agreed to serve for both NCA 23 and NCA 10. Dr. Stafford became ill at the last minute and was not able to attend this meeting. Scott Craven expressed a desire for better communication with her.

We discussed CWD at great length, since it is one of the hottest fisheries and wildlife topics in our region today. Wisconsin has a two prong approach to CWD management: testing and eradication. They planned to test 50,000 brain stems. They received only 38,000. They are testing 2,000 per week and have completed 12,000. Fifty of the animals collected from in the eradication area tested positive and five more in the (15-20 mi wide) buffer area tested positive as well. Results of this testing routinely are available at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us under CWD. Their second tool is eradication. They estimated 25,000 animals in the eradication area and were able to kill only 8,000 that is about equal to fawn production in the spring so no real progress in a population sense. Lack of eradication is strictly due to landowners banding together and lobbying to protect their deer, in spite of the dangers from the disease. Scott Craven predicts that eradication will move forward and be more successful if the full testing shows that CWD is restricted to the eradication area. If it is outside, the implications are too onerous to consider today. Timing for decisions is that there will be an external review, led by WMI, in April; a public symposium then the annual Leopold Lecture will focus on CWD (or diseases). Results will be discussed and management decisions made in April 2003. Whole exercise has cost DNR $10.3 M already. Baiting has long been illegal and now is legal in the eradication zone. Economics in northern Wisconsin this year are terrible, with no snow and snowmobiling. Prediction is that baiting also will be legal there soon, increasing opportunities for any spread. Hunting season is essentially continuous now; they extend it a month at a time. They wanted to track movements so have a team of 10, planning to radio collar 100 animals. In 6 weeks, have not yet collared a single animal. Carcass management has been very difficult. Originally planned to incinerate all carcasses; cost was immense. Now have decided to mark and freeze every carcass, then landfill the ones that test negative. However, there is an 18 month delay between infection and detection with the test. There are many opportunities for false negatives. Also road kills and illegal harvests have not been factored into any calculations of spread or impact yet, but those numbers, while large, are trivial compared to the others.

2.We feel there is a significant emphasis placed on, and a mandate for 25% of Hatch monies to be spent on regional projects, yet there apparently the Directors have minimal emphasis on funding new regional projects with new money.

3.We discussed NC1005, the Deer Project. Currently 6 states are involved and they met Feb 7-8 to discuss objectives, funding, methods, and many other aspects. We tried to get them to focus on CWD or diseases. They were not interested, under the logic that they have a significant momentum and would need to delay the start by a year to re-direct or get a new proposal approved. Most state Directors have invested little to nothing in the project. Michigan has a lot of money for this, but almost all is DNR. Only $18K is AES funds (i.e., less than 50% RA with fringe). Therefore, they are having to re-direct anyway due to personnel and money and program changes. As they focus on ecological issues with deer, they will learn many things about disease. In Michigan especially, this project should lead to better capability to respond when/if CWD arrives, a capability Wisconsin wishes it had earlier. Also, there are ongoing science based projects about disease like CWD effects on nearly everything in the ecosystem in SW Wisconsin, supported by NSF and a prion project done by vet people.

4. We discussed NC and NCR and NCT options for CWD or disease. Bob Robel prepared a 2 page draft concept statement afer last yearss NCA 23 meeting that suggested we recommend an NCT project. Specifically this year, Bob moved that The NCA-23 committee believes emerging problems associated with diseases of cervid populations (both confined and unconfined) is a regional issue and requires a region-wide assessment to determine the extent of the problem, an integrated risk assessment to determine the seriousness of the problem, and a comprehensive consideration of control and prevention approaches to reduce negative economic impacts on livestock and wildlife interests as well as possible human health impacts in the North Central Region. We recommend that a NCT Committee be established to gather factual material and write a research proposal for consideration by Agricultural Experiment Station Directors of the North Central Region. The current situation dictates that action be taken quickly if the North Central Region is to avoid the potential of disastrous economic impacts from several diseases emerging in the expanding deer population in the Midwest. If such an NCT Committee were formed quickly, they could wisely be encouraged to hold their first meeting in conjunction with the annual meeting of The Wildlife Society (in Vermont, September 2003) or the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference (in Kansas City, December 2003). Bruce mentioned that aquatic diseases, especially among contained and free living fish are increasing in importance. He did not suggest changing the motion but suggested that, if the NCT was established, there might be attractive aquatic research opportunities as well. Chuck Scalet seconded. Passed

5. Bruce Menzel is the official CSREES representative to NCA 23. It took some additional effort to get him here because Larry Biles already was coming for NCA 10. That means, anytime we meet with NCA 10, we will have to lobby hard to get our liaison approved to attend.

6. We discussed wisdom of meeting with NCA 10. We have not established any custom as yet. Bob Robel says there are advantages (e.g., common problems, solutions, opportunities). However, Scott Craven says we represent a very expensive exercise for all of us to meet here together for a day. He suggests that a meeting jointly with a meeting we all attend (e.g., Midwest) is more efficient. January timing is especially difficult academically as well as logistically. January was chosen (in contrast to our historic April date) to allow us to feed information to the Directors for their March meeting.

7. Bruce Menzel offered comments from Washington. Dan Kugler is the new NRE administrator; he seems creative, dedicated and skilled. Bruce (as Fisheries, Wildlife, Range) is adequately busy. It is amusing to note that he covers those three areas and there are three foresters as his peers. He and John Buckhouse will, at the end of 12 months, offer recommendations about administrative support for fisheries, wildlife and range. That recommendation assumedly will suggest some way of replacing Jim Miller. Bruce Menzel encourages contact him at either bmenzel@reusda.gov or bmenzel@isu.edu as ideas and needs develop.

8. Scott Craven says there will be an Extension meeting in Little Rock Arkansas April 3-6 and he views this as the last opportunity to bring together the Natural Resources Extension (NRE) people. He says NRE people should attend at all costs. The threat is that NRE people are being drawn to ANREP (Association of Natural Resource Extension Professionals) and that group is diluted by many other priorities like economics. In fact, the NRE meeting is triennial and was scheduled for Florida 2002; it was canceled in favor of attendance at ANREP.

9. In 2002, we asked Scott Craven to reach Illinois, Missouri and Nebraska to encourage participation in NCA 23. He reached Ron Johnson in Nebraska who agreed to inform Kyle Haugland and encourage him to attend. Chuck Scalet also contacted Kyle. No response and Nebraska is not with us today. Scott contacted Dick Warner in Illinois. After several contact attempts, Warner replied that he had an appropriate person and would encourage their participation. Illinois is not with us today. After several attempts to communicate with Jack Jones in Missouri, Mark Ryan wrote to say Jack has stepped down and he (Mark) was interested and planned to attend. Missouri is not with us today. We encourage invitations for the 2004 meeting

10. In other areas: there have been 5 positives in northern Illinois and 1 on a game farm in eastern Minnesota. Kansas tested 1300 and all were negative. Reports of positives in Grant and Waupakon Counties WI were false.

11.We discussed budgets; most states and institutions are facing graphic budget crises. The exception is SDSU, which expects a 3-4.5% salary increase and no budget rescission. South Dakota has a $50M shortfall and a $100M emergency fund they dont expect to touch. MSU got cut 2% as a rescission, then got =% back and were told the 1 =% is a permanent base reduction. Looking forward, predictions of cuts range from 9-20%. They have been told to expect a 3-4% faculty raise in spite of that, deepening the cuts. Tenure and tenure track faculty cannot be touched, ensuring staff layoffs. They have a heavily unionized staff and have heard that each layoff of a senior staff person will result in an average of 7 sequential personnel shifts. UW has been told to expect three very lean years. Minnesota is considering cuts of 17% and will not touch tuition increases.

12. Faculty positions are changing everywhere. There is a general move to hire people at 9 months, with the exception of Ohio State and South Dakota State where everyone is 12. Purdue is moving forward with a voluntary move to 9 months at 11/12 f salary; ISU has offered that move at 10/11 of salary and found few takers.

13. We discussed the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs (NAUFWP) and its programs and roles. Bruce Menzel says that Bill McCombs is now president of NAUFWP because we passed a motion that officers of the National Association of State Land Grant Universities and Colleges (NASLGUC) coincide with NAUFWP officers. He could not reach Bill McCombs but did reach Dan Pletscher, past NAFWP President. No NAUFWP meeting has been planned for the North American but Dan Pletscher (and Bill McCombs?) will try to organize something. They also are considering a hiatus of dues because there has been no activity at all. We all expressed distress at the lack of activity and the seemingly diminishing role that NAUFWP is playing.

14. We distributed institutional reports and then discussed the role and future of NCA 23 at length. There is an overall feeling that effectiveness of, and belief in the group has declined dramatically over the last 2-3 years. Some think that a one day meeting is not an effective use of time nor is it wise to meet with NCA 10 very often. We should devote much more time to the NCA 23 meeting and should focus on a) the AES kinds of responsibilities that bring us together and then b) the rest of our professional lives like recruiting, placement, curriculum, faculty evaluation, senior faculty vitality, junior faculty mentoring, graduate programs, fiscal crises, extension programming, approaches to fiscal uncertainty, etc.

15. Traditionally, we have had a practice of electing/appointing the newest representative to be Chair for the following year. We all agree that practice perpetuates a structure in which newer people always are re-inventing the wheel and there is limited (use of) institutional memory. Jim Perry suggested that we have either Chairs and Secretaries elected for 3 year terms or Chairs and Vice Chairs elected for 2 year terms where the Vice Chair takes notes and rotates into the Chair position. Chuck Scalet offered to help Jim Perry in the next year and then we will re-assess. Bruce Menzel agreed to help with Washington liaison roles in the next year, especially in planning for the next annual meeting. With regard to meeting time and location, we agreed to seek a place that is a) relatively rural, b) within 1 = hours of a major airport, c) relatively inexpensive. We will meet in late March or early April 2004. Locations that have arisen as possibilities include a center between Toledo and Cleveland (Bob Gates will send Jim Perry information), a location near Chicago (Bob Gates also will check on this one), a location near St. Louis (Jim Perry will contact Mark Ryan for ideas).

16. Some of the content ideas that emerged for the 2004 meeting include core competencies, common approaches to curricular change, student placement, graduate program management.

A joint meeting of NCA 10 and NCA 23 was held at the J. F. Friedrick Center on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus on January 23, 2003. The morning meeting was chair by Jeff Stier and focused on issues of common interest to the two groups. The afternoon sessions were held separately for the two NCA groups.

The meeting began with introductions and recognition of Dr. Chris Risbrudt, Director of the USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory in Madison. Dr. Risbrudt invited participants to tour the demonstration house on the grounds of the Lab and arrangements were made for the tour following the meeting.

Dr. Alan Ek spoke on behalf of Dr. Susan Stafford, Administrative Advisor for the two NCA groups. He conveyed Dr. Staffords apologies for not being able to attend the meeting due to an illness.

Alan Ek briefed the groups on the newly designated Great Lakes-Northern Forest Cooperative Ecosystem Unit (CESU), for which the University of Minnesota is the host university. The CESU is a partnership between various universities, several federal agencies and some NGOs. The Department of Interior initiated the concept of CESUs and they are awarded competitively. The next step for the CESU is to develop a strategic plan cooperatively. A meeting for this purpose is scheduled in March. Host institutions are charged with linking the various partners and coordinating requests for assistance that develop within the agencies. The host institution is also charged with facilitating the flow of resources between agencies and university partners. Initially, there was $75,000 allocated to get the CESU started but there is no on-going funding to facilitate administration and program. Dr. Ek stated that NAPFSC will be working to generate funding for CESUs as one avenue for promoting research on natural resource issues. The objective is to try to get approximately $2.5 million authorized in the Department of Interior budget for the CESU network. This would amount to about $100k per CESU which could be used to facilitate communication, travel and planning. Dr. Ek stated that he anticipated that some of the larger CESU regions might be divided into smaller ones in the future after the system has developed further. In response to question from the group, Dr. Ek reported that the indirect cost rate (ICR) for the CESU is 15%. He referred to a NAPFSC survey of ICR universities which indicated that there is wide variation among universities and federal agencies, often with different rates being paid by the same agency to different universities. Several NC institutions are members of the CESU and there is provision for additional institutions to become members. In response to a question about how that might come about, Dr. Ek said he was not sure but would look into it.

Nicole Nelson explained the National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS) and demonstrated its use. She took the group to the national homepage and the NCRA homepage, illustrated logging on and looking up projects, and pointed to sources of information on the system and projects. The group asked if there was a way to identify specific project impacts by legislative district. This would be a very helpful capability and might be something that could be included in future versions of NIMSS.

The group discussed NC 230. Stier indicated that his overall impression was that the group had gotten off to a slow start due to lack of funding. Jim Perry briefed the group on the activities of NC 230. The committee has had two meetings and has submitted a proposal for funding but was not successful. Pete Schaefer also reported that the committee has had good discussion and useful meetings, but there was a strong sense of frustration at the unevenness of support among the participants experiment stations. The group continues to believe strongly that the project is important. It went through an intensive review by the NCA committees and the SAES directors to get approved. Given the lack of support by some experiment stations, it seems that it might have better been an NCR project, as had originally been proposed. There was much frustration expressed at the lack of support for regional projects and some members indicated that they were not likely to enter into another NC project due to the administrative overhead. There was also a general sense that the whole regional structure ignores the way research is conducted today. Researchers at various universities establish many interconnections with colleagues at other institutions and simply get together to develop joint proposals and work on issues of mutual interest without the need for all the administrative requirements of the regional system.

University of Wisconsin-Extension Dean and Director Carl OConnor briefed the group on the new position he would be starting July 1, 2003. He will be serving 50% time as Executive Director of the 12-state North Central Extension Association and 50% as liaison with CSREES. He reminded the group that 25% of federal extension funds must be spent on regional projects and that 25% must be coordinated with the experiment station directors. He asked the group for ideas on regional extension projects and indicated that he was working on the idea of a federal extension system based on the e-extension concept. He reported that he was thinking of a national extension web site and that this concept would be discussed by the national directors of extension at their February meeting. USDA had put up about $100k to get the idea started and if it is approved, will add another $100k. Ultimately, if the concept works, USDA would likely add significant additional funding.

Dr. OConnor also reported on inter-agency work as a means of increasing the extension effort. Nationally, the extension budget is not growing and new methods of partnering are needed to get work done. He indicated that there were opportunities to partner with the Department of Energy, NRCS, Forest Service, Health and human Services and other federal agencies to work together on extension, but that such efforts would need to be win-win situations or they wouldnt get the agencies support. The strategy needs to be to work to increase the agencies budgets, or to add value to their products. In many cases, universities might not receive direct funding but would work more in partnership on programs. He warned, though, that this mode of operation might have consequences for how extension and universities are structured. For example, it might involve more contract work and might alter the ratio of faculty to academic staff in such efforts. He gave an example of helping agencies with community involvement in developing regulations. He reported that extension is doing similar work with the Department of Energy. In the Farm Bill, education is sanctioned in the FLEP program, and that the money will be brokered at the state level. This gives extension an opportunity to participate in the process.

Dr. OConnor described the concept of e-extension and that he was examining the idea of having extension directors commit 5% of their federal formula funds for extension to the new e-extension effort. He estimated that it might take $5 million in one-time funding to get it started and then about $3.5 million annually to keep it an effective national source of science information on natural resources. He envisions something along the lines of the Web of Medicine, and that there would be a need to connect to the science expertise at universities.

It was pointed out that there are some regional RREA projects and that some extension programming is now being done on a regional basis; e. g., the IL, IN, IA and WI annual workshop for NIPF owners that is held at Sinsanawa.

Larry Biles briefed the group on several items. He reported that the 1890 schools received an allocation of RREA in FY03 budget. RREA authorization has been increased to $30 million. CSREES is starting a strategic planning process for RREA, and there will be a meeting on this effort on March 18-020 in Denver. Schools should make sure that their regional and national priorities are represented at this meeting. There is no travel funding to attend the meeting.

Some of the increase in RREA was set aside to go to the University of Tennessee to support web-based efforts. There were 44 pre-proposals submitted, and 10-12 have been selected for further development. The intent is to fund at least 5 projects, so there is at least one in each region, with the 1890 schools being treated as a region. The projects will be limited to $15,000 maximum funding. Member of the group indicated that NAPFSC was not happy with so much being taken off the top of the RREA allocation. If there is more funding available, a grant program might be appropriate but then the funding limit should be increased to make it worthwhile.

In May, the Forest Service, CSREES and others hosted a National Summit on Forestry Research Capacity. This summit was in response to the NRC report on addressing the research capacity issue. The planning team for the Summit continues to meet for purposes of addressing the NRC recommendations, and honoring the Summit recommendations. The NRC recommendation regarding "Centers of Interest" is capturing the most attention and may lead to a joint 2005 FS and CSREES budget initiative. It early in the process so many steps remain.

Larry Biles also reported that Dr. Joseph Jen, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, is interested in growing the National Research Initiative (NRI) program. The natural resource group within NRI is attempting to focus the priorities for NRI for the coming 5-year period. He indicated that the current thinking in draft stage is to focus on: air quality, invasive species science, natural resources management, and water resources and water quality. Larry also distributed a users guide to the conservation title of the Farm Bill.