FY2017_CPPM_final _modified.pdf

Crop Protection and Pest Management

Competitive Grants Program

MODIFIED: Page 30, Added “Response to Previous Review”

03/21/2017

FY 2017 Request for Applications (RFA)

APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 9, 2017

ELIGIBILITY: See Part III, A of RFA

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

AGRICULTURE

CROP PROTECTION AND PEST MANAGEMENT COMPETITIVE GRANTS

PROGRAM

INITIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE: This program is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.329, Integrated Research, Education, and

Extension Competitive Grants Program.

DATES: Applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 9, 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 Crop Protection and Pest Management 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 Crop Protection and Pest

Management (CPPM) Competitive Grants Program for fiscal year (FY) 2017 to address critical state, regional and national integrated pest management (IPM) needs to ensure food security and respond effectively to other major societal pest management challenges. The CPPM program supports projects that address these challenges with IPM approaches developed by coordinated state, regional, and national research and extension efforts. The impact of these research and extension efforts will be increased by the establishment of communication networks and stakeholder participation in setting priorities. In FY 2017, NIFA will competitively solicit only the Applied Research and Development Program Area (ARDP) and the Extension

Implementation Program Area (EIP) applications under the CPPM program. NIFA will fund current Regional Coordination Program Area (RCP) projects through continuation proposals.

The anticipated amount available for grants in FY 2017 is approximately $4.1 for ARDP and

$8.0 million for EIP. This RFA is being released prior to the passage of an appropriations act for mailto:Policy@nifa.usda.gov http://nifa.usda.gov/centers-excellence

FY 2017. Enactment of additional continuing resolutions or an appropriations act may affect the availability or level of funding for this program.

Applied Research and Development Program Area (ARDP)

a. Project Period – Two to four years.

b. Budget – Budgets may not exceed $200,000 for applications with PDs from one state/U.S.

territory. Budgets may not exceed $325,000 for applications with Project Directors (PDs) from more than one state/U.S. territory. There is an exception to the $200,000 maximum budget for PD(s) from one state or U.S. territory who are studying a major crop/commodity of regional or national importance that is produced only or predominately in one state or

U.S. territory and as a result multistate collaboration is not practical. This situation applies primarily to the Western Region where major crops/commodities are grown only or predominately in one state or U.S. territory. Please contact the National Program Leader

Programmatic Contact to determine if your project is eligible for this exception and a higher budget up to the $325,000 maximum budget.

c. Depending on the size of project budget requests, NIFA anticipates making in the range of

12 to 18 new ARDP awards.

d. Purpose – To enhance the development, adoption, and implementation of innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM tactics and strategies that address regional and/or national IPM priorities.

All funds for ARDP awards will be provided in year one of the project.

Extension Implementation Program Area (EIP)

a. Project Period – Three years.

b. Budget – Awards may not exceed $900,000 per project. The Consolidated Appropriations

Act of 2016 provided NIFA with the following directive for EIP awards: “Provided further, that notwithstanding any other provision of law, indirect costs shall not be charged against any Extension Implementation Program Area grant awarded under the Crop Protection/Pest

Management Program (7 U.S.C. 7626).” For this reason, no indirect costs may be reimbursed from EIP awards in FY 2017.

c. Depending on the size of project budget requests, NIFA anticipates making in the range of

30 to 60 awards.

d. Purpose – To assure the implementation of IPM through extension activities and coordination with other EIP grantees and other CPPM program areas based on defined state, multi-state, regional, national, or international needs.

EIP awards will be administered as continuation projects (i.e., funding will be provided in one-year increments). Funding after year one will be dependent on legislative authority, availability of annual appropriations, and satisfactory progress.

This notice identifies the objectives for CPPM projects, deadline dates, funding information, eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, and application forms and associated instructions needed to apply for a CPPM 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. Center of Excellence Status

D. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

E. Organizational Management Information

F. 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

E. Materials Available on the Internet

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 purpose of the CPPM program is to address high priority issues related to pests (including insects, nematodes, pathogens, weeds, and other pests) and their management using integrated pest management (IPM) approaches at the state, regional and national levels. The CPPM program supports projects that will ensure food security and respond effectively to other major societal pest management challenges with comprehensive IPM approaches that are economically viable, ecologically prudent, and safe for human health. The CPPM program addresses IPM challenges for emerging issues and existing priority pest concerns that can be addressed more effectively with new and emerging technologies. The outcomes of the CPPM program are effective, affordable, and environmentally-sound IPM practices and strategies needed to maintain agricultural productivity and healthy communities.

The CPPM program provides support for research to develop new IPM approaches, extension to disseminate IPM knowledge and improve adoption of IPM practices, and coordination of IPM activities at the regional and national levels to increase the adoption and implementation of IPM practices on a broad scale. The CPPM program provides support for these functions with three linked programs that emphasize research and development for discovery of IPM knowledge;

extension activities for IPM adoption and implementation; and enhanced coordination, collaboration and communications among related CPPM programs and awardees. Together the

Applied Research and Development Program Area (ARDP), the Extension Implementation

Program Area (EIP), and the Regional Coordination Program Area (RCP) represent a comprehensive approach for developing IPM practices and strategies and extending this new knowledge across many environments through a coordinated national network. It is anticipated that the application of this evidence-based science will have positive outcomes for society.

In FY 2017, NIFA is soliciting new applications for two of the three program areas supported by the CPPM program, ARDP and EIP. New applications are not being solicited for the third program area (RCP) in FY 2017; RCP projects selected in a previous competition will be supported with continuation awards.

(1) Applied Research and Development Program Area. ARDP funds projects that develop new IPM tactics, technologies, practices, and strategies. ARDP Applied Research (single-function) projects develop innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM strategies and systems that address regional and/or national IPM priorities. ARDP Research-led projects enhance the adoption of innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM strategies and systems. ARDP

Extension-led projects increase levels of implementation of innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM strategies and systems by IPM practitioners and growers. For ARDP applications submitted for projects in agricultural settings, IPM projects in both conventional and organic production systems are appropriate.

(2) Extension Implementation Program Area. EIP funds projects based on combinations of primary and secondary priorities intended to increase IPM implementation among the clientele served. Proposed activities in EIP should implement new IPM strategies and improve implementation of known IPM strategies.

National IPM Roadmap

The CPPM program is aligned with the IPM goals identified in the National IPM Roadmap for

Integrated Pest Management (National IPM Roadmap). The National IPM Roadmap identifies strategic directions for IPM research, implementation, and measurement for pests in all settings throughout the nation (see http://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/National%20Road%20Map%20for%20Integrate d%20Pest%20Management.pdf). In FY 2017, successful CPPM program applicants will develop knowledge and information and improved IPM practices needed for the adoption and implementation of IPM methods that have the following National IPM Roadmap goals:

Improve cost-benefit analyses when adopting IPM practices;

Reduce potential human health risks and related management strategies;

Minimize adverse environmental effects from pests and related management strategies.

http://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/National%20Road%20Map%20for%20Integrated%20Pest%20Management.pdf http://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/National%20Road%20Map%20for%20Integrated%20Pest%20Management.pdf

Schematic Representation of the CPPM Program’s Desired Outcomes and Goals

Figure 1. The three CPPM program areas at the center of the figure address IPM needs in the five focus areas described below, thereby contributing to the achievement of the five goals of the

National IPM Roadmap shown in the outer ring of Figure 1. and sustainable food security.

The CPPM program, through its three component CPPM program areas (ARDP, EIP, and RCP), will address overall IPM needs in the five following focus areas as funding is available.

1) Plant Protection Tactics and Tools. This focus area represents the need for discovery, development, and introduction of new pest management tactics for use in IPM systems.

2) Diversified IPM Systems. This focus area represents the need for long-term sustainable solutions to pest management problems on a regional or national scale.

3) Enhancing Agricultural Biosecurity. This focus area represents the need to develop and maintain key information systems, networks, and decision support tools that provide the knowledge infrastructure needed for early detection and the application of science-based

IPM systems for invasive, emerging and high-consequence pests that threaten U.S.

agriculture. For example, early warning and decision support systems such as the Pest

Information Platform for Extension and Education (ipmPIPE) have a direct effect on biosecurity.

4) IPM for Sustainable Communities. This focus area represents the need for direct application of IPM knowledge and expertise to address pest management challenges in non-traditional settings such as urban structures, landscapes and gardens, homes and schools.

5) Development of the Next Generation of IPM Scientists. This focus area represents the need to develop pre-doctoral and post-doctoral education programs to prepare the next generation of IPM scientists.

For more detailed descriptions of the focus areas, see:

http://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/Crop%20Protection%20Focus%20Areas.pdf.

In FY 2017, the CPPM program will provide funding for Plant Protection Tactics and

Tools (focus area one), Enhancing Agricultural Biosecurity (focus area three), and IPM for

Sustainable Communities (focus area four). Applicants should clearly identify which

CPPM focus area(s) their proposal addresses. See Part IV, B., 3., a. for where the CPPM focus area(s) and goals should be placed in the Project Summary.

CPPM Logic Model: The programmatic logic model chart for the CPPM program (Figure 2) incorporates stakeholder input; anticipated outcomes; appropriate elements from IPM logic models from previously funded NIFA IPM programs; goals for the REE Action Plan; goals for

USDA and NIFA strategic plans; and goals for the National IPM Roadmap. NIFA will use the programmatic logic model chart to guide the development of future funding priorities and to document the impact of investments made by the CPPM program.

Please Note: All applicants are required to: (1) submit a project-specific logic model chart as part of each application and (2) explain how their project-specific logic model supports the

CPPM programmatic logic model chart (Figure 2). See Program Area Description (Part I, C., items 1-2) and Application and Submission Information (Part IV, B., 3.d.) for specific logic model requirements. The project-specific logic model chart must provide details for the inputs, outputs (activities and participants), and outcomes of the proposed project. The logic model chart must also include the project specific situations, assumptions, and external factors statements.

See the CPPM program logic model (Figure 2) below to see where you should place these elements in the logic model. For more general information on logic model charts, see www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/index.cfm.

http://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/Crop%20Protection%20Focus%20Areas.pdf http://www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/index.cfm

Figure 2. Crop Protection and Pest Management Program Logic Model Situation: Emerging diseases, insects, weeds and other pests continue to negatively impact U.S. agricultural production, natural areas, and urban settings including places where people live, work, and attend school. Obtaining new science-based IPM knowledge and extending that knowledge with effective, affordable, and environmentally-sound IPM strategies at the local, state, regional and national levels are needed to address these priority IPM challenges.

Inputs Outputs Outcomes/Results

Participants Activities / Products Short Term Medium Term Long Term

Legislative authority

Annual appropriation

USDA involvement

NIFA intra-agency coordination

Multi-state projects

Program directors

Support staff

Panel Managers

Peer Review Panels

Stakeholder and partner comments

Stakeholders

Commodity associations

Public interest groups

Farmers

Ranchers

General public

NGOs

End users or consumers

Underserved individuals or communities

Land-grant university partners

Cooperative Extension

Research, teaching and extension faculty

State agencies

Federal agencies

USDA-NIFA

Other allied state and federal agencies

Regional IPM stakeholders eXtension CoPs

NGOs

Public interest groups

Respond to Congressional authorization and appropriation

Publish RFA

Recruit panel managers and peer review panelists

Conduct peer review panel meetings

Award funds to meritorious applications

Support IPM research to address priority IPM needs

Promote collaborative team-building through national and regional coordination meetings and activities and broad-based stakeholder participation

Promote the development and implementation of IPM by facilitating coordination and collaboration across states, disciplines and programs

Establish and maintain pest management information networks

Build partnerships and address challenges and opportunities

Develop notable IPM training programs and foster their sustainability

Review and evaluate impacts of IPM implementation and communicate successes

Communicate positive outcomes to key stakeholders

Manage funding resources effectively

Collect program impact data

Increase knowledge and adoption of new IPM tools and tactics in integrated strategies for

IPM

Adapt existing science-based IPM knowledge to new pest scenarios and foster sound IPM solutions

Engage broadest possible IPM scientific, extension, and education communities in challenges faced by IPM

Engage new stakeholder communities challenged by pest issues who could benefit from IPM

Facilitate production of audience-appropriate information/training materials including mobile, web-based, and other digital, as well as traditional formats

Facilitate communication among the scientific IPM community and among the research, teaching and extension communities, practitioners, stakeholders, and consumers in a proactive communication strategy

Facilitate production of original materials and collaboration with existing or new eXtension CoPs

Innovative and diversified IPM systems are implemented on an area-wide or landscape scale

Key information systems, networks, and decision-support tools are adopted for emerging and high-consequence pests and diseases. Enhanced coordination and responsiveness of IPM research, education, and extension effort for critical, priority pest management and food security challenges

New stakeholders are using IPM; Stakeholders are using more advanced IPM best management practices

Producers and processors adopt newly developed IPM technologies and innovations

Regional and national trans-disciplinary systems approaches are being used to solve IPM problems

A new generation of research and extension scientists capable of and adept at working in effective, trans-disciplinary regional and national teams are in place

Networks improve information flow among IPM components, among stakeholders, and among IPM research, education, and extension communities

Stakeholders can document why IPM was beneficial for them and the environment

Crop protection systems are more profitable with IPM

Agricultural production increased through reduced pest and disease losses

Cost benefit ratios of adopting IPM practices are improved

Sustainable IPM practices are implemented

Human health and environmental risks from managing pests are reduced

U.S. food producers are more competitive globally

Global capacity to meet growing food demand improved

Safe, affordable and high-quality crops are widely available to consumers

Hunger is reduced through improved food security in vulnerable populations

Effective, affordable, and environmentally-sound IPM strategies are in place to reduce economic, environmental, and societal losses from pests and diseases that affect crops and livestock, human well-being and community vitality

Coordinated state-based, region-wide and national research, education, and extension programs function as catalysts for promoting further development and use of new IPM approaches

Assumptions:

Sustainability is a foundation of integrated pest management (IPM).

IPM plays a significant role in U.S. agricultural production.

Complementary and coordinated state, regional and national approaches are needed in obtaining increased adoption of IPM in agricultural, natural and urban settings.

External Factors:

Congressional appropriations/funding Stakeholder input Emerging and critical issues requiring IPM practices and technologies New pests and pathogens

C. Program Area Description

1. Applied Research and Development Program Area

Program Code – ARDP

Proposed Budget Requests – Budgets may not exceed $200,000 for applications with PDs from one state/U.S. territory. Budgets may not exceed $325,000 for applications with Project Directors

(PDs) from more than one state/U.S. territory. There is an exception to the $200,000 maximum budget for PD(s) from one state or U.S. territory who are studying a major crop/commodity of regional or national importance that is produced only or predominately in one state or U.S. territory and as a result multistate collaboration is not practical. This situation applies primarily to the Western Region where major crops/commodities are grown only or predominately in one state or U.S. territory. Please contact the National

Program Leader Programmatic Contact to determine if your project is eligible for this exception and a higher budget up to the $325,000 maximum budget. (See table below and

Multi-State/U.S. territory and/or Regional/National Involvement located in this section).

Project Period – Two to four years

Requested Project Type – The ARDP supports three project types:

Applied research (single-function) projects develop innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM strategies and systems that address regional and/or national IPM priorities.

Research-led projects enhance the adoption of innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable

IPM strategies and systems.

Extension-led projects extend implementation of innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable

IPM strategies and systems by IPM practitioners and growers.

Please Note – Project proposals must indicate in the Project Summary whether the project is applied research (single-function), research-led, or extension-led.

Program Area Contact – Dr. Herbert Bolton, (202) 401-4201 or hbolton@nifa.usda.gov.

Maximum Award for Each ARDP Project

Project Directors Maximum Award

Project Directors (PDs) from one state/U.S.

territory. *See exception below in paragraph on Multi-State/U.S. Territory and/or

Regional/National Involvement.

$200,000

PDs from more than one state/U.S. territory or

PDS from one state/U.S. territory addressing a major crop/commodity predominately produced in one state/U.S. territory.

$325,000 mailto:hbolton@nifa.usda.gov

Program Area Priorities

Applied Research (single-function) Projects

Applied Research (single-function) projects develop the foundation of IPM knowledge needed for on-going IPM adoption and implementation efforts. Applied Research (single-function) projects develop innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM strategies and systems that address regional and/or national IPM priorities.

Applied Research (single-function) priorities include: 1) development of individual tools and tactics needed for pest management systems (e.g., biocontrol, cultural/physical/mechanical control, host plant resistance, and particularly novel uses of chemicals, monitoring methods or decision support) or 2) increased understanding of how interactions among tactics alter the effectiveness of pest management within agricultural, recreational, suburban, and urban ecosystems. The experimental approach for ARDP proposals should emphasize field-scale experiments over multiple seasons and/or locations, where appropriate. IPM practices should be designed to reduce initial pest populations, lower the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for pests, increase tolerance of hosts to pest injury, and/or provide tools for making management decisions, such as monitoring methods and action thresholds.

Long-term fundamental research is not appropriate for funding in this category. We encourage research on novel, cutting-edge methods, for which data exist to support the likelihood of successful IPM research and adoption. Research involving chemical pesticides should be designed to reduce the amount applied, frequency of applications, increase the selectivity, reduce the risks associated with their use, and/or develop novel resistance management strategies.

Project proposals should be designed to minimize adverse impacts on beneficial organisms and to limit buildup of resistant pest populations. Proposals should clearly describe how the tactic or

IPM system, once developed, can be incorporated into an existing production or management system. Proposals should also clearly describe the economic, social, and environmental benefits of the proposed IPM strategies, and identify ways to overcome constraints to greater adoption of

IPM methods by users.

The following are examples of possible topic areas that could be addressed by Applied Research

(single-function) proposals. Identification of these topic areas is not intended to be exclusionary and should not deter submission of applications that address other topic areas appropriate for

Applied Research (single-function) projects.

Documenting (measuring) the impacts of IPM adoption;

Developing an effective strategy or tactic for a pest problem that currently limits production efficiency in a plant or animal production system, and is recognized by the user community as a key priority;

Addressing multiple cycles of pests (arthropods, nematodes, vertebrates, pathogens, or weeds) over seasons, and/or multiple species and complexes at the landscape or ecosystem level (agricultural production, urban, or natural systems) with consideration of the interactions of the entire system;

Promoting biological diversity in pest management systems and integration of multiple pest management tactics;

Identifying constraints to greater adoption of IPM strategies and developing approaches to overcome these constraints;

Promoting an interdisciplinary, IPM systems approach;

Developing effective pest management tactics for invasive pests (arthropods, nematodes, vertebrates, pathogens, or weeds) in cropping systems and natural and urban areas; and

Developing projects that enhance the development of innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM strategies and systems for current and/or emerging pests of national importance.

Research-led Projects

Research-led projects primarily address the priorities identified for Applied Research (single-function) projects (listed above), but at least 20 percent of project effort must be focused on the topic areas identified for Extension-led projects (listed below). Proposals should clearly describe how Extension personnel will be involved at the beginning of project planning and how the

Extension activities will be conducted concurrently with research activities throughout the life of the project.

Extension-led Projects

Extension-led projects enhance outreach efforts and maximize opportunities to build strategic alliances with stakeholders to expand their active participation in increasing the implementation of IPM methods.

Extension-led priorities include: 1) development of extension materials and information delivery systems for outreach efforts, 2) implementation of field-scale or on-farm demonstrations, and 3) delivery of IPM extension outreach and training. Extension-led proposals should document the existence of a research-base relevant to the extension effort. ARDP funding is not intended to support ongoing extension programmatic efforts. At least 20 percent of project effort should be focused on the topic areas identified for Applied Research (single-functions) projects (listed above).

Examples of possible topic areas covered in Extension-led proposals are listed below.

Identification of these topic areas is not intended to be exclusionary and should not deter submission of applications that address other topic areas appropriate to Extension-led priorities.

Providing IPM outreach and training to individuals involved with the production, processing, storage, transporting, and marketing of food and agricultural commodities;

Developing educational materials and information delivery systems that provide IPM personnel in the public and private sectors with timely, state-of-the-art information about effective IPM strategies;

Providing outreach on endangered species protection related to IPM;

Developing IPM programs for urban and natural systems, and address human and environmental health issues when appropriate; and

Enhancing the development and implementation of innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM strategies and systems for current and/or emerging pests of national importance.

Successful ARDP applications will fully address each of the following:

Stakeholder-Identified IPM Needs. Proposals should address IPM needs identified by diverse regional and national stakeholders. Applications must include at least one explicit citation that documents the specific stakeholder-identified needs addressed by the proposed project. Clearly reference identified needs with corresponding citations. The citation of stakeholder IPM needs is important because it demonstrates that a project is both important to stakeholders and that PDs are engaged with the stakeholder community. Sources of stakeholder-identified needs include, but are not limited to:

o Needs identified by the Regional IPM Centers. See:

www.ncipmc.org/grants/stakeholder_priorities.php www.northeastipm.org/grant-programs/stakeholder-priorities www.sripmc.org/Policy/Priorities, westernipm.org/index.cfm/center-grants/priorities/;

o Needs identified in crop profiles. See www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles;

o Needs identified in Pest Management Strategic Plans. See www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp;

o Recommendations or reports from state IPM programs;

o Recommendations from relevant IPM research and/or extension multi-state committees;

o IPM needs from Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension (SARE) sub-regional conferences;

o Recommendations from other IPM stakeholder groups; and o Other documented IPM needs assessment evaluations.

Letters of support and collaboration from stakeholders may be submitted; however, letters of support do not satisfy the requirement that the applications must include at least one explicit citation that documents the specific stakeholder-identified needs addressed by the proposed project.

Multi-State/U.S. Territory and/or Regional/National Involvement. Proposals must address regional and/or national IPM priorities and should include multi-state, regional, and national collaborations for purposes of efficiency, economy, and synergy. All applications, including those with PDs from one state or U.S. territory, must clearly describe how the project will provide benefits to more than one state or U.S. territory. Multi-state/U.S.

territory, regional, and national proposals must describe the role of each collaborating partner in enough detail to convince the peer reviewers of the application that the multi-state/U.S.

territory collaboration is meaningful. Projects undertaken by PDs in a single state/U.S.

territory will be accepted, but the expected benefits for other states/U.S. territories must be described (see Part III, A., Eligible Applicants). *There is an exception to the $200,000 maximum budget for PD(s) from one state or U.S. territory who are studying a major http://www.ncipmc.org/grants/stakeholder_priorities.php http://www.northeastipm.org/grant-programs/stakeholder-priorities http://www.sripmc.org/Policy/Priorities http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/center-grants/priorities/ http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/ http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/ http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/ crop/commodity that is produced only or predominately in one state or U.S. territory and as a result multistate collaboration is not practical. This situation applies primarily to the Western Region where major crops/commodities are grown only or predominately in one state or U.S. territory. Please contact the National Program

Leader Programmatic Contact to determine if your project is eligible for this exception and a higher budget up to the $325,000 maximum budget. When a proposal involves a crop/commodity that is of regional or national importance and is produced predominately in one state/U.S. territory, the proposal must include documentation that the crop/commodity is grown predominately in one state/U.S. territory and must describe why multistate collaboration is impractical.

Multi-Disciplinary and Systems-Oriented. Proposals should promote cooperative efforts across appropriate disciplines, with linkages between research and extension efforts, and components of existing or emerging pest management systems. The proposal must describe the role of each member of the multi-disciplinary team and their responsibilities to the project.

Systems Approach. Proposals should describe a plan for enhancing the development, adoption, and implementation of innovative, ecologically-based, sustainable IPM strategies and systems. The IPM strategies that are developed should have the potential to significantly enhance and protect environmental quality, reduce the risk of health problems and other problems associated with pest control practices, promote biological diversity in pest management systems, and integrate multiple pest management tactics. The primary emphasis of the proposed project should be to enhance productivity and profitability while addressing critical environmental quality and human health issues. Proposals may address major acreage agricultural production systems, high value crops such as key fruit and vegetable systems, animal production systems, urban systems, or other agro-ecosystems including natural areas.

For ARDP applications submitted for projects in agricultural settings, IPM projects in both conventional and organic production systems are appropriate.

Implementation Plan. Proposals must include a plan for implementation of results generated by the project, and a plan for measuring and assessing adoption, implementation, and potential impact using cost-effective approaches and criteria.

Timeline. Proposals must include a detailed timeline with key milestones for the project objectives and other important project tasks.

Logic Model. Proposals must include a project-specific logic model chart, and explain how the project-specific logic model chart supports the CPPM programmatic logic model (see

Application and Submission Information, Part IV, B., 3., d. The project-specific logic model chart must provide details for the inputs, outputs (participants and activities/products), outcomes/results (short term, medium term, and long term), situations, assumptions, and external factors of the proposed project.

Coordination. Successful applicants must participate in appropriate Hatch Multistate IPM

Education/Extension and Research Activities (e.g., NCERA222, NEERA1604, SERA3, and

WERA1017. See the National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS) at www.nimss.org for information on these committees and other relevant research multi-state committees, and the regional IPM centers for other regional programmatic efforts coordinated by regional IPM centers. The purpose of these coordination opportunities is to facilitate collaboration and cooperation; move research results to actual application through IPM adoption and implementation; and achieve CPPM program outcomes.

Partnerships. Applicants are strongly encouraged to develop partnerships that include collaboration with small- or mid-sized, accredited colleges and universities; 1890 land-grant institutions; 1994 land-grant institutions; Hispanic-serving institutions; Hispanic-serving

Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACUs); and/or other institutions that serve high-risk, under-served, or hard-to-reach audiences.

National IPM Roadmap. Proposals should address in the project narrative and the project-specific logic model chart applicable goals identified by the National IPM Roadmap for

Integrated Pest Management (see http://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/National%20Road%20Map%20for%20Integr ated%20Pest%20Management.pdf).

Project Director (PD) Workshop. Successful applicants, or a designee, are required to participate in a PD workshop during the term of their project. The regional IPM centers will organize and conduct these project director workshops in each region. The regional IPM centers may hold this workshop in conjunction with another conference or separately from any other meeting. For the purpose of budget development, applicants are required to request funds for attending this workshop. The request for these funds should be clearly indicated in the budget narrative section of the application. Applicants may contact their regional IPM center for more details on upcoming project director workshops.

Other ARDP Program Area Information

The ARDP extension-led projects are separate from extension projects funded in the Extension

Implementation Program Area (EIP) and are generally not as mature, are more narrowly focused, and/or are outside the scope of EIP.

2. Extension Implementation Program Area

Program Code – EIP

Proposed Budget Requests – Budgets must not exceed $300,000 per year and $900,000 per project. This program area is limited to one application per institution per year and each application must include an endorsement letter. For details see: Part IV., B., 3., b. Proposals

Submitted to the Implementation Program Area, (7). Project Period – Three years

Requested Project Type – Extension implementation. This program will support an extension

IPM coordination project at eligible institutions. Applications submitted to EIP should describe http://www.nimss.org/ http://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/National%20Road%20Map%20for%20Integrated%20Pest%20Management.pdf http://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/National%20Road%20Map%20for%20Integrated%20Pest%20Management.pdf institution-based programs that are extension-led, but may include research-demonstration components. Any research activities must be directly related to the extension program. No more than 20 percent of a project’s activities may be research-led.

Program Area Contact – Dr. Herbert Bolton, (202) 401-4201 or hbolton@nifa.usda.gov

Program Area Priorities – EIP applications must address the following:

Primary Priorities

Must include at least one. Budgets must adhere to the funding cap*

Secondary Priorities

May be included if appropriate. No single secondary priority may exceed $50,000 per year*

IPM Implementation in Agronomic Crops IPM Conservation Partnerships

IPM Implementation in Animal Agriculture IPM Support for Pest Diagnostic Facilities

IPM Implementation in Communities IPM Training and Implementation in

Housing

IPM Implementation in Specialty Crops IPM Education for Pesticide Applicators

IPM for Pollinator Health IPM in Public Health

IPM on Recreational Lands

IPM Training and Implementation in Schools

IPM Partnerships in Wide-Area Pest

Monitoring and Reporting Systems

*EIP proposals must adhere to a $300,000 per year funding cap. Proposals may request a total of

$300,000 per year (for each year in the three-year award period) to support any combination of up to six primary (must include one primary priority) and secondary program area priorities. The list of priorities above is in alphabetic order by priority keywords and does not represent any prioritization. Each priority will carry equal weight in the ranking of an application during the peer review process. Including more priorities will not positively impact the review ranking of the proposal.

Program Priorities Descriptions

This section provides descriptions of the EIP primary and secondary priorities. Applications may include a maximum of six primary and secondary priorities, but may have fewer than six priorities. Applications must describe active IPM programming for at least one primary priority;

additional priorities may be any combination of primary or secondary priorities.

For EIP proposals, the Project Summary/Abstract and the Project Narrative must include the following mandatory information. For each primary and secondary priority in the EIP proposal, list the priority and provide the percentage of the total proposal budget that the primary or secondary priority represents. An example is: IPM Implementation in

Agronomic Crops (55%), IPM for Pollinator Health (30%), and IPM in Public Health

(15%).

mailto:hbolton@nifa.usda.gov

Primary Priorities:

(a) IPM Implementation in Agronomic Crops. Agronomic crops include grain and oilseed crops such as wheat, corn, cotton, soybean, rice, cultivated forages, mixed rangeland forages, and other crops traditionally viewed as agronomic. Applicants must provide justification for the size of the funding request based on the economic significance of the crop and the need for IPM in the crop as defined by statewide agricultural receipts, planted acres, the potential for addressing environmental or health risks, stakeholder input, and/or the importance of the pest in a local cropping system.

(b) IPM Implementation in Animal Agriculture. Extension training, outreach programs, and materials development to increase adoption of IPM practices in livestock production and other areas of animal agriculture is included in this priority. Applicants must provide justification for the size of the request based on the scope and significance of the industry and opportunities for adoption of IPM.

(c) IPM in Communities. This priority includes extension training programs and materials development and delivery to increase adoption of IPM practices by private citizens in the home landscape, lawn care companies, garden centers, urban foresters, and similar practitioners. [Note: Programming for commercial nursery and greenhouse production should be included in the priority listed below, “IPM Implementation for Specialty Crops”.

Home horticulture is included in the IPM in Communities priority.] NIFA strongly encourages significant linkages with state and/or county Extension Master Gardener programs for this priority. Applicants must provide justification for the size of the funding request based on the local risk from the pests described in the proposal, the level of service provided to the public, and the economic significance of the pest to consumer horticulture.

(d) IPM Implementation in Specialty Crops. Specialty crops are defined as fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and horticultural and nursery crops (including floriculture). Input costs, intensiveness of labor or production, or return on investment are typically greater for specialty crops than for agronomic crops. Applicants must provide justification for the size of the funding request based on the economic significance of the crop and the need for IPM in the crop as defined by statewide receipts, planted acres, the potential for addressing environmental or health risks, stakeholder input, and/or the importance of the pest in a local cropping system.

(e) IPM for Pollinator Health. This priority includes extension projects that support

Pollinator Health. Projects could include:

1) Implementation of outreach and extension strategies to reduce declines of pollinators in agroecosystems and/or surrounding landscapes caused by one or more factors such as habitat changes or loss, nutritional imbalances, pathogens, pests, pesticides, toxins, genetic factors, or management practices;

2) Implementation of successful habitat restoration systems that maximize conservation of pollinators and integrate with management of other components of agricultural systems, including, but not limited to, invasive plants and other pests and diseases;

3) Implementation of improved best management practices for protection and conservation of pollinators and coordination with pest management practitioners using an Integrated

Pest Management (IPM) framework to ensure that pests and diseases are effectively managed; or

4) If an educational component is included, projects may incorporate curriculum development, novel experiential learning opportunities, online educational resources, citizen science, apps and/or educational games.

For these projects, partnerships between public and private entities are encouraged, such as universities, government agencies (e.g., USDA’s APHIS, ARS, FS, FSA, NRCS; USEPA;

USGS; and/or State programs), beekeepers, crop producers, farm advisors, IPM practitioners, land managers, private industries, or non-profit organizations. The specific contribution(s) of these entities to the project (e.g., outreach coordination, leveraging additional funds and other resources, sharing data and information, and/or citizen engagement) must be specified in the application.

Secondary Priorities:

Secondary priorities may complement primary priorities, but are more focused priorities and typically have a narrower scope. Secondary priorities are not required in EIP applications.

(f) IPM Conservation Partnerships. This priority includes coordination with local Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) districts or state conservationists to implement the NRCS 595 standard for IPM. The 595 standard for IPM practice is applied as part of a conservation system to mitigate the negative impacts on soil, water, air, plant, and animal and/or human resources and to protect and enhance quantity and quality of agricultural outputs. Applicants must show evidence of collaboration with their NRCS state conservationist or local conservation districts. The project budget must reflect the level of collaboration. You must provide justification for the size of the request based on the significance of the issue and the potential of successful coordination with NRCS and local conservation districts. You can find further explanation in Agronomy Technical Note No.

5 (www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044467.pdf) as summarized in the documents located at efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/WI/595.pdf and www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044470.pdf.

(g) IPM Support for Pest Diagnostic Facilities. Accurate identification of the pest or problem is fundamental to IPM strategies. Applicants must provide justification for the size of the request based on the defined need and existing support for diagnostic facilities.

(h) IPM Training and Implementation in Housing. This priority includes extension training programs, and materials development and delivery, to increase adoption of IPM practices http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044467.pdf http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/WI/595.pdf http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044470.pdf in housing and to address resident exposure to pest-related allergens and pesticide residues. Applicants must provide justification for the size of the request based on the number of housing units to be served and the need for IPM in the facilities. Applications may target public housing, housing on tribal lands, or other types of housing, particularly when addressing underserved audiences in collaboration with county social services or other entities that make housing affordable and accessible (e.g., Habitat for Humanity).

(i) IPM Education for Pesticide Applicators. IPM principles may be an integral part of many pesticide applicator-training activities. This training often takes place as part of topic-specific training for certification/recertification category credits. However, general

IPM principles are also incorporated into core credit education delivered to all types of applicators.