- Request to approve the proposal, NE_temp1141, “Weed Management Strategies for Sustainable Cropping Systems” 10-2006 to 2011.
Submitted by William Vinson (WV).
Action: Recommends tentative approval pending satisfactory response to the committee's concerns as follows:
- Demonstration of degree of interdependency: Are the members sharing common protocols or using different sites for their
research. How are the institutions working together?
- Stakeholder needs/inputs: How were these addressed? Is this project important to the organic industry?
- Accomplishments to date have been slow. What are the expected outcomes or key indicators of success?
- Was the former project used to leverage other funding opportunities, such as NRI or SARE? How will this new project leverage other funding?
- Request to approve the proposal for a coordinating committee, NE_temp1161, "Research Committee of Commodity Promotion" to replace NECC63. 10-2006 to 2011.
Submitted by Daniel Rossi (NJ).
Action: Recommends approval. Appendix E needs to be completed.
- Request to approve the proposal for a coordinating committee, NE_temp1162, "Northeast Pasture Consortium" to replace NEERA1000. 10-2006 to 2011.
Submitted by Bruce McPheron (PA).
Action: Recommends approval.
- Request to approve a Request to Write a Proposal entitled, "The Northeast Coordinating Committee for Integrated Pest Management (NE-IPM)", to replace NEREAP003, 10-2006 to 2011.
Submitted by Elaine Depew/Michael Hoffmann (NYC).
Action: Recommends approval.
- Review of Mid-Term Reports and Recommendations:
- NE1009, "Mastitis Resistance to Enhance Dairy Food Safety". 10/2002 to 9/2007. Submitted by Kirk Kerr (CTS)
- NE1016, "Genetic Bases for Resistance and Immunity to Avian Diseases. 10/2003 to 9/2008. Submitted by Kirk Kerr (CTS)
Action: MAC noted the reviews and lauded them as good examples on how to write mid-term reviews. Advisors are encouraged to conduct mid-term reviews of their projects, as MAC will use these reviews in the future when
considering requests to write proposals.
-
Request for off-the-top funding for FY2007
NRSP requests are posted at --- http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA/March2006Meeting/NRSPOff-the-TopRequestsFY2007.pdf
Please see attached breakdown of off-the-top requests and MAC recommendations.
Action: MAC recommends approval of the following amounts:
- NE-9: $145,000
- NE-59: $40,788
- NRSP-1: $306,916
- NRSP-3: $72,000
- NRSP-4: $431,182 (MAC recommends reducing the budget by $50,000. One MAC member noted tremendous matching/leveraging
going on in this project. Although the Experiment Station Section approved level funding at $481,182 last year, MAC is compelled to pursue
an annual reduction of off-the-top funding support for this NRSP like NRSPs-3,5,6. NRSP-4 generates a significant amount of extramural funds, so MAC felt that reducing
off-the-top support will not impair the project's ability to complete its objectives.)
- NRSP-5: $96,000
- NRSP-6: $110,000
- NRSP-8: $400,000
- NE1015: Biological Improvement, Habitat Restoration, and Horticultural Development of Chestnut by Management of Populations, Pathogens, and Pests. 10-2003 to 2008. Submitted by
Michael Vayda (VT). Discussion of comments and observations by the advisor.
Advisor Mike Vayda reported that only 4 out of the 42 present at the last annual meeting were receiving multistate funds from their stations. Moreover, the research activities appeared to be
done independently. He will conduct a mid-term review and will focus on the projects' goals and accomplishments. Does the project
still fit the multistate research model or should it be transformed into a coordinating committee structure?
- Review of the Northeast multistate project portfolio:
- What are the focus points?
- If a CSREES mediated multistate competitive pool did come to pass - would these be the ones we would identify as top priorities?
- Are these just matters of convenience to meet AREERA targets?
- is it time for some of these projects to sunset?
An important outcome of this NERA meeting is to come up with recommendations or scenarios for Drs. MacPheron and Rhodes to bring to the discussions regarding the implementation of the
FY2007 President's budget. This is an opportunity for our region to be proactively engaged in the process, but to do so it maybe necessary to undertake a strategic planning process and come up with a short list of our priorities.
We will then review our current portfolio to determine whether these priorities are being addressed. Would we be willing to pool a pro-rated portion of our resources and conduct our own regional competitive program?
Is this one of the alternative mechanisms for distributing formula funds that we should consider that will not disadvantage the Northeast? Should the competitive model be regional rather than national? Part of the expectation, as in the multistate projects, is to use
these funds to leverage other sources. How can we retain control over the use of the formula funds or ensure that our regional priorities are addressed? Should we re-visit the late John Nye's proposal for a virtual regional competitive program?
- Discuss future of the following projects:
Note: These projects were initiated in 2000/2001 in response to requests from stations to have integrated multistate activities with which they can link
their Hatch projects to help account for the 25% multistate integrated activities required in the AREERA and POW.
The nature of the Hatch projects were indeed multistate and integrated but for reporting purposes they needed to be linked to multistate activities.
Are they still needed and relevant in the next round of POW? This was planned for discussion with the NERA membership at the Sept. 2005 meeting in San Antonio, TX. This meeting was cancelled so this topic was not discussed.
- NEC1000: The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development (10/2001-9/2006)
- NEC1001: Land Use Management (10/2000-9/2005)
- NEC1004: The Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center (10/2001-9/2006)
- NEC1005: The Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) (10/2001-9/2006)
Action: Recommends termination of the above projects as scheduled unless there are compelling reasons from the NERA members why they should be
retained in the region's multistate portfolio.
- Modification to Appendix K: Critical Midterm Review for Coordinating Committees and Education/Extension Research Activities to include question on leveraging:
Has outside funding been obtained from federal
and state agencies or the private sector by participants in this project/activity to support activities?.
Action: Recommends approval.
- Discuss necessity of requiring proposals to address linkages to explain the committee's interaction or lack thereof with other committees and/or organizations.
NCRA-MRC supports the addition of a section in the proposal format that identifies internal and external linkages.
Action: Recommends adding the section in the proposal format. An explanation should be given on how the linkages will strengthen the proposal, or why it may not be necessary to have linkages as in cases where the uniqueness of the project is its own strength.
- NIMSS Update. Please see attached report: NIMSS Update March 2006
