RIPM
Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program
Northeastern Region
FY 2008 Request for Applications
Letter of Intent: Tuesday, November 1,
2007
Application: Friday, November 28, 2007
Grants.gov program code: QQ.NE
Program code name: Northeastern IPM
Funding Opportunity Number: USDA-CSREES-RIPM-001070
 |
U.S. Department of Agriculture |
 |
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service |
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
REGIONAL INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM –– NORTHEASTERN REGION
INITIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE: Projects awarded under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, ch. 79, 38 Stat. 372, 7 U.S.C. 341 et seq. can be found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.500. Projects awarded under Section 2(c)(1)(B) of the Act of August 4, 1965, Public Law No. 89-106, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i (c)(1)(B)) can be found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.200.
DATES: A letter of intent to submit an application must be received by the Program Contact identified in Part VII of this Request for Applications (RFA) by close of business (COB) on November 1, 2007 (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time) in order to submit an application for consideration. An application will not be accepted if a letter of intent was not submitted in accordance with instructions in this RFA.
Applications must be received by Grants.gov by (COB) on November 28, 2007 (5:00
p.m. Eastern Time). Applications received after this deadline will normally
not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this RFA are requested within
six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date
will be considered to the extent practicable.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), USDA is requesting comments regarding this RFA from any interested party. These comments will be considered in the development of the next RFA for the program, if applicable, and will be used to meet the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2)). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and consider input on a current RFA from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, education and extension for use in formulating future RFAs for competitive programs. Written stakeholder comments on this RFA should be submitted in accordance with the deadline set forth in the DATES portion of this Notice.
Written stakeholder comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy, Oversight,
and Funds Management Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service; USDA; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: RFP-OEP@csrees.usda.gov.
(This e-mail address is intended only for receiving comments regarding this
RFA and not requesting information or forms.) In your comments, please state
that you are responding to the fiscal year (FY) 2008 Regional Integrated Pest
Management Competitive Grants Program – Northeastern Region RFA.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:CSREES anticipates the availability of grant funds and requests applications for the Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program for FY 2008 to support the continuum of research and extension efforts needed to increase the implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) methods. The Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program supports projects that develop individual pest control tactics, integrate individual tactics into an IPM system, and develop and implement extension education programs. The program is administered by the land-grant university system’s four Regional IPM Centers (North Central, Northeastern, Southern, Western) in partnership with CSREES. In FY 2008, CSREES anticipates that approximately $610,000 will be available for support of the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program – Northeastern Region (referred to herein as the NE-RIPM). Of this amount, approximately $365,000 is expected to be available for Research projects, $70,000 for Extension projects, and $175,000 for Joint Research-Extension projects.
This notice identifies the objectives for NE-RIPM projects, the eligibility
criteria for projects and applicants, and the application forms and associated
instructions needed to apply for a NE-RIPM grant. CSREES additionally requests
stakeholder input from any interested party for use in the development of the
next RFA for this program.
PART I—FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION (go to Part I)
PART II—AWARD INFORMATION (go to Part II)
PART III—ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION (go to Part III)
PART IV—APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION (go to Part IV)
A. Address tp Reuest Application Package
PART V—APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS (go to Part V)
PART VI—AWARD ADMINISTRATION (go to Part VI)
PART VII—PROGRAM CONTACTS (go to Part VII)
PART VIII—OTHER INFORMATION (go to Part VIII)
A. Access to Review Information
A. Legislative Authority and Background
Authority for the funding of Research projects is contained in Section 2(c)(1)(B) of the Act of August 4, 1965, Public Law No. 89-106, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i (c)(1)(B)). Authority for the funding of Extension projects is contained in Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, ch. 79, 38 Stat. 372, 7 U.S.C. 341 et seq. For Joint Research-Extension applications (see Part II, C., 3), separate awards will be executed for P.L. 89-106 and Smith?Lever funds.
The Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program (RIPM) supports the continuum of research and extension efforts needed to increase the implementation of IPM methods. The RIPM program supports projects that develop individual pest control tactics, integrate individual tactics into an IPM system, and develop and implement extension and education programs. The program is administered by the land-grant university system’s four Regional IPM Centers (North Central, Northeastern, Southern, Western) in partnership with CSREES.
The goal of the RIPM program is to provide knowledge and information needed for the implementation of IPM methods that:
(1) improve the economic benefits related to the adoption of IPM practices;
(2) reduce potential human health risks from pests and the use of pest management practices; and
(3) reduce unreasonable adverse environmental effects from pests and the use of pest management practices.
The RIPM program helps achieve this goal by increasing the supply of and dissemination of IPM knowledge and by enhancing collaboration among stakeholders. Because the specific needs of each region vary, regional program priorities will vary.
B. Purpose and Priorities
The Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program – Northeastern Region (NE-RIPM) will give funding priority to well-written, scientifically strong proposals that benefit the Northeast or a portion of the region in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria in Part V. B.
1. Multistate partnership
Your project should involve paid or unpaid collaborations with people in states other than your own. Potential partners are grower organizations, industries, agencies, and programs, especially those spanning several states [e.g., USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA - Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN)]. You may collaborate with people outside the Northeastern Region.
2. Stakeholder support and priority
Projects must tie to the needs of the Northeastern Region. Stakeholders in the Northeast—such as growers, extension educators, IPM coordinators, and private consultants—have developed priorities. Your application must actually cite and address at least one source of stakeholder-identified priorities. Please copy and paste the specific priority into your proposal. Links to many of these sources of stakeholder-identified priorities are presented on the Northeastern IPM Center’s website at http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm. Recommended sources are
(a) IPM Working Group priorities;
(b) priorities stated in pest management strategic plans;
(c) recommendations from stakeholder groups, such as the Northeast Research, Extension, and Academic Program Committee for Integrated Pest Management (NEREAP-IPM);
(d) pest management strategic plans (see http://northeastipm.org/rese_profiles.cfm).
3. Underserved target audience
Projects that build connections to audiences that previously have not received extensive IPM services, such as residents in low-income or public housing authorities, growers of small acreages of specialty crops, 1890 land-grant institutions, and Native American organizations.
4. Emerging pest or new crop; emerging problem
Projects that focus on new crops, pests, and invasive species in agricultural settings, and new problems in urban settings.
5. Regionality of pest, crop, or setting
Projects that focus on managing a pest, pest complex, or crop of importance to the Northeast. (For data on crop value as it pertains to the Northeastern Region, see http://northeastipm.org/rese_profiles.cfm). Projects involving urban and community IPM (schools, parks, apartments, residential settings, and municipal buildings) are encouraged. Projects should affect multiple states or cropping regions (which can cross state boundaries).
6. Economic importance of crop, setting, or problem
Provide data on some or all of the following: sales, in terms of percent of state receipts; percent of the cropping region devoted to this particular crop; proportion of the state involved; the cost of ineffective pest control measures; the cost of health-related illnesses, if known (for example, in urban settings), or other indicators showing the scope and value of the crop, setting, or problem.
7. The need for this IPM tactic, tool, or approach
Projects that fill a gap, where few alternatives to chemical pesticides exist.
8. Immediacy of implementation
Projects that are likely to be implemented within a few years—either at the producer level across a cropping system, or at the community level.
9. Interdisciplinary nature
Multi-disciplinary projects uniting specialists in different fields rather than projects relying on a single discipline.
10. Progress toward sustainability
What is the current status of pest management in this crop? How will your project move your audience away from chemical pesticides and toward greater sustainability (practices that are environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially responsible)? It is recognized that conventional pesticides are sometimes the only economical alternative. Therefore, moving towards the use of “softer” and “reduced risk” compounds could be interpreted as “progress towards sustainability.” Projects should encourage target audiences that use conventional pest management move toward sustainability. Sustainability goals are conservation of beneficials, microbial biocontrol of root pathogens, and multiple steps to enhance plant health and soil quality.
11. Coherence with the IPM Center's mission
We support work that enhances or protects environmental quality and reduces risks to human health and economics. Projects that evaluate success and promise to show measurable impacts will receive maximum points in this category.
12. Likelihood of adoption
Your project should result in IPM tactics that are very likely to be adopted by your target audience.
Other Information
For a comparison of the Northeastern IPM Center’s grants programs and details about previously funded projects, please see http://northeastipm.org/about_fund.cfm. Please see the CSREES Integrated Pest Management webpage for more information.
The RIPM program encourages projects that develop content suitable for delivery through eXtension (http://about.extension.org/mediawiki/files/5/51/EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_-_March_14%2C_2006_-_YEAR_2.pdf). This content is for end users, as opposed to staff development, and must align with the eXtension Implementation Plan (available at http://about.extension.org/wiki/Planning). Funds may be used to contribute to existing Communities of Practice (COPs) (http://about.extension.org/wiki/Glossary_of_eXtension_Terms#Community_of_Practice_.28CoP.29:) or form new COPs that focus on integrated pest management (for examples of developing COPs and guidance on forming COPs, see http://cop.extension.org/wiki/Main_Page).
C. Program Area Description
For application purposes the NE-RIPM program code name is “Northeastern RIPM” and the program code is “QQ.NE".
Three types of project proposals can be submitted to the NE-RIPM program in FY 2008: Research, Extension, or Joint Research-Extension. Applicants must indicate the type of project they are proposing on the Relevance Statement and on the Project Summary.
1. Research
This funding category develops the research base needed for comprehensive pest management systems that have a strong likelihood of contributing to ongoing IPM implementation efforts. You may develop individual tactics needed for pest management systems (e.g., biocontrol, cultural control, host resistance) or help increase our understanding of how interactions among tactics alter the effectiveness of pest management within agricultural, forest, suburban, and urban ecosystems. Where appropriate, the experimental approach should emphasize field-scale experiments spanning multiple seasons or locations. Practices should be innovative and designed to reduce initial pest populations, lower the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for pests, or increase tolerance of hosts to pest injury. Long-term fundamental research is not appropriate for funding.
Research involving chemical pesticides should be designed to reduce the amount and frequency and to increase the selectivity of a pesticide application in order to minimize adverse impacts on beneficial organisms and limit buildup of pest populations that are resistant to pesticides. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the tactic or IPM system, once developed, can be incorporated into an existing production system. Projects funded in this category should demonstrate economic, social, and environmental benefits of IPM strategies and identify constraints to greater adoption of IPM systems by users.
Following are the budget limits for Research projects. The maximum budget for a project depends on whether there are single or multiple states or regions involved. Projects may have a duration of up to three years. Please note that one- or two-year Research projects may be eligible for no-cost extensions after years one and two, but that no carryover or extension is permitted for these projects beyond three years. Any unexpended funds will be lost.
Single state in the NE Region: Research applications with PDs from single or multiple institutions in only one state may have a maximum total project budget of $60,000.
Single state, multi-region: If PDs from only one state in the NE Region are involved with an institution outside the region, project limits are $60,000.
Multi-state, single region: Research applications with PDs from more than one state in the NE Region may have a maximum total project budget of $180,000.
Multi-state, multi-region: If PDs from more than one state in the NE Region are involved with an institution outside the region, project limits are $180,000.
2. Extension
This funding category enhances outreach efforts that support the wide-scale implementation of IPM methods. Projects should maximize opportunities to build active alliances with stakeholders to increase the adoption of IPM. You may create educational materials for outreach efforts, conduct field-scale or on-farm demonstrations, or deliver innovative IPM education and training. A research component is not a required element of Extension projects, but the research base should be documented.
Following are the budget limits for Extension projects. The maximum budget for a project depends on whether there are single or multiple states or regions involved. Projects may have a duration of up to three years.
Single state in the NE Region: Extension applications with PDs from a single or multiple institutions in only one state may have a maximum total project budget of $50,000.
Single state, multi-region: If PDs from only one state in the NE Region are involved with an institution outside the region, project limits are $60,000.
Multi-state, single region: Extension applications with PDs from more than one state in the NE Region may have a maximum total project budget of $70,000.
Multi-state, multi-region: If PDs from more than one state in the NE Region are involved with an institution outside the region, the project limit is $70,000.
3. Joint Research-Extension
This funding category combines research and extension activities (as described in Parts II.C.1 and 2, above). Joint Research-Extension projects validate pest management systems, introduce new pest management tactics into local production systems, and deliver these systems to producers and their advisors through innovative IPM education and training programs. The project team should include both researchers and extension educators with appointments in research and extension.
Following are the budget limits for Joint Research-Extension projects. The maximum budget for a project depends on whether there are single or multiple states or regions involved. Projects may have a duration of up to three years. Please note that one- or two-year Joint Research-Extension projects may be eligible for no-cost extensions after years one and two, but that no carryover or extension is permitted for these projects beyond three years. Any unexpended funds will be lost.
Single state in the NE Region: Joint Research-Extension applications with PDs from a single or multiple institutions in only one state may have a maximum total project budget of $60,000.
Single state, multi-region: If PDs from only one state in the NE Region are involved with an institution outside the region, the project limit is $60,000.
Multi-state, single region: Joint Research-Extension applications with PDs from more than one state in the NE Region may have a maximum total project budget of $175,000.
Multi-state, multi-region: If PDs from more than one state in the NE Region are involved with an institution outside the region, the project limit is $175,000.
PART II—AWARD INFORMATION
A. Available Funding
There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular application or to make a specific number of awards. In FY 2008, approximately $610,000 is expected to be available to fund applications to the NE-RIPM. Of this amount, approximately $365,000 is expected to be available for Research projects; $70,000 for Extension projects; and $175,000 for Joint Research-Extension projects. Individual grant duration and maximum fund availability depend on the project type and the degree of collaboration among states in the Northeastern Region.
B. Types of Applications
In FY 2008, applications may be submitted to NE-RIPM program as one of the following types of requests:
1. New Application
This is a project application that has not been previously submitted to the NE-RIPM program. All new applications will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and evaluation criteria described in Part V—Application Review Requirements.
2. Renewal Application
This is a project application that requests additional funding for a project beyond the period that was approved in an original or amended award. Applications for renewed funding must contain the same information as required for new applications, and additionally must contain a progress report (see Project Narrative, Part IV). Renewal applications must be received by the relevant due dates, will be evaluated in competition with other pending applications in the appropriate area to which they are assigned, and will be reviewed according to the same evaluation criteria as new applications.
PART III—ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
A. Eligible Applicants
Organizations eligible to receive Research awards are: state agricultural experiment stations, land-grant colleges and universities, research foundations established by land-grant colleges and universities, colleges and universities receiving funds under the Act of October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), and accredited schools or colleges of veterinary medicine. For Research awards, 1862 and 1890 land-grant colleges and universities are eligible, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University, and 1994 land-grant institutions are also eligible for research awards. Eligibility for Extension awards is limited to 1862 land-grant colleges and universities. Award recipients may subcontract to organizations not eligible to apply, provided such organizations are necessary for the conduct of the project. An applicant’s failure to meet an eligibility criterion by the time of an application deadline will result in CSREES not accepting the application without review or, even though an application may be reviewed, will preclude CSREES from making an award.
Research and extension personnel from other USDA/IPM regions (North Central, Southern, and Western) and other state/territory and federal organizations can participate as members of project teams, but they cannot serve as sole PDs on a proposal submitted to the NE-RIPM program; i.e., the primary institution must be from a state in the NE Region or the District of Columbia.
B. Cost Sharing or Matching
There are no matching requirements associated with the RIPM program and matching resources will not be factored into the review process as evaluation criteria.
PART IV—APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
A. Address to Request Application Package
Only electronic applications may be submitted via Grants.gov to CSREES in response to this RFA.
Prior to preparing an application, it is suggested that the PD first contact an Authorized Representative (AR) to determine if the organization is prepared to submit electronic applications through Grant.gov. If the organization is not prepared, the AR should see http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp for steps for preparing to submit applications through Grants.gov.
The steps to access application materials are as follows:
1. Download and install PureEdge Viewer, a small, free program that provides access to the grant application. See http://www.grants.gov/resources/download_software.jsp#pureedge.
2. The application package must be obtained via Grants.gov, go to http://www.grants.gov, click on “Apply for Grants” in the left-hand column, click on “Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Instructions,” enter the funding opportunity number USDA-CSREES-RIPM-001070 in the appropriate box and click “Download Package.” From the search results, click “Download” to access the application package.Contained within the application package is the “CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for Preparation and Submission of CSREES Applications via Grants.gov.” This Guide contains an introduction and general Grants.gov instructions, information about how to use a Grant Application Package in Grants.gov, and instructions on how to complete the application forms.
If assistance is needed to access the application package (e.g., downloading or navigating PureEdge forms, using PureEdge with a Macintosh computer), refer to resources available on the Grants.gov Web site first (http://grants.gov/). Grants.gov assistance is also available as follows:
- Grants.gov customer support
Toll Free: 1-800-518-4726
Business Hours: M-F 7:00 am – 9 pm Eastern Standard Time
Email: support@grants.gov
See http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/electronic.html for additional resources for applying electronically.
See http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/electronic.html for additional resources for applying electronically.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission
Content and Form of Letter of Intent
Electronic applications should be prepared following Part V and VI of the document entitled “A Guide for Preparation and Submission of CSREES Applications via Grants.gov.” This guide is part of the corresponding application package (see Section A. of this Part). The following is additional information needed in order to prepare an application in response to this RFA. If there is discrepancy between the two documents, the information contained in this RFA is overriding.
Note the attachment requirements (e.g., portable document format) in Part III section 3. of the Guide. ANY PROPOSALS CONTAINING NON-PDF DOCUMENTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Partial applications will not be accepted. With documented prior approval, resubmitted applications will be accepted until close of business on the closing date in the RFA.
1. R&R (Research and Related)Cover Sheet
Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 2. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.
2. R&R (Research and Related) Other Project Information Form
Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 3. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.
a. Project Summary/Abstract (Field 6. on the Form). Include the following parts:
(i) Project Type (choose one): Research; Extension; or Joint Research-Extension..
(ii) Summary Statement. The first line of your summary should state the type of project you are submitting, for example, “This is a Research project” or “This is an Extension project.” For Joint Research-Extension projects, the summary statement must indicate how many dollars are being requested from each respective source (Smith-Lever funds are for extension, and P.L. 89-106 funds are for research). The summary should be a self-contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on: overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish project goal(s); and relevance of the project to the priorities of the Northeastern IPM Center (see Part I.B.) and the goals of RIPM. Maximum length: approximately 250 words.
b. Project Narrative (Field 7 on the Form).
PLEASE NOTE: The Project Narrative (subsections (i) through (v), combined) shall not exceed 15 pages of single-spaced text, including all figures and tables. Text should be in a 12-point font (such as Times New Roman) with one-inch margins and a blank line between paragraphs. A maximum of 15 pages has been established to ensure fair and equitable competition.
If a logic model such as the one shown on the following page would be useful as you describe your project, we encourage you to include one in your proposal. A template is provided at http://northeastipm.org/grants_ripm_rfalinks.cfm.
The Project Narrative must include all of the following:
(i) Problem, Background and Justification (2-3 pages)
• Problem: Describe, in simple terms, the problem. Consider including the economic importance of the crop or problem, the importance of the pest(s), and the reason for your study (e.g., conventional pest-control strategies no longer work; beneficial insects are being harmed by available pest-control options; there is a lack of training or implementation of new IPM tactics).
• Background: Address the specific need(s) identified by growers and other stakeholders in the Northeastern Region. Cite at least one needs-assessment evaluation used to formulate your project verbatim from the following website: ( See http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm for IPM Working Group priorities, stakeholder group recommendations, or other documented needs-assessment evaluations.) Demonstrate that you are engaged with constituents on some level and that your project addresses their needs.
Review ongoing or completed work (local/regional/national) that is relevant to your project, and include references. Describe how previous work funded by the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program or other sources might contribute to the proposed project.
• Justification: Specify who in the Northeastern Region stands to benefit from your project. Consider environmental, health, or economic benefits. If it strengthens your case, choose one or two real people from your target audience as examples, name them, and describe in a few words their predicament. Describe why current technologies and practices are inadequate, or explain how the proposed approach will (1) help to improve or implement existing pest management systems and (2) address the specific needs identified in this solicitation. To assist you in writing this section, try answering the question, “Without intervention (or without my project), the following might happen:_______.”
Tell us about the potential applicability of the proposed approach to other production regions and the relevance of the project to the priorities of the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program – Northeastern Region (see Part I.B. of this RFA).
(ii) Objectives and Anticipated Impacts.
Provide clear, concise, and logically numbered statement(s) of the specific aims of the proposed effort. If you are writing a Joint Research-Extension proposal, please separate the research and extension objectives.
Then describe the anticipated impacts that could be associated with the fulfillment of your objectives (you may do this in list or table format). Both your objectives and your impacts should connect to the goals of the Northeastern IPM Center: encouraging science-based pest management that safeguards human health and the environment; promoting economic benefits (in terms of % of state sales receipts, % of the cropping region devoted to the crop, proportion of state involved, cost of ineffective pest control measures, cost of health-related illnesses, or other method showing scope and value); and furthering the implementation of IPM.
Ideally, the stated project impacts will refer to measurable changes that can be substantiated by data analysis, as indicated in Part IV.B.1(b.iv.), Evaluation Plans, below. Your plan for verifying that these impacts have been achieved will significantly strengthen your application.
The following table poses questions that may help you identify appropriate types of impacts:
Type of Impact Questions to Help Identify Potential Impacts Safeguarding human health and the environment a. Could new IPM practices be adopted as a direct result of your project and the total number of acres (or homes, schools, greenhouses, nurseries) on which these practices could be implemented?
b. Could the project reduce risk by changing the use of pesticides on farms, or in homes, schools, etc.? For example, could it result in fewer sprays per season or a switch to lower-risk pesticides? (Since there is no unanimous definition of high and low risk, investigators selecting this indicator are asked to categorize the pesticides they are reporting on as high or low risk according to the particular situation, such as lower risk to natural enemies).
Economic benefits a. What could be the economic benefit (e.g., dollars saved) for clientele who adopt IPM strategies and systems you studied? Do you envision potential commercialization or mass production of these systems?
b. How many IPM personnel might be employed as a result of your work (e.g., private consulting services, nursery operators, food service growers)?
c. How many clients do you anticipate would be satisfied with IPM results (such as improved yield, quality of yield, reduced pest populations, more effective pest control, and greater preservation of non-pest species)?
d. Are there other financial benefits that might be realized as a result of your project?
Implementation of IPM a. How many IPM strategies and systems will be validated through this project (e.g., through on-farm trials, large plot tests, or other methods used to confirm efficacy)?
b. How many educational materials will be delivered? To whom?
c. How many growers/personnel will be trained?
d. For a website, what volume of traffic and type of use will the site experience? (For example, # visitors per day/month; # page views; # of unique user sessions; change in volume during growing season; average viewing time.)
e. How many more people might adopt IPM practices as a direct result of your project, or how many people might adopt new IPM practices?
f. Are there other ways in which your work will result in improved use or increased implementation of IPM strategies in your region or across the Northeast?
g. How could your project or study enhance collaboration among stakeholders interested in the development and implementation of improved IPM strategies and systems? (For example, number of growers or other types of stakeholders that have participated in advisory committees, surveys.)
(iii) Approach and Procedures.
Describe how each of the stated objectives will be reached, in the same order as listed above in Part IV.B.1(b.ii.). Note that novel projects, which involve new approaches or combinations of methods, can receive up to ten points in the technical review for innovation (see Part V.B.2). Include:
• appropriate experimental design and experimental units;
• methods to be used (reference these);
• appropriate statistical analysis.Construct a timetable for the start and completion of each phase of the project. (Columns might read “Objective / Phase / Tasks / Complete by...”) For a Joint Research-Extension application, describe how the project will be managed, particularly how coordination between research and extension components will be achieved and maintained. The degree of collaboration should be specifically addressed for multi?disciplinary, multi-organizational, and multi-state collaboration, respectively. If collaboration in any of these three aspects does not apply, state why.
(iv) Evaluation Plans.
In this section, describe the plan you will implement at the beginning of your project that will enable you to verify that the anticipated impacts associated with your project objectives have occurred (or how you will measure the extent to which they have occurred). If you need guidance with evaluation of extension projects, see http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/index.html. The Evaluation Plans portion of the application should not exceed three pages in length. Be sure to include the costs associated with a meaningful evaluation in your budget form.
- Research Projects: Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project, indicating how you will determine whether the anticipated impacts stated in Part IV.B.1(b.ii.), above, have been achieved. If measurement of these anticipated impacts will not be possible in the context of the proposed project, describe how the tactic or system you studied, once developed, might be incorporated into an existing crop management program on a large scale.
- Extension Projects and Joint Research-Extension Projects: Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project. The evaluation plan should include specific evaluation objectives and indicators (e.g., adoption rate, number of acres impacted, pesticide use, risk reduction, profitability) that will be used to measure impacts and outcomes resulting from the project. Evaluation plans that include surveys should indicate survey expertise of investigators and/or describe the survey methodology that will be used.
(v) Key Personnel. List actual names of who will accomplish the tasks and describe their roles in the project. Formal consulting or collaborative arrangements with others should be fully explained and justified; include documentation in the “Collaborative Arrangements” section.
c. Other Attachments. (Field 11. on the Form).
(i) Appendices to Project Narrative.
Appendices to the Project Narrative, attached as PDFs, are allowed if they are directly germane to the proposed project. There is no limit to the number of appendices, but they should not be used to circumvent page limitations.(ii) Collaborative Arrangements should be described in an appendix. If the consultant(s) or collaborator(s) are known at the time of application, vitae or resume should be provided. In addition, evidence (e.g., letter of support or statement of work, in PDF format) should be provided showing that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services. Applicants will be required to provide additional information on consultants and collaborators in the budget portion of the application.
(iii) Relevance Statement
A separate, three-page statement should describe the relevance of the project to the priorities discussed in Part I.B. The Relevance Statement is the only part of the submission that will be viewed by the Relevance Review Panel. Conversely, it is the only part of the submission that the Technical Review Panel will not see. You may include a logic model as one of your three pages (see earlier in this section for an example). Attach the Relevance Statement last of all the attachments and name the file “RELEVANCE[your last name].pdf.”The Relevance Statement should address each of the 12 items in the RIPM RELEVANCY RATING SHEET shown in Part V.B. of this RFA. Specifically, it should contain, in this order:
(a) Names and institutions of PDs and major cooperators;
(b) Project title;
(c) Project type (choose one): Research; Extension; or Joint Research-Extension;
(d) Project summary (see Part IV.B.1a, above), which may be copied directly from Field 6 of the application form; it should not exceed one page in length;
(e) Brief description of the problem, background, and justification. You may copy this section from the application, as long you do not exceed the total 3-page limit for the entire Relevance Statement. Be sure to address the 12 priorities on the RIPM RELEVANCY RATING SHEET shown in Part V.B of this RFA).
(f) Project objectives and anticipated outcomes. Do not exceed one page for this section of the Relevance Statement. Follow the guidelines provided in Part IV.B.1(b.ii.) above.
3. R&R Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded)
Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 4. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.
4. R&R Personal Data
As noted in Part V, 5., the submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award.
5. R&R Budget
Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 6. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide. Note: Joint Research-Extension projects must show the proposed breakdown of amounts requested from P.L. 89-106 funds (Research) and Smith-Lever funds (Extension) for each year of funding being requested. Include cumulative project costs over all years, by cost category and funding source (Research and/or Extension) in the budget justification (Field K on the form). An example of a form that may be used and attached for this purpose is available at http://northeastipm.org/grants_ripm_extras.cfm.
6. Supplemental Information Form
Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part VI. 1. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.
a. Program Code (Field 2. on the Form). Enter the program code name “Northeastern RIPM” and the program code “QQ.NE”
b. Conflict of Interest List (Field 8. on the Form). A conflict of interest list is required under this program. Please include a conflict of interest list.
C. Submission Dates and Times
Instructions for submitting an application are included in Part IV, Section 1.9 of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.
1. Letter of Intent Submission
All applicants must submit a letter of intent to apply to the program. An application will not be accepted if a letter of intent is not submitted in accordance with the instructions in this RFA. Letters of intent enable the grants manager to select appropriate review panels in advance of the proposal deadline. The letter will not be used in evaluating your application.
Although it is expected that people submitting a letter of intent will submit a full application, if you must withdraw, please notify the grants manager.
The letter of intent should be one page and must include the following:
• Working title for the project;
• PD(s) and institution(s); likely cooperator(s) and their institution(s);
• Crops and pests to be addressed or urban/community setting if appropriate;
• Whether you would categorize your project as “Agricultural IPM” or “Community IPM” (no explanation required);
• Project objectives (one or two sentences per objective; these may be modified when you submit the proposal).
You do not need to submit a budget with the letter of intent.You may sign the letter electronically and submit it to Dr. John E. Ayers via email (jea@psu.edu), by fax (814) 863-8175, or by U.S. mail (The Pennsylvania State University, 114 Buckhout Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802).
2. Application Submission
Applications must be received by Grants.gov by COB on November 28, 2007 (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time). Applications received after this deadline will normally not be considered for funding.
The receipt of all applications will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide accurate e-mail addresses, where designated, on the 424 R&R Application for Federal Assistance.
If the Authorized Representative (AR) has not received a confirmation message from CSREES within 30 days of submission of the application, please contact the Program Contact identified in Part VII of the applicable RFA and provide him with the Grants.gov tracking number assigned to the application. Failure to do so may result in the application not being considered for funding by the peer review panel.
D. Funding Restrictions
CSREES has determined that grant funds awarded under this authority may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of research, education, or extension space; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in such space; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of buildings or facilities.
Pursuant to Section 1473 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (91 Stat. 981), indirect costs and tuition remission are unallowable costs under Section 2(c)(1)(B) projects and Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, and no funds will be approved for this purpose. Costs that are a part of the institution’s indirect cost pool may not be reclassified as direct costs for the purpose of making them allowable.
E. Other Submission Requirements
1. What to Submit
a. Letter of Intent: E-mail, fax, or paper letter are all acceptable. One page maximum.
b. Application: See the end of this RFA for a checklist.
2. Where to Submit
a. Letters of Intent: Submit to Dr. John E. Ayers, via e-mail (jea@psu.edu), fax (814) 863-8175, or U.S. mail (The Pennsylvania State University, 114 Buckhout Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802).
b. Applications: Applications will be submitted to CSREES through Grants.gov. The applicant should follow the submission requirements noted in the document entitled “A Guide for Preparation and Submission of CSREES Applications via Grants.gov.”
PART V—APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
A. General
Subsection (c)(5) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), as amended by Section 212 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)(5)) requires grantees to arrange for scientific peer review of their proposed research activities and merit review of their proposed extension and education activities in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary prior to the Secretary making a grant award under this authority. The application review process conducted by the NE-RIPM Program fulfills the scientific peer review and merit review requirements.
Each application will be evaluated in a three-part process. First, each application will be screened by CSREES to ensure that it meets the administrative requirements as set forth in this RFA. Applications that meet these requirements will be evaluated at the regional level by two panels, one for relevancy and one for technical merit.
1. Relevance Review
The Relevance Review is conducted by a panel of eight to ten stakeholder representatives. Panelists are usually growers, consultants, environmental advocates, consumer advocates, government employees, IPM administrators, researchers, and extension educators. The Relevance Panel does not see the entire proposal; panelists read only the Relevance Statement.
2. Technical Review
A technical panel will review, evaluate, score, and rank all the applications for technical merit. (They do not see the Relevancy Statement.) Reviewers will be selected based upon training and experience in relevant scientific, extension, or education fields, taking into account the following factors: (a) The level of relevant formal scientific, technical education, or extension experience of the individual, as well as the extent to which an individual is engaged in relevant research, education, or extension activities; (b) the need to include as reviewers experts from various areas of specialization within relevant scientific, education, or extension fields; (c) the need to include as reviewers other experts (e.g., producers, range or forest managers/operators, and consumers) who can assess relevance of the applications to targeted audiences and to program needs; (d) the need to include as reviewers experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit organizations); (e) the need to maintain a balanced composition of reviewers with regard to minority and female representation and an equitable age distribution; and (f) the need to include reviewers who can judge the effective usefulness to producers and the general public of each application.
B. Evaluation Criteria
1. Relevance Review
The evaluation criteria for the Relevancy Panel are summarized in the following sample relevance chart.
Relevance Rating Sheet LO (1 point)
MED (2 points)
HI (4 points)
Score 1 Multistate partnership One state involved; several will benefit Two states in an active partnership Three or more states in active partnerships 2 Stakeholder support and priority (e.g., IPM working/grower group) Mentioned but no citation One important group cited Multiple groups cited 3 Underserved target audience (e.g., residents in low-income housing; growers of minor crops) None to few benefits to underserved, or not stated Some benefits to under-served Multiple benefits to underserved 4 Emerging pest or new crop (Ag); emerging problem (Community) No Potential problem Yes, documented 5 Regionality of pest, crop, or setting Project is applicable to 1-2 states or cropping regions Project is applicable to 3-6 states or cropping regions Project is applicable to >6 states or cropping regions 6 Economic importance of crop, setting, or problem.* Low value or not stated Medium value or partially stated High value 7 The need for this IPM tactic, tool, or approach Similar tactics or approaches already exist and are used Few similar tactics or approaches exist or are used No such tactics or approaches exist; project will fill a niche 8 Immediacy of Implementation Results are 5+ years off Results will advance IPM in 3 to 4 years Results will advance IPM in 1 to 2 years 9 Interdisciplinary nature Focus is on one discipline (e.g., weed science or plant pathology) Two or more disciplines are partially integrated Two disciplines are fully integrated 10 Progress toward sustainability (what is the current status and how will the project move the target audience toward greater sustainability?) Project involves a few sustainable methods (scouting, thresholds) but relies on traditional calendar sprays, chemical pesticides, etc. Intermediate use of sustainable methods (e.g., scouting, thresholds, plus biocontrols or cultural controls). Full, integral use of sustainable methods (e.g., scouting, thresholds, biocontrols, and cultural controls). 11 Coherence with the IPM Center's mission Unsure whether the project will reduce risk to human health, economics, or the environment May reduce risk to human health, economics, or the environment Will reduce risk to human health, economics, or the environment 12 Likelihood of adoption
Target audience unlikely to adopt the results of this project Target audience somewhat likely to adopt the results
TOTAL SCORE (Maximum of 40) Comments: * State this in terms of % of state sales receipts, % of the cropping region devoted to the crop, proportion of state involved, cost of ineffective pest control measures, cost of health-related illnesses, or other method showing scope and value. 2. Technical Review
The evaluation criteria for the Technical Panel, which will be used in reviewing applications submitted in response to this RFA, are shown in the following table:
Technical Rating Criteria Format and clarity (5 points each)
The application follows all guidelines specified in this RFA and is complete.
The narrative is clearly written and can be understood by a scientist in a related field.
The problem is well presented and shows how the proposed project does not duplicate ongoing efforts at other institutions.
The literature review is adequate; if applicable, the project builds on previous work.Design (6 points each)
The objectives address the problem presented and second or third objectives can still be accomplished if results from the first objective are not 100% successful.
The anticipated impacts are well matched to the objectives.
The design (approach, procedures, methods) is scientifically robust and sufficient to accomplish the stated objectives.
The time table is reasonable and allows objectives to be accomplished as stated.
The evaluation plan will verify that IPM methods were discovered or learned.Innovation (5 points each)
The setting, approach, or desired impact is novel; project directors take calculated risks within the bounds of good science.
The combination of concepts (e.g., interdisciplinary nature, use of biocontrol, potential for use by organic growers) is new.Budget (4 points each)
Appropriate projections of expenses
Self-explanatory budget narrative
Expenses are included for evaluation of impactsProject team (4 points each)
Well suited to this project, as evidenced by education, professional experience, and related publications.
Responsive to stakeholders, as evidenced by citation(s) of stakeholder priorities and letters of support Will collaborate across disciplines
Will collaborate across geographical or institutional (e.g., public/private) boundariesScientific contribution (6 points each)
The project will make a contribution to new knowledge or provide a better understanding of existing knowledge.
Results will further the Center’s mission to reduce risks to human health, economics, and the environment.
C. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality
During the peer evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to prevent any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may impact review or evaluation. For the purpose of determining conflicts of interest, the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution shall be determined by reference to the current Higher Education Directory, published by Higher Education Publications, Inc., 6400 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 648, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Phone: (703) 532-2300. Web site: http://www.hepinc.com.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as application content and peer evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of peer reviewers will remain confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names of the reviewers will not be released to applicants.
D. Organizational Management Information
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one time basis, with updates on an as needed basis, as part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFA, if such information has not been provided previously under this or another CSREES program. CSREES will provide copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling these requirements as part of the preaward process. Although an applicant may be eligible based on its status as one of these entities, there are factors which may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits under this program (e.g., debarment or suspension of an individual involved or a determination that an applicant is not responsible based on submitted organizational management information).
A. General
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose applications are judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in this RFA. The date specified by the awarding official of CSREES as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than September 30 of the Federal fiscal year in which the project is approved for support and funds are appropriated for such purpose, unless otherwise permitted by law. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated on the grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so that project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All funds granted by CSREES under this RFA shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's assistance regulations (parts 3015 and 3019 of 7 CFR).
B. Award Notice
The award document will provide pertinent instructions and information including, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to whom the Administrator has issued an award under the terms of this request for applications;
(2) Title of project;
(3) Name(s) and institution(s) of PDs chosen to direct and control approved activities;
(4) Identifying award number assigned by the Department;
(5) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for funds;
(6) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by the Administrator during the project period;
(7) Legal authority(ies) under which the award is issued;
(8) Appropriate Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number;
(9) Applicable award terms and conditions (see http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/awards/awardterms.html to view CSREES award terms and conditions);
(10) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the award; and
(11) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to carry out its respective awarding activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular award.
C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant applications considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR Part 1, subpart A—USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR Part 3—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 regarding debt collection.
7 CFR Part 15, subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
7 CFR Part 331 and 9 CFR Part 121—USDA implementation of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002.
7 CFR Part 3015—USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, implementing OMB directives (i.e., OMB Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122, now codified at 2 CFR Parts 220 and 230) and incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (formerly the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-224), as well as general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental financial assistance.
7 CFR Part 3017—USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and 7 CFR Part 3021—Governmentwide Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Grants).
7 CFR Part 3018—USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying. Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans.
7 CFR Part 3019—USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3052—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non profit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3407—CSREES procedures to implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR Part 15b (USDA implementation of statute) —prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200 et seq. —Bayh Dole Act, controlling allocation of rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR Part 401).
D. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
In addition to the reporting requirements identified in applicable CSREES “Terms and Conditions” (which are provided to successful applicants as part of the award package), successful applicants will be required to submit a yearly progress report and, upon completion of the project, a final technical report to the Northeastern IPM Center, as well. For a template and specifics on reporting requirements: http://northeastipm.org/ripm_reporting_requirements.cfm.Progress reports for the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program – Northeastern Region (NE-RIPM) should be 2-3 pages (12-point type, one-inch margins). In the report, the Project Director (PD) will be expected to demonstrate that progress has been made on the project; to highlight important findings and recommendations made as a result of the project progress to date; to fully describe changes in objectives, procedures, and the timetable for completion of the project; etc. Failure to submit a progress report will result in a recommendation to CSREES to reduce or terminate funding. The Grants Manager will contact the PD at the time the report is due, approximately one year after the grant starting date.
Final reports will be due 90 days after the project termination date. Final reports must be comprehensive and should include more data, figures, etc., than normally would occur in a typical refereed publication or extension publication.
PDs are required to acknowledge CSREES and the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program – Northeastern Region in all publications or other products that result from funds that are awarded. Reprints or copies of all publications are required.
Grantees are also required to submit initial project information and annual and summary reports to CSREES' Current Research Information System (CRIS). The CRIS database contains narrative project information, progress/impact statements, and final technical reports that are made available to the public. For applications recommended for funding, instructions on preparation and submission of project documentation will be provided to the applicant by the agency contact. Documentation must be submitted to CRIS before CSREES funds will be released. Project reports will be requested by the CRIS office when required. For more information about CRIS, visit http://cris.csrees.usda.gov.
PART VII—PROGRAM CONTACT
Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact the Grants Manager:
Dr. John E. Ayers
Co-Director Northeastern IPM Center
The Pennsylvania State University
114 Buckhout Laboratory
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 865-7776
Fax: (814) 863-8175
E-mail: jea@psu.edu
A. Access to Review Information
Copies of reviews, not including the identity of reviewers, and a summary of the panel comments will be sent to the applicant Project Director (PD) after the review process has been completed..
B. Use of Funds; Changes
1. Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility
Unless the terms and conditions of the award state otherwise, the awardee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of award funds.
2. Changes in Project Plans
a. The permissible changes by the awardee, PD(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other similar aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the awardee or the PD(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination. The ADO is the signatory of the award document, not the program contact.
b. Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the awardee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
c. Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the awardee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes.
d. Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the awardee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the award.
e. The project period may be extended by CSREES without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project, but in no case shall the total project period exceed three years for Research projects; five years for Extension projects; and three years for Joint Research-Extension projects as indicated in the terms and conditions. Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by the awardee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of award. Research and Joint Research-Extension projects (funded from P.L. 89-106) cannot be extended beyond the third year. Project periods should be sufficient to achieve objectives without exceeding three (3) years. PDs of three-year projects are advised to use available funds prior to the termination of the award.
f. Changes in Approved Budget: Unless stated otherwise in the terms and conditions of award, changes in an approved budget must be requested by the awardee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or award.
C. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards
When an application results in an award, it becomes a part of the record of CSREES transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within the application. The original copy of an application that does not result in an award will be retained by the Agency for a period of three years. Other copies will be destroyed. Such an application will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. An application may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon..
D. Regulatory Information
For the reasons set forth in the final Rule related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0039..
E. Definitions
For the purpose of this program, the following definitions are applicable:
Administrator means the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and any other officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved is delegated.
Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any employee of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify grant instruments on behalf of the Secretary.
Authorized representative means the president, director, or chief executive officer or other designated official of the applicant organization who has the authority to commit the resources of the organization.
Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months) into which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting purposes.
Department or USDA means the United States Department of Agriculture.
Extension activity means an act or process that delivers science-based knowledge and informal educational programs to people, enabling them to make practical decisions.
Grant means the award by the Secretary of funds to an eligible organization or individual to assist in meeting the costs of conducting, for the benefit of the public, an identified project which is intended and designed to accomplish the purpose of the program as identified in these guidelines.
Grantee means an organization designated in the grant award document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
Matching means that portion of allowable project costs not borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind contributions.
Peer review means an evaluation of a proposed project for scientific or technical quality and relevance performed by experts with the scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed work or to give expert advice on the merits of a proposal.
and management of the project.Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent by an authorized departmental officer as defined above.
Project means the particular activity within the scope of the program supported by a grant award.
Project director means the single individual designated in the grant application and approved by the Secretary who is responsible for the direction and management of the project.
Project period means the period, as stated in the award document, during which Federal sponsorship begins and ends.
Research activity means a scientific investigation or inquiry that results in the generation of knowledge.
Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved is delegated.
F. CHECKLIST
(Disclaimer: This checklist is for the purpose of assisting the applicant in the self-review process prior to submission. Applicants should use the RFA as the instrument of instruction and the Application Guide to complete the application process. This checklist is NOT an official portion of the RFA and should in no way be considered a replacement for the Application Guide or instructions contained within the RFA.)Only electronic applications may be submitted to CSREES via Grants.gov in response to this RFA. All applications submitted under the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program (RIPM) must contain the applicable elements outlined in these guidelines. The following checklist has been prepared to assist in ensuring that the application is complete prior to submission:
Have all attachments been submitted in the portable document format (PDF)? CSREES will return proposals with non-PDF attachments unread. See Part III of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.
Do all submitted PDF documents have one-inch margins and is the type no smaller than 12 point? Are all PDF documents numbered sequentially on each page of the attachment? Are all page limitations for a given attachment followed? Submitted proposals that do not meet these requirements for PDF attachments will be returned without review.
Have all six components of the Application Package been completed? Did you use the “Check Package for Errors” feature of the PureEdge viewer (see section 1.8 of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide)?
R&R Cover Sheet0 R&R Cover Sheet
0 R&R Other Project Information
0 R&R Senior/Key Person Profile
0 R&R Personal Data
0 R&R Budget
0 Supplemental Information Form
R&R Other Project Information
0 R&R Senior/Key Person Profile Expanded
0 R&R Personal Data (Voluntary)
· Have all fields been completed?
0 R&R Budget
· Have all fields been completed for each PD and co-PD(s)?
· Are annual and summary budgets included?
· For multi-institutional applications, have you used the R&R Subaward Budget Attachment form?
· Budget JustificationHas the Budget Justification PDF been attached to this form in Field K?
Are budget items individually justified and in the same order as they appear on the budget forms?
For multi-institutional applications, has a budget justification been included for each institution involved?
0 Supplemental Information Form
 |
Sponsored by the Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service
Have feedback? Contact us. |
 |