GPAC Executive Committee, June 1996

Executive Director Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 (303) 491-7370

GREAT PLAINS AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

DATE: July 28, 1994

TO: GPAC Members

Standing Committee Members

FROM: Melvin D. S k o l ~ ~

SUBJECT: Minutes to recent GPAC meetings and updates of Standing Committee Memberships Enclosed are: l. ,..., ,_,_ 3. 4.

A list of members of GPAC Standing Committees. Please review these lists to see whether or not the individual from your institution/agency listed on the committee is the appropriate person. Also, please notice any absences; if you do not have a member on a given committee, member universities and federal agencies are encouraged to have a member on each Standing Committee. Executive Committee minutes of June, 1994. Please review these minutes to learn of the recent actions taken by the Executive Committee. Some important changes for you to note:

a. The financial commitment to the Executive Director was reduced from 3/4-time to 1/2-time, effective October 1, 1994.

b. A pilot test to initiate a "sunset provision" on Standing Committees will occur. It is proposed that each Standing Committee be reviewed every five years for possible extension, revision, or termination.

c. Several new task forces were initiated as others completed their tasks. Business Meeting minutes of June, 1994. In addition to the items mentioned under 2 above, the Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation have joined the GPAC as Transition Members.

For Standing Committee members only, copies of the Annual Reports from each Standing Committee to the Executive Committee are included. GPAC members will receive these reports in the 1994 Proceedings.

-•

1993.94 Annunl Report

Great Plains Economks

Committee

l. Activities and Accomplishments

The Great Plains Economics Commiuc,c (GPEC) held its annual meeting in Laramie, WY, April 18-20, 1994. Members attending represented Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Oklahoma,

South Dakota, Wyoming, AMS, APHIS, ES, SCS and Fann

Foundation

.

GPAC

was

represented

by

the coundl liaison, the council representative, and

the

executive director.

In

addition,

a

Bureau of Land Manugcment (BLM) representative aitcnded and partidpated in the progrum.

The GPEC program addressed the current situation and emerging issues with respect to the coming 1995 Farm Bill debate, the imp.'tct of governmcrit expenditures on the Great

Plain~

and the status of grazing fees/public rangeland reform.

Larry

Sanders rcvkwed the setting and considerations for the 1995 Farm Bill

including (I) budget cuts, (2) increasing

equity

concerns, and (3) the jmpact of inconsistent nnd conflicting farm prognun goals.

Art

Barnaby

(KS) diSt.'.usscd proposals mrntioned as alternatives

to

traditional commodity supply

management

including the

so

-

c

alled

Iowa revenue assurance plnn and a revenue insurance plan combining expanded multi-peril crop insurance ,md purchase of put options. The current pilot options

program

is intended

to

be a test

of

the usefulness of this kind of program for farmers.

Stewardship, or "green" payments were c1ddressed by Tom Dobbs (SD) who has recently studie.d this alternative for the Wullacc Institute on Alternative Agriculture. Such H program would completely decouple farm program payments from commodity production with a sub11iantial portion of these funds allocattd for payments to accomplish environmental objectives.

Fred Woods reported on several

cducHtional

activities

planned

around 1995 form bill

issues

including a set

of

31 Extension educational leaflets to be distributed to all St.ates in early September.

ln the discussion of the government Expcndi1urt.s 'l'ask For<.'.e. papers, various authors discussed, relative to r.he Great Plains region, changing demogruphics, impact of farm

program expendjtures (GP share of paymen1s exceeds GP share of product-ion), natural rcsour::c, infrastructure and edm:ation expc:.11diturc~. Dennis Hsher

discussed needed

next steps in completing the

papers.

lssues surrounding the public lands grazing foe de.hate. ctnd their implications for the Grea.t Plains were addressed by Larry Van Tassell (WY), Originally grazing fees were set at a level

to cover administrative costs and the con<.:ept of market value was first in1roduced. Studies c.:urrcnily show about $3 forage vnlue as opposc.d to USDI proposed fee of $3,96 per annual unit,

Buddy Arviso (BLM) commented on Fc,lernl rangeland reform (rangeland

management is independent of the level of grar.ing fees) both from the technical ar1d political standpoints. His review included the role of new Multiple Resource Advisory Councils for each BLM

district.

11. Work Plnnned for

1994-95

A. Provide continued strong

suppon

to

the Government Expenditures Tusk Force to facililate

maximu!T'1

be11cfit from this extremely signifkant effort. 'J'his will take the form of assistance in planning the proposed Great Plains Govemors' Conference, developing policy options papers, designing a public issues educntion program and gern~rally rt1aximizing the

pay

-

off

fron.1 what the Committee sees as an outstanding contribution 10 knowledge about the Great

Plains

region.

B. Provide continued supporc for the h,t.egnitcd Resources Managerne.nt Committee in exploring possible coordination and coopt:ratiou with other GPAC committcc.;s and with other

organizations

.

C. Monitor 1995 Farm Rill deliberations with particular application to the Great Plains region, espedally plans for extending the Conscsvation Reserve Program.

D. Monitor devclc.>pmcnts in the Gre,it Plains stales with respect to issues included 1n NAFTA.

E.

Expl

ore

joint meeting next year with either the GPAC Cr<..>ps/S(!ils Committee or the GPAC Range/Livestock Committee.

Ill.

Officers for

1994-95

Larry

Sanders, Oklahoma State University) Ch3ir

Tom

Dobbs, South

Dakota State Univcrsily, Vice-Chair Norm Dalsted, Colorado State University, Sccn:tiH)'

·•

IV.

Task

Force

Activities

A. Integrate{} Resource Management

This task force, under the leadership of Marian l lughcs (ND), has 20 fact sheets

nearing completion with authors representing a wide array of states and

organizations/institutions. The fact sheets arc intended for wide distribution. The task force is now ::;onsidering developing white papers, to he used in combination with fact sheets in a

series of workshops for targeted audiences in thr nrcat Plnins region. B. Government Expenditures

This task force,

chaired

by Dennis Fisher (TX), has been charged with addressing the.

implicaiions of change in government expenditures (especially reduced federal spending) for the Great

Plains.

Ten impact papers

are

nearing

wmpletion and will be summarized at the June, 1994 GPAC meeting.

Plans for staging

a fall 1995 Great Plains governors'

conference

continue

with

funding

being the major jssue. Topics and authors for l .~ policy papers are being identified and plans

for a p iblic issues education program arc being discussed. We believe this project has a high potentizd

pay-off

for both the GPAC and the Great Plains states in tcnns of its contributions

to

sound local1 state,

Rnd federal

policies to

cope.

with cJrnnge

in

the Great Plains region.

The

committee

asks

for a strong cndorse-mcnl anc.l

continued support

from GPAC to

maxim

ize

the benefits of this

important

task

force

effon.

We further ask GPAC 10 join with the committee in urging each State Extension

Scrvke.

in the Great Pluins region to support the development

or

e.ducational prognims/nmtcrials from the Tusk Force papers.

Great Plains Agricultural Council Crops and Soils Committee

Annual Report 1993-94

I. Activities and Accomplishments 1993-94

The annual meeting of the GPAC Crops and Soils Committee was held April 10-11, 1994 in Denver, Colorado. Fifteen members were in· attendance, including the Executive Director, Council Liaison, and Council Representative. One guest also attended. Dr. P. Stephen Baenziger lead a discussion regarding plant variety protection and public germplasm. Oral and written state summaries were provided by representatives from Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. universities, plus SCS and ARS.

Dr. David Legg presented a written and oral report regarding the status of the Russian Wheat Aphid Task Force. He also presented a proposal for a new three year project, Integrated Aphid Management in Small Grains and Grain Sorghum in the Western Great Plains. The Crops and Soils committee voted and approved the request for this new Aphid Complex Management Task Force and will recommend its implementation to the Executive Committee. Dr. Roald Lund, Administrative Advisor for Leafy Spurge Task Force, reported on their continuing activities. He also proposed a new three year project for leafy spurge. This task force was also approved for an additional three year period. The proposal and positive recommendation will also be presented to the Executive Committee at their meeting in June. The committee provides the fo owing issues as dominant concerns in the Great Plains relative to crops and soils

for 1994-95.

•Production Systems/Sustainable Agriculture •Water Quality

•Water Conservation •Pest Management

•Organic Waste Management! including Animal Waste, MSW, Processing Waste, and Sewage Sludge

•Alternative Crops/ Alternative Crop Uses/Value Added Products

•Governmental Programs and Policy, including potential impact of USDA reorganization, NAFTA, and GATT

·•Wetlands

• Reauthorization of CRP •Food Quality and Food Safety

•Soil Quality Enhancement and Land Use

•Water Transfer, Ownership and Property Rights of Natural Resources •Conversion of Irrigated Land to Dryland

Two additional discussion items were Future Use of CRP Land and Role of the Land Grant Universities regarding the Clean Water Act were presented by Billy Harris.

Robert Westerman prepared a summary report of the discussions and reports presented at the annual meeting and a copy is on file with the Executive Director and the Council Representative.

II. Activities Planned for 1994-95

The next annual meeting will be in Kansas City, Missouri on April 3 and 4, 1995.

Gerry Posler will be responsible for local arrangements.

Officers for 1994-95 are: Chairman - Robert Westerman (Oklahoma) and Secretary - Jim Helm (North Dakota).

III. Task Force Activities Residue Management

A written report was received from Wayne Keeling, Texas A&M University, for the Residue Management Task Force. Plans are nearly finalized for a Residue Management Symposium, to be held in August in Amarillo, Texas.

Leafy Spurge

H. Roald Lund (North Dakota) reported activities of this task force during 1993-94. A Leafy Spurge Symposium will be held July 26-29 in Montana. A CD ROM containing approximately 175 papers is being prepared. Claude H. Schmidt continued to edit a Leafy Spurge Newsletter and also edited proceedings from a strategic planning workshop that involved U.S. and Canadian workers.

Russian Wheat Aphid

David E. Legg (Wyoming) reported activities of this task force. The group regularly meets with WRCC-66, Biology and Control of Russian Wheat Aphid. This group prepared a proposal for a new Aphid Complex Management task force to replace the current Russian Wheat Aphid task force when it expires this year.

I.

GPAC - ANNUAL REPORT

Task Force on Computer Applications in Water Management

May 12, 1994

Activities

&

Accomplishments - 1994

The task force will meet three times in 1994.

At our

January meeting, Dr. John Hickman, Kansas State University

informed the task force he would be accepting another job

with John Deere and would no longer serve as chairman.

John

did an excellent job getting us started on our assignment.

Dr

.

Laj Ahuja, ARS, was unanimously accepted by the task

force to take over the chairmanship.

Our meetings have centered around developing an agenda,

identifying speakers, making workshop arrangements and

funding.

We have written a purpose statement as a part of our

marketing process for the workshop.

"The purpose of the

workshop is to familiarize state and local mid-level water

resource managers in the Great Plains with computer models,

information exchange networks, and computer-assisted

automation technology, available for the analysis and

solution of complex water quantity and water quality issues.

While examples will relate to Great Plains water management

issues, the workshop will also be of interest to water

managers from other regions.

The focus will be on

illustrating the use and limitations of a variety of

computer models related to water quantity and quality

management by way of four or five test cases.

·

The workshop

will bring together model developers and potential users in

state and local applications to exchange user needs and

potential methods of issue resolution."

The task force decided to group the presentations in 3

levels.

The "basin scale" topics will focus on models used

from a river basin approach.

The "watershed scale" will

focus on models used on a smaller land area within a river

basin.

The "field scale" will focus on fields or tracts of

land within a watershed.

In addition, there will be a

session on computer network information technology.

We have planned field trips to look at application of models

on a field and basin scale.

We will set up a Resource Fair which will feature voluntary

presentations from the academic/professional community and

commercial companies.

All presenters will be asked to

submit an abstract of their presentation as well as a full

paper or fact sheet.

The papers will be published in the

proceedings of the workshop.

The pub_icity committee is a key

factor

if we are to get

adequate attendance from the targeted audience.

The first

announcement wi11

·

be sent to water institutes and other

information networks for inclusion in newsletters by June 1,

1994.

A brochure, containing a more detailed information

will be mailed soon thereafter in June.

A declaration of

intent to participate will be due back September 1, 1994.

Advance program and registration forms will be mailed

December 1st, and pre-registration will be due back March

15, 1995.

We are planning to work with CSU's Conference Services to

handle the local arrangements for the workshop such as

registration, meeting rooms, meals, etc.

The workshop has

been rescheduled to May 23-25, 1995 due to already scheduled

connnitments from other organizations.

We have limited the number of participants at the conference

to 200 paid registrations plus an additional 50 who will be

making presentations and running the workshop.

We have developed an estimated budget which is attached.

We

are contacting potential sponsoring agencies for financial

support.

The Soil Conservation Service has committed to

$5,000.00 from their FY-95 budget.

II. Activities Planned for 94-95.

Our

next

meeting is scheduled for September 15-16, 1994 in

Fort Collins.

We will continue to firm up the agenda along

with final presenters.

We will look at a detailed

description of the materials to be submitted by presenters

and exhibitors for inclusion in the workshop proceedings.

A local executive committee under Laj's leadership will

meet

as needed to address specific needs as they arise.

The task force will meet at least once in 1995 prior to the

workshop to make final arrangements.

III. Officers. 1994-95

IV

.

Progress Towards Completion of Task

We have an excellent mix of people on our task

force.

We

have set some critical needs and dates which must be

met

to

carryout our assigned task.

As always, funding is a critical issue.

We are working

diligently to obtain sponsor funding.

I feel confident

we

have the makings for a very successful workshop to be

carried out May 23-25, 1995.

Thanks

for

your help and support.

DUANE L. JOHNSON

Task Force Advisor

Attachment

cc:

Dr. Mel Skold, Executive Director, Great Plains Ag.

Council, Fort Collins,

co

Dr. Laj Ahuja, Chairman, GPAC Task Force on Computer

Applications, Fort Collins, CO

GREAT PLAINS AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL FORESTRY COMMITTEE

Annual Report for 1993-94 DATE: May 13, 1994

I. Accomplishments during 1993-94

The 45th annual meeting of the Forestry Committee was held in Lubbock, Texas during July 13-15, 1993. There were 41 participants from 16 agencies in 11 states and 1 Canadian provence. The meeting focused on the genetic enhancement of trees and on current issues

impacting forestry programs. The proceedings were published in GPAC Publication 146. Two teleconferences were held during the year. The members of the Committee discussed and reviewed topics and resolutions made at the annual meeting that needed to be forwarded to the Council. The Council acted on the Committee requests to review the possibility of state forestry agencies becoming voting members of the Forestry Committee, and to ask member agencies to review their official members to the Forestry Committee. The Council also rejected our request for the formation of an Agroforestry and Riparian Inventory Task Force. The request for an Agroforestry Resources Inventory Task Force has been rewritten and will be submitted to the Council for consideration at the spring meeting.

The Forestry Committee presented the 1993 Award of Merit to Jim Hubbard, Colorado State Forester. Jim was recognized for his role as a national forestry leader and for his continuing advocacy of Great Plains Forestry. The Tree Improvement Working Group established 16 bur oak provence test plantings throughout the Great Plains and the prairie provinces of

Canada. ·

II. Work Planned for 1994-95

The 1994 annual meeting will be hosted by Kansas State and Extension Forestry at Manhattan, Kansas on June 20-23, 1994. The meeting will emphasize riparian area forestry management. Several invited speakers will be giving presentations. The Agro forestry Resources Inventory Task Force will be formed if the request for its formation is approved by the Council during their 1994 spring Meeting.

III. Officers

Current officers: Bill Lovett, Chairperson, Nebraska Forest Service

Keith Ticknor, Vice-chairperson, Soil Conservation Service Dan Perko, Secretary, Wyoming Division of Forestry The 1994-95 secretary will be elected at the annual meeting in June, 1994. IV. Task Force Activities:

The Riparian Forest Management Task Force completed its mission with the publication of a White Paper, Riparian Forest Management in the Great Plains. The White Paper has been

Great Plains Agricultural Council Range and Livestock Committee

Annual Report, 1993-94

I. Activities and Accomplishments:

The Range and Livestock Committee of the Great Plains Agricultural Council met at the Drury Inn, 4400 Peoria Street, Denver, Colorado, on February 28 - March 1, 1994. The agenda and list of attendees are attached.

Mel Skold, GPAC Executive Director, briefed the Committee on the financial

challenges GPAC is facing during the current fiscal year and explained the various

institutional and agency commitments for funding. Because the Committee has gained several new members, Dr. Skold led a discussion of the purposes and function of the Council and the expectations of the various standing committees. He also provided brief reports of the activities of several GPAC task forces that report to other standing committees but whose work is of interest to the Range and Livestock Committee. These

included (a) the Sustainable Agriculture Task Force, (b) the task force on Endangered Species and Pesticide Protection, (c) the Computer Applications in Water Management Task Force, (d) a new Residue Management Task Force, (e) a new task force on Impact of Government Expenditures on the Great Plains Region,

(f)

the Leafy Spurge Task Force, (g) the Russian Wheat Aphid Task Force, and (h) the task force on Future Use of CRP Lands.

At its 1993 meeting, the Great Plains Agricultural Council approved our request to form a new task force on the Impact of Grazing Livestock and Wildlife on Water Quality and the Status and Management of Riparian Areas in the Great Plains.

Dr. Linda Joyce, U.S. Forest Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado, who served on the Rangeland Classification Committee, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council,

reviewed the Committee's report and recommendations. A major accomplishment was develooment of a model to classify rangeland according to a series of transitions along a continuum of rangeland health. The model provides for several levels, plant compositions, etc., for the "healthy" state. The various "healthy" states are seen as part of the normal, natural variation of any particular site. Criteria for rangeland health include

soil stability, watershed function, integrity of nutrient cycles and flow, and presence of recovery mechanisms and functions. In general, a site would be considered "healthy,"

although the degree of health might vary, if recovery mechanisms and functions are operating at a high enough level for the site to naturally move to a higher level of health without outside intervention mechanisms. Recommendations included in the NRG Committee's report include: a) The Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management should accelerate completion of standard soil surveys; b) Proper designs of rangeland inventories are suggested; c) Steps are suggested for the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to

implement the new rangeland health system of classification; and d) Focus should be on the human impact on rangeland health, not on natural causes of variation in health status.

''The Range and Livestock Committee of the Great Plains Agricultural Council commends the work of the Committee on Rangeland Classification, National Research Council; the Range Improvement Task Force, Western Regional Coordinating Committee-40 on Rangeland Research; and the Unity in Concepts and Terminology Task Group on Rangeland Condition and Assessment, Society for Range Management.

"We encourage the development of an Inter-Agency Working Group as suggested by both the National Research Council and the Society for Range Management Committees, and urge the federal agencies that are members of the Great Plains Ag icultural Council to participate in forming the interagency partnership. The charge to this working group should be to develop a statistically valid inventory and condition assessment of the rangelands of the United States.

-The Committee allocated significant time to exploration of Mure issues important to Great Plains agriculture and their relevance to responsibilities of the Range and Livestock Committee or other GPAC standing committees. Four issue areas were identified as high priority for the Mure. In no particular priority order, they are:

Absentee land ownership and age demographics of resident owners - The perception is that absentee ownership is increasing. Data are clear that the demographics of resident owners is shifting toward older ages. The Committee is unclear about the effects of such issues and changes on the quality and utilization of the range resources of the Great Plains.

The Range and Livestock

Committee requests that the GPAC Economics Committee consider this

Issue In Its discussions and activities and provide feedback.

Public policy and private property rights - Specific discussion centered around policies related to endangered animal and plant species, reintroduction of species, pressures to create parks, reserves and •scenic rivers/ water quality policy, wetland policy, water law, rangeland reform, and land use zoning. In the past, USDA ERS participation in the GPAC has provided monitoring and information for committees and members; their absence leaves a void to address these issues.

The Range and Livestock Committee requests that the GPAC Executive

Committee appoint an ad hoc committee to monitor federal legislation and

policy development, especially such bills as the 1995 Farm Bill, the Clean

Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act and keep

GPAC committees and members informed of the potential impacts of these

acts and pol!cles on Great Plains agriculture.

The Range and Livestock Committee is particularly interested in the implications for range, livestock, and cropping systems and enterprises.

Env[ronmental quality -- We believe several specific aspects will become more important in the Mure: application of animal and municipal wastes to range and pasture in addition to cropland, air quality standards particularly with respect to livestock odor and to particulate matter from agricultural operations, cost and means for compliance with environmental regulation, and worker protection.

The

Range and Livestock Committee will devote a portion of the 1995 meeting to

mo

r

e in-depth discussion of this issue. Further, the Committee requests the

Livestock in sustainable agricultural systems - The Sustainable Agriculture Task Force will report at the 1994 GPAC Annual Meeting. It appears the focus of their activities has been on sustainable cropping systems in the Great Plains. We assume livestock have an important role in sustainable agricultural systems, but there is little discussion or information about sustainable animal production systems, the role of animals in sustainable farming systems, or the characteristics of such systems in the Great Plains.

The Range and Livestock Committee

will

request formation of a task force to address and define sustainable animal

agriculture systems and the role of animal systems in sustainable agriculture

in the Great Plains.

II. Work Planned for 1994-95:

The Committee will request formation of a task force to address the role of animals and animal agriculture in sustainable agricultural systems in the Great Plains. We will continLe to monitor the activities of task forces that report to us. There is considerable

interest in meeting jointly with other standing committees of GPAC, specifically the Crops and Soils Committee for discussion of joint interests in the environmental quality area or the Economics Committee for discussion of joint interests in agricultural policy areas that affect range and livestock. The Committee will focus part of the 1995 meeting on in-depth

discussion of livestock and environmental quality, particularly air quality issues and the application of animal wastes to range and pasture land.

Ill. Officers for 1994-95:

Frank Dickson, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Casper, Wyoming, was elected Committee Chair for 1994-95. John Mitchell, USDA Forest Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado, was elected Secretary. The next meeting will be March 6-7, 1995, in Denver, Colorado. IV, Task Force Activities:

Three task forces report to the Range and Livestock Committee: Water Quality Issues Associated with Confined Animals, Integrated Resource Management Qointly to the Economics Committee), and Impact of Grazing Livestock and Wildlife on Water Quality and the Status and Management of Riparian Areas in the Great Plains.

The task force on Water Quality Issues Associated with Confined Animals has planned

· and will sponsor a "Great Plains Animal Waste Conference on Confined Animal Production and Water Quality" at the Radisson Hotel, Denver, Colorado, October 19-21, 1994.

The Integrated Resource Management Task Force has committed to develop a detailed "Fact Book" on the IRM process for beef cow/calf producers. A series of white papers will be developed and made available to a wide audience to summarize the Fact Book.

The task force on Impact of Grazing Livestock and Wildlife on Water Quality and the Status and Management of Riparian Areas in the Great Plains is still in the organizational stages.

Water Committee

1994 Annual Report to the Great Plains Agricultural Council

May 10,

1994

Noel Gollehon, USDA/ERS,

1993-1994 Chairman

Introduction

Water Committee activities in 1993-94 revolved around the future direction of the Committee. Active participation in the Committee is limited to about half-a-dozen and attendance

continues to decline at annual meetings. Options to increase participation and involvement levels were the center of a substantial discussion at the annual meeting. No magical solution was found to declining travel budgets, limited travel time, or the overlap between issues of interest to the Water Committee and other standing Committees. However, decisions were made tn: (1) consider joint meetings with other standing committees when water-based issues are the topic of their agenda, and (2) to undertake planning for a Water Committee sponsored forum on a Great Plains Water topic. It is hoped that undertaking a major event will

emphasize the positive contribution the Water Committee can make and make individuals and institutions more willing to spend their limited travel time and money supporting the

Commjttee.

Accomplishments during 1993-94

During 1993-94, Water Committee activities were directed at exploring new directions for the Comm:ttee, exploring a potential area of future study, and following-up on existing activities.

1. Sun1ey of Resource Changes. Dr. Wayne Jordan, Texas, surveyed the water quality scientific year commitments of Great Plains Universities and agencies. In comparing to a similar survey conducted in 1990, he found that water quality research increased 44 percent from 63 SY s in 1990 to 91 SY s in 1994. Extension water quality activities jumped by 173 percent from 30 SYs in 1190 to 82 SYs in 1994. A summary report of the survey is attached.

2. Water Transfers from Agriculture. Dr. Ari Michelsen, Wyoming, conducted a reconnaissance level survey of state water agencies to determine the quantities of water transferring from agriculture. Preliminary results, without all States, indicate that about half the GP AC states are experiencing water transfers from agriculture to non-agricultural uses. Based on incomplete data, the tabulated quantities do not appear to be significant, but Kansas, Texas and Colorado could not or did not

3. Computer Applications Task Force. At the annual meeting the Committee heard a report by Dr. Laj Ahuja on the Computer Applications in Water Management Task Force. The Task Force is planning a conference in late May or early June 1995 in Ft. Collins, Colorado. A planned program was discussed in the context of the original Task Force proposal.

Work Planned for 1994-95

Water Committee activities for the next year are centered on two activities. The Committee voted to sponsor a Forum on the Future of Water in the Great Plains in 1996. Planning for this activity will begin immediately by selecting a topic for the Forum's focus. Additional activities to complete this year for the proposed Forum include, seeking additional sponsors (perhaps other GPAC committees), selecting a site, outlining a program, and finding a local

coordination committee chairman. The Water Committee will be putting significant resources into planning this year, even more resources next year, with the goal of publishing the

proceedings as a GP AC sponsored product in 1997.

The Committee's second activity is supporting the Task Force on Computer Applications in

Water Resources and their planned 1995 conference. The next Water Committee meeting will be joint with the conference in Ft. Collins.

Officers

Chairman: Dean Eisenhauer, Biological Systems Engineering, 232 Chase Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0726.

Vice Chairman: Robert Ward, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, 410 University Services Center, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523.

Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Committee Annual Report

7 June 1994

I. Activities and Accomplishments, 1993-94

A. The 11th Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop (GPWDCW) was held April

25-28, 1993 in Kansas City, MO. Approximately 170 people attended. Financially

speaking, the conference broke even. The field trip associated with the conference

offered some excellent hands-on training relative to wildlife damage management. The

conference was rated good to excellent by those attending. The conference proceedings

was mailed out in October 1993. Additional copies are available for $25 from Dr.

Robert Henderson at Kansas State University.

B. The Endangered Species "Pesticide" Protection Symposium was held August 6-19, 1993

on the campus of Utah State University under the direction of Dr. Terry Messmer.

Approximately 140 people from throughout the Great Plains attended the conferenc-:!.

The proceedings have been published and were distributed in March 1994. An Executive

Summary is being edited and will be delivered by Dr. Messmer at the GPAC Annual Meeting in June. Additional copies of the proceedings are available for $40 per

copy from Dr. Messmer.

C. The call for topics for the 12th GPWDCW was mailed out in April 1994. The conference

is slated for Tulsa, OK and will be hosted by Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service,

Oklahoma State University, USDA-APHIS-ADC, Noble Foundation, Critter Control,

and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.

D. The Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage handbook is scheduled for publication by

Aug st. A total of 10,000 copies of this popular reference are being printed; costs will

be about $60 per copy. The latest edition will contain 80+ chapters, be over 800 pages

in length, and follow a two-volume, loose-leaf format.

E. Dr. Robert Henderson, Kansas State University, was awarded the GPAC Outstanding

Service Award at the annual meeting in June 1993 for his many contributions to

the GPAC and its membership.

II. Activities Planned for 1994-95

A. Coordinate dissemination of wildlife damage control handbook.

D. No Task Force assignments for this committee are currently underway. However this committee will continue to network with other GPAC committees on an as-requested

basis. ·

E. The Wildlife Committee will convene its next meeting during the 1st Annual Meeting of The Wildlife Society in Albuquerque. NM on September 23. 1994 (room and time TBA).

III. Officers, 1993-94 A. Elected

Chair: Dale Rollins, Texas

Vice-Chair and Sec/Treas: Ron Masters, Oklahoma B. Appointed

Council Representative: Charles Scifres (???) Council Liaison: Jim Miller

IV. Task Force Activities

A. The only item remaining for the Endangered Species Management Task Force is to prepare an executive summary of last August's symposium. Dr. Terry Messmer will present this report at the annual meeting in June.

B. This committee is not associated with any other GPAC Task Forces at this time.

Progress Report

February 22, 1994

Great

Plains

Agricultural Council

Task Force

on

Water Quality Issues Associated with Confmed Animals

I. Accomplishments during 1993-94

The activity of the Task Force has focused on planning a "Great Plains Animal Wastes Conference on Confined Animal Production and Water Quality" to be held October 19th-21st in the Radisson Hotel, Downtown, Denver, Colorado. Planning activities have been carried out through meetings and conference calls of the full Task Force and of the Task Force Executive Committee which is serving as the core

committee for planning the conference.

A call for papers was issued late last year resulting in an excellent response. Attached is a copy of the tentative program for the conference. Paper presenters,

invited speakers, and session moderators as listed have all been confirmed at this point. The papers and invited presentations should provide an excellent background

of information for a final report by the Task Force related to the original charge. Arrangements have been made to have a printed proceedings available at the

conference.

Financial support for the conference has been committed by the Farm Foundation (up

to $4000), by USEPA ($12,000 tentative) and by the USDA Cooperative State Research Service ($3000). Additional requests have been submitted to USDA Soil Conservation Service and Extension Service. We are optimistic that the conference will be solidly financed and should be a financial benefit to GP AC.

II. Work Planned for 1994-95

The Task Force will continue planning and making arrangements for the October 19-21, 1994 conference. Subcommittees are working on publicity, registration,

proceedings, etc. Papers to be included in the proceedings are due in July.

III. Officers 1994-95

General Chairman/Program Chairman - Dr. John Nienaber, ARS Proceedings Chairman - Dr. Dan Storm, OSU

IV. Task Force Activities

All activities are focused on the conference. No Task Force meetings will be held prior to the conference, but work will be conducted by phone, mail, fax, e-mail, etc. The only remaining activity after the conference will be to prepare a final Task Force

MINUTES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Great Plains Agricultural Council

October 18, 1994

Denver, CO

Attending: Daryl Buchholz, Darnell Lundstrom, Helen McHugh, Lynn Robbins, Walter Woods

1. The meeting was called to order at 9: 10 A.M. by Chairman Robbins.

2. :Minutes to the Executive Committee meeting of June 6-7, 1994 were approved as distributed.

3. Status of membership. Robbins and Skold made follow-up contacts with federal agencies which had not made commitment for financial support to the GPAC in response to the inquiry made by Darnell Lundstrom during the spring of 1994.

Robbins reported that Bill Reitveld indicated that the Forest Service does not have

plans to provide support in FY1995. The Forest Service remains concerned about the

implications of P .L. 102-393 and internally, the FS has unresolved issues about which administrative unit should provide support to the GP AC.

Support from the CSRS for FY1995 is still pending a decision by John Patrick Jordan, Administrator of the agency. It was decided the Executive Committee should encourage selected Experiment Station Director's to contact Jordan.

Skold reported that the Agricultural Marketing Service will no longer be a member of the GPAC. He distributed a letter from Kenneth Clayton, Deputy Administrator of that agency which stated their intentions.

Based on information Skold received from Ronnie Clark regarding continued support from the SCS, Clark stated that the SCS will continue to support the GPAC. Consequently, committed support to the GPAC for FY1995 is from the ARS, APHIS,

ES, SCS and the Transition Memberships of the two USDI agencies, the BLM and BOR. Support from the CSRS is pending.

4. Policy toward uncommitted members. The Executive Committee observed that the

GPAC Bylaws require members to be financially supportive. (a) By motion, it was

decided that for those agencies which have not indicated continued financial support by December 31, 1994: (i) the agencies would be dropped from GPAC membership,

(ii) individuals from those agencies would no longer be members of GPAC standing

committees and task forces, or be eligible to hold elected or appointed positior.s in the . GPAC. Further, (iii) different registration fees should be imposed for GPAC

members and non-members at GPAC annual meetings.

(b) Further, after agencies which have not pledged continued financial support

have been notified, a GPAC "summit meeting" should be initiated. The sumrr_it

meeting would involve the responsible decision maker from each GPAC member agency. The meeting would seek continued commitment to the GPAC by signing a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or reaching a decision _that the GPAC

will not continue. ·

The summit meeting would be a one-day meeting called far enough in advance

so it can be fit into schedules of the required participants. It would involve a briefing

on how the GPAC operates, what it has accomplished and benefits it provides to

Executive Committee Chairman with a conference telephone call involving each LGU Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Director and the Dean of Texas Tech. During that conference call, a briefing about the necessity for the summit would occur. Commitments would be sought from conference call participants to sign a

letter of support for the summit meeting. In this way, leadership for the summit

meeting would come from the states. For new university administrators who may not yet be familiar with the GPAC, briefings about the GPAC will be made, prior to the conference call, by individuals on those campuses who are familiar with the

organization.

5.

Agency to handle the Cooperative Agreement. Because the ERS is no longer a

member of the GPAC, another agency must be identified to handle the GPAC

-Cooperative Agreement with Colorado State University. It was suggested that the

new agency combining the CSRS and ES (the Cooperative State Research, Extension

and Education Service (CSREES)) would be the logical agency to handle the

Cooperative Agreement. If that cannot be worked out, setting up a Cooperative

Agreement with the ARS

will

be pursued.

6. Progress toward new agency members. Skold reported that he is maintaining

contacts with the National Biological Survey. Upon advise from NBS personnel, he

is waiting appointment of the regional director for the area encompassing the Great Plains. Contacts are also being maintained with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Discussion about other USDA agency members also occurred. It was

suggested that the new Farm Service Agency and the Rural Development Administration be contacted. Walt Woods and Melvin Skold will initiate these

contacts at an opportune time.

It was decided that active pursuit of new agency members should await the

results of the GPAC summit meeting. Until more is known about the future of the GPAC, recruitment of new members should be put on hold.

7. Endangered Species Task Force report. After reviewing the report, the Executive

Committee expressed some reservations about approving the report_ without some

modification by the task force. Concerns were primarily expressed about Section B.

Sustaining Agriculture and Endangered Species. The concerns were: (a) The task

force has applied a rather narrow concept of sustainable agriculture, particularly with

reference to chemical and fossil fuel use practices. (b) The basis for the statement

that " ... economic incentives to reduce 'fear of failure', conflicting agendas in farm

programs and commodity groups, ... " was questioned. (c) The Executive Committee

found that the first two recommendations that "Congress should ... " were beyond the

possibility for the GPAC to achieve. (d) The fourth recommendation which asserts that the EPA and USFWS are lead agencies to develop sustainable agricultural practices was also questioned.

Other comments are to be sent to Skold by November 15, 1994. At that time

Skold will inform the task force of the Executive Committee's concerns. After the task force has revised its report, Skold was given authority to approve the task force

report on behalf of the Executive Committee.

8. Review of Standing Committees. The statement prepared by Skold and distributed

to Ron Clark and Richard Wootton was discussed. In the discussion it was suggested

that the review should ask standing committees to look toward the future·as well as

considering past accomplishments of the standing committee under review. The

statement will be modified so that item four will be titled Accomplishments and an item five will be added, termed Future Plans, while subsequent items will be

-

.-

~

renumbered accordingly. The statement describing the review will be distributed to the review committee and the standing committee being reviewed. This will provide

the standing committee with the rationale for the review and a reminder to· the

standing committee of GPAC expectations from standing committees (from the Bylaws).

The recommended composition of the review committee was adopted; the

committee will include one university administrator, one federal agency administrator,

and an active member of another standing committee. The Crops and Soils

Committee will be subjected to a pilot, no consequence, review. Darrell

Nelson(NE) will be asked to chair the review which is to be completed prior to

the June, 1995 meeting of the Executive Committee. A USDA professional

and a member of one of the other standing committees will be recruited to serve on the review committee. Skold will notify the Crops and Soils

Committee of the review plans and their need to include a discussion of their future plans on the agenda for their 1995 meeting.

As the result of the review, the review committee could recommend that the

standing committee be reviewed again in less than five years. The pilot review

committee will be charged to critique the review process as well as providing a pilot review.

The results of these discussions were passed by motion.

9. Status of task forces. Skold reported that he had received a number of copies of letters of appointment to the Agroforestry Inventory and Valuation Task Force.

Discussion focused on who might replace Bill Rietveld as Administrative Adviser if

tile Forest Service does not support the GPAC in FY1995.

Darnell Lundstrom stated that he plans to soon distribute the letter soliciting

nominations to the Sustainable Animal Systems Task Force. Mention was made of a

\Vestem Region Extension activity on sustainable livestock systems. The need for

GPAC task force to coordinate with this effort will be explored.

After discussing the Policy Evaluation and Monitoring Task Force, it was decided to wait with implementing this task force until after the 1995 annual meeting.

It was expressed that the task force needed a rather specific charge and that charge

could best be developed after discussion of some policy issues at the annual meeting.

It was also suggested that some of the policy-related topics to be covered at the 1995

annual meeting could include discussions of the need for and how to accomplish

policy analysis from the perspective of the Great Plains region.

Skold reported that he had not been able to contact Roald Lund about the

status of forming a new Leafy Spruge Task Force. Lundstrom will follow up with

Lund.

10. Administrative appointments to standing committees. Skold reported that Dudley

Smith observed that a Council Representative to the Forestry Committee had not been appointed. He volunteered for reappointment to that position if that was the wish of

the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee accepted his willingness to

serve.

Helen McHugh will serve a one-year term as Council Representative to the

\Vildlife Committee.

11. Fmancial report from the 1994 annual meeting. The financial report detailing most

expenses was presented. Subsequent to the meeting, other relevant expenses have

been determined. Discussion occurred as to how we can keep the surpluses generated

possible in a GPAC interest bearing account. The financial statement from the 1994

meet is:

Fmancial Report 1994 Annual Meeting Great Plains Agricultural Council

Bismarck, ND

Income

Registration and meals SCS lunches

Darnell Lundstrom

Interdepartmental Billings Purchase Orders billed (3)

Expenses

Mike Warner - speaker Allen Wyse reimbursement

Fort Abraham Lincoln - tour

Seven Seas - Pitchfork Fondue

Seven Seas - beverages

pop and ice

Holiday Inn - Bismarck (lunch & breaks)

Bismarck Mandan Convention & Visitors Bureau - buses

Postage (April, May & June)

Miscellaneous

expenses

-

supplies

Expenses, Executive Director's Office: Annual meeting brochures

Travel to annual meeting Proceedings Total Income Total Expenses NET $ 4,725.00 73.20 130.00 200.00 300.00 $ 5,428.20 $ 87.20 30.00 72.00 1,004.67 115.00 15.00 880.00 480.00 17.28 25.11 $ 2,726.26 $ 244.80 371.56 1,734.45 $ 375.45

A question was raised about the need for an annual financial audit of the

various GPAC accounts. It was decided at that annual audit will occur beginning

with the fall, 1995 meeting of the Executive Committee. Skold will prepare for the

audit and the audit will be performed by GPAC Executive Committee members.

12. Plans for the 1995 annual meeting. Helen McHugh discussed her thoughts about

program alternatives for the 1995 annual meeting. She indicated that apart from

papers reporting on the results of the Residue Management and Confined Livestock

and Water Quality Task Forces, she is planning to have agricultural, resource and

environmental policies discussed. Ideas for speakers for several topics were offered.

It was decided that on Wednesday, June 7, the program will end in time for a

3:30 P.M. departure for a field trip prior to the evening social event.

13. An Executive Session of the Executive Committee was held to evaluate the

performance of the Executive Director.

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Executive Director Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523

(303) 491-7370

GREAT PLAINS AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

May 1, 1995

GP AC Executive Committee

Melvin D. Skold, Executive Directo../'Jlk, ·

f ) ~

Lynn Robbins, Chairman of Executi~~ee

i

£~

Future Options for the GPAC

~

A;~

Enclosed is a statement outlining the two options we see for the immediate future (FY 1996) of the GPAC. We had hoped to discuss these at a conference call, but there does not seem to be a time between now and the annual meeting when we can all participate in such a call.

As a third option, Dudley Smith(TX) is working to staff out some ideas to continue with GPAC-like operations under the established (CSREES) regional structure. Based on discussions I have had with D dley, he will be advancing some ideas of how to use existing North Central Regio:ial/Western Regional Coordinating/Southern Information and Exchange Committees to provide some of the benefits of our Standing Committee/Task Force structure and operating procedures. That is, could a more limited number of standing committees identify the "priority issues" which could be recommended to a set of administrators. Given approval, the administrators would form a specific charge, limited life (task force). NCR/WRCC/SIEG Committee to complete the task. These options would do away with the office of the Executive Director. So, as I see it, termination of the office of the Executive Director should be planned. Unfortunately, CSU and more specifically, my department chairman, must make his staffing plans for FY 1996 before our annual meeting. I plan to inform him that I will plan on the GP AC for 3 months funding during the (federal; 10/ 1/95-9/3096) fiscal year. The two options posed which follow do not imply great differences in Executive Director funding.

I have just learned (4\27\95) that the CSREES will not honor the commitment for support during FY 1995 which we received from the former administrator of the Extension Service. Consequently, we will have approximately $13,800 funds as of 9/30/95. Even if the terminate option is chosen, we likely have to ask the remaining members to ante up funds necessary (approximately $19,000) to terminate. From the telephone conference call, I understood the states to be willing to contribute in FY 1996, if necessary.

Page 2 Options

During he spring of 1994, Darnell Lundstrom, as chairman of the GPAC Executive Committee, polled all GPAC members regarding their planned support for FY 1995. In response to that query, the GPAC received pledges of continued support from all universities, the ARS, APHIS, and the ES. Two USD I agencies became Transition Members with the expectation that each would :?rovide 1/2 the support provided by the USDA agencies; thus, the USDI was counted on for one unit of support. Through the urging of the NRCS State Conservationists, the NRCS subsequently indicated they too would support us in FY 1995. And, the FS also planned suppor., but through their own Cooperative Agreement with the GPAC.

Expectations were that we would have six Federal agency units of support for FY 1995, a decline of only one Federal agency for FY 1994. The GPAC Executive Committee, acting conserratively, decided to reduce its commitment to the Executive Director from 3/4-time to 1/2-time. Based on expectations of six Federal agency support units, the financial share for each USDA agency was set at $8,750, and the two USDI agencies would provide another $8,750 between them.

However, when attempting to make arrangement for the transfer of funds to Colorado State University several agencies withdrew their support. The FS first planned one-half year of support and subsequently informed us they would provide no support. The BLM in the USDI indicated that their financial basis had changed to where they would not be able to support us. The CSREES opted not to honor the commitment received from the (former) ES. Thus, expected receipts and realized receipts are:

FY 1995 Expected receipts (6 shares @ $8,750) FS, ES, BLM reneging ($8,750 ea.) Realized support from Federal agencies

$52,500 21,875 $30,625

After I receive your FAXed responses, I'll summarize and do a follow up on unresolved questions as necessary.

We would like to receive your response to the questions posed on the following sheet. If the following statements are not sufficient for you to reach an informed decision, please call me (970) 4 91-7370, and I' 11 try to fill you in.

So as to communicate your responses to all, please FAX your responses to each of the other Execufve Committee members. Their FAX numbers are:

Lynn Robbins Helen McHugh Darnell Lundstrom Daryl Buchholz Ron Clark FAX No. (505) 646-5975 (970) 491-7396 (701) 231-8278 (913) 532-5839 (701) 250-4776

Future Options for the GPAC

Given the current status of Federal agency support for the Great Plains Agricultural Council, two options appear to exist. Because of the necessity to make a commitment to the Execu:ive Director beyond the current fiscal year, an immediate decision is required.

The two options are:

1. Sustain mode

2. Terminate

1. Sustain. The sustain mode would enable the GPAC to continue in a greatly reduced manner for one or two more years. It would "keep the lights on". During the period of sustaining, institut" ons with an interest in sustaining the GPAC would pursue alternative means o provide financial support to the organization.

As of this date, the o ly Federal agencies which have not informed us that they will not be supporting us in FY 1996 are the ARS, the NRCS and the BOR. The ARS, NRCS and BOR have not been asked about their

commitments for FY 1996; the other agencies, when contacted about their FY 1995 support, informed us that we should not plan on their support for

FY 1996.

During the March 31 conference call among university members, each of the Universities expressed a willingness to provide continued support to the GPAC for FY 1996, but not at an :ncreased level. We do not know what the

response of the remaining Federal agencies (ARS, NRCS, BOR) will be in reaction to the withdrawal of support by other Federal agencies. It would

seem that their continued commitment to try to resurrect the GPAC would be a necessary condition to pursue the sustain mode.

Assuming we retain our federal agency cooperators, the sustain mode would have the GPAC operating with a budget of about $50,000/year.

Approximately $30,000 would come from the universities and $20,000 would

come from the two USDA agencies (The BOR may also choose to continue).

To be viable, the sustain mode will require a commitment to pursue a new means of supporting the GPAC which has a reasonable probability of success.

In case it is decided to pursue the Sustain option, the Executive Committee will (a) devise an operating plan to sustain the activities of the GPAC will be

2. Terminate. The GPAC would use FY 1996 to close down. The budget

remaining in the operating account, other accumulated amounts held in the

bank and addition s pport from GPAC state (and federal members), as required, would be used to erminate the organization. Activities necessary to

terminate (which can be envisioned at this time) are:

-Salvage products from task forces which are nearing completion.

-Condense the files of the GP AC and arrange for the transfer of these files to

an archive associated with some (willing) GPAC institution.

-Inform GPAC correspondents of our termination and respond to requests, as

received.

-Close the boo s, including filing for tax-exempt status from the IRS and take

the steps necessary to remove the GPAC from the IRS roles.

-Dispose of GPAC assets. Other than account balances, the only asset is a

computer, purchased ·n about 1990. (I suggest it be given to the Department

of Agricultural and Resource Economics, CSU in partial repayment of the $6,000 of GPAC expenses paid by that department during FY 1994.)

-Some provision should be made for residual communication on behalf of the

GPAC, perhaps for two to hree years.

The terminate mode would make use of remaining account balances plus an

assessment from members, as required. A solid estimate of what will remai

in the accounts at the end of FY 1995 is difficult to provide as we still do not

know how much support will be forthcoming from the Federal agencies for

FY 1995.

As of this date, estimated balances in GPAC accounts are:

Estimated balance GPAC Operating (CSU) GPAC Savings

Animal Waste Conference surplus

$16,500 4,850 $19,400

In addition to these funds, the Executive Director maintains accounts for several Standing Committees. As of this date, the account balances are approximately:

Forestry

Crops and Soils Water Wildlife Total: $3,280 830 840 $ 545 $5,495

Some of these Standing Committees hold very strong proprietary interest in their accounts. Past Executive Committee's have expressed the position these are GPAC funds generated from GPAC activities. If the GPAC terminates, a decision needs to be reached by the GPAC membership regarding the

disposition of these accounts.

Given the withdrawal of commitments from some Federal agencies for FY 1995 support, it is necessary to use $21,650 of the $40,750 to fulfill FY 1995 obligations. It will be necessary to assess GPAC institutions for continued support to terminate in FY 1996. After adjusting for estimated expenses, the carry over into FY 1996 will be about $13,800. Major unknowns are: profit or loss from our scheduled computer applications workshop and the 1995 annual meetings of the GPAC. Until these amounts, and whether or not we'll have support from the ARS, NRCS and BOR in

1996, we'll not know how much we will need to assess the university members in FY 1996.

GPAC Operating:

Estimated GPAC Expenses 7 /1/95 - 9/30/95

Postage (mailing Proceedings) Telephone

Travel (annual meeting)

Printing & duplication (proceedings) Secretary, 0.25 month

Total estimated expenses

$400 100 900 3,000 800 $5,200

At this time, my estimate of needs to close down in FY 1996 would be 1/4-time for the Execu ive Director and a month of a secretaries 1/4-time. The budget required for this would be approximately $33,000 for salaries and expenses. Thus, the current estimate of additional funding needed for FY 1996 is $19,200.

Please FAX your response to the followine bv May 10

1. Do you agree that the GPAC should commit support for the office of the Executive Director beyond the current obligation which continues through 9/30/95?

_Yes

!f4

/

_No

a. If yes, do you agree with the stated requirements under the Terminate option; i.e., approximately $33,000 to cover 3 months of Executive Director's time, one month of a secretary's time, and approximately $2,000.00 for expenses. _Yes

f~

I

_No

b. If no on item 1, what do you propose:

2. Of the options posed, whi h do you personally judge to be the most realistic? __ Sustain

_Terminate

'/ffj}

3. What other options do you see?

4. The Executive Committee should recommend to the GPAC membership that the _ Sustain, __ Terminate option be adopted.

5. Approximately $5,000 are in accounts for four of the GPAC Standing Committees. \Vhat should the Executive Committee recommend to the membership regarding the disposition of these accounts:

Give back to the respective Standing Committees in case they wish to try to sustain themselves independent of the GPAC?

Use these funds to meet GPAC termination needs in FY 1995.

Hold for now until we see what happens in the sustain vs. terminate options. _ Other (explain).

1.

ROBBINS

BLACKBURN

CLARK

BUCHHOLZ LUNDSTROM MCHUGH la ROBBlNS

BLACKBURN

CLARK BUCHHOLZ LUNDSTROM MCHUGH 2. ROBBINS

liLACKBURN

CLARK BUCHHOLZ L'UNLJSTROM MCHUGH 3. ROBBINS

BLACKBURN

CLAl{K

BUCHHOLZ

LUNDSTROM MCHUGI-I 4. l{013DINS

RT.ACKBURN

CLARK BUCHHOLZ LUNDSTROM MCHUGH

GPAC FUTURE OPTIONS

YES-We should commit one-quarter time support for the

executive director of fiscal 96.

YES YES

YHS

YilS

YF.5, we should commit support for one-quarter for the

Ilxecuti vc Director for 1-Y 96

YES-$33,00U for one-quarter time l::xccutive Director plus $2000

for expenses.

YES

YES

Yl:iS

YES

YES-it appears reasonable that $33,000 be cummitted for FY96

to cover: Executive Dir'?('tor--one-quarter time, Secretary--one

month, Operating Expenses-$2000 TERMINA TH-the more realistic option

TERMINATE TERMINATE TERMINATE TERMINATE

While my personal preference is to try to sustain the GP AC, reality appears to lead us to TF.R."M:INATE

NONE

NO RESPONSE

NONE-AT THIS POINT

DON'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY TO OPERA'fE

NONE-If USDA agencies will not be mem be.rs we loose much of

the purpose of GP AC. ·

If the GPAC is forced to terminate, an effort by representatives of lhe three regions should work through the regional

associations of experiment station directors AND exten~ion

directors AND personnel of CSH.EES to develop an alternati re.

This could be done by establishing a GP prefix to designate

special committees to focus on the Great Plains. Such

committees wuuld need to have representation from both

resel:\rch and outreach and involve other federal units to the

extent p(>ssible.

TERMINA TF. OPTION 13E ADOPTED

TERMINATE OPTION BE ADOPTED

TERMINATE OPTION BE ADOPTED

TERMINATE OPTION BE ADOPTED

TERMINATE OPTION BE ADOPTED

The Executive Committee should ask first for comments and suggestions from the GPAC membership. Unl~ss $OmclhiJ:1g that