[Federal Register: March 13, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 14787-14801]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13mr01-133]
[[Page 14787]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management: Request for Proposals and Request for Input;
Notice
[[Page 14788]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management: Request for Proposals and Request for Input
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of request for proposals and request for input.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSREES) announces the availability of grant funds and requests
proposals for the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management for fiscal year (FY) 2001
to support integrated, multifunctional agricultural research,
extension, and education activities that address complex pest
management priorities in United States agriculture, which can most
properly be addressed by multifunctional and multidisciplinary projects
incorporating research, extension, and education activities. The
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management currently has five program components: Crops
at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR); FQPA Risk Avoidance and
Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP); Methyl Bromide
Transitions (MBT); Organic Transition (ORG); and Pest Management
Centers. The amount available for support of this program in FY 2001 is
approximately $13,242,634 of which a portion will be used to fund the
second year of continuation grants for the Pest Management Centers that
were awarded in FY 2000 for three years (FY 2000-FY 2002). As a result,
approximately $8,929,112 will be made available to fund new grant
proposals in FY 2001.
This notice sets out the objectives for Pest Management projects,
the eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, the application
procedures, and the set of instructions needed to apply for a Pest
Management grant under this authority.
By this notice, CSREES additionally solicits stakeholder input from
any interested party regarding the FY 2001 Integrated Research,
Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management
for use in the development of any future requests for proposals (RFP's)
for this program.
DATES: Proposals must be received by close of business (COB) on May 14,
2001 (5:00 p.m. EST). Proposals received after this date will not be
considered for funding. Comments regarding this RFP are requested
within six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received
after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals
submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is:
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Room 1307, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW.;
Washington, DC 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the
following address: Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management; c/o Proposal Services
Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2245.
Written user comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and
Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-CSREES; STOP
2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via
e-mail to: RFP-OEP@reeusda.gov. In your comments, please include the
name of the program and the fiscal year of the RFP to which you are
responding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Applicants and other interested
parties are encouraged to contact the following individuals: CAR: Dr.
Rick Meyer; National Program Leader; Plant and Animal Systems Unit;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.;
Washington, DC 20250-2220; Telephone: (202) 401-4891; Fax: (202) 401-
4888; e-mail address: hmeyer@reeusda.gov; RAMP: Dr. Michael Fitzner;
National Program Leader; Plant and Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC
20250-2220; Telephone: (202) 401-4939; Fax: 202-401-4888; e-mail
address: mfitzner@reeusda.gov; MBT: Dr. Thomas Bewick; National Program
Leader; Plant and Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP
2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2220;
Telephone: (202) 401-3356; Fax: (202) 401-4888; e-mail address:
tbewick@reeusda.gov; and ORG: Dr. Anne Bertinuson; Program Specialist;
Plant and Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2220; Telephone: (202)
401-6825; Fax: (202) 401-5179; e-mail address: abertinuson@reeusda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Stakeholder Input
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Part I--General Information
A. Legislative Authority and Background
B. Purpose, Priorities, and Fund Availability
C. Definitions
D. Eligibility
E. Types of Proposals
F. Matching Requirements
G. Funding Restrictions
Part II--Program Description
A. Project Types
B. Program Area Description
Part III--Preparation of a Proposal
A. Program Application Materials
B. Content of Proposals
C. Submission of Proposals
D. Acknowledgment of Proposals
Part IV--Review Process
A. General
B. Evaluation Criteria
C. Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality
Part V--Grant Awards
A. General
B. Funding Mechanisms
C. Organizational Management Information
D. Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award
Part VI--Additional Information
A. Access to Review Information
B. Use of Funds; Changes
C. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
D. Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations
E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards
F. Regulatory Information
Stakeholder Input
CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this RFP from any
interested party. These comments will be considered in the development
of any future RFP for the program. Such comments 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 RFP from persons who conduct or use agricultural research,
[[Page 14789]]
education and extension for use in formulating future RFP's for
competitive programs. Comments should be submitted as provided for in
the ADDRESSES and DATES portions of this Notice.
The FY 2000 RFP for Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management which was published in the
Federal Register on April 7, 2000 [65 FR 18822--18835] solicited
comments on the RFP from any interested party to be used in the
development of future RFP's. One comment was received and considered in
the development of the FY 2001 RFP.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under 10.303, Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program.
Part I--General Information
A. Legislative Authority and Background
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7626) authorized the Secretary of
Agriculture to establish a research, education, and extension
competitive grants program to provide funding for integrated,
multifunctional agricultural research, extension, and education
activities. Subject to the availability of appropriations to carry out
this program, the Secretary may award grants to colleges and
universities (as defined by 1404 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA) (7 U.S.C. 3103))
on a competitive basis for integrated research, education, and
extension projects. Grants are to be awarded to address priorities in
United States agriculture that involve integrated research, education,
and extension activities as determined by the Secretary in consultation
with the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and
Economics Advisory Board.
On November 19, 1999, the Secretary published in the Federal
Register [64 FR 63560] a notice that the administration of this grant
program had been delegated to the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This notice also solicited
public comment from persons who use or conduct research, extension, or
education regarding the priorities to be addressed by this new program.
In addition, this notice announced a public meeting to obtain comments
to use in developing the proposed rule and RFP's for this new grant
program. The public meeting was held on December 6, 1999.
All the comments and the official transcript of the meeting were
made available for review on the CSREES web page. The comments and
testimonies from the December 6, 1999, public meeting were considered
in the formulation of the FY 2000 RFP and FY 2001 RFP. Both RFP's were
developed in consultation with the Advisory Board.
The Organic Transition Program is added to the FY 2001 RFP due to
the appropriation of Section 406 funds for this purpose in FY 2001.
This program was not directly addressed in the original Federal
Register Notice or at the December 6, 1999, public meeting. However,
priorities of organic producers are identified through ongoing
interactions with institutions such as the Organic Farming Research
Foundation (OFRF), the Rodale Institute, and the Organic Crop
Improvement Association, and individual producers. The biennial OFRF
National Organic Farmers Survey, which receives input from the Economic
Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, also
serves as a reference.
The entire Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program is funded in FY 2001 at $39,838,535 (after
deduction for administrative expenses) for the following integrated
activities: Water Quality ($12,348,773), Food Safety ($14,247,128), and
the Pest Management component which includes Pesticide Impact
Assessment ($4,313,522), Crops at Risk from Food Quality and Protection
Act (FQPA) Implementation ($1,424,858), FQPA Risk Mitigation Program
for Major Food Crop Systems ($4,654,537), Methyl Bromide Transitions
($2,374,764), and Organic Transition ($474,953). There will be four
RFP's for this program. The Food Safety Programs will have one RFP and
the Water Quality program will have two RFP's, while the latter five
programs will be announced as one RFP for Pest Management. This notice
announces and describes the Pest Management component of the Program.
CSREES will administer the Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension Competitive Grants Program by determining priorities in
United States agriculture through Agency stakeholder input processes
and in consultation with the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
Education, and Economics Advisory Board. Each RFP for the different
program areas (e.g., Water Quality and Food Safety) will be developed
each fiscal year based on these established priorities and the
resulting approaches to solving these critical agricultural issues.
Although this overall grant program seeks to solve critical
agricultural issues through an integration of research, education, and
extension activities, a component of a RFP, depending on the priority
being addressed and/or the stage at which the priority is being
addressed, may request proposals that are research, education, or
extension only, or a combination thereof. However, the overall
overarching approach to solving the critical agricultural issue,
priority, or problem will be through an integration of research,
education, and extension activities within each individual program
area.
B. Purpose, Priorities, and Fund Availability
The components of the Integrated Competitive Grants Program--Pest
Management to be funded in FY 2001 are Crops at Risk from FQPA
Implementation program (CAR); FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for
Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP); Methyl Bromide Transitions Program
(MBTP); Organic Transitions Program (ORG); and Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program (hereafter referred to as ``Pest Management
Centers''). Please note that proposals for the Pest Management Centers
component will not be solicited this year in that four centers were
established in FY 2000 and are ongoing through FY 2002.
The five components of the Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management will support a
wide range of complementary research, education, and extension
activities. Together, these five components support activities to
assess the use and efficacy of available pest management tools, develop
and demonstrate the efficacy of reduced-risk pesticides and other pest
management alternatives, and identify possible transition and
mitigation strategies that serve as viable pest management options for
crops and agro-ecosystems at risk.
Priority will be given for integrated, multifunctional research,
education, and extension projects (i.e., those that contain research,
education, and extension components).
This integrated grants program creates opportunities for fruitful
new collaborations between individuals and institutions which can
address problems in new ways and/or improve communication with under-
served or hard-to-reach audiences. In order to
[[Page 14790]]
fully realize these potential benefits, CSREES strongly encourages
applicants to develop proposals that include:
(1) Integrated activities that include collaboration with small- or
mid-sized, accredited colleges and universities;
(2) Integrated activities that include collaboration with
historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving
institutions, tribal colleges, and/or other institutions that serve
high-risk, under-served, or hard-to-reach audiences; or
(3) International partnerships, linkages, and exchanges that
contribute to addressing U.S. national pest management issues.
By integrating these five separate program components into a single
competitive grants program, CSREES has responded to stakeholder
suggestions that the Agency develop a coordinated program to address
pest management challenges that face the Nation in the short- and long-
terms. Projects supported by the five components of the Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest
Management will support a wide range of complementary research,
education, and extension activities. Together, these five components
support activities to assess the use and efficacy of available pest
management tools, develop and demonstrate the efficacy of reduced-risk
pesticides and other pest management alternatives, and identify
possible transition and mitigation strategies that serve as viable pest
management options for crops and agro-ecosystems at risk. CSREES also
expects that Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive
Grants Program--Pest Management projects will complement other CSREES
pest management programs such as the Pest Management Alternatives
Program (PMAP), the Regional Integrated Pest Management Grants Program
(RIPM), the Pesticide Applicator Training program (PAT), the Minor
Crops Program (IR-4), and to pest management activities funded under
the regional Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program
(SARE) and the National Research Initiative (NRI).
There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or
to make a specific number of awards. Approximately $13 million will be
available to fund proposals in FY 2001 distributed among the program
components as follows: CAR--$1,424,858, RAMP--$4,654,537, MBT--
$2,374,764, ORG--$474,953, and Pest Management Centers--$4,313,522.
However, applications are only being solicited under this RFP (FY 2001)
for CAR, RAMP, MBT, and ORG. No applications are being solicited this
year for the Pest Management Centers as those were awarded in FY 2000
as continuation grants for a period of three years (i.e., FYs 2000,
2001 and 2002).
C. Definitions
For the purpose of awarding grants under this program, the
following definitions are applicable:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Authorized organizational 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.
(4) Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months)
into which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting
purposes.
(5) Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including
the outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third
parties.
(6) Department or USDA means the United States Department of
Agriculture.
(7) Education activity means formal classroom instruction,
laboratory instruction, and practicum experience in the food and
agricultural sciences and other related matters such as faculty
development, student recruitment and services, curriculum development,
instructional materials and equipment, and innovative teaching
methodologies.
(8) Extension activity means an act or process that delivers
science-based knowledge and informal educational programs to people,
enabling them to make practical decisions.
(9) 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.
(10) Grantee means an organization designated in the grant award
document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
(11) Integrated means to bring the three components of the
agricultural knowledge system (research, education, and extension)
together around a problem area or activity.
(12) Matching means that portion of allowable project costs not
borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind
contributions.
(13) 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.
(14) Principal investigator/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.
(15) Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent
by an authorized departmental officer as defined in (2) above.
(16) Project means the particular activity within the scope of the
program supported by a grant award.
(17) Project period means the period, as stated in the award
document, during which Federal sponsorship begins and ends.
(18) Research activity means a scientific investigation or inquiry
that results in the generation of knowledge.
(19) Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other
officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved is
delegated.
(20) Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions
of property or services provided by non-Federal third parties,
including real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable
property, directly benefitting and specifically identifiable to a
funded project or program.
(21) Total integrated, multifunctional research, education, and
extension approach means that the combination of grants (although the
individual grants may involve only research, education, or extension
activities or a combination thereof) awarded under the fiscal year's
program components will work together to address the priorities in
United States agriculture as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture
in consultation with the Advisory Board, that involve integrated
research, extension, and education activities.
D. Eligibility
Proposals may be submitted by colleges and universities as defined
in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA). The terms ``college'' and
[[Page 14791]]
``university'' mean an educational institution in any State which (1)
admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of
graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the
recognized equivalent of such a certificate, (2) is legally authorized
within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary
education, (3) provides an educational program for which a bachelor's
degree or any other higher degree is awarded, (4) is a public or other
nonprofit institution, and (5) is accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency or association. 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). Eligible applicants may subcontract to
organizations not eligible under these requirements.
Please note that a research foundation maintained by a college or
university is not eligible to receive an award under this program.
Proposals received from research foundations will not be considered for
funding.
E. Types of Proposals
In FY 2001, projects under the Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension Competitive Grants Program authority may be submitted as one
of the two types of proposals described below:
(1) New proposal. This is a project proposal that has not been
previously submitted to the Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension Competitive Grants Program. All new proposals will be
reviewed competitively using the selection process and evaluation
criteria described in Part IV--Review Process.
(2) Resubmitted proposal. This is a proposal that had previously
been submitted to the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program but not funded. The resubmitted proposal
should clearly indicate the changes that have been made in the project
proposal.
Further, a clear statement acknowledging comments from the previous
reviewers, indicating revisions, rebuttals, etc., can positively
influence the review of the proposal. Therefore, for resubmitted
proposals, the investigator(s) must respond to the previous panel
summary on no more than one page, titled ``RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS
REVIEW,'' which is to be placed directly after the Project Summary as
described in Part III--Preparation of a Proposal. Resubmitted proposals
will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and
evaluation criteria described in Part IV--Review Process.
F. Matching Requirements
1. General Requirement
If a grant provides a particular benefit to a specific agricultural
commodity, the grant recipient is required to provide funds or in-kind
support to match the amount of the grant funds provided. See section
12.c. on ``Matching Funds'' under Part III, B, ``Content of Proposals''
for more details.
2. Waiver
CSREES may waive the matching funds requirement specified in the
above paragraph for a grant if CSREES determines that (a) the results
of the project, while of particular benefit to a specific agricultural
commodity, are likely to be applicable to agricultural commodities
generally; or (b) the project involves a minor commodity, the project
deals with scientifically important research, and the grant recipient
is unable to satisfy the matching funds requirement.
G. 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.
Part II--Program Description
A. Project Types
Approximately $1,424,858 is available for CAR projects in FY 2001.
Proposals should be between two to four years in duration with a budget
of not more than $200,000 per year.
Approximately $4,654,537 is available for RAMP projects in FY 2001.
Proposals can be up to five years in duration with a maximum budget of
$500,000 per year.
Approximately $2,374,764 is available for MBT projects in FY 2001.
It is anticipated that 12-15 grants of up to two years in duration will
be awarded in this program component.
Approximately $474,953 is available for ORG projects in FY 2001. It
is anticipated that three to five grants of up to four years in
duration will be awarded in this program component.
Approximately $4,313,522 is available for Pest Management Center
projects funded in FY 2000. Since these Pest Management Centers were
funded as continuation grants for FY 2001 and FY 2002, no new
applications are being solicited in FY 2001 for Pest Management Centers
projects.
Grants awarded under the Program Area Descriptions of CAR, RAMP,
MBT and ORG (as described in this RFP) will be issued as ``New Grant''
instruments and usually will be awarded as ``Standard Grants.''
B. Program Area Description
In FY 2001, proposals are being solicited in four program areas for
the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management: Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR);
FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP);
Methyl Bromide Transitions (MBT); and Organic Transition (ORG). Each
component has a specific focus, and it is essential that applicants
read the program area description carefully when preparing proposals.
Two program areas, Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR) and
FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP),
address needs created by the implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The following background information
applies to both of these programs.
The Office of Pesticide Management of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) maintains a web site (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides) which
is a clearinghouse for information on pesticide tolerance assessment
and reregistration under FQPA, as well as information on registered
pesticides, including biopesticides. EPA also issues an electronic
newsletter that will announce updates to pesticide registration status.
Information on subscribing to this electronic newsletter is also
available at the above web site. In preparing proposals for CAR and
RAMP, applicants should use information from EPA to identify at-risk
pesticides that may affect pest management practices for their
commodity of interest. Applicants should also identify recently
registered pesticides or those under new registration review.
Proposals are solicited for the following program areas:
[[Page 14792]]
(1) Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR) (Program Area 112.A)
(Maximum award: $200,000 per year for two to four years).
The Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR) program is an
intermediate-term (two to four years) research, education, and
extension competitive grants program with at-risk crops or cropping
systems as the focal point. Several crops and cropping systems face
potentially severe economic impacts as a result of the possible
restrictions or elimination of certain pesticides resulting from
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 and
other regulatory actions. In the short-term, small-acreage fruit and
vegetable crops are most vulnerable. However, many more crops,
including large-acreage grain, forage and fiber crops, will be impacted
during the pesticide review process. Development of new multiple-tactic
pest management strategies designed to assist producers during the
transition is the goal of this program component.
Specific Objectives
(a) Evaluate new approaches to pest management techniques and
technology (e.g., rates, timing, pre-harvest intervals, application
methods and equipment, and post-harvest treatment) that could reduce or
eliminate pesticide residues of concern or the effects of these
residues;
(b) Develop new pest management tactics based on alternative
technologies, including products of genetic engineering, biological
organisms, biological pesticides, new chemical pesticides, and cultural
practices; and
(c) Demonstrate and describe how new tactics can be economically
and practically integrated into pest management programs for individual
crops.
Proposals that address priorities established by stakeholders
representing an entire crop production region, consider crosscutting
challenges, and show evidence of multi-state or within-state
cooperation regarding research, education, and extension will be given
preference.
All proposals should include an extension/outreach component to
promote the exchange of pest management information among researchers,
extension agents, producers, and commodity groups as it relates to the
project.
(2) FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems
Program (RAMP) (Program Area 112.B)
(Maximum award: $500,000 per year for up to five years).
The FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems
Program (RAMP) is a long-term (up to five years) research, education,
and extension competitive grants program to develop reduced risk pest
management strategies for agro-ecosystems or cropping systems. Global
markets for food and grain products demand high quality at competitive
prices. Growers are faced with meeting market demands and ever-
increasing production costs coupled with decreasing or unstable
commodity prices. Added to these constraints are concerns posed by
implementation of regulatory actions over the next decade. Many of the
pest management tools growers have depended on in the past may be
restricted or eliminated. Growers face uncertainty regarding which pest
management tactics will continue to be available and how to incorporate
new technologies into their production systems (e.g., bio-based pest
management alternatives, bioengineered crop innovations, and precision
agriculture). There is a critical need to devise pest management
systems that consider all aspects of crop production.
Projects supported by RAMP will have a food, fiber, or grain
production system focus and may include consideration of food safety,
occupational safety, water quality and other environmental concerns.
The RAMP program area will address the major acreage cropping systems
including, but not limited to, corn, soybean, wheat, cotton and rice,
as well as, the fruits and vegetables most important in the human diet,
especially the diets of infants and children. Emphasis will be placed
on development and implementation of new and innovative pest management
systems designed to maintain crop productivity and profitability while
addressing environmental quality and human health concerns. The goal of
this long-term approach is to eliminate or minimize pesticide residues
of concern on foods, in drinking water, and in the environment. This
program also supports projects to reduce occupational risk for
producers and their employees. These will be long-term projects and
will evolve from in-depth discussions of the production system's pest
management needs and priorities identified by stakeholders. Projects
are intended to enhance stability and sustainability of agricultural
production systems and will be multi-state or regional in scale.
Typically they will involve multiple cropping systems that define an
agro-ecosystem. A major goal of this effort will be the development of
pest management systems that further the advanced understanding of
cropping system biology and ecology.
Specific Objectives
(a) Develop methods of pest management that reduce or eliminate
risks associated with pesticide residues; and
(b) Develop and implement information intensive approaches to pest
management based on a more complete understanding of crop and pest
biology, their interactions and mutual impacts, and factors impacting
the stability of pest management systems in major cropping systems.
Proposals that strive to maintain crop economic viability based on
a diverse bio-based pest management system are encouraged. Proposals
should address priorities established by stakeholders representing an
entire cropping system and consider crosscutting challenges, and must
show evidence of multi-state and multi-disciplinary cooperation
involving research, education, and extension. Proposals should catalog
and review the pest management tactics currently being used in the
targeted cropping system, then define opportunities for new pest
management approaches. All proposals should include an extension/
outreach component to promote the exchange of pest management
information among researchers, extension agents, producers and
commodity groups as it relates to the project. Outreach efforts can
make use of publications, website development, field days, workshops or
other relevant planning and outreach activities. Successful proposals
will provide milestones and independently verifiable indicators that
can be used to measure progress and impact across a range of
ecological, agronomic and economic criteria. Budgetary provisions
should be made to support a formal stakeholder review after the second
field season and at the end of the project.
(3) Methyl Bromide Transitions Program (MBT) (Progam Area 112.C)
(No maximum award and up to two years; however, it is anticipated
that 12-15 grants will be funded).
The phase-out of methyl bromide is required under Title IV of the
Clean Air Act (as amended in 1990) based on its projected ozone-
depleting potential. In October 1998, the Clean Air Act was amended to
change the phase-out date to 2005, in harmonization with the date
[[Page 14793]]
agreed to in the Montreal Protocol. Further information on the phase-
out of methyl bromide is available on the EPA website at http://
www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/harmoniz.html.The Methyl Bromide Transitions
Program (MBT) supports the discovery and implementation of practical
pest management alternatives for commodities affected by the phase-out
of methyl bromide. Projects supported by MBT will focus on short-to
intermediate-term solutions for all commodities at risk using presently
available or newly developed pest management technologies and
practices. Since alternatives to methyl bromide that have thus far been
developed require different pest management strategies than those used
for methyl bromide alone, projects supported by MBT will emphasize the
development and implementation of integrated management approaches.
This includes increased research, education and extension activities on
all commodities at risk, involving field trials and other demonstration
projects that enhance the adoption of pest management alternatives for
affected commodities.
Specific Objectives
(a) Develop integrated research, education, and extension
approaches as methyl bromide alternatives on strawberry, tomato, other
vegetables, fruits and nuts;
(b) Develop integrated research, education, and extension
approaches as methyl bromide alternatives for floral, forestry and
general nursery production to assure pest- and pathogen-free
rootstocks; and
(c) Develop extension activities to implement pest management
alternatives, including field trials and other demonstration projects
that enhance producer adoption of alternative management practices that
increase the transfer of results to growers.
Proposals that address priorities established by stakeholders,
consider crosscutting challenges, and show evidence of multi-state or
within-state cooperation involving research, education, and extension
will be given preference.
(4) Organic Transition (ORG) (Program Area 112.E)
(No maximum award and up to four years; however, it is anticipated
that three to five grants will be funded).
Organic farming became one of the fastest growing segments of U.S.
agriculture during the 1990's. Farmers cite many reasons for adopting
organic practices, including economic (i.e., to lower input costs, to
capture high value markets), environmental (i.e., to conserve
nonrenewable resources, to be an environmental steward) and health
(i.e., to reduce exposure of themselves and their families to
agrochemicals). Converting to organic production is not as simple as
eliminating chemical inputs. Organic farming is not simply the
avoidance of conventional chemical inputs, nor is it the substitution
of natural inputs for synthetic ones. Organic farmers implement a wide
range of strategies to develop biological diversity and maintain and
replenish soil fertility.
Making the transition to organic production generally requires
farmers to absorb a great deal of new information, and to experiment
with combinations of techniques to meet their needs. As documented in a
1997 report from the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF),
``Searching for the O-Word: An Analysis of the USDA Current Research
Information System (CRIS) for Pertinence to Organic Farming'' (http://
www.ofrf.org/policy/oword1.html), very little systems research has been
done on organic farming in the United States. Research on agricultural
production components such as biocontrol and cropping systems has been
of limited value to organic farmers, since the components are generally
not developed and tested in an organic agro-ecosystem, and research
results and recommendations thus can not be applied directly to organic
farms.
The purpose of this program is to assist farmers in successfully
adopting organic practices by supporting systems research on organic
farming combined with outreach and education programs to transfer
technologies to farmers in the near term. It is anticipated that the
types of research to be supported will be very applied. Field work for
this program must be done in an organic agro-ecosystem. Applicants are
reminded that since some practices and inputs are unallowable in
certified organic production, they should ensure that their planned
work is compatible with organic production. The USDA National Organic
Program (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/) is a good source of organic
production information. Because farmer involvement is critical to the
success of this program, and to the dissemination of research findings,
priority will be given to proposals which include farmers as partners
in planning, implementing, and evaluating project activities.
Priorities for funding in FY 2001 were developed by considering the
priorities of complementary programs, such as SARE and the Initiative
for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, and identified stakeholder
needs in the context of the limited funds available for this program in
this fiscal year. OFRF conducts a biennial survey of research needs of
organic farmers. A summary of the most recent survey is available
online at: http://www.ofrf.org/survey/1997.html. As in two previous
surveys, both certified and transitioning organic farmers reported that
weed control is their number one need.
Specific Objective
The specific objectives of the ORG Program is to support projects
that perform systems research on ecologically-based weed management
combined with outreach and education programs to share information and
methods with farmers in the near term.
Ecologically-based approaches to weed management include, but are
not limited to, cultural effects (i.e., crop rotation and soil
fertility) on weed pressure and species mix, timing and type of
tillage, flaming or burning, controlling weeds that reproduce
vegetatively, use of allelopathic covercrops and green manure crops,
biocontrol insects or microorganisms, residue management, managing weed
seed banks, and use of livestock to control weeds.
Successful organic agriculture incorporates a mix of strategies in
general production management. In terms of weed management, organic
producers are not seeking a ``magic bullet'' targeted to a specific
weed pest. They need integrated strategies that address overall weed
management in a manner appropriate for their production system. The
problems and solutions for range, field crops, row crops or orchards
may not be the same, even given the presence of the same weed(s) in
different production systems.
In describing proposed work for this program, applicants should
clearly state the type of production system for which their management
strategies are appropriate. They should demonstrate the need for the
proposed work, both in terms of stakeholder needs, and the magnitude of
the problem. The magnitude of the problem should be related to current
numbers of producers and acres affected, as well as potential for
increased production in the area of study which may result from
developing and demonstrating ecologically-based pest management
strategies.
An outcome-oriented plan for disseminating information derived from
the proposed work should be an integral part of the project. This
information may include analysis of results of field
[[Page 14794]]
research, farmers' evaluations of the weed management strategies
developed, or increased understanding of how to perform successful on-
farm research. The intent of this outreach effort should be to educate
the audience(s) and have them modify their practices accordingly, and
thus a plan for evaluating the outreach component must be included.
Priority for funding will be given to proposals that have the
potential for significant impact, based on: (a) The magnitude of the
problem they address, and (b) inclusion of plans for outreach and
education likely to lead to improved knowledge and skills among
targeted populations.
The focus of this program is on a systems approach to organic
agriculture. Proposals focusing solely on the biology of weedy and
invasive plants will not be accepted for this program. Applicants
should consider submitting proposals to the National Research
Initiative (http://www.reeusda.gov/nri), which has several program
areas related to the physiology, ecology, and genetics of weedy and
invasive plants.
Part III--Preparation of a Proposal
A. Program Application Materials
Program application materials are available at the Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program website
(http://www.reeusda.gov/integrated/). If you do not have access to our
web page or have trouble downloading material, you may contact the
Proposal Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/CSREES at
(202) 401-5048. When calling the Proposal Services Unit, please
indicate that you are requesting forms for the FY 2001 Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest
Management. These materials may also be requested via Internet by
sending a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and
phone number to psb@reeusda.gov. State that you want a copy of the
Program Description and application materials (orange book) for the
Fiscal Year 2001 Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management.
B. Content of Proposals
1. General
The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling reviewers to
more easily evaluate the merits of each proposal in a systematic,
consistent fashion:
(a) The proposal should be prepared on only one side of the page
using standard size (8 \1/2\" x 11") white paper, one inch margins,
typed or word processed using no type smaller than 12 point font, and
single or double spaced. Use an easily readable font face (e.g.,
Geneva, Helvetica, Times Roman).
(b) Each page of the proposal, including the Project Summary,
budget pages, required forms, and any appendices, should be numbered
sequentially.
(c) The proposal should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner.
Do not bind. An original and 14 copies (15 total) must be submitted in
one package, along with 10 copies of the ``Project Summary'' as a
separate attachment.
(d) If applicable, proposals should include original illustrations
(photographs, color prints, etc.) in all copies of the proposal to
prevent loss of meaning through poor quality reproduction.
2. Cover Page (Form CSREES-661)
Each copy of each grant proposal must contain an ``Application for
Funding'', Form CSREES-661. One copy of the application, preferably the
original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing
principal investigator(s)/project director(s)(PI/PD) and the authorized
organizational representative who possesses the necessary authority to
commit the organization's time and other relevant resources to the
project. Any proposed PI/PD or co-PI/PD whose signature does not appear
on Form CSREES-661 will not be listed on any resulting grant award.
Complete both signature blocks located at the bottom of the
``Application for Funding'' form.
Form CSREES-661 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant
database; it is therefore important that it be completed accurately.
The following items are highlighted as having a high potential for
errors or misinterpretations:
(a) Title of Project (Block 6). The title of the project must be
brief (80-character maximum), yet represent the major thrust of the
effort being proposed. Project titles are read by a variety of
nonscientific people; therefore, highly technical words or phraseology
should be avoided where possible. In addition, introductory phrases
such as ``investigation of,'' ``research on,'' ``education for,'' or
``outreach that'' should not be used.
(b) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 7). ``Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest
Management.''
(c) Program Area and Number (Block 8). The name of the program
component (e.g., CAR, 112.A or RAMP, 112.B) should be inserted in this
block.
(d) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for ``new''
or ``resubmission.''
(e) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block
15). The designation of excessive numbers of co-PI/PD's creates
problems during final review and award processing. Listing multiple co-
PI/PD's, beyond those required for genuine collaboration, is therefore
discouraged. Note that providing a Social Security Number is voluntary,
but is an integral part of the CSREES information system and will
assist in the processing of the proposal.
(f) Type of Performing Organization (Block 18). A check should be
placed in the box beside the type of organization which actually will
carry out the effort. For example, if the proposal is being submitted
by an 1862 Land-Grant Institution but the work will be performed in a
department, laboratory, or other organizational unit of an agricultural
experiment station, box ``03'' should be checked. If portions of the
effort are to be performed in several departments, check the box that
applies to the individual listed as PI/PD #1 in Block 15.a.
(g) Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). List the names or acronyms
of all other public or private sponsors including other agencies within
USDA and other programs funded by CSREES to whom your application has
been or might be sent. In the event you decide to send your application
to another organization or agency at a later date, you must inform the
identified CSREES Program Director as soon as practicable. Submitting
your proposal to other potential sponsors will not prejudice its review
by CSREES; however, duplicate support for the same project will not be
provided. Complete the ``Application for Funding,'' Form CSREES-661, in
its entirety.
(h) One copy of the ``Application for Funding'' form must contain
the original signatures of the PI/PD(s) and authorized organizational
representative for the applicant organization.
3. Table of Contents
For consistency and ease in locating information, each proposal
must contain a detailed Table of Contents just after the cover page.
The Table of Contents should contain page numbers for each component of
the proposal. Page numbers should begin with the first page of the
Project Description.
4. Project Summary
The proposal must contain a Project Summary of 250 words or less on
a
[[Page 14795]]
separate page which should be placed immediately after the Table of
Contents and should not be numbered. The names and affiliated
organizations of all PI/PD's and co-PI/PD's should be listed on this
form, in addition to the title of the project. 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 Integrated Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management. The
importance of a concise, informative Project Summary cannot be
overemphasized.
5. Response to Previous Review
This requirement only applies to ``Resubmitted Proposals'' as
described under Part I, E, ``Types of Proposals.'' For these proposals,
the investigator(s) must respond to the previous panel summary on no
more than one page, titled ``RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW,'' which is to
be placed directly after the Project Summary. If desired, additional
comments and responses to the previous panel summary may be included in
the text of the Project Description, subject to the page limitation.
6. Project Description
PLEASE NOTE: The Project Description shall not exceed 15 pages of
written text and may not exceed a total of 20 pages including figures
and tables. This maximum has been established to ensure fair and
equitable competition. The Project Description must include all of the
following:
a. Introduction: A clear statement of the long-term goal(s) and
supporting objectives of the proposed activities should be included.
Summarize the body of knowledge or other past activities which
substantiate the need for the proposed project. Describe ongoing or
recently completed significant activities related to the proposed
project including the work of key project personnel. Preliminary data/
information pertinent to the proposed project should be included. In
addition, this section should include in-depth information on the
following, when applicable:
(1) Estimates of the magnitude of the issues and their relevance to
stakeholders and to ongoing State-Federal food and agricultural
research, education and extension programs.
(2) Role of the stakeholders in problem identification, planning,
and implementation and evaluation as appropriate.
(3) Reasons for having the work performed at the proposing
institution.
b. Objectives: Clear, concise, complete, and logically arranged
statement(s) of specific aims of the proposed effort must be included
in all proposals.
c. Methods: The procedures or methodology to be applied to the
proposed effort should be explicitly stated. This section should
include but not necessarily be limited to:
(1) A description of stakeholder involvement in problem
identification, planning, implementation and evaluation;
(2) A description of the proposed project activities in the
sequence in which it is planned to carry them out;
(3) Techniques to be employed, including their feasibility and
rationale for their use in this project;
(4) Kinds of results expected;
(5) Means by which extension and education activities will be
evaluated;
(6) Means by which data will be analyzed or interpreted;
(7) Details of plans to communicate results to stakeholders and the
public;
(8) Pitfalls that might be encountered; and
(9) Limitations to proposed procedures.
d. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved: Cooperative,
multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary applications are encouraged.
Identify each institutional unit contributing to the project and
designate the lead institution or institutional unit. When appropriate,
the project should be coordinated with the efforts of other State and/
or national programs. Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of
each institutional partner of the project team.
e. Facilities and Equipment: All facilities which are available for
use or assignment to the project during the requested period of support
should be reported and described briefly. All items of major equipment
or instrumentation available for use or assignment to the proposed
project should be itemized. In addition, items of nonexpendable
equipment needed to conduct and bring the project to a successful
conclusion should be listed, including dollar amounts and, if funds are
requested for their acquisition, justified.
g. Project Timetable: The proposal should outline all important
phases as a function of time, year by year, for the entire project,
including periods beyond the grant funding period.
7. References
All references cited should be complete, including titles and all
co-authors, and should conform to an accepted journal format.
8. Appendices to Project Description
Appendices to the Project Description are allowed if they are
directly germane to the proposed project and are limited to a total of
two of the following: reprints (papers that have been published in peer
reviewed journals) and preprints (manuscripts in press for a peer
reviewed journal; these must be accompanied by a letter of acceptance
from the publishing journal).
9. Key Personnel
The following should be included, as applicable:
(a) The roles and responsibilities of each PI/PD and/or
collaborator should be clearly described;
(b) An estimate of the time commitment involved for each PI/PD and/
or collaborator, including current and pending projects; and
(c) Vitae of each PI/PD, senior associate, and other professional
personnel. This section should include vitae of all key persons who are
expected to work on the project, whether or not CSREES funds are sought
for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages each in
length, excluding publications listings. A chronological list of all
publications in refereed journals during the past four (4) years,
including those in press, must be provided for each professional
project member for whom a curriculum vitae is provided. Also list only
those non-refereed publications that have relevance to the proposed
project. All authors should be listed in the same order as they appear
on each paper cited, along with the title and complete reference as
these usually appear in journals.
10. Conflict-of-Interest List
A Conflict-of-Interest List must be provided for all individuals
involved in the project (i.e., each individual submitting a vitae in
response to item 9.(c) of this part). Each list should be on a separate
page and include alphabetically the full names of the individuals in
the following categories: (a) All collaborators on projects within the
past four years, including current and planned collaborations; (b) all
co-authors on publications within the past four years, including
pending publications and submissions; (c) all persons in your field
with whom you have had a consulting or financial arrangement within the
past four years, who stand to gain by seeing the project funded; and
(d) all thesis or postdoctoral advisees/advisors within
[[Page 14796]]
the past four years (some may wish to call these life-time conflicts).
This form is necessary to assist program staff in excluding from
proposal review those individuals who have conflicts-of-interest with
the personnel in the grant proposal. The Program Director must be
informed of any additional conflicts-of-interest that arise after the
proposal is submitted.
11. Collaborative and/or Subcontractual Arrangements
If it will be necessary to enter into formal consulting or
collaborative arrangements with others, such arrangements should be
fully explained and justified. In addition, evidence should be provided
that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services.
If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal
narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services,
a statement of work to be performed, a resume or curriculum vita for
each consultant, and rate of pay for each consultant. For purposes of
proposal development, informal day-to-day contacts between key project
personnel and outside experts are not considered to be collaborative
arrangements and thus do not need to be detailed.
All anticipated subcontractual arrangements also should be
explained and justified in this section. A proposed statement of work
and a budget for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive
programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third
party must be provided. Agreements between departments or other units
of your own institution and minor arrangements with entities outside of
your institution (e.g., requests for outside laboratory analyses) are
excluded from this requirement.
If you expect to enter into subcontractual arrangements, please
note that the provisions contained in 7 CFR part 3019, USDA Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grant and Other Agreements with
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit
Organizations, and the general provisions contained in 7 CFR Part
3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to
subrecipients. In addition, required clauses from Sections 40-48
(``Procurement Standards'') and Appendix A (``Contract Provisions'') to
7 CFR part 3019 should be included in final contractual documents, and
it is necessary for the subawardee to make a certification relating to
debarment/suspension.
12. Budget (Form CSREES-55)
a. Budget Form. Prepare the budget, Form CSREES-55, in accordance
with instructions provided. A budget form is required for each year of
requested support. In addition, a cumulative budget is required
detailing the requested total support for the overall project period.
The budget form may be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be
requested under any of the categories listed on the form, provided that
the item or service for which support is requested is allowable under
the authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles,
and these program guidelines, and can be justified as necessary for the
successful conduct of the proposed project. Applicants must also
include a budget narrative to justify their budgets (see section b
below.)
The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal
budget(s):
1. Salaries and Wages. Salaries and wages are allowable charges and
may be requested for personnel who will be working on the project in
proportion to the time such personnel will devote to the project. If
salary funds are requested, the number of Senior and Other Personnel
and the number of CSREES-Funded Work Months must be shown in the spaces
provided. Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary or
rate of salary of project personnel or to reimburse them for time in
addition to a regular full-time salary covering the same general period
of employment. Salary funds requested must be consistent with the
normal policies of the institution.
2. Fringe Benefits. Funds may be requested for fringe benefit costs
if the usual accounting practices of your organization provide that
organizational contributions to employee benefits (e.g., social
security and retirement) be treated as direct costs. Fringe benefit
costs may be included only for those personnel whose salaries are
charged as a direct cost to the project.
3. Nonexpendable Equipment. Nonexpendable equipment means tangible
nonexpendable personal property including exempt property charged
directly to the award having a useful life of more than one year and an
acquisition cost of $5,000 (or lower depending on institutional policy)
or more per unit. As such, items of necessary instrumentation or other
nonexpendable equipment should be listed individually by description
and estimated cost in the budget narrative. This applies to revised
budgets as well, as the equipment item(s) and amount(s) may change.
4. Materials and Supplies. The types of expendable materials and
supplies which are required to carry out the project should be
indicated in general terms with estimated costs in the budget
narrative.
5. Travel. The type and extent of travel and its relationship to
project objectives should be described briefly and justified. If travel
is proposed, the destination, the specific purpose of the travel, a
brief itinerary, inclusive dates of travel, and estimated cost must be
provided for each trip. Airfare allowances normally will not exceed
round-trip jet economy air accommodations. U.S. flag carriers must be
used when available. See 7 CFR Part 3015.205(b)(4) for further
guidance.
6. Publication Costs/Page Charges. Include anticipated costs
associated with publications in a journal (preparing and publishing
results including page charges, necessary illustrations, and the cost
of a reasonable number of coverless reprints) and audio-visual
materials that will be produced. Photocopying and printing brochure,
etc., should be shown in Section I., ``All Other Direct Costs'' of Form
CSREES-55.
7. Computer (ADPE) Costs. Reimbursement for the costs of using
specialized facilities (such as a university- or department-controlled
computer mainframe or data processing center) may be requested if such
services are required for completion of the work.
8. All Other Direct Costs. Anticipated direct project charges not
included in other budget categories must be itemized with estimated
costs and justified in the budget narrative. This also applies to
revised budgets, as the item(s) and dollar amount(s) may change.
Examples may include space rental at remote locations, subcontractual
costs, and charges for consulting services, telephone, facsimile,
shipping costs, and fees necessary for laboratory analyses. You are
encouraged to consult the ``Instructions for Completing Form CSREES-55,
Budget,'' of the Application Kit for detailed guidance relating to this
budget category. Form AD-1048 must be completed by each subcontractor
or consultant and retained by the grantee.
9. Indirect Costs. Section 1462 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310)
limits indirect costs for this program to 19 percent of total Federal
funds provided under each award. Therefore the recovery of
[[Page 14797]]
indirect costs under this program may not exceed the lesser of the
institution's official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent
of 19 percent of total Federal funds awarded. Another method of
calculating the maximum allowable is 23.456 percent of the total direct
costs. If no rate has been negotiated, a reasonable dollar amount
(equivalent to or less than 19 percent of total Federal funds
requested) in lieu of indirect costs may be requested, subject to
approval by USDA.
b. Budget Narrative. All budget categories, excluding Indirect
Costs, for which support is requested, must be individually listed
(with costs) in the same order as the budget and justified on a
separate sheet of paper and placed immediately behind the Budget Form.
Explanations of matching funds or lack there of on commodity-specific
projects also are to be included in this section.
c. Matching Funds. If an applicant concludes that matching funds
are not required as specified under Part I, F, ``Matching
Requirements,'' a justification should be included in the budget
narrative. CSREES will consider this justification when ascertaining
final matching requirements or in determining if required matching can
be waived. CSREES retains the right to make final determinations
regarding matching requirements.
For those grants requiring matching funds as specified under Part
I, F, proposals should include written verification of commitments of
matching support (including both cash and in-kind contributions) from
third parties. Written verification means:
(a) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge
agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational
representatives of the donor organization and the applicant
organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3)
the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) the dollar
amount of the cash donation; and (5) a statement that the donor will
pay the cash contribution during the grant period; and
(b) For any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge
agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized
organizational representatives of the donor organization and the
applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant
organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is
made; (4) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the
third party in-kind contribution; and (5) a statement that the donor
will make the contribution during the grant period.
The sources and amount of all matching support from outside the
applicant institution should be summarized on a separate page and
placed in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All
pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal immediately following
the summary of matching support.
The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be
established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Applicants
should refer to OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational
Institutions, for further guidance and other requirements relating to
matching and allowable costs.
13. Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-663)
All proposals must contain Form CSREES-663 listing other current
public or private support (including in-house support) to which
personnel (i.e., individuals submitting a vitae in response to 9.(c) of
this part) identified in the proposal have committed portions of their
time, whether or not salary support for person(s) involved is included
in the budget. Analogous information must be provided for any pending
proposals that are being considered by, or that will be submitted in
the near future to, other possible sponsors, including other USDA
Programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of identical or similar
proposals to the possible sponsors will not prejudice proposal review
or evaluation by the CSREES for this purpose. However, a proposal that
duplicates or overlaps substantially with a proposal already reviewed
and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not
be funded under this program. Note that the project being proposed
should be included in the pending section of the form.
14. Assurance Statement(s), (Form CSREES-662)
A number of situations encountered in the conduct of projects
require special assurances, supporting documeation, etc., before
funding can be approved for the project. In addition to any other
situation that may exist with regard to a particular project, it is
expected that some applications submitted in response to these
guidelines will involve the following:
a. Recombinant DNA or RNA Research. As stated in 7 CFR Part
3015.205 (b)(3), all key personnel identified in the proposal and all
endorsing officials of the proposing organization are required to
comply with the guidelines established by the National Institutes of
Health entitled, ``Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA
Molecules,'' as revised. If your project proposes to use recombinant
DNA or RNA techniques, you must so indicate by checking the ``yes'' box
in Block 19 of Form CSREES-661 (the Cover Page) and by completing
Section A of Form CSREES-662. For applicable proposals recommended for
funding, Institutional Biosafety Committee approval is required before
CSREES funds will be released.
b. Animal Care. Responsibility for the humane care and treatment of
live vertebrate animals used in any grant project supported with funds
provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization. Where a
project involves the use of living vertebrate animals for experimental
purposes, all key project personnel identified in a proposal and all
endorsing officials of the proposing organization are required to
comply with the applicable provisions of the Animal Welfare Act of
1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) and the regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Secretary in 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4
pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of these animals. If
your project will involve these animals, you should check ``yes'' in
block 20 of Form CSREES-661 and complete Section B of Form CSREES-662.
In the event a project involving the use of live vertebrate animals
results in a grant award, funds will be released only after the
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee has approved the project.
c. Protection of Human Subjects. Responsibility for safeguarding
the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project
supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing
organization. Guidance on this issue is contained in the National
Research Act, Pub. L. No. 93-348, as amended, and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Department under 7 CFR Part 1c. If you
propose to use human subjects for experimental purposes in your
project, you should check the ``yes'' box in Block 21 of Form CSREES-
661 and complete Section C of Form CSREES-662. In the event a project
involving human subjects results in a grant award, funds will be
released only after the appropriate Institutional Review Board has
approved the project.
[[Page 14798]]
15. Certifications
Note that by signing Form CSREES-661 the applicant is providing the
certifications required by 7 CFR part 3017, as amended, regarding
Debarment and Suspension and Drug Free Workplace, and 7 CFR part 3018,
regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are included in the
application package for informational purposes only. These forms should
not be submitted with the proposal since by signing Form CSREES-661
your organization is providing the required certifications. If the
project will involve a subcontractor or consultant, the subcontractor/
consultant should submit a Form AD-1048 to the grantee organization for
retention in their records. This form should not be submitted to USDA.
16. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form
CSREES-1234)
As outlined in 7 CFR part 3407 (i.e., the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service regulations implementing
NEPA), the environmental data for any proposed project is to be
provided to CSREES so that CSREES may determine whether any further
action is needed. In some cases, however, the preparation of
environmental data may not be required. Certain categories of actions
are excluded from the requirements of NEPA.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is
needed with respect to NEPA, pertinent information regarding the
possible environmental impacts of a particular project is necessary;
therefore, Form CSREES-1234, ``NEPA Exclusions Form,'' must be included
in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the opinion that
the project falls within a categorical exclusion and the reasons
therefore. If it is the applicant's opinion that the proposed project
falls within the categorical exclusions, the specific exclusion must be
identified. Form CSREES-1234 and supporting documentation should be
included as the last page of this proposal.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions,
CSREES may determine that an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for an activity, if
substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other
extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may cause
such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
C. Submission of Proposals
1. When To Submit (Deadline Date)
Proposals must be received by COB on May 14, 2001 (5:00 p.m. EST).
Proposals received after this date will not be considered for funding.
2. What To Submit
An original and 14 copies must be submitted. In addition submit 10
copies of the proposal's Project Summary. All copies of the proposals
and the Project Summaries must be submitted in one package.
3. Where To Submit
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals
via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the
USDA. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted
using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest
Management; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room
1307, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW.; Washington, DC 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the
following address: Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management; c/o Proposal Services
Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2245.
D. Acknowledgment of Proposals
The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail.
Therefore, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide e-mail
addresses, where designated, on the Form CSREES-661. If the applicant's
email address is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of
proposal by letter.
Once the proposal has been assigned an identification number,
please cite that number on all future correspondence. If the applicant
does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission
deadline, please contact the Program Director.
Part IV--Review Process
A. General
Each proposal will be evaluated in a 2-part process. First, each
proposal will be screened to ensure that it meets the administrative
requirements as set forth in this request for proposals. Second,
proposals that meet these requirements will be technically evaluated by
a peer review panel.
Peer review panel members will be selected based upon their
training and experience in relevant scientific, education or extension
fields taking into account the following factors: (a) The level of
formal scientific, technical education, and extension experience of the
individual, as well as the extent to which an individual is engaged in
relevant research, education and/or extension activities; (b) the need
to include as peer reviewers experts from various areas of
specialization within relevant scientific, education, and 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 proposals to targeted audiences and to program
needs; (d) the need to include as peer reviewers experts from a variety
of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities, industry, state
and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit organizations), and
geographic locations; (e) the need to maintain a balanced composition
of peer review groups with regard to minority and female representation
and an equitable age distribution; and (f) the need to include members
that can judge the effective usefulness to producers and the general
public of each proposal.
B. Evaluation Criteria
Technical merit, relevance to program goals and potential impact
will be evaluated for each proposal. Proposals must show evidence of
strength in all of these areas to be rated highly for funding. Specific
criteria for these proposal attributes are listed below.
(1) Technical merit of all aspects of the proposal, including
research, education and extension components.
(a) Conceptual adequacy of overall approach;
(b) Extent to which proposed work addresses identified stakeholder
needs;
(c) Conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or hypotheses on which plan
is based;
(d) Suitability and feasibility of the methodology for conducting
the work;
(e) Time allocated for attainment of objectives;
(f) Qualifications of project personnel;
(g) Institutional experience and competence in the identified area
of work;
(h) Adequacy of available support personnel, equipment, and
facilities;
(i) Extent to which proposed work integrates research, education
and extension; and
[[Page 14799]]
(j) Suitability and feasibility of the methodology for evaluating
extension and education activities.
(2) Relevancy to Program Goals and Potential Impact.
(a) Relationship of project objectives to national issues and
objectives;
(b) Regional or national magnitude of problem addressed;
(c) Evidence of partnerships with other disciplines and
institutions;
(d) Extent to which end users are involved in problem
identification, planning, implementation and evaluation;
(e) Probability of success of the project; and
(f) Extent to which potential impact can be documented.
Priority will be given for integrated, multifunctional research,
education, and extension projects.
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 2000 Higher Education
Directory, published by Higher Education Publications, Inc., 6400
Arlington Boulevard, Suite 648, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Phone:
(703) 532-2305.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as
proposal 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. At the end of the
fiscal year, names of panelists will be made available in such a way
that the panelists cannot be identified with the review of any
particular proposal.
Part V--Grant Awards
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 proposals are judged most meritorious under the
procedures set forth in this RFP. 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 RFP
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. Funding Mechanisms
The two mechanisms by which grants may be awarded are as follows:
(1) Standard grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the
Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a
predetermined time period without the announced intention of providing
additional support at a future date.
(2) Continuation grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the
Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a
predetermined period of time with a statement of intention to provide
additional support at a future date, provided that performance has been
satisfactory, appropriations are available for this purpose, and
continued support will be in the best interests of the Federal
government and the public. This kind of mechanism normally will be
awarded for an initial one-year period, and any subsequent continuation
project grants will be awarded in one-year increments. The award of a
continuation project grant to fund an initial or succeeding budget
period does not constitute an obligation to fund any subsequent budget
period. Unless prescribed otherwise by CSREES, a grantee must submit a
separate application for continued support for each subsequent fiscal
year. Requests for such continued support must be submitted in
duplicate at least three months prior to the expiration date of the
budget period currently being funded. Decisions regarding continued
support and the actual funding levels of such support in future years
usually will be made administratively after consideration of such
factors as the grantee's progress and management practices and the
availability of funds. Since initial peer reviews are based upon the
full term and scope of the original application, additional evaluations
of this type generally are not required prior to successive years'
support. However, in unusual cases (e.g., when the nature of the
project or key personnel change or when the amount of future support
requested substantially exceeds the grant application originally
reviewed and approved), additional reviews may be required prior to
approving continued funding.
C. Organizational Management Information
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be
submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility
determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFP,
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.
D. Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award
The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
(1) Legal name and address of performing organization or
institution to whom the Administrator has awarded a grant under the
terms of this request for proposals;
(2) Title of project;
(3) Name(s) and address(es) of PI/PD's chosen to direct and control
approved activities;
(4) Identifying grant 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 grant is awarded;
(8) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
(9) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to
carry out its respective granting activities or to accomplish the
purpose of a particular grant.
The notice of grant award, in the form of a letter, will be
prepared and will provide pertinent instructions or information to the
grantee that is not included in the grant award document.
Part VI--Additional Information
A. Access To Review Information
Copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of reviewers,
will
[[Page 14800]]
be sent to the applicant PI/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 grant state otherwise, the
grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another
person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or
expenditure of grant funds.
(2) Changes in Project Plans
(a) The permissible changes by the grantee, PI/PD(s), or other key
project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to
changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to
expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee
and/or the PI/PD(s) are uncertain as to whether a change complies with
this provision, the question must be referred to the CSREES Authorized
Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination.
(b) Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by
the grantee 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
grantee and approved in writing by the awarding official of CSREES
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 grantee
and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers,
unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
(e) Changes in Project Period: 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 five years. Any extension of time shall be
conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing
by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of
a grant.
(f) Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must
be requested by the grantee 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 in the
grant award.
C. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
The grantee must prepare an annual report that details all
significant activities towards achieving the goals and objectives of
the project. The narrative should be succinct and be no longer than
five pages, using 12-point, single-spaced type. The report also should
include a listing of any students who worked on the project (i.e.,
report graduate degrees awarded and undergraduates trained, as
applicable). A budget summary should be attached to this report, which
will provide an overview of all monies spent during the reporting
period.
D. Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations
Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant proposals
considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program.
These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR Part 1.1--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 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,
implementing OMB directives (i.e., OMB Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122)
and incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (the Federal Grant
and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. 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 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).
[[Page 14801]]
E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards
When a proposal results in a grant, 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 pbrmitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant
wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary
should be clearly marked within the proposal. The original copy of a
proposal that does not result in a grant will be retained by the Agency
for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such a
proposal will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to
the extent required by law. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time
prior to the final action thereon.
F. Regulatory Information
For the reasons set forth in the final Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR
part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, 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, as amended (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements
contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No.
0524-0022.
Done at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2001.
Colien Hefferan,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-6200 Filed 3-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 2001/03/14 EST