1 3 2012 ripm so fy 2012 rfa.pdf

Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program Southern Region

FY 2012 Request for Applications

APPLICATION DEADLINE: 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 – SOUTHERN 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 – Southern Region RFA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: NIFA announces the availability of grant funds and requests applications for the Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program – Southern Region (S-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 $800,000.

mailto:Policy@nifa.usda.gov

This notice identifies the objectives for S-RIPM projects, the eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, and the application forms and associated instructions needed to apply for a S-RIPM 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 purpose of the S-RIPM program is to help achieve national IPM goals by increasing the supply and dissemination of IPM knowledge and by enhancing collaboration among stakeholders.

The Southern Region consists of 13 states and two territories (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

In FY 2012, the S-RIPM is soliciting Research, Extension, and Joint Research-Extension proposals (see Part II.,C. Project Types) that address the following priorities:

1. National IPM Goals

The goal of the RIPM program is to provide knowledge and information needed for the implementation of the National Road Map for Integrated Pest Management.

• Application of the IPM Road Map: The National Road Map for Integrated Pest

Management (www.ipmcenters.org/IPMRoadMap.pdf) identifies strategic directions for IPM research, implementation, and measurement for all pests, in all settings, throughout the nation. Proposals for all project types must explicitly address how the project relates to at least one point of intersection between a future direction and a focus area delineated in the road map.

IPM Road Map future directions for IPM programming are:

o Improve the cost/benefit relationship when adopting IPM practices;

o Reduce potential human health risks from pests and related management strategies;

and o Minimize adverse environmental effects from pests and related management strategies.

The IPM Road Map focus areas for IPM programming are:

o Production agriculture;

o Natural resources and recreational environments; and o Residential and public areas.

http://www.ipmcenters.org/IPMRoadMap.pdf

• Risk: Research, Extension and Joint Research-Extension projects must have the potential to significantly improve risk avoidance or mitigation in pest management. The IPM Evaluation project must have the potential to document the impact of IPM approaches on risk and/or to contribute to the understanding of how IPM approaches can impact risk. For all project types, risk issues addressed may be environmental, economic, and/or human health-related.

• Innovation: Innovative projects with strong potential to produce or develop successful new techniques, tools, and/or strategies for IPM or IPM evaluation are encouraged. In the area of IPM evaluation, proposals are sought that will produce new evaluation tools and/or develop new and effective ways to document the impact of IPM on societal risk. In particular, projects that have the potential to be useful across a diverse range of IPM settings and projects are encouraged.

• Near-term benefits: This program seeks to develop IPM knowledge, approaches and/or products that will be useful in the practice of IPM in the near term – i.e., within one to three years of project completion.

• Compatibility (For IPM Evaluation project type only): One component of evaluating proposals of the IPM Evaluation project type is potential compatibility of project design and/or output with other regional or national IPM evaluation projects.

2. Southern Region Priorities

Projects funded by S-RIPM must address pest management issues of importance to the region.

The Relevance Panel sees only the Relevance Statement. Other items, including letters of support, may be cited in the Relevance Statement but will not be provided to the Relevance Panel. The Relevance Panel evaluates proposals for criteria listed in this section.

1. Multi-state partnerships: As a regional program, S-RIPM supports projects that enhance and promote collaboration across state and territorial boundaries. For all project types, proposals that clearly involve multi-state (or territory) attributes will score the highest in this criterion. Sharing of the work and the budget between two or more institutions in different states or territories, though not required, is the strongest indication of such collaboration.

Other evidence includes indications of multi-state (or territory) involvement in planning, and/or indications of interest in project results from other states/territories. Formal arrangements such as subcontracts with other states are not necessarily required to indicate a positive multi-state aspect, but explicit documentation of informal relationships is encouraged.

2. Integrated approaches: This program encourages projects that enhance the integration of appropriate tactics (including, but not limited to, biological controls, host plant resistance, mechanical controls, cultural management, and appropriate pesticides) in a sustainable IPM system. Proposals that address only one tactic are acceptable if the work will contribute to strengthening the suite of tactics and approaches available for the system involved. Projects that promote a single tactic approach to pest management are not encouraged.

3. Stakeholder-identified IPM priorities: S-RIPM is committed to addressing the pest management needs expressed by diverse stakeholders. Applications should include explicit citations that document the stakeholder-identified needs addressed by the proposed project.

Explicitly citing such sources demonstrates both that a project is important, and that the Project Directors (PDs) and the grants program are engaged with the community. This criterion does not apply to the IPM Evaluation project type. Sources of stakeholder-identified needs include, but are not limited to:

o The database of Southern Region Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs)

(www.sripmc.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm);

o Plant and Pest Biology Stakeholder Workshop 2007. Examination of the needs, concerns, and planning for plant-related programs (www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/stakeholder/pl_pe_bio_07.html);

o Citable recommendations, meeting minutes and reports from program advisory committees or similar stakeholder groups;

o Other documented needs assessment evaluations.

Letters of support will be accepted as attachments to the proposal in the R&R Other Project Information Form (Field 12 in the form and more fully described in the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide), but are not viewed by the Relevance Panel. Proposal evaluation relative to this criterion will be based on factors including the number and diversity of stakeholders represented, whether the documents are publicly available, to what extent the priority described exists independent of the proposed project, and timeliness of the priority. A more detailed discussion of such evaluation can be found in the document “Addressing Stakeholder- Identified Priorities” found online at www.sripmc.org/fund/sripm/stakeholders.cfm.

4. IPM issues important to the Southern Region: For all project types, the relative importance of the IPM setting (e.g., a crop, a type of building) to the region will be used to rank proposals. Evidence of a setting’s importance is often but not exclusively indicated by measures such as acreage, monetary value, and number of people involved (e.g., students in a school system). Within the setting, the relative importance of a pest or group of pests will be used to rank proposals. A project addressing the entire pest complex in a setting would be more highly rated than a project addressing an occasional pest that rarely causes significant loss.

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.

http://www.sripmc.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/stakeholder/pl_pe_bio_07.html http://www.sripmc.org/fund/sripm/stakeholders.cfm

C. Program Area Description

S-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://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 $800,000 is available to fund grant applications in FY 2012. Of this amount, funds are available for Research projects, Extension projects and Joint Research- Extension projects. Up to $100,000 is available for a single IPM Evaluation Project. Project duration is up to three years, and size of awards depends on the project type and the degree of collaboration among states/territories in the Southern region (see Part II,C.).

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 S-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 S-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

Four types of project proposals can be submitted to the S-RIPM program in FY 2012: Research, Extension, Joint Research-Extension, or IPM Evaluation. Please be aware that there are different eligibility requirements for research and extension projects. Institutions submitting joint research-extension applications must meet the eligibility requirements for both research and extension (see Part III.A.). Applicants must indicate the type of project they are proposing on the Relevance Statement and on the Project Summary.

1. Research

This funding category develops the research base needed for the construction of comprehensive pest management systems that have a strong likelihood of contributing to http://www.nifa.usda.gov/business/method_of_payment.html ongoing IPM implementation efforts. Projects may develop individual tactics needed for pest management systems (e.g., biocontrol, cultural control, host resistance) or help increase understanding of how interactions among tactics alter the effectiveness of pest management within agricultural, forest, suburban, and urban ecosystems. Where appropriate, the experimental approach should emphasize field-scale experiments spanning multiple seasons or locations. Practices should be designed to reduce initial pest populations, lower the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for pests, or increase tolerance of hosts to pest injury. Long-term fundamental research is not appropriate for funding.

Applications should clearly demonstrate how the tactic or IPM system, once developed, can be incorporated into an existing production system. Applications that focus solely on the development and/or evaluation of pesticides will only be considered if they have extraordinary potential to reduce environmental, economic or human health risk.

Research involving chemical pesticides should be designed to reduce the risks associated with the amount, frequency, and selectivity of pesticide use. Risks that may be addressed include environmental, economic and human health issues as well as impact on beneficial organisms and development of pest populations that are resistant to pesticides.

The budget limit for research is defined only by the amount of funds available for this project type, expected to be approximately $650,000 total. Project Directors are strongly encouraged to consider the recent history of awards for research projects funded by this program, available at www.sripmc.org/ripm/sripm_history.cfm. In recent years the maximum amount funded for a single Research project was approximately $162,000.

Research projects may last 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 strategic alliances with industry and user groups to expand their active participation in increasing the adoption of IPM methods. Projects may develop educational materials and information delivery systems needed for outreach efforts, conducting field-scale or on-farm demonstrations, or delivering IPM education and training. A research component is not a required element of Extension projects, but the research base should be documented.

The budget limit for Extension projects is defined only by the amount of funds available for this project type, expected to be approximately $140,000 total. Project Directors are strongly encouraged to consider the recent history of awards for Extension projects funded by this program, available at www.sripmc.org/ripm/sripm_history.cfm. In recent years the maximum amount funded using Extension funds for a single project was $90,000.

Extension projects may last up to three years.

http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/sripm_history.cfm

3. Joint Research-Extension

This funding category combines research and extension activities (as described above). Joint Research-Extension projects validate pest management systems, introduce new pest management tactics into local production systems, and deliver these systems to producers and their advisors through IPM education and training programs. The project team should include both researchers and extension educators with appointments in research and extension.

The budget limit for Joint Research-Extension projects is defined only by the amount of funds available for each project type, expected to be approximately $650,000 for the Research component and $140,000 for the Extension component total. Project Directors are strongly encouraged to consider the recent history of awards for Joint Research/Extension projects funded by this program, available at www.sripmc.org/ripm/sripm_history.cfm. In recent years the maximum amount funded for a single Joint Research-Extension project was approximately $171,000.

Joint Research-Extension projects may last 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.

4. IPM Evaluation

This funding category provides support for a single project with the primary focus of IPM evaluation. An IPM Evaluation project may document adoption of IPM approaches and practices over time, and/or develop new methods or approaches for documenting changes in IPM adoption. In either case, the project must address the issue of how IPM programs ultimately impact economic, environmental or human health risks as perceived by society. The project should have strong potential to address the “So what?” question; that is, what benefits to society does IPM provide? Such questions have often been addressed in terms of proxy indicators such as “pesticides saved.” An ideal IPM Evaluation project would address terminal outcomes such as impact on measures of environmental quality, human health, and/or economic well-being.

In FY 2012, this program will fund no more than one IPM Evaluation project. The budget limit for the IPM evaluation project is $100,000 total.

IPM Evaluation projects are funded as a “Research” project, and may have a duration of up to three years. Please note that one or two year IPM Evaluation projects may be eligible for no-cost extensions after years one and two, but that no 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 only be accepted from Project Directors (PDs) in the Southern 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-003629” 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.

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/

If assistance is needed to access the application package (e.g., downloading or navigating Adobe forms), or submitting the application then refer to resources 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.

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

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

• 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; Joint Research-Extension; or IPM Evaluation.

(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 purposes and priorities of the S-RIPM program (see Part I, B.).

b. Field 8. Project Narrative.

PLEASE NOTE: The Project Narrative shall not exceed 16 pages of written text regardless of whether it is single or double spaced and no additional pages for figures and tables. This maximum (16 pages) has been established to ensure fair and equitable competition.

A Relevance Statement, described in subsection c., is required for any proposal for Research, Extension, or Joint Research-Extension projects. Evaluation projects do not require a Relevance Statement. The Relevance Statement, submitted separately as an appendix, has its own page limit.

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/funding.cfm mailto:electronic@nifa.usda.gov

Additionally, for renewal applications, requirements in subsection b.(vi) ‘Progress Reports’, shall not exceed three pages of written text in total. Pages used on the Relevance Statement and the Progress Reports are not counted toward the page limit for the Project Narrative.

The Project Narrative must include all of the following:

(i) Problem, Background and Justification.

Project type: The initial sentence should state the project type (Research, Extension, Joint Research-Extension, or Evaluation) and the amount of the request. If the proposal is for a Joint Research-Extension project, indicate the amount requested for the Research component and the amount requested in the Extension component.

Problem: Describe, in simple terms, the problem. Consider including 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 Southern Region. Cite at least one needs-assessment evaluation used to formulate your project (sources include but are not limited to Pest Management Strategic Plans at www.sripmc.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm and web page submissions at www.sripmc.org/Policy/Priorities/). 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 Southern Region stands to benefit from your project. Consider environmental, health, and/or economic benefits.

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.

Discuss the potential applicability of the proposed approach to other production regions and the relevance of the project to the priorities of the S-RIPM program (see Part I, B. of this RFA).

(ii) Objectives and Anticipated Impacts. Provide clear, concise, and logically numbered statements of the specific aims of the proposed effort. If you are writing a Joint Research- Extension proposal, please separate the research and extension objectives.

Describe the anticipated impacts that could be associated with the fulfillment of your objectives (you may do this in list or table format). Both your objectives and your impacts should connect to http://www.sripmc.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm http://www.sripmc.org/Policy/Priorities/ the goals of the National IPM Road Map, which are to advance the implementation of IPM to safeguard human health, safeguard the environment, and promote economic benefits.

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.

(iii) Approach and Procedures. Procedures should be numbered to correspond to Objectives.

Describe how each of the stated objectives will be reached. Include appropriate experimental design and experimental units, reference methods to be used, and appropriate statistical analysis.

Include a timetable for the start and completion of each phase of the project. 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.

(iv) Evaluation Plans. Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project and indicate how successful impacts and outcomes` will be measured. Include specific evaluation objectives with specific impact indicators (e.g., adoption rate, number of areas impacted, pesticide use, profitability) that will be used to measure the success of the project. A logic model for the entire project may be used. If you need further guidance with evaluation of extension projects, see www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/, www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/index.html, or www.nifa.usda.gov/about/strat_plan_logic_models.html.

• Research Projects: Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project, indicating how you will determine whether the anticipated impacts stated in “Objectives and Anticipated Impacts” above have been achieved. If measurement of these anticipated impacts will not be possible in the context of the proposed project, describe how the tactic or system you studied, once developed, might be incorporated into an existing crop management program on a large scale.

• Extension Projects and Joint Research-Extension Projects: Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project. Evaluation plans that include surveys should indicate survey expertise of investigators and/or describe the survey methodology that will be used.

• IPM Evaluation Projects: Evaluation plans are not required for IPM Evaluation Projects.

(v) Timetable or Timeline. 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.

(vi) Progress Report. For renewal applications (as defined in Part II.B.), a progress report must be included.

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

c. Field 12. Other Attachments.

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.

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.

Relevance Statement A Relevance Statement is required for Research, Extension, and Joint Research-Extension Project types. No Relevance Statement is required for the IPM Evaluation project type. The Relevance Statement may be no more than three pages, with one-inch margins on all sides and font no smaller than 12 point. The Relevance Statement must be submitted with the full application but as a separately attached PDF file under Field number 12.

Name the file “RELEVANCE [PDs last name].pdf.”

The Relevance Statement must describe the relevance of the project to S-RIPM program priorities discussed in Part I, B.2., “Southern Region Priorities”. Note: The Relevance Statement and the Project Summary form are the only documents seen by the Relevance Panel. Additional documentation will NOT be shown to the Relevance Panel. PDs are encouraged to quote from or otherwise refer to such supporting documents, if appropriate.

The Relevance Statement should contain, in this order:

(i) Names and institutions of PDs and major cooperators;

(ii) Project title;

(iii) Project type (choose one): Research; Extension; or Joint Research-Extension (Relevance Statement is not required for the IPM Evaluation project type);

(iv) Description of the problem, background, justification and an overview of the project approach;

(v) Anticipated outcomes and impacts. Describe the anticipated outcomes and potential impacts that could be associated with the fulfillment of your objectives (you may do this in table format).

Anticipated impacts should connect to the goals of the National Road Map for IPM, which are to advance the implementation of IPM to safeguard human health, safeguard the environment and promote economic benefits. You do not need to include a list of references, letters of support, budget, or other forms with the Relevance Statement, and any materials included beyond the three page limit will not be shown to the Relevance Panel; and

(vi) Describe how your project addresses each of the regional priorities outlined in Part I, B.2.

“Southern Region Priorities” of this RFA:

• Level of multi-state involvement in the project and potential multi-state impacts resulting from the project;

• Integration of appropriate tactics in a sustainable IPM system;

• Link to priorities explicitly identified by stakeholders in the Southern Region as being of high priority for IPM research and/or extension. Cite at least one source to demonstrate that this project addresses such a priority. NOTE: The Relevance Panel will see only the three page Relevance Statement and the Project Summary. You are encouraged to cite, quote from, or otherwise refer to appropriate documents; any documentation you attach as an appendix will NOT be provided to this panel; and

• Discuss why the IPM issue addressed by this project is important to the Southern Region by virtue of measures such as acreage, pesticide use, people affected, etc.

Letters of Support (optional). Attach as PDF. Note: Letters of support will not be viewed by the Relevance Panel, though they may be cited in the Relevance Statement. Letters of support will be viewed by members of the Technical Panel.

Scientific Peer Review Certification for Research and Joint Research-Extension Projects.

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 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 1.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 www.sripmc.org/RIPM/rfa10/grants_ripm_extras.cfm.

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 “Southern

RIPM” and the program code “QQ.S”.

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.

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.

http://www.sripmc.org/RIPM/rfa10/grants_ripm_extras.cfm

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. Failure to do so may result in the application not being considered for funding by the peer review panel.

Once the application has been assigned a proposal number, this number should be cited on all future correspondence.

D. Funding Restrictions

Pursuant to Section 1473 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (91 Stat. 981), indirect costs and tuition remission (sometimes called tuition/fees) are unallowable costs under Section 2(c)(1)(B) (research projects) and Section 3(d) of the Smith- Lever Act (extension projects), and no funds will be approved for this purpose. Costs that are a part of the institution’s indirect cost pool may not be reclassified as direct costs for the purpose of making them allowable.

NIFA 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.

E. Other Submission Requirements

The applicant should follow the submission requirements noted in Part IV, section 1.9 in the document entitled “NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.”

For information about the status of a submitted application, see Part III., section 6. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

PART V—APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

A. General

Subsection (c)(5) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C.

450i(c)), as amended by Section 212 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)(5)) requires applicants to arrange for a scientific peer review of their proposed research activities and joint research-extension activities in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary prior to the…