Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

1. Continental Breakfast and meeting called to order by Tom German, NCA-15 Chair 2. Rich Merritt was voted in as secretary for this meeting and John Obrycki will be secretary of next years meeting. 3. Welcome remarks Rick Meyer (CSREES) was a gracious host and welcomed us to Washington DC. He handed out a summary sheet and presented an overview and discussion of the Presidents FY 2004-5 USDA CSREES Budget and Initiatives. There is a 9.25% rescission overall, but it will not affect formula funds. The only growth in the budget is in Homeland Security. NSF and NIH funding increased. Overhead rate of CSREES will increase from 20% to 25% this next year. 4. Department reports were presented and discussed by each participant. Hard copies were passed out and all will be shared with NCA-15 committee electronically. Marc Linit agreed to modify the Department Status Report Form to better accommodate Chairs that represented joint or merged departments. 5. Review of Regional Projects. Projects for Mid-term Review: Title: NCR46Development, optimization and delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms (10/01  2006.) Action: Approved Title: NCR193Plant Health: Managing Insects and Diseases of Landscape Plants (10/01- 2006) Action: Approve with suggestion to update recent activities and extent of progress given. The role of NCR-103 in facilitating the different activities should be emphasized. It was not possible to determine what the committees actual accomplishments have been or when they occurred. Title: NCR200--Management Strategies to Control Major Soybean Virus Diseases in the North Central Region (10/01  2006 Action: Approved Title: NCR201Integrated Pest Management (10/01- 2006) Action: Approve/continue with revision. Revise priorities and objectives to better justify existence as soon as possible, and tie together efforts with North Central IPM Center. There was a disconnect on what is on paper and what committee actually does. Renewals Title: NC125--Biological Control of Soil-and Residue-Borne Plant Pathogens Action: We did not review this project because it did not deal with insects, just plant pathogens. Title: NC215--Persistence of Heterodera glycines and Other Regionally Important Nematodes Action: Continue project with revision. Needs more specific details of the procedures to use, information on who does what, information on attempts to leverage external funding. Also, spelling errors and reference citations incomplete. Better justification of why this project should be done and better definition of other milestones and how this was tied in with previous project. They need to describe efforts to develop extension publications, nematode identication methods, etc., and how barcodes will be developed and used. Title: NC226--Development of Pest Management Strategies for Forage Alfalfa Persistence Action: This project was asking for a 1-year extension, not a renewal, and there was no form available to fill out. We felt that it should be given a 1-year extension. Title: NCR148 (now NC temporary 1097)--Migration and Dispersal of Agriculturally Important Biota 1. Action: Approved. This is a committee with a reputation for promoting strong interdisciplinary interactions, and routinely engaging the scientific community through workshops and symposia. They embrace a large number of collaborators from around the country, and across institutional and disciplinary boundaries. They were one of the first multi-state committees to established a functional website, but this has not been kept current in recent years. The committee has had a strong project with realistic objectives and reasonable expected outcomes and impacts. The committee might benefit by highlighting invasive species, emerging pests/diseases, and potential bio-threat agents as additional pest targets/categories. It would also help to have the recent annual reports and meeting minutes posted on NIMSS. Overall, this committee is doing an excellent job and should continue to share their expertise with other multi-state research committees when the opportunity arises. Tom PayneAdministrator Advisor to NCA-15Tom handed out the ESCOP FFY 06 Priorities and Sub Categories Initial Ranking List. Primary categories, in order of rank, were: Environment, Food and Health/Consumer Behavior, Genomics, Rural Community Vitality, Homeland Security, and Facilities. We also discussed the fact that it was not easy to access all the updates on regional projects necessary to review current progress. Tom indicated that he would look into this so we could more easily locate updates on the NIMSS system next year when we are assigned to review the regional projects. The log-on for the NIMSS system is: www.lgu.umd.edu. The person to call if you have problems is Nicole Nelson at the NCRA Office in Madison, Wisconsin (608-262-2349) and her email is: nnelson@cals.wisc.edu. She was extremely helpful and assisted me in finding forms and submitting them for regional project reviews. 6:00 pmWhere to Meet Next Year: It was decided that we should try and meet at the Center for International Maize and Wheat Research in Mexico. Second choice was Raleigh, North Carolina. Time to Meet: Mid-January or second week in February 2005. Sonny Ramaswamy will investigate the Mexico connection and report back to Rich by March 2004. John Obrycki (UK) was nominated as secretary for next years meeting, but see my note about last years minutes above. 6:30 pm. Meeting Adjourned. Dinner at Tony Chengs Mongolian Restaurant where discussions were continued.

We et at Water Front Center 3454 A&B for continuation of meeting with USDA-CSREES and NSF representatives. Introductory greetings from Dr. Ralph Otto, Deputy Administrator, Plant and Animal Systems, and Dr. Anna Palmisano, Deputy Administrator, Competitive Programs. Dr. Ralph Otto stated that there has been a large turnover in Agency leadership. The budget in FY 04 appears flat, but most line items took 10% cuts. Congressional mandated projects increased, while other general categories did not. FY 05 budget picture is looking better, however, especially in Homeland Security issues. Globally, EPA and USDA in 2005 have taken a big hit compared to NSF and NIH, but land grant universities have been important in keeping things stable. The problem with Agriculture is that we have been very successful and therefore funding is not available for good programs that solve problems. A discussion ensued over low overhead charges by USDA and how this affects the indirect cost system at universities. Dr. Anna Palmisano welcomed the Chairs and stated that USDA-CSREES needed to do a better job at selling their agency to Congress. They need to create a greater visibility and work with other scientists doing this. It was suggested that they engage Experiment Station Directors and Vice Presidents for Research at Universities to help increase their visibility. Dr. Karl Glasener, Executive Director of Co-FARM and Director of Science Policy, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America gave an interesting overview of some problems we, as scientists, have in getting our message out to congressional leaders. He stated that scientists have a general distaste for policy making and generally do not get involved. We have no money or political clout. Our agency of Chairs (CEDA) has joined Co-Farm, but the Ent. Society of America has not. They should consider joining as we as entomologists need grass roots advocacy. Tom Payne suggested that Dr. Glasener meet with the ESA Board about joining Co-Farm. Dr. Glasener had some interesting things to say with respect to getting the attention of congressmen or congresswomen and senators. It has been much more difficult for legislators to receive direct mail because of 9/11 and other terrorist activities. Therefore, email is a better way to communicate with them. Phone calls and personal visits also are important. The National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR) is an example of types of coalitions to set-up for better clout. Position statements on various topics are important and he handed out some one-page examples of the most effective way to communicate important topics to congressional leaders. He also noted that the Plant Pathologists have done a good job with lobbying in Washington with a full time lobbyist hired by their Society. Dr. Dan Byers, Staff Director, House Committee on Science (Majority) stated that money is fragmented across Washington--many funds are earmarked for specific projects with this Administration. Therefore, one has to: 1) organize with a big picture group; and 2) get localized with your State connection, so that when an issue comes up, you can obtain funding. He used Emerald Ash Borer as an example and the proper connections with the District are important. The NRI does not have a comparable voice like CNSF (Council for the National Science Foundation), which sends scientists emails out on a regular basis. Dr. Byers emphasized that the 3 questions that congressional staffers ask every time they visit with constituents are: 1) who are you, 2) what do you want; and 3) why should I care with respect to the re-election of my congressman/woman or senator. Dr. James B. Woolley, Program Director, Biodiversity Surveys and Inventories, National Science Foundation discussed the Biological Sciences Organization within NSF and emphasized that International Research and Education were high priorities in the next few years at NSF. Also, Cyber Infrastructure is an important area. The website to different NSF divisions is: www.nsf.gov/bio . There is a new Emerging Frontiers Division, which includes things like the Biocomplexity, Nanoscience, Assembling the Tree of Life, Microbial Genome Sequencing Program, Ecology of Infectious Diseases, Research Collaborative Networks, Frontiers in Integrative Biological Research (FIBR). There are also a number of other grants such as NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) coming online. He mentioned that one of the things that reviewers of grants are being ask to examine much more closely in their merit review criteria are what are the broader impacts of the proposed work? Make sure this section is taken seriously in your proposals.