Minutes of SERA-IEG3 Meeting, Little Rock Arkansas, March 19-20, 2001


Convened March 19, 2001 at the Airport Holiday Inn, Little Rock AR


Meeting Participants: John R. McVay - Auburn University, Mark A. Rumph - Auburn University, Gus Lorenz - University of Arkansas CES, Donn T. Johnson - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Tim Kring - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Michael Fitzner - USDA, Russell F. Mizell, III - NFREC-Monticello, University of Florida, O. Norman Nesheim - University of Florida, Doug Johnson - Research and Education Center, University of Kentucky, Fred Knapp - University of Kentucky, Patty Lucas - University of Kentucky, Clayton Hollier - Louisiana State University, David Boethel - Louisiana State University, Clarence Collison - Mississippi State, Mike Linker - North Carolina State University, Gerrit Cuperus - Oklahoma State University, Pat Bolin - Oklahoma State University, James Shrefler - Oklahoma State University, Wanda Almodovar - University of Puerto Rico, Anthony Keinath - Clemson University, Geoff Zehnder - Clemson University, Karen Vail - University of Tennessee, Tom Fuchs - Texas A & M Ag. Ext. Service, Jim Starr - Texas A & M University, D. Ames Herbert, Jr. - Tidewater Agri. Research & Extension Center, Virginia Tech.

Karen Vail opened the meeting.
David Boethel gave the administrative report.

A federal update was given by Michael Fitzner on CSREES activities and programs. (See attached).

Creating a Better Communication Link Between SERA-IEG 3, Administrators, Grants Managers, Vail.
Vail distributed a copy of SERA-IEG 3 website components found at http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/Southern_Region/SERAIEG. Meeting organization and scheduling was also discussed. We have seen a decrease in SERA-IEG 3 participation by researchers. Everyone present was urged to contact their deans or other appropriate individuals to encourage researcher participation. David Boethel indicated he would discuss this at the director’s meeting.

Developing a list of activities for Chair & Secretary was discussed.



Motion to have three officers’ positions, Chair, Chair-Elect, and Secretary, was made by Geoff Zehnder and seconded by John McVay. The motion carried.

Motion by Doug Johnson to have a central location and seconded by Clayton Hollier. After discussion, the motion was withdrawn.

The responsibilities of the officer’s positions were decided as:



Secretary:



Chair-Elect:

Chair:

Agendas will include:

A motion to accept responsibilities and agenda was made by Starr. Motion was seconded and carried.

Geoff Zehnder indicated that regular communication between SERA-IEG 3 and the southern region IPM program grants manager should be a priority, particularly on issues related to revision of the RFP. After discussion, a motion was made by Geoff Zehnder to recommend to the Directors that the southern region IPM program grants manager attend the annual SERA-IEG 3 meetings. The motion was carried unanimously.

Dave Boethel reported that the Southern Directors failed to approve the SERA-IEG 3 proposal to hire an IPM Facilitator for the southern region. Discussion on how this decision will impact SERA-IEG 3 followed. Several members expressed concern that SERA-IEG 3 will be unable to effectively evaluate and promote IPM programs in the region without a dedicated position. Geoff Zehnder indicated that the SRIPM Program RFP stipulates that project reports are required at the conclusion of each funded project, but there is no mechanism in place to implement the reporting procedure (e.g., to request reports from project leaders, summarize and publicize reports). Other activities that could be performed by an IPM facilitator were discussed. The group recommended (with no motion made) that the IPM facilitator proposal not be resubmitted to the Directors this year, and that the proposal be included as an agenda item at next years meeting. Geoff Zehnder agreed to ask Jim VanKirk, the NE Region IPM Facilitator, for information on position impacts which could be included in a future proposal. Grants Manager in NE & NC regions have IPM facilitation.

Geoff made a motion that we adopt a three-year rotation for SERA officers such that we elect a secretary each year who will become chair-elect who will then become chair. I made the motion and it was carried unanimously.

Geoff Zehnder made a motion to ask Grant Manager to come to IEG every year. It was seconded by Clarence Collison and the motion carried.

A discussion followed on the IPM Facilitator. No one has been assigned duties as yet. Regional Director failed to support position. A motion was made not to approach Southern Director on IPM Facilitator. Seconded by Tom Fuchs and the motion carried.

Fred Knapp gave a report on SRIPM proposal - There were a total of 64 pre-proposals submitted in all categories. Two in AAP, 24 in APM 14 in MTD, 4 in PA , 17 in EX and 3 in JRE. There were 44 Pre-proposals accepted for full proposals for a total request of $2.106 million out of an approximate budget of $800,000. Approximately 12 projects may be approved.

Criteria used for IPM Program Assessment was used as submitted by Geoff Zehnder from Clemson University.

Changes to Rating System of Proposals and Timing of RFP - Fred Knapp
Rating system will be revised for Pre-proposal in order to reduce the number of full proposals. The intent is to be more selective in the pre-proposal stage to prevent PI's from spending a lot of time writing full proposals that may not meet the critical reviews of the review committee. The new RFP will revised and sent out early May or June as a "tentative RFP" until the Budget is approved by CSREES. A revision will be sent later but should not affect the information for writing pre-proposals and submitting by the deadline of late summer or early fall.

RFP Revisions - Jim Shrefler, RFP subcommittee report
Page 2. Replace the first paragraph under "A. Research" with the following paragraph:

A. Research

This funding category provides support for evaluation and development of IPM programs. The "IPM Program Assessment" emphasis area will support projects to evaluate the economic and/or environmental impacts of IPM programs. The other three emphasis areas in the research category will support projects for the development of comprehensive pest management systems (e.g., bio-control, cultural practices, host resistance, genetically modified crops) and exploring interactions of tactics. Where possible and appropriate, research in the developmental emphasis areas should emphasize field-scale experiments that address multiple pests over more than one season or location. One approach is to identify practices that reduce initial pest populations, lower the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for pests, and/or increase tolerance of hosts to pest injury. Long-term, fundamental research is not appropriate for funding in this category. Research to incorporate non-chemical strategies into pest management systems is encouraged. However, research involving chemical pesticides is permissible if pesticides are one component within an integrated system. Proposals that focus solely on the development and evaluation of pesticides will not be considered for funding under this program. PROPOSALS SHOULD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE HOW THE TACTIC OR SYSTEM, ONCE DEVELOPED, WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO A PRODUCTION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

Page 2, under "Alternative Pest Management Systems":

Change third sentence "Alternatives may emphasize beneficial organisms, crop resistance, or tolerance or competitiveness" to "Alternatives may emphasize beneficial organisms, crop resistance, precision pest targeting, mechanical methods or tolerance or competitiveness".

Last sentence on p. 2 and next sentence on p. 3: "A multi-disciplinary approach should be considered to enhance the development of comprehensive pest management systems. The user community should generally recognize the pest problem being addressed by the management system as a key priority."

Replace with "A multi-disciplinary approach should be adopted to enhance the development of comprehensive pest management systems. Documented evidence (e.g., letters or statements of support) that the pest problem being addressed has been recognized by the user community as a key priority will strengthen the proposal."
________________________________________________________________________

Top of page 5, under "C. Combined Research-Extension": After the second sentence "Projects must demonstrate multiple-discipline and multiple-state cooperation.", insert the following: "Projects selected for funding must be judged highly meritorious in the peer review process. If such projects are not identified, the grants manager, in consultation with the review panel, may reallocate funds in this category to support meritorious projects in the "Research" or "Extension" categories."
________________________________________________________________________

Page 13, under "A. Evaluation Criteria for IPM Research Projects": Replace the entire section under "A. Evaluation Criteria for IPM Research Projects" with the following:
Evaluation Criteria for IPM Research Projects:

The following criteria will be used for projects in the "IPM Program Assessment" category:

The IPM program to be evaluated is important and relevant to the Southern Region (25%).

The project has a specified plan to develop a measurable, commodity- specific or other commonly understood definition of IPM (e.g., in terms of practices considered to be part of an IPM program) (20%).

The project utilizes appropriate indicators and methodology to quantify the economic, environmental and/or health benefits associated with IPM implementation (20%).

The project includes a component to promote project results and identified IPM program impacts to appropriate audiences (10%).

The project utilizes personnel with appropriate expertise to implement the objectives and evaluation plan (10%).

Appropriateness of the budget facilities and proposed time period to meet objectives (10%).

The project has a regional focus involving multiple states (5%).

The following criteria will be used for projects in the "Alternative Pest Management Systems", "Alternative Animal and Plant Production Systems", and the "Improved Pest Monitoring Techniques and Decision Tools" categories:

Importance and relevance of the production or use system(s) and pests(s) being addressed to the Southern Region, and a clear description of the needs assessment process (30%). The likelihood that the IPM tactic or system, once developed, will be incorporated into a production system or use area management program (20%). Appropriateness of methods and experimental design to meet objectives and test hypothesis (20%). Appropriateness of budget, facilities and proposed time period to meet objectives (10%). A component to develop alternative strategies for weed management is included in the project objectives (5%). Project utilizes personnel with multidiscipline expertise in implementing the objectives and work plan (10%). Project has a regional focus involving multiple states (5%).

Motion made and seconded to leave Weed incentive in RFP for upcoming year. Motion was carried.
Norm Nesheim and Russ Mizell gave a report on the Regional Pest Management Center

Election of Officers
Ames Herbert voted Chair - Elect. Clayton Hollier voted Secretary. Gus Lorenz assumes role of chair.

2002 Meeting Location: Washington, DC, March 18-20
Gus made motion to accept the minutes from last year, seconded by Jim Starr and the motion carried.

Donn Johnson, AR, gave a report entitled Implementing and Improving a Pest & Disease Monitoring Program in Peaches in the Southern USA.

Regional Monitoring of Peach Scab Spore Production was presented by Harold Scherm, GA.

(Collaborators: AR – Jenny Popp, Barbara Lewis; AL – Bobby Boozer, Wheeler Foshee, John McVay; FL – Russell Mizell; GA – Dan Horton, Harold Scherm; OK – Phil Mulder, Dean McCraw, Becky Carroll, Brian Jervis; SC – Clyde Gorsuch, Dale Linvill, and Desmond Layne

 

Mike Fitzner and Lee Frost-Kumpf gave a presentation on "Performances Planning and Reporting Systems Update". Annual reporting system ready by April 1, reports due two months later.

A request was made to send list to Linker on making list service for committee. Below is a listing of all attendees and respective e-mail addresses.
NAME   E-MAIL
Almodovar Wanda W_Almodovar@seam.uprm.edu
Boethel David dboethel@agcenter,lsu.edu
Bolin Pat bolinp@okstate.edu
Collison Clarence chc2@ra.msstate.edu
Cuperus Gerrit bugs1@okstate.edu
Fitzner Mike mfitzner@reeusda.gov
Fuchs Tom t-fuchs@tamu.edu
Herbert D. Ames herbert@vt.edu
Hollier Clayton chollier@agctr.lsu.edu
Johnson Donn T.
dtjohnso@comp.uark
Johnson Doug djohnson@ca.uky.edu
Keinath Anthony tknth@clemson.edu
Knapp Fred fknapp@ca.uky.edu
Kring Tim tkring@comp.uark.edu
Linker Mike mike_linker@ncsu.edu
Lorenz Gus glorenz@uaex.edu
Lucas Patty plucas@ca.uky.edu
McVay John jmcvay@acesag.auburn.edu
Mizell Russ rfm@mail.ifas.ufl.edu
Nesheim Norman onn@gnv.fas.ufl.edu
Rumph Mark mrumph@acesag.auburn.edu
Shrefler James jshrefler-okstate@lane-ag.org
Starr Jim j-starr@tamu.edu
Vail Karen kvail@utk.edu
Zehnder Geoff Zehnder@clemson.edu