1 3 2012 ripm - ne fy 2012 rfa.pdf

Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program Northeastern Region

FY 2012 Request for Applications

APPLICATION DEADLINE:

Letter of Intent: February 3, 2012

Application: February 29, 2012

U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE; 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: Applications must be received by close of business (COB) on February 29, 2012 (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time). Applications received after this deadline will normally not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this request for applications (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 National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 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 and Oversight Division;

Office of Grants and Financial Management; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; USDA;

STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via e-mail to:

Policy@nifa.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 Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program – Northeastern Region RFA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: NIFA announces the availability of funds and requests applications for the Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program – Northeastern Region (NE-RIPM) for fiscal year (FY) 2012 to help achieve national integrated pest management (IPM) goals by increasing the supply and dissemination of IPM knowledge and by enhancing collaboration among stakeholders. The amount available for support of this program in FY 2012 is approximately $600,000.

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 mailto:Policy@nifa.usda.gov grant. NIFA additionally requests stakeholder input from any interested party for use in the development of the next RFA for this program.

Table of Contents

PART I—FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Legislative Authority and Background B. Purpose and Priorities C. Program Area Description

PART II—AWARD INFORMATION

A. Available Funding B. Types of Applications C. Project Types D. Scientific Peer Review

PART III—ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants B. Cost Sharing or Matching

PART IV—APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

A. Electronic Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Funding Restrictions E. Other Submission Requirements

PART V—APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

A. General B. Evaluation Criteria C. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality D. Organizational Management Information

PART VI—AWARD ADMINISTRATION

A. General B. Award Notice C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements D. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements

PART VII—AGENCY CONTACT

PART VIII—OTHER INFORMATION

A. Access to Review Information B. Use of Funds; Changes C. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards D. Regulatory Information E. Definitions

PART I—FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Legislative Authority and Background

Authority for the funding of Research projects is contained in Section 2(c)(1)(B) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant 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 3(d) funds.

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 region.

The Northeast Region consists of Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. Proposals should address the following criteria which will be evaluated by the review panel. (See Part 5)

1. Will reduce risks to the environment.

The NE-RIPM seeks to reduce the environmental risks associated with chemical pesticides and other pest management methods. Articulate how your project fits this goal.

2. Will reduce risks to human health.

In accordance with the goals of the NE-RIPM and the National Road Map for IPM (www.ipmcenters.org/ipmroadmap.pdf), we support work that protects human health. Projects that evaluate success and promise to show measurable impacts will receive maximum points in this category.

3. Has stakeholder support and the priority has been cited.

Projects must tie to the needs of the Northeast. Stakeholders in the region—such as growers, extension educators, IPM coordinators, and private consultants—have developed priorities. Your application must cite and address at least one source of stakeholder-identified priorities. It is recommended that you copy and paste the specific priority into your proposal, if appropriate.

Also, clearly identify the source of the priority in such a manner that a reviewer can find the priority. Links to most sources of stakeholder-identified IPM priorities are presented on the Northeastern IPM Center website at http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm. Another resource is the needs and priorities stated in pest management strategic plans, available at http://northeastipm.org/rese_profiles.cfm or www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/index.cfm.

4. Focuses on a pest, crop, or setting found in at least five states or cropping regions.

We favor projects pertaining to as many northeastern states as possible so that many people in the region may benefit. Ideally, projects will affect five or more states or cropping regions (which can cross state boundaries). Projects involving urban and community IPM (schools, parks, apartments, residential settings, and municipal buildings) in multiple states are encouraged.

http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmroadmap.pdf http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm http://northeastipm.org/rese_profiles.cfm http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/index.cfm

5. Will fill a niche (no such tactics or approaches exist).

Growers or IPM practitioners need the particular IPM tactic, tool, or approach you are developing, your project fills a gap, and/or few alternatives to chemical pesticides are available.

6. Involves multiple states in an active partnership.

The NE-RIPM promotes regional work. Your project should involve paid and/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’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, and the National Plant Diagnostic Network). You may collaborate with people and programs outside the Northeastern Region. True multi-state projects most often involve sharing the award funds.

7. Will advance IPM implementation in a few years.

Although we acknowledge the benefit of long-term research, this grants program encourages projects that will come to fruition—and benefit the region—within a few years. Articulate the impacts that the project will have on stakeholders in the time frame you have allotted.

8. Is interdisciplinary.

Multi-disciplinary projects uniting specialists in different fields are preferred over projects relying on a single discipline. For example, weed scientists might collaborate with plant pathologists in agricultural settings, or sociologists might work with entomologists in urban settings.

9. Reduces dependence on conventional, chemical pesticides.

We fund projects that shift people away from conventional, chemical pesticides toward greater sustainability (practices that are environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially responsible). We acknowledge that the use of “softer” and “reduced risk” compounds is considered progress toward sustainability. Sustainability includes, among other practices, the conservation of beneficial organisms, microbial biocontrol of root pathogens, and multiple steps to enhance plant health and soil quality.

10. Has significant economic implications.

Your project should focus on an issue that has economic significance. For data on crop value as it pertains to the Northeastern Region, see http://northeastipm.org/rese_profiles.cfm. You should 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.

11. Explains, justifies, and will serve an “underserved audience.”

Identify the underserved audience and how it will be served. Some audiences in the Northeast that previously have not received extensive IPM services are residents in low-income or public housing authorities, 1890 land-grant institutions, and Native Americans.

12. Addresses an emerging pest, crop, or problem.

Projects that focus on a) new crops, pests, or invasive species in agricultural settings, or b) new problems in urban and community settings, are encouraged.

13. Is likely to be adopted by the target audience.

Your work should result in IPM tactics that are very likely to be accepted by the target audience (growers, public housing residents, school maintenance staff, etc.). Involving stakeholders in your planning can help to ensure adoption at the conclusion of the grant.

14. Advances an IPM practice that is more cost-effective than the status quo.

New pest management methods that are more cost-effective help growers, community members, and IPM practitioners reduce the economic risks of pest management.

Other Information

Project Director’s Presentation: The RIPM Program requires award recipients to present the results of their project at an appropriate professional conference (such as a society annual meeting), a regional coordinating group meeting, or project director’s workshop sponsored by NIFA (if offered) once during the duration of the grant.

For a comparison of other IPM grant programs and descriptions of previously funded projects, please see www.northeastipm.org/grants.cfm. To view examples of a Logic Model, and Budget Justification, see http://northeastipm.org/grants-ripm.cfm.

C. Program Area Description

NE-RIPM encourages projects that develop content and programs suitable for delivery through the Cooperative Extension System’s eXtension Initiative. Funds may be used to contribute to existing Communities of Practice (CoP) or to form a new CoP focused on a key pest or pest management system. If proposals are to directly contribute to existing CoPs or to form new CoPs within the eXtension framework projects must align with the eXtension vision, mission, and values. A letter of acknowledgement from eXtension is required, and a letter of support may be required from one or more of the Communities of Practice. For detailed guidance on how to partner with eXtension, go to http://create.extension.org/node/2057.

http://www.northeastipm.org/grants.cfm http://northeastipm.org/grants-ripm.cfm http://create.extension.org/node/2057

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. Approximately $600,000 is available to fund grant applications in FY 2012.

Awards issued as a result of this RFA will have designated the Automated Standard Applications for Payment System (ASAP), operated by the Department of Treasury’s Financial Management Service, as the payment system for funds. For more information see www.nifa.usda.gov/business/method_of_payment.html.

B. Types of Applications

In FY 2012, applications may be submitted to the NE-RIPM Program as one of the following two 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.

C. Project Types

Three types of project proposals may be submitted to the NE-RIPM program in FY 2012:

Research, Extension, or Joint Research-Extension. Applicants must indicate the type of project proposed in the Project Summary.

The following table summarizes the funding available for each project type.

Maximum Budgets per Project Type and Breadth of Collaboration PDs from one

NE state* PDs from one NE state + other regions

PDs from more than one NE state

PDs from more than one NE state + other regions

Research $60,000 $60,000 $180,000 $180,000 Extension $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 Research-Extension $60,000 $60,000 $175,000 $175,000 *PD=Project Director; NE=Northeastern http://www.nifa.usda.gov/business/method_of_payment.html

1. Research This funding category develops the research base needed for comprehensive pest management systems. Projects funded in this category should demonstrate economic, social, and environmental benefits of IPM strategies. You may develop individual tactics needed for pest management systems (e.g., biocontrol, cultural control, host resistance) or help increase understanding of interactions among tactics. Where appropriate, the experimental approach should emphasize field-scale experiments spanning multiple seasons or locations. Long-term fundamental research is not appropriate for funding.

Research involving pesticides should focus on lower-risk options and how they can be integrated with nonchemical tactics. Successful proposals of this type are usually designed to perfect the amount, frequency, or selectivity of a chemical pesticide application. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the tactic or IPM system, once developed, can be incorporated into an existing production or management system.

The maximum budget for a Research project depends on whether there are single or multiple states or regions involved as PDs. 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 returned to the Treasury.

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.

The maximum budget for an Extension project depends on whether there are single or multiple states or regions involved. Please note that Extension projects may last up to three years.

3. Joint Research-Extension This funding category combines research and extension activities (as described in Parts II, C.1 and 2, above). The project team should include both researchers and extension educators.

The maximum budget for a Joint Research-Extension 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 returned to the Treasury.

D. Scientific Peer Review

Required for all Research or Joint Research-Extension Projects

Subsection (c)(5) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, as amended (7 USC 450i(c)(5)) requires applicants to conduct a scientific peer review of their proposed research activities in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary prior to the Secretary making a grant award under this authority. Regulations implementing this requirement are set forth in 7 CFR part 3400.20. The regulations impose the following requirements:

(1) Scientific peer review. Prior to the award of a standard or continuation grant, any proposed research or joint research-extension project shall have undergone a review arranged by the grantee. Such review must be a scientific peer review conducted in accordance with 7 CFR

3400.21. It must be credible, independent, and arranged by the grantee. It should provide an appraisal of technical quality and relevance sufficient for an organizational representative to make an informed judgment as to whether the proposal is appropriate for submission for Federal support. Often this review is conducted by faculty peers. It may include USDA employees, but should not be conducted solely by USDA employees. Although evidence of a scientific peer review is not required until an award is ready to be finalized, peer reviews can improve the quality of a proposal. We thus encourage applicants to have proposals peer reviewed before submission.

(2) Notice of completion and retention of records. A notice of completion of the review shall be conveyed in writing to NIFA as part of the Other Attachments (Field 12. of the R&R Other Project Information Form). The written notice constitutes certification by the applicant that a review in compliance with these regulations has occurred. Applicants are not required to submit results of the review to NIFA; however, proper documentation of the review process and results should be retained by the applicant. The notice should state “In accordance with 7 CFR 3400.21 this memo is to certify that this project [title] has undergone a scientific peer review.” If this notification is included within the application, a signature is not necessary. If, however, it is submitted to NIFA after the application is submitted through Grants.gov, the memo must be on the institution’s letterhead and signed by the Authorized Representative.

http://grants.gov/

PART III—ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants

Organizations eligible to receive Research awards are: state agricultural experiment stations, 1862 and 1890 land-grant colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University, 1994 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 USC 582a et seq.), accredited schools or colleges of veterinary medicine, and the University of the District of Columbia.

Organizations eligible to receive Extension awards are: 1862 and 1890 land-grant colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University, and the University of the District of Columbia.

Research and Extension personnel from other USDA/IPM regions can participate as members of project teams. Applications will be accepted only from Project Directors (PDs) in the Northeastern IPM Region.

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 may result in the application being excluded from consideration or, even though an application may be reviewed, will preclude NIFA from making an award.

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. Electronic Application Package

Only electronic applications may be submitted via Grants.gov to NIFA in response to this RFA.

Applicants are advised to submit early to the Grants.gov system.

New Users of Grants.gov

Prior to preparing an application, it is suggested that the PD/PI first contact an Authorized Representative (AR) (also referred to as Authorized Organizational Representative or AOR) to determine if the organization is prepared to submit electronic applications through Grants.gov. If the organization is not prepared (e.g., the institution/organization is new to the electronic grant application process through Grants.gov), then the one-time registration process must be completed PRIOR to submitting an application. It can take as much as two weeks to complete the registration process so it is critical to begin as soon as possible. In such situations the AR should go to “Get Registered” on the Grants.gov left navigation bar (or go to www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp) for information on registering the institution/organization with Grants.gov. A quick reference guide listing the steps is available as a 4-page PDF document at the following website:

www.grants.gov/assets/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf. Item 2. below mentions the “NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.” Part II.1. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide contains additional explanatory language regarding the registration process.

Steps to Obtain Application Package Materials

The steps to access application materials are as follows:

1. In order to access, complete and submit applications, applicants must download and install a version of Adobe Reader compatible with Grants.gov. This software is essential to apply for NIFA Federal assistance awards. For basic system requirements and download instructions, please see www.grants.gov/help/download_software.jsp. To verify that you have a compatible version of Adobe Reader, Grants.gov established a test package that will assist you in making that determination. Grants.gov Adobe Versioning Test Package: www.grants.gov/applicants/AdobeVersioningTestOnly.jsp.

2. The application package must be obtained via Grants.gov, go to 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- NIFA-RIPM-003628” 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 “NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for Preparation and Submission of NIFA 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 Adobe forms), or submitting the application then refer to resources http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp http://www.grants.gov/assets/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf http://www.grants.gov/help/download_software.jsp http://www.grants.gov/applicants/AdobeVersioningTestOnly.jsp http://www.grants.gov/ available on the Grants.gov Web site first (www.grants.gov/). Grants.gov assistance is also available as follows:

Grants.gov customer support 1-800-518-4726 Toll-Free or 606-545-5035

Business Hours: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Closed on Federal Holidays.

Email: support@grants.gov

Grants.gov iPortal: Top 10 requested help topics (FAQs), Searchable knowledge base, self service ticketing and ticket status, and live web chat (available 7:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. ET). Get help now!

Please have the following information available when contacting Grants.gov, to help expedite your inquiry:

• Funding Opportunity Number (FON)

• Name of Agency You Are Applying To

• Specific Area of Concern

See http://grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp or www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/electronic.html for additional resources for applying electronically.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

Electronic applications should be prepared following Parts V and VI of the document entitled “A Guide for Preparation and Submission of NIFA 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 THAT ARE NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS (i.e., content format, pdf file format, file name restrictions, and no password protected files) WILL BE AT RISK OF BEING EXCLUDED FROM NIFA REVIEW. Partial applications will be excluded from NIFA review. With documented prior approval, subsequent submissions of an application will be accepted until close of business on the closing date in the RFA.

If you do not own PDF-generating software, Grants.gov provides online tools to assist applicants. Users will find a link to “Convert Documents to PDF” on http://grants.gov/help/download_software.jsp#pdf_conversion_programs.

For any questions related to the preparation of an application please review the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide and the applicable request for applications. If assistance is still needed for preparing application forms content, contact:

• Email: electronic@nifa.usda.gov http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/aboutgrants/Federal_Holidays.jsp mailto:support@grants.gov https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants http://grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/electronic.html http://grants.gov/help/download_software.jsp#pdf_conversion_programs http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/funding.cfm mailto:electronic@nifa.usda.gov

• Phone: 202-401-5048

• Business hours: Monday through Friday, 7:00 am – 5:00 pm Eastern Time, excluding

Federal holidays.

1. SF 424 R&R Cover Sheet Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 2. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

2. SF 424 R&R Project/Performance Site Location(s) Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 3. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

3. R&R Other Project Information Form Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 4. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

a. Field 7. Project Summary/Abstract. See Part V. 4.7 of NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide for further instructions and a link to a suggested template. The summary should include the following:

(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 3(d) funds are for extension activities, and P.L. 89-106 funds are for research activities). The summary should be a self-contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on: overall project goals and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish project goals; and relevance of the project to the priorities of the NE-RIPM (see Part I, B.) and the goals of RIPM. Maximum length:

approximately 250 words.

b. Field 8. Project Narrative.

PLEASE NOTE:

The Project Narrative (subsections (i) through (v), combined) shall not exceed 15 pages of single-spaced text, including all figures, tables, and logic models. Text should be 12 point Times or Times New Roman with one-inch margins and a blank line between paragraphs. For renewal applications, requirements in subsection (vi) “Progress Reports,” shall not exceed three additional pages of written text in total.

Use a logic model such as the one shown on the following page to describe your project (worth up to five points in technical review). For samples and templates, see www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/ and more information at the NIFA and University of Wisconsin web sites: www.nifa.usda.gov/about/strat_plan_logic_models.html;

www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/index.html. Refer to the logic model in your evaluation plans, relevance statement, and elsewhere, as applicable.

http://www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/ http://www.nifa.usda.gov/about/strat_plan_logic_models.html http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/index.html

SAMPLE LOGIC MODEL

Focus Area: Production Agriculture; Impact Area: Environmental Impacts (non-target organisms) Road Map Goal: Reduce potential risks to the environment from pesticide use through the use of cost-effective IPM practices

For more examples, see www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/samplelogicmodels.cfm

Sample Indicators Audiences reduce use of higher risk pesticides or otherwise reduce non-target and environmental impact of pesticides

Audiences increase use of IPM tactics T.A.s increase use of lower risk IPM tactics (precision application equipment and technology) to protect habitats

Audiences increase use of conservation measures to protect non-target species

Consumers increase support for farmers and ranchers using low risk tactics in the marketplace or through support for local/state/federal policies fostering IPM

Agencies (e.g., NRCS) increase adoption of IPM by increasing incentives for use of low risk tactics

Audiences increase adoption of WIN-PST ( e.g., Also used in UC IPM year round IPM programs as WaterTox) in conservation planning

Audiences Increase use of VOC calculator provided by

CA DPR

Possible Measures Measure reduced use of higher risk pesticides or other method used to reduce adverse effects Measure increased adoption and implementation of

IPM tactics that lower risk (e.g., precision application equipment and technology)

Measure increased sales of precision application technology and equipment

Measure increased use of conservation programs and specific lower risk practices used

Conduct consumer attitudinal surveys to measure changes in use/support

Measure increased numbers of NRCS projects funded and cost share dollars available for IPM programs

Measure T.A. adoption of conservation measures (CEAP and other data)

Measure increased number of reduced risk registrations

Long Term (Condition Change)

Audience Activities

Inputs

(Example) Reduce impacts to non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms caused by pesticides.

• Measure reduced incidence of fish and bird kills

• Measure reduced toxicity profile for avian species

• Measure reduced toxicity profile for aquatic species

• Measure increased diversity and abundance of beneficial species

• Measure increased numbers of pollinators

• Measure changed detection of residues in natural environments

• Assess changes in endangered species listing

Sample Indicators Increase audience’s awareness of pesticide impacts on habitats Increase audience’s knowledge of lower risk IPM tactics (e.g., precision application equipment and technology)

Increase audience’s knowledge of conservation programs

Increase general public understanding of the importance of IPM

Increase audience’s knowledge about the role IPM has in reducing effects of agriculture production on non-target organisms

Increase audience’s awareness of cost share options with gov’t programs (e.g., NRCS)

Collect baseline data to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes, satisfaction, and aspirations using self -assessments, pre-test/post-test, and follow-up measurement tools

Collect baseline data on current practices, knowledge and awareness among TAs

Sample Audiences Farmers Ranchers Pest Mgmt. Consultants

(CCAS, TSPS, PCAS)

General public

NRCS

Government agencies (e.g., State Dept of Environmental Protection)

Sample Activities

• Field Days

• Media outreach

• One-on-one Consulting

• Partnerships with Commodity Organizations

• Research & Demonstration

• Training sessions

• Workshops

• Print/Electronic Materials

• Web Sites

• Non-Formal Educational Channels (trade magazines)

• Money

• People (economists)

• Time

• Interagency Cooperation

• In-kind resources, including infrastructure for information delivery and support

Impacts

Intermediate (Action Change)

Short Term (Knowledge Change)

The Project Narrative must include all of the following:

(i) Problem, Background and Justification [two to three pages]

• Problem: Describe, in simple terms, the problem. A well-written problem statement should include the economic importance of the crop or problem, the importance of the pests, 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 needs identified by growers and other stakeholders in the Northeastern Region. Cite verbatim from the Northeastern IPM Center’s website or another source at least one needs-assessment evaluation used to formulate your project.

See http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm for IPM Working Group and other stakeholder-identified priorities. Pest management strategic plans, which cite gaps in research, education, and regulations, are available on the Northeastern IPM Center website at http://northeastipm.org/rese_profiles.cfm. 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:_______.”

Describe the potential applicability of the proposed approach to other production regions and the relevance of the project to the purpose and 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 goals 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 the project objectives (you may do this in list or table format). Both the objectives and impacts should connect to the following goals: encouraging science-based pest management that safeguards human health and the environment; promoting economic benefits (in terms of http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm percent of state sales receipts, percent 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 methods 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.3.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 the 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 the project (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, number of unique visitors per month; page views per month; change in traffic volume during growing season;

average viewing time.)

e. How many more people might adopt IPM practices as a direct result of

Type of Impact Questions to Help Identify Potential Impacts the 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.3b. (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 if possible);

• 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/or multi-state collaboration. 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 from the beginning of the project that will enable you to verify that the anticipated impacts associated with the project objectives have occurred (or how you will measure the extent to which they have occurred). Include a Logic Model (see Part IV, B.3.b.) 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.

(1) Research Projects: Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project, indicating how you will determine whether the anticipated impacts stated in Part IV, B.3b. (ii.), above, have been achieved. If measurement of these anticipated impacts will not be possible in the time frame of the proposed project, describe how the tactic or system you plan to study, once developed, might be incorporated into an existing crop management program on a large scale.

(2) 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 outputs and impacts 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 specific 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 below.

(vi) Progress Reports. For renewal applications (as defined in Part II, B.), a progress report must be included not to exceed three pages of written text.

c. Field 12. Other Attachments.

(i) Appendices to the Project Narrative, attached as PDFs, are allowed if they are 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 consultants or collaborators are known at the time of application, a CV or resume should be provided. In addition, evidence (e.g., letter of support or statement of work) 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. For FY 2012, a separate relevance statement is not required. The review panel will evaluate the relevance of the proposed project to the needs of the Northeast Region. It is suggested that the submitted application address the criteria described in Part I, Section B.

(iv) Scientific Peer Review Certification. Notice that the scientific peer review has been completed should be included in the application (see Part II. D.).

4. R&R Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 5. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide. Part V, 5. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide includes information about the individuals for which a Senior/Key Person Profile must be completed, and details about the Biographical Sketch and the Current and Pending Support including a link to a suggested template for the Current and Pending Support. You must attach ‘Current and Pending Support’ information for each senior/key person identified above. Note: Even if no other funding is currently reported under the ‘Active’ section of this attachment, you must still list information for this grant application under the ‘Pending’ section of this attachment for each senior/key person identified above.

5. R&R Personal Data As noted in Part V, 6. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide, the submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award.

6. R&R Budget Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 7. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

Note: Include funding to attend and present your results at a professional conference, a regional coordinating group meeting, or project directors’ workshop (see Part I.B.). If funding is being requested for multiple years, provide a budget for each year, as well as a cumulative budget for the entire project period. If submitting a Joint Research-Extension project, an additional budget form split out by Research (P.L. 89-106) funds and Extension (Smith-Lever 3(d)) funds should be attached in Field K with the Budget Justification. An example of a form that may be used and attached for this purpose is available at http://northeastipm.org/grants-ripm.cfm#apply.

Budget Justification (Field K on the form; attach as PDF) Note: For Joint Research-Extension projects the budget justification should also be split out by Research and Extension following the cost categories on the budget form.

7. Supplemental Information Form Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part VI, 1. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

a. Field 2. Program to which you are applying. Enter the program code name “Northeastern RIPM” and the program code “QQ.NE”.

b. Field 8. Conflict of Interest List. Conflict of interest information is required for each senior/key person included in the R&R Senior/Key Person Profile. See Part VI, 1.6 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide for further instructions and a link to a suggested template.

C. Submission Dates and Times

Instructions for submitting an application are included in Part IV, Section 1.9 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

1. Letter of Intent to Submit All applicants must submit a notice of intent to apply to the program. Letters of intent must be submitted as an email attachment (PDF preferred) and received by Dr. John E. Ayers (jea@psu.edu) by COB on February 3, 2012 (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time). An application will not be accepted if a letter of intent is not submitted in accordance with the instructions described below. Letters of intent enable the grants manager to identify appropriate review panel members in advance of the proposal deadline. The letter will not be used in evaluating an 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 notice 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);

http://northeastipm.org/grants-ripm.cfm#apply mailto:jea@psu.edu

• 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.

2. Application Submission Applications must be received by Grants.gov by COB on February 29, 2012 (5:00 p.m.

Eastern Time). Applications received after this deadline will normally not be considered for funding.

Applicants who have problems with the submission of an application to Grants.gov are encouraged to FIRST contact the Grants.gov Help Desk to resolve any problems. Keep a record of any such correspondence. See Part IV. A. for Grants.gov contact information.

Correspondence regarding submitted applications will be sent using e-mail. Therefore, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide accurate e-mail addresses, where designated, on the SF-424 R&R Application for Federal Assistance.

If the AR has not received correspondence from NIFA regarding a submitted application within 30 days of the established deadline, please contact the Program Contact identified in Part VII of the applicable RFA and request the proposal number assigned to the application.