FY 2017 Methyl Bromide Transition Program.pdf

Methyl Bromide Transition Program

FY 2017 Request for Applications (RFA)

APPLICATION DEADLINE: April 25, 2017

ELIGIBILITY: See Part III, A of RFA

MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT: $500,000

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

METHYL BROMIDE TRANSITION PROGRAM

INITIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE: This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.303, Integrated Research, Education, and Extension

Competitive Grants Program.

DATES: Applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 25, 2017.

Applications received after this deadline will normally not be considered for funding (see Part IV, C of this RFA). 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: We at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) seek your comments about this RFA. We will consider your comments when we develop the next RFA for the program, if applicable, and we’ll use them 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)).

Submit your written stakeholder comments by the deadline set forth in the DATES portion of this notice via email to Policy@nifa.usda.gov. (This email address is only for receiving comments regarding this RFA and not for requesting information or forms.) In your comments, please state that you are responding to the Methyl Bromide Transition Program RFA.

Visit the NIFA website to access a factsheet on the Center of Excellence (COE) designation process, including COE criteria, and a list of programs that offered COE opportunities in FY 2017.

You may also review a recording of COE outreach webinars held in February and March of 2015 from the site. We will update COE webpages as appropriate.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: NIFA requests applications for the Methyl Bromide Transition

(MBT) Program for fiscal year (FY) 2017 to support the discovery and implementation of practical pest management alternatives for commodities and uses affected by the methyl bromide phase-out.

This program focuses on integrated projects that use a systems approach to deliver short- to medium-term solutions and economic analyses for all commodities impacted by the loss of methyl bromide. In FY 2017 applications are sought for the following project types:

1. Integrated Projects

2. Extension-Only Projects

3. State of the Commodity Projects

The anticipated amount available for grants in FY 2017 is approximately $1.8 million. This RFA is being released prior to the passage of an appropriations act for FY 2017. Enactment of additional continuing resolutions or an appropriations act may affect the availability or level of funding for this program.

mailto:Policy@nifa.usda.gov http://nifa.usda.gov/centers-excellence

This notice identifies the objectives for MBT program projects, deadline dates, funding information, eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, and application forms and associated instructions needed to apply for a MBT program grant.

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. Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research

PART III—ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants

B. Cost Sharing or Matching

C. Centers of Excellence

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

E. Application Disposition

PART VI—AWARD ADMINISTRATION

A. General

B. Award Notice

C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

D. Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research

E. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements

PART VII—AGENCY CONTACT

PART VIII—OTHER INFORMATION

A. Use of Funds; Changes

B. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards

C. Regulatory Information

D. Definitions

PART I—FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Legislative Authority and Background

Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998

(AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7626), as reauthorized by Section 7306 of the Food, Conservation, and

Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) (Pub. L. 110-246) and by Section 7302 of the Agricultural Act of

2014 (H.R. 2642; Pub. L. 113-79), authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a competitive grants program that provides funding for integrated, multifunctional agricultural research, extension, and education activities. Subject to the availability of appropriations to carry out this program, the Secretary may award grants to colleges and universities (as defined by section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977

(NARETPA) (7 U.S.C. 3103)), as amended, on a competitive basis for projects that address priorities in United States agriculture and involve integrated research, education, and extension activities, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the National Agricultural

Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB).

Section 7206 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended section 406(b) of

AREERA to add the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions as eligible to apply for grants under this authority. Section 7129 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) (Pub. L.

110-246) amended section 406(b) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7626(b)) adding Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACU) as eligible entities for competitive funds awarded under this authority (see Part III, A. for more information).

B. Purpose and Priorities

The MBT program directly aligns with the FY 2014-2018 USDA Strategic Plan and specifically addresses Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.2. The MBT program aligns with the USDA, Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Action Plan https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/ree-action-plan

Goal 1 Sub-goal 1A. The MBT program also directly supports the NIFA Strategic Plan for FY

2014-2018 (http://nifa.usda.gov/about/pdfs/strat_plan_2014.pdf) Science Goal 1 Sub-goal 1.1.

This RFA solicits applications for the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension

Competitive Grants Program, Methyl Bromide Transition (MBT). Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless gas that is used as an agricultural soil and structural fumigant to control a wide variety of pests. Methyl bromide depletes the stratospheric ozone layer and is classified as a Class I ozone-depleting substance. In accordance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Clean Air Act (www.epa.gov/air/caa), the United States government agreed to reduce methyl bromide production and net imports incrementally from the

1991 baseline until the complete phase-out in 2005. Since 2005, the only allowable exemptions are critical use exemptions (CUE), quarantine and pre-shipment exemptions (QPS).

The primary goal of the MBT program is to support the discovery and implementation of practical pest management alternatives to methyl bromide. The MBT program seeks to solve pest problems in key agricultural production and post-harvest management systems, processing facilities, and transport systems for which methyl bromide has been withdrawn or withdrawal is imminent. Proposals must integrate research and extension activities, or be extension only, and be designed to provide transitional alternatives which address immediate needs that have resulted http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/pdf/areeraact.pdf http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-2018.pdf https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/ree-action-plan http://nifa.usda.gov/about/pdfs/strat_plan_2014.pdf http://www.epa.gov/air/caa from the loss of availability of methyl bromide. State of the Commodity projects address the economic and pest management outcomes resulting from the transition from methyl bromide for a given commodity or process. The pressure to completely phase-out methyl bromide has created an urgent need for new economical and effective pest control tactics to control soil-borne and postharvest pests, and pests that must be controlled by the processing and shipping industries to meet regulatory standards. Proposals must include a description of the economic analysis of costs and efficacy of implementing the new replacement technology.

Applications submitted to the MBT program must incorporate appropriate integrated pest management (IPM) concepts of prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and suppression of pest populations. NIFA anticipates that funded projects will cover a broad range of new methodologies, technologies, systems and strategies for controlling economically important pests for which methyl bromide has been the only effective pest control option. Applications should only address systems solutions or strategic (multi-tactic) approaches, rather than focus on any single tactic for replacement of methyl bromide. Non-fumigant management options should be considered and evaluated where possible. Promising alternatives to methyl bromide must be evaluated under commercial or field-scale conditions for multiple years to ensure that positive results are not due, in part, to low pest pressure following many years of methyl bromide fumigation or variable environmental conditions. Performance of alternatives must be consistent over several production cycles and be technically and economically feasible when scaled-up from research plots to commercial scale. Projects should set a priority on enhancing grower/industrial user knowledge and adoption/implementation of appropriate methyl bromide replacement strategies through extension outreach and demonstrations relevant to real-world systems. All applications must include an objective that describes an economic analysis of the costs and efficacy of implementing the new replacement technology, and must also include a description of methods that will be used in the project to complete the economic analysis of the efficacy and affordability of the replacement strategy.

The MBT program encourages (but does not require) projects that develop content suitable for delivery through eXtension (https://extension.org/).

C. Program Area Description

The MBT program supports three project types:

Integrated projects focus on research for new alternatives and extension to encourage adoption and implementation of methyl bromide alternatives.

Extension-Only projects increase levels of adoption and implementation of pest management strategies by producers and growers.

State of the Commodity projects provide in-depth scientific and economic system review of how commodities have been impacted by the loss of methyl bromide. These projects should address the economic and pest management outcomes resulting from the transition from methyl bromide for a given commodity or process identified as a “critical use” between 2006 and 2016. These projects should be integrated projects.

https://extension.org/

Program Area Priority

In FY 2017, the MBT program seeks applications for projects to ensure that economically viable and environmentally sound alternatives to methyl bromide are in place and available as soon as possible for commodities that have been impacted by the phase-out of methyl bromide.

Applications also will be accepted to find alternatives for commodities that have current

Quarantine and Pre-shipment (QPS) Exemptions. All applications must include an economic analysis of the alternative methodology, and must describe the methods to evaluate the cost/benefit of making the transition to adoption of the new strategy and provide a clear economic analysis of all aspects of implementation of the new strategies.

Projects supporting the transition to an alternative type of cropping/storage/processing system that avoids the need for disinfestation with methyl bromide (e.g., transition to a covered system using soilless culture) will be considered if the alternative has the potential to serve as a viable short to medium-term solution for operations that are currently dependent on methyl bromide or have been impacted by the phase-out of methyl bromide.

Proposals that address integrated pest management issues in commodities not affected by the phase-out of methyl bromide and research-only proposals may be more appropriate for the

Applied Research and Development Program Area of the Crop Protection and Pest Management program (http://nifa.usda.gov/funding-opportunity/crop-protection-and-pest-management).

Applications submitted to the MBT program must address at least one or more of the following questions:

How can non-fumigant management options be developed and/or improved as part of a systems-based integrated pest management strategy?

What integrated strategies could be used to improve soil health, resulting in improved pest management in crops impacted by the loss of methyl bromide in the pre-harvest environment?

o Examples include altering the microbial community of the soil to favor beneficial microorganisms that could inhibit pests and pathogens; soil amendments to reduce pests;

and use of cover crops and rotations to reduce pest populations.

What strategies could be used in a systems-based integrated pest management approach to improve pest management in the post-harvest environments impacted by the loss of methyl bromide?

How can current methyl bromide alternatives be improved or combined to improve pest management and the economic viability of the producers?

Integrated Projects

If you are submitting an application for an integrated project (see Part II, C. for more information), research and extension goals must be incorporated into the proposed project and, as a general guideline, no more than two thirds of the project’s budget should be devoted to either function.

Extension programs, such as field demonstrations, grower trials, workshops, and distributed information, should result in obtaining commercial awareness, understanding and adoption of new technology and alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. Economic analysis of the proposed new strategy must be an integral part of the project. Also, include in your proposal: (1) the http://nifa.usda.gov/funding-opportunity/crop-protection-and-pest-management http://nifa.usda.gov/funding-opportunity/crop-protection-and-pest-management requirements listed below for integrated and extension-only projects and (2) the requirements listed below for all projects.

Extension-Only Projects

Extension-only projects should facilitate further adoption and implementation of practices to optimally manage pests in the absence of methyl bromide and lead to measurable behavior changes in the identified audience or stakeholder group. Project proposals may include development of extension materials and information delivery systems for outreach efforts, conducting field-scale or on-farm demonstrations, or delivery of IPM extension outreach and training. The existence of a research base relevant to the extension effort should be documented.

Economic analysis of the proposed new strategy must be an integral part of the project. Analyses of target population risk perception and economic constraints to adoption are essential for all extension-only projects. Also, include in your proposal the: (1) requirements listed below for integrated and extension-only projects and (2) requirements listed below for all projects.

Requirements for Integrated and Extension-Only projects:

Scalability. Research on alternatives must be at the commercial or field-scale over multiple season/cycles. Large-scale trials will be a key component of successful proposals, as they may identify variability, technical problems, and pest relationships pertinent to marketable yields that may not be evident in small plot trials.

Economic Analysis. Integrated and Extension-only projects must include an economic analysis with direct comparison of cost effectiveness of proposed alternatives in the absence of methyl bromide to no treatment. Additionally, an analysis of the overall transition cost to a new technology, from acquisition of materials and knowledge to efficacy metrics, is required.

o Analyses of profit margins should include information on the cost calculation, the cost/amount of the new technology and the value of the labor used, and any equipment needed for the application.

o Changes in revenues should also be identified (e.g., changes in the commodity price or more importantly, changes in quantity of the available commodity for marketing).

o The team submitting the application should include the appropriate expertise to conduct the economic analysis.

State of the Commodity Projects

NIFA solicits proposals for state of the commodity projects that evaluate current integrated pest management challenges and the economics of integrated pest management for commodities/processes where methyl bromide is no longer permitted. For the listing of commodities and industries that were registered for methyl bromide use, please see www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. State of the commodity proposals should document current conditions, successful coverage or gaps in pest management, yield changes and cost of management changes (positive, negative, or neutral) resulting from the phase out of methyl bromide for any specific commodity or industry. The successful grants of this type must be as inclusive as necessary to address the overall situation in the United States or regionally. Also, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html include in your proposal: the (1) requirements listed below for state of the commodity projects and (2) requirements listed below for all projects.

Requirements for State of the Commodity projects:

The project team must create a report that is accessible by the public within one year of the project end date and present the report at an appropriate forum, such as, the annual

International Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Conference.

Proposals should describe (1) how commodity stakeholders will be recruited into the study,

(2) the methods of data collection and analysis, and (3) where the data will be presented and published.

Requirements for all projects:

Justification. Applicants must provide a justification statement in the Project Narrative (see

Part IV, B., 3., b., (3)., (a). for more information): (1) to explain the issues and economic losses faced by their commodity since the phase-out of methyl bromide and (2) on how the proposed project could result in economically feasible methyl bromide alternatives.

Extension. Extension personnel involved in the project should be clearly identified in the proposal. Clearly delineate formal extension programs to expedite adoption and implementation of proposed alternatives in the proposal and clearly outline funding for these activities in the Budget Narrative.

Timeline. Timelines for completion of the major objectives in the application must be explicitly described for the entire project period which may range from one to three years from the start date. NIFA expects experiments to be replicated in at least two separate trials and results to be presented to the relevant user community within the time period of the project.

Logic model. All applicants are required to: (1) submit a project-specific logic model chart as part of each application and (2) explain how the proposed work supports the programmatic logic model chart provided in Figure 1. The logic model chart should detail the inputs, outputs (activities and participants), outcomes, situation, assumptions, and external factors of the proposed project. This information must be formatted into a logic model chart. See

Program Area Description (Part I, C.) and Application and Submission Information (Part IV, B., 3., b., (7)) for specific requirements for the inclusion of the logic model within the application. More information and resources related to the logic model planning process are provided at: www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/integrated/integrated_logic_model.html and www.ipm.gov/LogicModels.

Please note: The logic model chart for the MBT program (Figure 1) incorporates stakeholder input, anticipated outcomes, and appropriate elements. NIFA will use the logic model to guide the development of future funding priorities and to document the impact of investments made by the MBT program.

http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/integrated/integrated_logic_model.html http://www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/

Figure 1: Methyl Bromide Transition Logic Model Situation: Re-emerging diseases, insects, weeds and other pests continue to negatively impact U.S. agricultural commodities and industries impacted by the phase-out of methyl bromide. System-based methyl bromide alternatives that involve science-based IPM knowledge are needed to address the pest management needs in these communities.

Inputs

Outputs Outcomes -- Results

Participants

Activities and

Products

Short Medium Long

Annual appropriations

USDA

coordination

USDA intra-agency

U.S. government interagency

Program

Directors

Support Staff

Panel Managers

Review Panel members

Stakeholder and partner comments

Stakeholders

Producers and processors

Commodity groups

General public

Colleges and universities

Cooperative

Extension

University scientists and

Extension specialists

State agencies

Federal agencies

USDA-NIFA

Respond to authorization and appropriation

Publish RFA

Recruit panel managers and peer review panelists

Conduct peer review panel meetings

Award funds to meritorious applications

Promote the development of alternatives to methyl bromide

Communicate positive outcome to key stakeholders

Collect and communicate impact data

State of the commodity reports

Gap analysis reveals research needs

New options for management of commodity pests developed

Existing knowledge adapted to commodity systems

Current knowledge is applied to a strategic plan to eliminate methyl bromide between commodity producer and processors and researchers

Best management practices available for Extension to communicate to stakeholders

New knowledge applied to an evolving strategic plan

New alternatives to methyl bromide, both chemical and nonchemical, increasing in usage

Best management practices for integrated pest management adopted

New technologies and innovations for producers and processors being implemented

Economic feasibility and effective methyl bromide alternatives in use

Pests are controlled economically without the use of methyl bromide, complying with the

Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act

No further Critical

Use Nominations

(CUNs)/Critical Use

Exemptions (CUE) are needed

Increased production due to reduced pest losses

Reduced environmental risks from environmentally damaging pest control methods

Continued production of safe, affordable, and high-quality commodities

U.S. production practices adopt and implement appropriate alternatives to methyl bromide, assuring U.S.

producers a competitive place in the global marketplace

Assumptions

External Factors Proposals will address commodities and industries negatively impacted by the phase-out of methyl bromide.

Multidisciplinary teams include economic analysis of the tested alternative.

Integrated projects provide best management practices to producers and processors.

Congressional funding/appropriations.

EPA Pesticide Registration.

Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act.

MBTOC decisions.

Project Director Meeting. For all funded projects, at least one member of the project team is required to attend the annual International Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Conference

(MBAO) (www.mbao.org) starting with the second year of funding, or another relevant conference, if applicable. For the purposes of budget development, applicants are required to request funds to support participation in at least one MBAO conference or an alternative conference approved by NIFA. The request for these funds should be clearly indicated in the budget and budget narrative sections of the application.

http://www.mbao.org/

PART II—AWARD INFORMATION

A. Available Funding

The anticipated amount available for MBT grants in FY 2017 is approximately $1.8 million. This

RFA is being released prior to the passage of an appropriations act for FY 2017. Enactment of additional continuing resolutions or an appropriations act may affect the availability or level of funding for this program. There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular application or to make a specific number of awards.

The Automated Standard Applications for Payment System (ASAP), operated by the Department of Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, is the designated payment system for awards resulting from this RFA. For more information see https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/pmt/asap/asap_home.htm.

B. Types of Applications

In FY 2017, you may only submit a new or resubmitted application to the MBT program:

New application. This is a project application that has not been previously submitted to the MBT

Program. We will review all new applications competitively using the screening for administrative requirements, review panel evaluation of proposals using evaluation criteria and selection process described in Part V—Application Review Requirements.

Resubmitted application. This is an application that had previously been submitted to the MBT

Program but not funded. Project Directors (PDs) must respond to the previous review panel summary (see Response to Previous Review, Part IV). We must receive resubmitted applications by the relevant due dates. We will evaluate resubmitted applications in competition with other pending applications in the appropriate area to which they are assigned and review them according to the same evaluation criteria (Part V, B) as new applications.

C. Project Types

Three project types are being solicited in this RFA:

Integrated projects: must not exceed $500,000 total (including indirect costs) for a project period of up to three years.

Extension-Only projects: must not exceed $250,000 total (including indirect costs) for a project period of up to three years.

State of the Commodity projects: must not exceed $250,000 total (including indirect costs) for a project period of up to three years.

Applicants may submit a proposal for each type; however, when applicants submit three applications, the projects must be completely independent of one another and execution of the project should not rely on funding from another application. In accordance with Part III, Section 5 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide, duplicate, essentially duplicate or predominantly overlapping applications submitted to one of more NIFA programs in any one https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/pmt/asap/asap_home.htm fiscal year will not be reviewed.

All grants must include specifics about how economic analyses will be conducted and how the project will be relevant to the needs of the commodities that are/have transitioned from methyl bromide.

D. Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research

In accordance with sections 2, 3, and 8 of 2 CFR Part 422, institutions that conduct USDA-funded extramural research must foster an atmosphere conducive to research integrity, bear primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct, and maintain and effectively communicate and train their staff regarding policies and procedures. In the event an application to

NIFA results in an award, the Authorized Representative (AR) assures, through acceptance of the award that the institution will comply with the above requirements. Award recipients shall, upon request, make available to NIFA the policies, procedures, and documentation to support the conduct of the training. See https://nifa.usda.gov/responsible-and-ethical-conduct-research for more information.

https://nifa.usda.gov/responsible-and-ethical-conduct-research

PART III—ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants

Applications may only be submitted by colleges and universities (as defined in section 1404 of

NARETPA) (7 U.S.C. 3103) to the MBT Competitive Grants Program. Section 1404 of

NARETPA was amended by section 7101 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

(FCEA) to define Hispanic-serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACUs) and to include research foundations maintained by eligible colleges or universities. Section 406(b) of

AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7626), was amended by section 7206 of the Farm Security and Rural

Investment Act of 2002 to add the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions as eligible to apply for grants under this authority.

Award recipients may subcontract to organizations not eligible to apply provided such organizations are necessary for the conduct of the project. Failure to meet an eligibility criterion by the 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

In accordance with Section 1492 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching

Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3371), as added by section 7128 of the Agricultural Act of 2014

(Pub. L. 113-79), for grants awarded after Oct. 1, 2014, the recipient of an award from the MBT program must provide funds, in-kind contributions, or a combination of both, from sources other than funds provided through such grant in an amount that is at least equal to the amount awarded by NIFA unless one of the exemptions described herein is applicable. Note that NIFA included information at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/business/awards/matching_require.html to further assist you in determining if you must meet the new matching requirement.

The matching funds requirement does not apply to grants awarded:

1. To a research agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); or

2. To an entity eligible to receive funds under a capacity and infrastructure program (as defined in section 251(f)(1)(C) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, 7

U.S.C. 6971(f)(1)(C)), including a partner (see Part VIII, D., Definitions, for definition of partnership) of such an entity.

Entities eligible to receive funds under a capacity and infrastructure program and exempt from the matching funds requirement include:

a. 1862 land-grant institutions, including State Agricultural Experiment Stations receiving funding under the Hatch Act of 1887

b. 1890 land-grant institutions

c. 1994 land-grant institutions

d. Entities eligible to receive funds under the of Continuing Animal Health and Disease, Food

Security, and Stewardship Research, Education, and Extension Program Funds — Capacity and Infrastructure Program (CIP)

e. Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACU) http://www.nifa.usda.gov/business/awards/matching_require.html

f. Insular area schools eligible to receive funds from the Distance Education/Resident

Instruction Grant Programs

g. Entities eligible to receive funds under the of McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry

Program Funds

h. Non-Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA) – (for exemption from the new matching requirement, these applications must include NLGCA certification, see instructions for requesting certifications at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/form/form.html and for attaching the certification, in Part IV, B of this RFA)

i. Entities eligible to receive funds under a program established under Section 1417(b) of the

National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.

3152(b)), including: (1) 1890 Institution Teaching, Research, and Extension Capacity

Building Grants Program; (2) Higher Education Challenge Grants Program; (3) Higher

Education Multicultural Scholars Program; and (4) Food and Agricultural Sciences National

Needs Graduate and Postgraduate Fellowship Grants Program

j. Individual public or private, nonprofit Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving

Institutions of higher education (see 20 U.S.C. 1059d).

Proposal submissions to this RFA may indicate that multiple entities will complete work as a collaborative partnership. All partners must have a substantial involvement in the project throughout the life of the project. Proposals for partnerships among multiple entities must clearly identify the following:

1) A narrative that clearly establishes each entity’s role in the project;

2) How each project partner will contribute to execution of project objectives; determine experimental design; develop the project work plan and time table; and submit collaborative, timely reports; and

3) A comprehensive project budget that reflects each entity’s financial or third party in-kind contribution (see section 2 of 7 CFR 3430 or section 96 of 2 CFR part 200) to the total project budget costs.

If a proposal indicates that multiple entities, as partners, complete work on the project, and at least one entity is exempt from the matching requirement under #2 above, the entire project will be exempt from the matching requirement. Any partner entity may serve as the lead entity on the project. All partners must be significantly involved in the project.

NIFA will examine proposals recommended for award to determine if the proposed division of work reflects substantial involvement of all entities involved. If a proposal is recommended for award to a lead entity that is not otherwise exempt from the matching requirement, and the proposal does not reflect substantial involvement of at least one partner that is exempt under #2 above, then the matching requirement will apply. Exemption from the matching requirement for an entity not otherwise exempt is limited to the project for which it is a partner.

Waiver of Match: NIFA may waive the matching funds requirement for a recipient for one year for a competitive grant that involves research or extension activities that are consistent with the priorities established by the National Agricultural Research, Education, Extension and Economics

Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) for the year involved. Refer to the 2014 Research, Education and

Economics Action Plan to determine whether proposed activities are consistent with the priorities of the NAREEEAB. See R&R Budget under Part IV, B, of this RFA.

http://www.nifa.usda.gov/form/form.html https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/ree-action-plan https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/ree-action-plan

C. Centers of Excellence

Pursuant to Section 7214 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79), beginning in Fiscal

Year 2015, for applicable competitive research and extension programs, NIFA will recognize and provide priority in the receipt of funding to applications from “centers of excellence” that carry out research, extension, and education activities that relate to the food and agricultural sciences. NIFA held listening sessions in July 2014 and accepted written comments from stakeholders to inform

NIFA’s implementation of the Centers of Excellence (COE) provision. Information from the webinars and a summary of the input are available on NIFA’s website at http://nifa.usda.gov/centers-excellence.

A COE is composed of one or more of the following entities that provide financial or in-kind support to the COE.

(A) State agricultural experiment stations;

(B) Colleges and universities;

(C) University research foundations;

(D) Other research institutions and organizations;

(E) Federal agencies;

(F) National laboratories;

(G) Private organizations, foundations, or corporations;

(H) Individuals; or

(I) any group consisting of two or more of the entities described in (A) through (H).

http://nifa.usda.gov/centers-excellence

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.

We urge you to submit early to the Grants.gov system. For information about the pre-award phase of the grant lifecycle see http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grants-101/pre-award-phase.html.

New Users of Grants.gov

Prior to preparing an application, we recommend that the Project Director/Principal Investigator

(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 not (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 long 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 “Register,” in the top right corner of the Grants.gov web page (or go to http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html), for information on registering the institution/organization with Grants.gov. Part II, 1 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide contains detailed information regarding the registration process. Refer to item 2, below, to locate the “NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.”

Steps to Obtain Application Package Materials

To receive application materials:

1. You must download and install a version of Adobe Reader compatible with Grants.gov to access, complete, and submit applications. For basic system requirements and download instructions, see http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/adobe-software-compatibility.html. Grants.gov has a test package that will help you determine whether your current version of Adobe Reader is compatible.

2. To obtain the application package from Grants.gov, go to http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/download-application-package.html and enter the funding opportunity number

Funding Opportunity Number: USDA-NIFA-ICGP-006245

From the search result, click “Select Package” to access the application package. A Grant

Application Package is tied to a particular funding opportunity. You may submit an application ONLY to the particular funding opportunity to which the Grant Application

Package is associated.

Contained within the application package is the “NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.”

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/web/grants/learn-grants/grants-101/pre-award-phase.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grants-101/pre-award-phase.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html https://get.adobe.com/reader/ http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/adobe-software-compatibility.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/adobe-software-compatibility.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/download-application-package.html

If you require assistance to access the application package (e.g., downloading or navigating Adobe forms) or submitting the application, refer to resources available on the Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/applicant-tools-and-tips.html). Grants.gov assistance is also available at:

Grants.gov customer support

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 (see https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants): Top

10 requested help topics (FAQs), Searchable knowledge base, self-service ticketing and ticket status, and live web chat (available 7 a.m. - 9 p.m. EST).

Have the following information available when contacting Grants.gov:

Funding Opportunity Number (FON)

Name of agency you are applying to

Specific area of concern

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

You should prepare electronic applications following Parts V and VI of the NIFA Grants.gov

Application Guide. This guide is part of the corresponding application package (see Section A of this part). The following is additional information you need 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., PDF) in Part III, Section 3 of the guide. ANY

PROPOSALS THAT ARE NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS (e.g., content format, PDF file format, file name restrictions, and no password protected files)

WILL BE AT RISK OF BEING EXCLUDED FROM NIFA REVIEW. Grants.gov does not check for NIFA required attachments or whether attachments are in PDF format; see Part

III, Section 6.1 of the guide for how to check the manifest of submitted files. Partial applications will be excluded from NIFA review. We will accept subsequent submissions of an application until close of business on the closing date in the RFA (see Part V, 2.1 of the

NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide for further information).

For any questions related to the preparation of an application, review the NIFA Grants.gov

Application Guide and the applicable RFA. 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 a.m. – 5 p.m. EST, excluding federal holidays.

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/applicant-tools-and-tips.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/applicant-tools-and-tips.html http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/ mailto:support@grants.gov https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants mailto:electronic@nifa.usda.gov https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/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. See Part V, Section 2.18 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application

Guide for the required certifications and assurances (e.g., Prohibition Against Entities Requiring

Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements).

2. SF 424 R&R Project/Performance Site Location(s)

Detailed information related to the questions on this form is available in Part V, 3 of the NIFA

Grants.gov Application Guide.

3. R&R Other Project Information Form

Detailed information related to the questions on this form is available in Part V, 4 of the NIFA

a. Field 7. Project Summary/Abstract.

The project summary must list the names and institutions of the PD and co-PDs. In the first line of the summary, state the type of project you are submitting; for example, “This is an Integrated project” or “This is an Extension-Only project” or “This is a State of the Commodity project.”

The summary should also include the relevance of the project to the goals of MBT. If the proposal includes a Center of Excellence Justification, the Project Summary should include a statement, “This proposal includes a Center of Excellence Justification.” The Project Summary is limited to

250 words. Title the attachment as ‘Project Summary’ in the document header and save file as

‘Project Summary’. See Part V. 4.7 of NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide for further instructions and a link to a suggested template.

b. Field 8. Project Narrative.

NOTE: The Project Narrative shall not exceed 18 pages of written text, figures, and tables regardless of whether it is single- or double-spaced with font size no smaller than 12 point. We have established this maximum (18 pages) to ensure fair and equitable competition. The Project

Narrative must include all of the following:

(1) Response to Previous Review (if applicable): This requirement only applies to

Resubmitted Applications as described in Part II, B. PDs must respond to the previous review panel summary on no more than two (2) pages, titled “Response to Previous

Review”. This will not be counted against the page limit of the project narrative. Please provide the NIFA proposal number of the previous submission.

(2) Introduction:

(a) Must state the project type (Integrated, Extension-Only, State of the Commodity).

(b) Include a clear statement of the long-term goal(s) and list the objectives of the proposed project.

(c) Summarize the body of knowledge or past activities that substantiate the need for the proposed project including information about or reference to the specific critical issue pest management strategy or similar document with identifiable stakeholder input.

(d) Describe ongoing or recently completed activities significant to the proposed project including the work of key project personnel. Include preliminary data/information pertinent to the proposed project.

(e) All works cited should be referenced (see Bibliography & References Cited (Part IV, B.,

c. Field 9).

(3) Rationale and Significance:

(a) Concisely present the rationale behind the proposed project. Applicants must provide a justification statement: (1) to explain the issues and economic losses faced by their commodity since the phase-out of methyl bromide and (2) how the proposed project could result in economically feasible methyl bromide alternatives.

(b) Include the economic and yield losses faced by the commodity or industry due to the loss of methyl bromide.

(c) Present a clear, concise set of project objectives including cost/benefit analysis of new approaches. For Extension projects: what is the value of adopting the new technology? Any novel ideas or contributions that the proposed project offers should also be discussed in this section.

(4) Objectives:

(a) Provide clear, concise descriptions of the specific objectives of the proposed project.

Clearly number the objectives.

(b) The objectives must include the description of the appropriate economic analysis for the respective project type. Integrated and Extension-Only proposals must include the methodology and design for the economic analysis. State of the Commodity proposals must include the description and design of the evaluation of the economics of the methyl bromide transition and replacement technology.

(5) Approach: The activities proposed or problems being addressed must be clearly stated and the approaches applied must be clearly described. Specifically, this section must include:

(a) A description of the activities proposed and the sequence in which the activities are to be performed.

(b) Methods to be used in carrying out the proposed project, including the feasibility of the methods.

(c) Expected outcomes. Applicants must provide milestones and verifiable indicators to measure impact across a broad range of criteria (e.g., a timeline for grower adoption of techniques that lead to production, economic, and environmental benefits).

(d) Means by which results will be analyzed, assessed, or interpreted. Applicants must describe plans to evaluate the outreach component, including means by which data will be analyzed and interpreted, and details of plans to communicate results to stakeholders and the public.

(e) Pitfalls that may be encountered.

(f) Limitations to proposed procedures.

(g) Description of stakeholder involvement in identification of project priorities, their implementation and adoption.

(6) Project Timeline: Provide a timeline for attainment of objectives and for production of deliverables that includes annual milestones with specific, measurable outcomes. Outline all important phases as a function of time, year by year, for the entire project, including periods beyond the grant funding period.

(7) Cooperation and institutional involvement: Cooperative, multi-institutional and multidisciplinary applications are encouraged. Where applicable, identify each institutional unit contributing to the project and designate the lead institution or institutional unit. Clearly define the programmatic roles, responsibilities and budget for each institutional partner.

(8) Logic Model: Required. Two-Page Limit. All applications require submission of a logic model chart. See the specific requirements for logic models in Part I, C. The project-specific logic model must provide details for the inputs, outputs (activities and participants), and outcomes, situation, assumptions, and external factors of the proposed project. The logic model planning process is a tool that should be used to develop your project before writing your application. This information should be formatted into a logic model chart. Refer to the logic model chart in your project description, evaluation plans, and elsewhere, as applicable. Title the attachment as ‘Logic Model’ and save file as

‘LogicModel’ and attach at Field 12. Other Attachments. For samples and templates see www.ipm.gov/LogicModels; additional information is available on the NIFA and

University of Wisconsin web sites:

www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/integrated/integrated_logic_model.html ;

https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/logic-model-planning-process; and http://fyi.uwex.edu/programdevelopment/.

(9) Summary of Previous Work on Methyl Bromide Alternatives: Provide a summary of your work on methyl bromide alternatives that was previously funded from all sources (if applicable), progress toward completion, general conclusions and remaining funds balances.

(10) Center of Excellence Justification:

For consideration as a COE, you must provide a brief justification statement, as part of your

Project Narrative and within the page limits provided, which describes how you meet the standards of a COE, based on the following criteria:

(A) The ability of the COE to ensure coordination and cost effectiveness by reducing unnecessarily duplicative efforts in the research, teaching, and extension activities outlined in this application;

(B) In addition to any applicable matching requirements, the ability of the COE to leverage available resources by using public-private partnerships among agricultural industry groups, institutions of higher education, and the federal government in the proposed research and/or extension activities…