**Extension Integrated Pest Management Coordination and Support
Program**

***[FY 2009 Request for Applications]{.underline}***

**[Please Note:]{.underline}** As of 12/03/08, page 14 of this RFA has
been modified to correct and clarify a budgetary issue. The modification
is underlined and in **[Red Text]{.underline}**.

**[Please Note:]{.underline}** As of 12/15/08, page 3 of this RFA has
been modified to provide public notification of the availability of a
set of Frequently Asked Questions. This modification is underlined and
in **[Red Text]{.underline}**.

**APPLICATION DEADLINE: January 6, 2009**

![](media/image1.png)

#  U.S. Department of Agriculture

![](media/image2.png){width="0.47708333333333336in"
height="0.5923611111111111in"} **Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service**

**COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**EXTENSION INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
PROGRAMS**

**INITIAL ANNOUNCEMENT**

**CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE:** This program is listed in
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under **10.500.**

**DATES:** Applications must be received by close of business (COB) on
**January 6, 2009** **(5:00 p.m. Eastern Time).** Applications received
after this deadline will normally not be considered for funding.
Comments regarding this request for applications (RFA) are requested
within six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received
after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

**STAKEHOLDER INPUT:** The Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) is requesting comments regarding this RFA
from any interested party. These comments will be considered in the
development of the next RFA for the program, if applicable, and will be
used to meet the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C.
7613(c)(2)). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and consider
input on a current RFA from persons who conduct or use agricultural
research, education, and extension for use in formulating future RFAs
for competitive programs. Written stakeholder comments on this RFA
should be submitted in accordance with the deadline set forth in the
DATES portion of this notice, above.

Written stakeholder comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and
Oversight Branch; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service; USDA; STOP 2299; 1400
Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via e-mail to:
[RFP-<OEP@csrees.usda.gov>]{.underline}. (This e-mail address is
intended only for receiving comments regarding this RFA and not
requesting information or forms.) In your comments, please state that
you are responding to the Extension Integrated Pest Management
Coordination and Support Program RFA.

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:** CSREES requests applications for the Extension
Integrated Pest Management Coordination and Support Program (EIPM-CS)
for fiscal year (FY) 2009. This program contains two components, the
EIPM-CS Coordination Program and the EIPM-CS Support Program. Both
programs support state and local contributions in advancing the goals of
the National Roadmap for Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
([www.ipmcenters.org/IPMRoadMap.pdf](http://www.ipmcenters.org/IPMRoadMap.pdf))
by addressing priority needs associated with the coordination, design,
development, implementation, and evaluation of Extension IPM programs.
Through training, EIPM-CS funds help pest managers gain confidence in
alternative pest management practices. All EIPM-CS efforts are intended
to contribute to the achievement of National IPM goals through the
demonstration and evaluation of IPM practices in production agriculture
and other settings. Support will be provided for programs that
strengthen the ability of CSREES and its IPM partner institutions to
actively address local, state, and National IPM needs delivered through
the Cooperative Extension Services and rapidly respond to new issues and
opportunities.

Successful proposals will demonstrate effective implementation of IPM to
end users and extension educators. The amount anticipated to be made
available for EIPM-CS in FY 2009 is approximately \$8.5 million. It is
anticipated that approximately \$8.1 million will be awarded for EIPM-CS
Coordination programs and up to \$300,000 will be awarded for EIPM-CS
Support projects.

This notice identifies the objectives for EIPM-CS proposals, the
eligibility criteria for programs and applicants, and the application
forms and associated instructions needed to apply for an EIPM-CS grant.
CSREES additionally requests stakeholder input from any interested party
for use in the development of the next RFA for this program.

**[A total of 3 conference calls were scheduled to accommodate the
eligible applicants (two on November 25, 2008 and one on December 4,
2008) relating to the EIPM-CS RFA. A set of questions were asked by the
conference call participants that have broad interest to applicants. The
questions and answers appropriately clarifying the RFA are posted in a
set of FAQ's.]{.underline}**

**Table of Contents**

[PART I---FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
5](#__RefHeading___Toc216073025)

[A. Legislative Authority and Background
5](#__RefHeading___Toc216073026)

[B. Purpose and Priorities 6](#__RefHeading___Toc216073027)

[PART II---AWARD INFORMATION 15](#__RefHeading___Toc216073028)

[A. Available Funding 15](#__RefHeading___Toc216073029)

[B. Types of Applications 15](#__RefHeading___Toc216073030)

[C. Program Components 15](#__RefHeading___Toc216073031)

[PART III---ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION 17](#__RefHeading___Toc216073032)

[A. Eligible Applicants 17](#__RefHeading___Toc216073033)

[B. Cost Sharing or Matching 17](#__RefHeading___Toc216073034)

[PART IV---APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
18](#__RefHeading___Toc216073035)

[A. Electronic Application Package 18](#__RefHeading___Toc216073036)

[B. Content and Form of Application Submission
19](#__RefHeading___Toc216073037)

[C. Submission Dates and Times 21](#__RefHeading___Toc216073038)

[D. Funding Restrictions 22](#__RefHeading___Toc216073039)

[E. Other Submission Requirements 22](#__RefHeading___Toc216073040)

[PART V---APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
23](#__RefHeading___Toc216073041)

[A. General 23](#__RefHeading___Toc216073042)

[B. Evaluation Criteria 23](#OLE_LINK3)

[C. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality
27](#__RefHeading___Toc216073044)

[D. Organizational Management Information
27](#__RefHeading___Toc216073045)

[PART VI---AWARD ADMINISTRATION 28](#__RefHeading___Toc216073046)

[A. General 28](#__RefHeading___Toc216073047)

[B. Award Notice 29](#__RefHeading___Toc216073048)

[C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
29](#__RefHeading___Toc216073049)

[D. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
31](#__RefHeading___Toc216073050)

[PART VII---AGENCY CONTACT 32](#__RefHeading___Toc216073051)

[PART VIII---OTHER INFORMATION 33](#__RefHeading___Toc216073052)

[A. Access to Review Information 33](#__RefHeading___Toc216073053)

[B. Use of Funds; Changes 33](#__RefHeading___Toc216073054)

[C. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards
34](#__RefHeading___Toc216073055)

[D. Regulatory Information 34](#__RefHeading___Toc216073056)

[E. Definitions 34](#__RefHeading___Toc216073057)

[F. Electronic Application Checklist 38](#__RefHeading___Toc216073058)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073025 .anchor}**PART I---FUNDING OPPORTUNITY
DESCRIPTION**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073026 .anchor}A. Legislative Authority and
Background

[]{.mark}

Section 7403 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-246) (FCEA) amended Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act (7
U.S.C. 343(d)) to provide the opportunity for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant
Institutions, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State
University, and the University of the District of Columbia to compete
for and receive these funds directly from the Secretary of Agriculture.
EIPM -- CS is among the Extension programs funded under this authority.

**Background -- Stakeholder Input**

On October 6, 2008, CSREES held a stakeholder listening session on
Smith-Lever 3(d) IPM restructuring due to changes found in Section 7403
of the FCEA

(see
<http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/stakeholder/eipm_stakeholder.html>).
Changes to Smith-Lever 3(d) funding include: (1) the requirement for a
competitive program delivery model as opposed to a long-standing formula
delivery model; and (2) the inclusion of 1890 Institutions and the
University of the District of Columbia as eligible entities to receive
3(d) funds. The primary intent of the listening session was to gather
stakeholder input on program focus and design. Prior to the listening
session, National Program Leaders presented stakeholders with the
following questions:

1.  What should be the primary goals and objectives of the program?

2.  How can CSREES funding be optimized?

3.  Should there be a limit on the number of proposals that can be
    submitted by each eligible institution?

4.  What criteria should be used in the proposal review and selection
    process?

5.  Should regional, multi-institutional or multi-state proposals be
    encouraged?

6.  Should proposals addressing gaps in current program coverage
    (organic, small farms, etc.) be given greater emphasis in the
    evaluative process?

7.  What limits should be set on funding and project duration?

The written comment period ran from October 6 through November 15, 2008.
Over 400 written comments were received. A written summary of the
comments is available at
<http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/stakeholder/eipm_stakeholder.html>.
Contained in the comments are many areas with broad agreement among
stakeholders. For instance, from both verbal and written comments, it is
clear that stakeholders feel the most critical issue is making the
fiscal year 2009 funds available as soon as possible, which the Agency
is responding to by promptly issuing this RFA and proceeding with the
competition on an aggressive schedule. Stakeholder comments on questions
5 and 6 above, however, diverged and deserve separate treatment.

In response to Question 5, we received input on the way
multi-institutional or multi-state is defined, as well as whether these
types of proposals should be encouraged. Many stakeholders felt that
these proposals should be a secondary concern of the EIPM-CS. In this
RFA, the majority of the funds are available for what are termed
programs, rather than projects. Use of this term is not accidental. It
highlights the continuing emphasis on state support, a primary element
of the IPM success story. In order to assure that IPM is a component of
Cooperative Extension programs at as many eligible institutions as
possible; CSREES is limiting submissions to one Coordination proposal
per institution. EIPM-CS is designed to foster collaboration, not
competition, among IPM programs. Institutions are encouraged to work
together in the development and maintenance of a network of Extension
IPM programs to accelerate the technology transfer for IPM, reduce
duplication of efforts, maximize program potential and ensure that
information is disseminated. Applications that propose a limited or
extended network of multi-institutional or multi-state collaborations
are encouraged in an effort to provide maximum coverage and benefit of
Extension IPM.

In response to Question 6, some stakeholders expressed the sentiment
that support can be provided for issues such as organics and small farms
by developing broad funding categories. Others suggested that there may
be adequate local funding where support is needed for particular local
needs. In this RFA, the Extension IPM program focuses on broad areas to
address national priorities such as are defined in the National IPM
Roadmap. Multi-disciplinary IPM Coordinators serve as the backbone for
Extension IPM. This program retains the flexibility to fund stand alone
or collaborative awards and also the flexibility in how funding can be
used for local IPM Coordinators to respond to local needs. EIPM-CS is
designed to develop the administrative infrastructure required to
facilitate and expand Extension IPM programs. The long history of broad
state and local Extension IPM will continue to contribute to National
IPM progress. Additionally, CSREES encourages an increased membership of
regional committees to include representatives of all eligible
institutions competing for EIPM-CS funds.

Efforts have been made to incorporate suggestions into the EIPM-CS
program as allowable by law. Stakeholder comments received after the
close of the initial comment period, November 15, 2008, will be retained
and incorporated into the next comment period, scheduled for Spring
2009.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073027 .anchor}B. Purpose and Priorities

The primary elements of IPM since inception had been to provide:

-   a focal point for IPM team building, communication and stakeholder
    participation;

-   applied research and demonstration;

-   development of predictive models and information management systems;

-   preparation of manuals and fact sheets;

-   training programs for agents, consultants, scouts, growers, others;
    and

-   technical assistance and trouble shooting.

EIPM-CS funds help agricultural producers and other pest managers gain
confidence in alternative pest management practices through training,
demonstration, and evaluation of methods and strategies. These efforts
will contribute to the achievement of National IPM goals. A strong
CSREES/Land-Grant university partnership will enable EIPM -- CS to
address pest management challenges on an appropriate scale --- from
county level to multi-state production regions.

Each applicant will identify an IPM Coordinator(s) and propose
program-level Extension IPM activities appropriate to needs identified
by stakeholder advisory committees and commodity teams operating at the
state and local levels. Proposals will describe how the requested
program funds will be used for a range of state-based extension
activities that support National IPM goals. The EIPM -- CS is intended
to assure that IPM is a component of Cooperative Extension programs at
as many eligible institutions as possible. IPM has been promoted for
many years, but there is an ongoing need to keep its varied and evolving
practices in front of potential users to increase the likelihood of
building sustainable pest management systems as stated in the National
Roadmap for IPM (<http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmroadmap.pdf>). The IPM
Roadmap was developed by several federal agencies in collaboration with
partners in the public and private sectors to provide a strategic plan
for federal investment in IPM programs. This document has served as the
guide for IPM implementation since May 2004.

The IPM Roadmap established the future direction for IPM within the
context of:

1.  Improving cost benefit analyses through the adoption of IPM
    practices.

2.  Reducing potential human health risks from pests and related pest
    management practices.

3.  Minimizing adverse environmental effects from pests and related pest
    management practices.

While the Roadmap identified three focus areas for IPM implementation
(production agriculture, natural resources and recreational
environments, and residential and public areas), the authors
acknowledged that IPM is useful and desirable in other situations. This
RFA uses broader areas of programming emphasis within the basic
structure provided in the Roadmap. To simplify, the principles of IPM
should assure that neither the pest nor the management practices for
that pest detract from our quality of life. IPM is a multi-disciplinary
approach that may encompass the management of arthropod pests, plant
diseases, weeds in all environments and all pest related disciplines.
All applicants to this program must recognize that this is a Cooperative
Extension program and as such does not create knowledge through
research, but disseminates knowledge to users beyond the traditional
classroom.

**In the FY 2009 EIPM-CS RFA, CSREES announces two distinct
components:**

1.  ***COORDINATION*** proposals should be focused on the creation of a
    program of Extension IPM activities that address multiple emphasis
    areas described in Part I B (1) of this RFA -- (See also Table on
    page 17.)

2.  ***Support*** proposals should address a specific need identified in
    Part I B (2) of this RFA -- (See also Table on page 17.)

**please NOTE: IN FY 2009, An APPLICANT institution IS LIMITED TO
SUBMITTING ONLY ONE *COORDINATION* and ONLY ONE *Support* APPLICATION.**

[]{.mark}

1.  ***EIPM-CS COORDINATION PROGRAMS -- Address Administrative and Basic
    Functions of Institutional Extension IPM Programs.***

In FY 2009, CSREES anticipates making up to 76 *COORDINATION* awards of
varying funding levels to eligible institutions through the competitive
EIPM -- CS. *COORDINATION* awards may not exceed a 12-month project
period. **IN FY 2009, No more than one *EIPM-CS* *COORDINATION PROGRAM*
APPLICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED from each eligible institution. Each
qualifying application must be accompanied by a letter of support from
the Extension Director/Extension Administrator or be submitted directly
by the Extension Director/Extension Administrator. Submissions from an
institution without endorsement by the Extension Director/Extension
Administrator will result in the application being excluded from review.
Multiple applications from a single institution for *COORDINATION*
activities will result in all applications from that institution being
excluded from review.**

*COORDINATION* applications must request funding for comprehensive
Extension IPM programs that address emphasis areas most suitable to the
capacity and expertise of the Applicant Institution. Comprehensive
proposals must describe a multi-disciplinary approach to Extension IPM
that begins with the designation of an Extension IPM Coordinator(s) and
include a description of their duties. IPM Coordinator duties might
include:

1)  Planning and coordinating Extension IPM outreach.

2)  Responding to IPM-related inquiries from the Environmental
    Protection Agency and other governmental and non-governmental
    organizations.

3)  Coordinating and reporting on state/institutional IPM activities
    across disciplinary boundaries.

4)  Supporting county-level capacity in IPM and developing new
    stand-alone, supplemental and collaborative IPM efforts.

5)  Fulfilling program management and team building functions.

6)  Participating in networking activities such as regional or
    multi-state committees.

7)  Representing your institution at IPM multi-state committees.

8)  Reporting to regional, national, or international meetings on
    program activities, progress, and outcomes.

Building a proposal will then require adding emphasis areas most suited
to the capacity of the institution to address identified stakeholder
needs. Funding amounts requested should appropriately reflect the scope
or scale of the activities proposed for each emphasis area addressed.
All *COORDINATION* applications must describe the extent and ability of
the proposing institution to conduct the Extension IPM activities for
each emphasis area requested for funding. These emphasis areas carry
equal value in the ranking of an application during the peer review
process. Additional funding may be requested for IPM Collaborations (see
Part I (B) (1) (b))

**All EIPM -- CS Coordination applications must include support for the
Extension IPM Coordination (as described in a. below) and address a
minimum of two and a maximum of six of the ten emphasis areas listed
below:**

1.  IPM in Agronomic Crops

2.  IPM in High Value/High Input/or Intensively Managed Crops

3.  IPM Coordination within Conservation Partnerships

4.  IPM Support for Pest Diagnostic Facilities

5.  IPM in Schools

6.  IPM in Housing

7.  IPM on Recreational Lands

8.  Consumer/Urban IPM

9.  IPM for Pests of Humans and Vectors of Diseases

10. IPM Partnerships in Wide-Area Pest Monitoring and Reporting Systems

Proposals must describe stakeholders who will be served, type of program
coordination and activities proposed, economic and social impact of
proposed activities, level of collaboration and partnership with
stakeholders, etc. Proposals should reflect the principles of IPM
described in the National Roadmap for IPM
(<http://www.ipmcenters.org/IPMRoadmap.pdf>) and offer appropriate
solutions to pest issues through the delivery of education and
coordination of programs directed to end users (e.g., producers,
homeowners and IPM practitioners). All emphasis areas within a program
MUST contain an evaluation function, identifying changes in knowledge,
behavior and condition or culture.

a.  **IPM Coordination: (Required in all *COORDINATION* Applications)**

IPM coordination at each funded institution includes the foundational
functions of IPM coordination. Coordination responsibilities may be
assigned to one person or may be distributed among two or more
individuals. **The proposal must identify the individual(s) who will
have administrative and programmatic responsibilities for the proposed
Extension IPM program.** **The programmatic lead must be identified as
an IPM Coordinator for the institution.** The Program Director (PD) may
be the IPM Coordinator, but that individual is not required to assume
that role. If selected for funding, the individuals designated in this
section are jointly responsible for overall leadership of IPM Extension
education programs at the institution to ensure that IPM efforts are
coordinated with other relevant programs. *Each applicant may apply for
up to \$25,000 for this coordination function*. **All funded programs
[must]{.underline} include support for the IPM Coordination component.**
*This component will be assessed on a five point scale for merit, which
will include quality, relevancy, responsiveness, and potential for
success and impact. Failure of this component to sufficiently represent
program quality, relevancy, responsiveness, and potential for success
and impact of this component will place the proposal in the 'do not
fund' category.*

b.  **IPM Collaboration: (not required in *COORDINATION* applications,
    but encouraged)**

EIPM-CS encourages collaboration among institutions with common program
elements. Logical advantages may be realized by coordinating efforts
with multiple institutional programs to achieve synergy in program
outcomes by crossing geographical or political boundaries within
agroecosystems/ecozones or within areas where similar production
practices or pest problems may prevail. IPM Collaborations are desirable
as a means of minimizing duplication of effort and providing continuity
across geographic areas with common problems, production practices or
pest management practices. These collaborations may also be multi-state,
if common program elements exist and the collaboration contributes to
the goals of EIPM-CS. A single application may detail several
collaborations with various IPM Partners; however, *funding requests may
not exceed a maximum of \$25,000 per application. **The applicant
institution may request no more than the maximum of \$25,000 on their
submitted budget for the collaborations they host and coordinate.***
Logical collaborations exist where:

> \(1\) An applicant institution includes a cooperative element with at
> least one other entity not legally affiliated with the applicant
> institution; and
>
> \(2\) Where the applicant institution and each cooperating entity will
> assume a significant role in the implementation of a proposed program.

Funds need not be subcontracted in all cases, and may be administered by
the applicant institution. Only the applicant institution must meet the
definition of an eligible institution as specified in this RFA.

Collaboration components are not required in all proposals, but may
strengthen Extension IPM programs where logical partnerships occur.
Programs are encouraged to develop emphasis areas that include
partnerships among academic institutions, appropriate agencies, or
organizations to more efficiently deliver coordinated Extension IPM
programs to clientele, reducing duplication of effort and costs or
creating program efficiencies. Applications should explain how the
project will maximize partnership and collaborative efforts to
strengthen IPM programs in specific areas (e.g., involvement of
specialists in related or complementary disciplines in joint projects or
cooperative activities with other institutions or organizations). Also
explain how the activities will stimulate academia, the States, or the
private sector to join with the Federal partner in enhancing food and
agricultural education. Provide evidence, via letters from the parties
proposed to be involved in the IPM partnership or collaborative
arrangement (see instructions in Part IV(B)(2)(c)). Collaborative
activities may include joint planning or coordination meetings and joint
efforts to implement programs involving program staff from multiple
participating institutions, such as workshops, grower programs,
demonstrations, and other program activities. Beneficial IPM
partnerships may involve entities outside the university community such
as city or county public health services, tribal entities, Federal
service agencies and non-governmental organizations.

IPM Collaborations are intended to link programs across institutions to
strengthen impacts of funding awarded for other EIPM -- CS emphasis
areas and potential funding sources. Requests for funding for proposed
collaborations **should only appear** in host institutions'
applications; however, all collaborators should describe their proposed
role in their plans of Extension activities. Host applications must
include letters of collaboration from all participating institutions
(see instructions for attachment in Part IV(B)(2)(c)). Sub-contractors
must include a confirmation of the collaboration from the host
institution. Letters of collaboration must detail the responsibilities
of each participant.

c.  **Areas of Programming Emphasis --** *Each individual emphasis area
    present in the proposal will be assessed on a five-point scale for
    merit, which will include quality, relevancy, and responsiveness,
    and potential for success and impact.* A minimum of two and a
    maximum of six of the following emphasis areas are required in all
    *COORDINATION* applications.

    1.  **IPM in Agronomic Crops --** To include grain and oilseed crops
        such as wheat, corn, soybean, rice and other crops traditionally
        viewed as agronomic. **Each applicant may apply for up to
        *\$125,000* for this program emphasis area**. Justification must
        be provided 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, acres planted, the
        potential for addressing environmental or health risks,
        stakeholder input and/or the importance of the pest in a local
        cropping system.

    2.  **IPM in High Value, High Input or Intensively Managed Crops
        --** To include cotton, potatoes, fruits, vegetables or other
        specialty crops (including nursery and greenhouse production)
        where input costs, intensiveness of production or return on
        investment are greater than with grain or oilseed crops. **Each
        applicant may apply for up to *\$300,000* for this program
        emphasis area**. Justification must be provided 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, acres planted, the potential for addressing
        environmental or health risks, stakeholder input and/or the
        importance of the pest in a local cropping system.

    3.  **IPM Coordination within Conservation Partnerships --**
        Includes coordination with local NRCS districts or State
        Conservationists to implement the Natural Resources Conservation
        Service (NRCS) 595 standard for pest management
        (<ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/standards/595.pdf>).
        *The 595 standard for pest management 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. Budget must reflect level of collaboration. **Each
        applicant may apply for up to *\$50,000* for this program
        emphasis area.** Justification must be provided 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.

    4.  **IPM Support for Pest Diagnostic Facilities** -- Proper pest
        diagnostics is fundamental to the application of appropriate
        pest management practices. The foundation of pest management is
        clear identification of the pest or problem. Stakeholder input
        provided to CSREES acknowledges the critical nature of IPM
        support for such diagnostic facilities. **Each applicant may
        apply for up to *\$50,000* for this program emphasis area*.***
        Justification must be provided for the size of the request based
        on the defined need and existing support for diagnostic
        facilities.

    5.  **IPM in Schools --** Extension training, outreach programs and
        materials development to increase adoption of IPM practices in
        schools to address childhood exposure to pest related allergens
        and pesticide residues in the PreK-12 school environment.
        Additionally, activities in this section may include development
        and/or delivery of Extension IPM education programs. **Each
        applicant may apply for up to *\$50,000* for this program
        emphasis area*.*** Justification must be provided for the size
        of the request based on the number of school districts to be
        served, need for IPM in the educational environment or
        demonstrated need for pest management in the district served.

    6.  **IPM in Housing --** Extension training programs and materials
        development and delivery to increase adoption of IPM practices
        in housing to address resident exposure to pest-related
        allergens and pesticide residues. **Each applicant may apply for
        up to *\$50,000* for this program emphasis area.** Justification
        must be provided for the size of the request based on the number
        of housing units to be served and the need for IPM in the
        facilities. Programs may target public and/or reservation
        housing or other forms of housing and collaborate with county
        social services and other entities that make housing affordable
        and accessible, such as Habitat for Humanity.

    7.  **IPM on Recreational Lands** -- Extension training programs and
        materials development and delivery to increase adoption of IPM
        practices in parks, athletic facilities, golf courses, natural
        areas, parklands and other recreational areas. **Each applicant
        may apply for up to *\$50,000* for this program emphasis area.**
        Partnerships should be cultivated with federal and state
        agencies that manage public lands***.***

    8.  **Consumer/Urban IPM --** 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 and applications. \[**Note:** Programming for
        nursery and greenhouse production should be included in the
        emphasis area \#*2* "IPM in High Value, High Input or
        Intensively Managed Crops", listed above.\] Significant linkages
        with state and/or county Extension Master Gardener programs are
        strongly encouraged. **Each applicant may apply for up to
        *\$50,000* for this program emphasis area*.*** Justification
        must be provided 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*.*

    9.  **IPM for Pests of Humans and Vectors of Disease --** Extension
        training programs and materials development and delivery to
        increase adoption of IPM practices for management of ticks and
        lice, mosquitoes and similar pests of humans, particularly those
        that may vector disease. **Each applicant may apply for up to
        *\$50,000* for this program emphasis area.** Justification must
        be provided for the size of the request based on the local risk
        from the described pests. Risks from pests of humans are highly
        regional. Evidence of incidence of disease or frequency of pest
        incidence in a locale are valid justifications for importance of
        a local pest problem. Partnerships may involve for example:
        entities outside the university community such as city or county
        public health services, Federal service agencies and
        non-governmental entities. However, these non-Land-Grant IPM
        partners may not originate a proposal. Indoor pests such as
        bedbugs should be addressed under emphasis area #6 "IPM in
        Housing", above***.***

    10. **IPM Partnerships in Wide-Area Pest Monitoring and Reporting
        Systems --** Participation in pest monitoring that is associated
        with wide area tracking such as through the integrated pest
        management Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education
        (ipmPIPE) is encouraged. Tracking and monitoring efforts require
        implementation of standardized national protocols for ipmPIPE.
        Preparation of training and extension education materials within
        those systems may be a component of this program area. The
        ipmPIPE provides a delivery model for the development of lected
        tools to increase usefulness, improve data retrieval and
        interpretation and maintain databases and other information
        resources needed for pest management decision making. Detailed
        information about ipmPIPE can be found at
        <http://www.ipmpipe.org/>. **Each applicant may apply for up to
        *\$50,000* for this program emphasis area*. ***Justification
        must be provided for the size of the request based on costs to
        conduct the proposed activities associated with the monitoring
        program and how the funds will complement funding from other
        sources.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  ***EIPM-CS SUPPORT PROJECTS* -- Address Critical Regional or
    National IPM Extension Program Needs**

In FY 2009, *SUPPORT* projects within EIPM -- CS will advance the goals
of the National Roadmap for IPM
([www.ipmcenters.org/IPMRoadMap.pdf](http://www.ipmcenters.org/IPMRoadMap.pdf))
by supporting projects to address the significant overarching issues of:

**a. Extension IPM Impact Evaluation; and**

**b.** **Extension Development for Critical IPM Issues**.

These two efforts will support and strengthen the likelihood of National
IPM goals being reached by enabling collaboration and enhancing the
ability of the PDs to report mission critical impacts across
institutional boundaries. *In FY 2009, no more than one EIPM-CS SUPPORT
application will be accepted from each eligible institution***.** In FY
2009 CSREES anticipates making one IPM Impact Evaluation award and up to
two Critical IPM Issues awards.

*Support* proposals submitted under EIPM -- CS should be relevant to
**program evaluation and impact assessment** on a National scale OR to
**extension development for critical IPM issues**. Each qualifying
application must be accompanied by a letter of support from the
Extension Director/Extension Administrator or be submitted directly by
the Extension Director/Extension Administrator. Other submissions from
an institution without endorsement by the Extension Director/Extension
Administrator will be excluded from review. If multiple applications are
received from an institution with endorsement by the Extension
Director/Extension Administrator for support activities, all
applications from that institution will be excluded from review.

[]{.mark}

Applicant institutions to the EIPM-CS Support program may apply to
**either, but not both,** of the following two project types:

[]{.mark}

a.  **Extension IPM Impact Evaluation**: Impact assessment and the
    identification and reporting of outcomes has become a requirement
    throughout government. The ability of biological scientists to
    develop social science tools to measure adoption of IPM is a
    challenge. The successful applicant to this program will lead
    evaluation efforts or guide an evaluation training and development
    team as follows.

IPM Impact Evaluation applicants must:

1.  Lead or co-lead efforts of the National Extension IPM Evaluation
    Group (NIPMEG - <http://www.ipm.gov/NIPMEG/index.cfm>).

2.  Lead post-award impact assessment and documentation of Extension IPM
    impacts that can be aggregated to the multi-state/regional or
    national scale.

3.  Lead the development of products that demonstrate national or
    multi-regional progress on one or more goals described in the
    National Roadmap for IPM.

4.  Develop and support tools to enable impact reporting.

5.  Assist with improving evaluation efforts across the country and
    identifying strong programs with reportable outcomes or the
    potential for reportable outcomes.

6.  Assist with post-award impact assessment and documentation of
    project impacts at the broad community level.

7.  Assist in assuring evaluation through documentation of impacts on
    behavior change or condition.

8.  Provide an appropriate management plan for the project team and all
    IPM Partners.

Proposed IPM Impact Evaluation applications may address any of a variety
of projects and activities, including, but not limited to:

-   IPM program assessment and evaluation,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The development of case studies,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Impact reports and outreach materials that highlight successful IPM
    programs.

All applications must include a budget for each year of the proposed
project in the application. **[Applications may request up to \$200,000
for up to a three-year project period.]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

b.  **EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT FOR CRITICAL IPM ISSUES:** High consequence
    and threatening pests and diseases are posing an increasing risk to
    American agriculture. Citrus Health issues (CTV/Brown Citrus Aphid,
    HLB/Asian Citrus Psyllid, etc.) and the Ug99 race of the Wheat Stem
    Rust pathogen are recognized as emerging issues and as such are
    eligible for funding in FY 2009 RFA. Projects that develop extension
    education materials and/or demonstration and applied research
    targeted at an extension audience are encouraged.

Extension IPM applications on critical issues should prepare producers
for introduction of the pests of high consequence or management of these
pests and stakeholder education. **Up to \$100,000 will be awarded with
a maximum project period of one year.**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073028 .anchor}PART II---AWARD INFORMATION

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073029 .anchor}A. Available Funding

There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular application or to
make a specific number of awards. It is anticipated that approximately
\$8.5 million will be available to fund applications in FY 2009. Of
that, it is anticipated that approximately \$8.1 million will be awarded
for EIPM-CS Coordination programs and up to \$300,000 will be awarded
for EIPM-CS Support projects.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073030 .anchor}B. Types of Applications

In FY 2009, only new applications may be submitted to the EIPM-CS. New
applications will be reviewed competitively using the selection process
and evaluation criteria described in Part V---Application Review
Requirements.

Awards will be made as [standard grants]{.underline} which are
instruments by which CSREES agrees to support a specified level of
effort for a predetermined project period without any statement of
intention to provide additional support at a future date.

In future years or under certain circumstances, CSREES may determine
that it will support continuation awards. CSREES is under no obligation
to award a continuation grant and should CSREES decide to make such an
award, the Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) must make an
affirmative decision to do so. A continuation grant is an instrument by
which CSREES agrees to support a specified level of effort for a
predetermined project period with a statement of intention to provide
additional support at a future date, provided that performance has been
satisfactory, funds are available for this purpose, and continued
support would be in the best interest of the Federal government and the
public

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073031 .anchor}C. Program Components

[]{.mark}

1.  **EIPM -- CS *COORDINATION*** program funding --

-   It is anticipated that approximately 76 programs may be funded for a
    maximum of \$650,000 per award. The project period for FY 2009 is
    one year.

2.  **EIPM -- CS *Support*** program funding --

    -   **[Impact Evaluation Project]{.underline}** -- It is anticipated
        that one project will be funded for up to \$200,000. The project
        period for FY 2009 is up to three years.

    -   **[Extension Development for Critical IPM Issues]{.underline}**
        -- It is anticipated that a maximum of two projects will be
        funded with up to \$100,000 total allocated (one project per
        topic area). The project period for FY 2009 is one year.

**EIPM -- CS Funding Table**

**EIPM-CS Coordination Program**

Each institution may submit only one *COORDINATION* Program proposal.
The proposal must include support for IPM Coordination and a minimum of
two and a maximum of six Emphasis Areas. Maximum project period is 1
year:

  ------------------ ------------------------------------------- -----------
                     **Components and Emphasis Areas**           **Funding
                                                                 Cap**

  Required Component IPM Coordination                            \$ 25,000

  Encouraged         IPM Collaboration                           \$ 25,000
  Component                                                      

  Optional Emphasis  IPM in Agronomic Crops                      \$ 125,000
  Area                                                           

  Optional Emphasis  IPM in High Value/High Input or Intensively \$ 300,000
  Area               Managed Crops                               

  Optional Emphasis  IPM Coordination within Conservation        \$ 50,000
  Area               Partnerships                                

  Optional Emphasis  IPM Support for Pest Diagnostic Facilities  \$ 50,000
  Area                                                           

  Optional Emphasis  IPM in Schools                              \$ 50,000
  Area                                                           

  Optional Emphasis  IPM in Housing                              \$ 50,000
  Area                                                           

  Optional Emphasis  IPM on Recreational Lands                   \$ 50,000
  Area                                                           

  Optional Emphasis  Consumer/Urban IPM                          \$ 50,000
  Area                                                           

  Optional Emphasis  IPM for Pests of Humans and Vectors of      \$ 50,000
  Area               Diseases                                    

  Optional Emphasis  IPM Partnerships in Wide-Area Pest          \$ 50,000
  Area               Monitoring and Reporting Systems            
  ------------------ ------------------------------------------- -----------

**EIPM-CS Support Program**

Each institution may submit only one *Support* Program proposal:

  ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
                                              **Funding Cap**

  Extension IPM Impact Evaluation: Maximum    \$ 200,000
  Project Period is 3 Years                   

  Extension Development for Critical IPM      \$ 100,000
  Issues: Maximum Project Period is 1 year    
  ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073032 .anchor}PART III---ELIGIBILITY
INFORMATION

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073033 .anchor}A. Eligible Applicants

Only 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities and Colleges, including
Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University, and the
University of the District of Columbia are eligible to apply.

Award recipients may subcontract to organizations not eligible to apply
provided such organizations are necessary for the conduct of the
project. An applicant's failure to meet an eligibility criterion by the
time of an application deadline will result in CSREES not accepting the
application, or even though an application may be reviewed, will
preclude CSREES from making an award.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073034 .anchor}B. Cost Sharing or Matching

There is no matching requirement for EIPM -- CS applications and
matching resources will not be factored into the review process as
evaluation criteria.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073035 .anchor}PART IV---APPLICATION AND
SUBMISSION INFORMATION

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073036 .anchor}A. Electronic Application
Package

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

Prior to preparing an application, it is suggested that the PD/PI first
contact an Authorized Representative (AR) (also referred to as
Authorized Organizational Representative or AOR) to determine if the
organization is prepared to submit electronic applications through
Grant.gov. If the organization is not prepared, the AR should see
<http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp> for steps for
preparing to submit applications through Grants.gov.

The steps to access application materials are as follows:

1.  Download and install PureEdge Viewer, a small, free program that
    provides access to the grant application. See
    <http://www.grants.gov/resources/download_software.jsp#pureedge>.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  The application package must be obtained via Grants.gov, go to
    [http://www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/), click on "Apply for
    Grants" in the left-hand column, click on "**Step 1:** [Download a
    Grant Application Package and
    Instructions](https://apply.grants.gov/forms_apps_idx.html)," enter
    the funding opportunity number **USDA-CSREES-SLBCD-001907** in the
    appropriate box and click "Download Package." From the search
    results, click "Download" to access the application package.

> Contained within the application package is the "[CSREES Grants.gov
> Application Guide: A Guide for Preparation and Submission of CSREES
> Applications via
> Grants.gov.](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/grant_forms/electronic_app_guide.pdf)"
> This Guide contains an introduction and general Grants.gov
> instructions, information about how to use a Grant Application Package
> in Grants.gov, and instructions on how to complete the application
> forms.
>
> **If assistance is needed to access the application package** (e.g.,
> downloading or navigating PureEdge forms, using PureEdge with a
> Macintosh computer), refer to resources available on the Grants.gov
> Web site first (<http://grants.gov/>). Grants.gov assistance is also
> available as follows:

-   Grants.gov customer support\
    Toll Free: 1-800-518-4726\
    Business Hours: Monday through Friday 7:00 am -- 9:00 pm Eastern
    Standard Time\
    Email: <support@grants.gov>

See <http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/electronic.html> for additional
resources for applying electronically.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073037 .anchor}B. Content and Form of
Application Submission

::: Definition-Term
Electronic applications should be prepared following instructions in
Part V and VI of the document entitled "[A Guide for Preparation and
Submission of CSREES Applications via
Grants.gov](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/grant_forms/electronic_app_guide.pdf)."
This guide is part of the corresponding application package (see Section
A. of this Part). The following is **additional information** needed in
order to prepare an application in response to this RFA. If there is
discrepancy between the two documents, the information contained in this
RFA is overriding.
:::

**Note the attachment requirements (e.g., portable document format) in
Part III section 3. of the Guide. [Any proposals containing non-PDF
documents will be AT RISK OF BEING EXCLUDED FROM csrees
REVIEW.]{.underline} Partial applications will be excluded from CSREES
review. With documented prior approval, resubmitted applications will be
accepted until close of business on the closing date in the RFA.**

**If you do not own PDF-generating software, Grants.gov provides online
tools to assist applicants. Users will find a link to "Convert Documents
to PDF" on <http://grants.gov/assets/PDFConversion.pdf>.**

**1. [SF 424 R&R Cover Sheet]{.underline}**

Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in
detail in Part V, 2. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.

**2. [R&R Other Project Information Form]{.underline}**

Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in
detail in Part V, 3. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.

> **a. Field 6 - Project Summary/Abstract.** The Project Summary may not
> exceed **250 words** on one page, and should clearly indicate the
> appropriate EIPM-CS program (*COORDINATION* or *SUPPORT*). For EIPM-CS
> *COORDINATION* program proposals, please list the collaborations with
> eligible entities as well as the *emphasis areas* included in the
> proposal. For EIPM-CS *SUPPORT* program proposals, please include the
> project type proposed. The summary should also include the relevance
> of the project to the goals of EIPM-CS. The importance of a concise,
> informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized.
>
> b\. Field 7 - Project Narrative. PLEASE NOTE: the Project Narrative
> section may not exceed a total of 20 single- or double-spaced pages,
> including figures and tables. The Introduction may not exceed 5 pages,
> and the rest of the Project Narrative may not exceed 15 pages. These
> EIPM-CS page limitations apply regardless of whether figures or tables
> are included. All pages, including those with figures and tables,
> should be numbered sequentially. Applications exceeding the applicable
> page limitation will be at risk of being excluded from review. This
> word and page limitation applies regardless of whether figures or
> tables are included. These maximums have been established to ensure
> fair and equitable competition.

**[The Project Narrative must include all of the
following:]{.underline}**

\(i\) Introduction.

Include the following list of:

1.  Program Staff -- include name, title, affiliation, address, and
    e-mail for PD(s), CoPD(s) and Key Personnel. For COORDINATION
    applications: the IPM Coordinator(s) and administrative contact(s)
    must be identified.

2.  A clear statement of the goal(s) and critical need(s) of IPM being
    addressed and supporting Extension outreach objectives.

3.  Description of how stakeholders will be engaged in setting Extension
    IPM program direction on an on-going basis.

4.  Summary of the body of knowledge or other past activities that
    substantiate the need for the proposed project/program.

5.  Description of ongoing or recently completed significant activities
    related to the proposed project/program including the work of key
    project/program personnel. Applications should also demonstrate how
    duplication of effort with similar activities by others will be
    avoided.

6.  Preliminary data/information pertinent to the proposed work should
    be included in this section. All works cited should be referenced
    and attached at Field 8 of this Form, Bibliography & Reference
    Cited. Refer to Part V, 3.8 of the CSREES Grants.gov Application
    Guide.

\(ii\) Rationale and Significance. Concisely present the rationale
behind the proposed extension activities. The specific relationship of
the project/program's objectives to one or more of the EIPM -- CS
emphasis areas should be shown clearly. These purposes and focus
emphasis areas are described under Part I, B, Purpose and Priorities.

\(iii\) Approach. For each component of requested funding in the
Coordination program proposal (e.g., IPM Coordination, IPM
Collaboration, and at least two and no more than six of the ten emphasis
areas) clearly state the activities proposed or problems being addressed
and clearly describe the approaches being applied. Support program
proposals should also provide sufficient detail to describe proposed
activities. A logic model is suggested as a good planning and evaluation
tool (see
<http://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/strat_plan_logic_models.html> for more
information). Specifically, this section must include:

1.  A description of the activities proposed, key personnel or
    institution roles in those activities, and the sequence in which the
    activities are to be performed;

2.  Outputs and expected deliverables to be developed for the program;

3.  Expected outcomes, including how the project/program expects to
    address overarching goals of the National Roadmap for IPM:
    profitability, reduced environmental impact, and fewer impacts of
    pests and pest management on human health;

4.  How results or products will be used;

5.  Means by which results will be assessed or evaluated; and

6.  Pitfalls that may be encountered.

c\. Field 11 - Other Attachments -- PDF

**Appendices to Project Description.** Appendices to the Project
Description are allowed if they are directly germane to the proposed
project/program. The addition of appendices should not be used to
circumvent the text and/or figures and tables page limitations. For
COORDINATION program proposals please include a PDF attachment listing
collaborations with eligible institutions, supporting documentation and
a description of the roles to be performed by each institution. If IPM
Collaboration funds are being requested, letters of collaboration
**must** be included as part of the application**.**

**3. [R&R Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded)]{.underline}**

Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in
detail in Part V, 4. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.

**4. [R&R Personal Data]{.underline} --** As noted in Part V, 5. of the
CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide, the submission of this information
is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. If completing the
information, **do not enter any data in the field requesting the social
security number.**

::: Definition-Term
**5. [R&R Budget]{.underline}**
:::

Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in
detail in Part V, 6. of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide. Travel
costs to report outcomes at regional, national or international meetings
are allowable in the budget.

[]{.mark}

6\. [Supplemental Information Form]{.underline}

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

**a. Field 2. Program Code.** Enter the program code name "Extension
Integrated Pest Management -- Coordination and Support Program" and the
program code "**QQIPM**" if applying for *COORDINATION* proposals or
"**QQ.E**" if applying for *Support* proposals.

**b. Field 8. Conflict of Interest List.** A conflict of interest list
IS required under this program.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073038 .anchor}C. Submission Dates and Times

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

Applications must be received by Grants.gov by COB on Tuesday, **January
6, 2009** **(5:00 p.m. Eastern Time)**. Applications received after this
deadline will normally not be considered for funding.

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

If the Authorized Representative (AR) has not received correspondence
**from CSREES** regarding a submitted application within seven days of
submission of the application, please contact the Program Contact
identified in Part VII of the applicable RFA and request the proposal
number assigned to the application. **Failure to do so may result in the
application not being considered for funding by the peer review panel.
Once the application has been assigned a proposal number, this number
should be cited on all future correspondence.**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073039 .anchor}D. Funding Restrictions

[]{.mark}

Pursuant to Section 1473 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 981), indirect
costs are unallowable costs under this program, and no funds will be
approved for this purpose. Costs that are a part of an institution's
indirect cost pool may not be reclassified as direct costs for the
purpose of making them allowable.

In addition, tuition remission is prohibited by Section 1473 of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3319).

CSREES has determined that grant funds awarded under this authority may
not be used for

the renovation or refurbishment of research, education, or extension
space; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in such space; or
the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of
buildings or facilities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073040 .anchor}E. Other Submission Requirements

The applicant should follow the submission requirements noted in the
document entitled "A Guide for Preparation and Submission of CSREES
Applications via Grants.gov."

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073041 .anchor}PART V---APPLICATION REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073042 .anchor}A. General

Each application will be evaluated in a two-part process. First, each
application will be screened to ensure that it meets the administrative
requirements as set forth in this RFA. Second, applications that meet
these requirements will be technically evaluated by a review panel.

Reviewers will be selected based upon training and experience in
relevant scientific, extension, or education fields, taking into account
the following factors: (a) The level of relevant formal scientific,
technical education, or extension experience of the individual, as well
as the extent to which an individual is engaged in relevant research,
education, or extension activities; (b) the need to include as reviewers
experts from various areas of specialization within relevant scientific,
education, or extension fields; (c) the need to include as reviewers
other experts (e.g., producers, range or forest managers/operators, and
consumers) who can assess relevance of the applications to targeted
audiences and to program needs; (d) the need to include as reviewers
experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges,
universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and
non-profit organizations) and geographic locations; (e) the need to
maintain a balanced composition of reviewers with regard to minority and
female representation and an equitable age distribution; and (f) the
need to include reviewers who can judge the effective usefulness to
producers and the general public of each application.

[]{#OLE_LINK3 .anchor}

B. Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria below will be used by the Peer Review panel in
reviewing applications submitted in response to this RFA:

[]{.mark}

**Criteria for EIPM -- CS: *COORDINATION* Program Proposals**

**1. Proposal Relevance and Demonstration of Need (50 points)**:

(a) Documented need. Application includes documentation substantiating
    that the program is directed to current or likely future
    problems/challenges in IPM. The proposal should address national,
    regional or locally relevant IPM issues and desired outcomes
    described in the RFA (10 points);

(b) Clearly defined plans to involve stakeholders. Application includes
    information on how stakeholders will be involved in defining the
    program and how their input will be solicited and incorporated (10
    points);

(c) Quality of Extension outreach plan. Application describes a detailed
    outreach plan that includes program benefits and how impacts will be
    measured, including the likelihood that the program will provide
    solutions that lead to measurable benefits to producers and
    consumers (10 points);

(d) Demonstrated understanding of IPM in emphasis areas addressed (10
    points); and

(e) Documentation that the program applies a trans-disciplinary approach
    to address economic, environmental and human health aspects of IPM
    (10 points).

**2. Proposal Quality (50 points)**:

(a) Conceptual adequacy -- Application clearly states objectives that
    are potentially attainable within program time, scope and budget (10
    points);

(b) Design -- The application's methodology and analytical approach are
    appropriate to program objectives (10 points);

(c) Involvement of appropriate, relevant expertise, including quality of
    collaborations. (10 points);

(d) Experience of Senior/Key project/program personnel (5 points);

(e) Appropriateness of budget (5 points);

(f) Feasibility, probability of success (including the likelihood that
    the program will contribute to the overall sustainability of an IPM
    system), and ability to meet timelines defined in the RFA (10
    points); and

**[Determining Awards for the Highest Ranking *COORDINATION*
Proposals:]{.underline}**

Stakeholder input suggested funding as many programs as possible in
order to ensure the success of a national IPM network. The Peer Review
Panel will evaluate the quality of each specific emphasis area applied
for and the appropriateness of requested budgets to address the proposed
plan of EIPM-CS activities. The panel will use this additional level of
review to recommend funding levels and ensure the most efficient use of
funds.

For the proposals ranked high enough to be considered for funding, the
panel will evaluate the following:

(a) Each required component (e.g. IPM Coordination, and from 2 to 6
    emphasis areas) addressed will be ranked on a 0-5 scale as defined
    under proposal quality.

(b) Proposal components earning 0 or 1 will be rated "do not fund".

(c) If the IPM Coordination component is rated 0 or 1, the entire
    proposal will be rated "do not fund".

(d) Budgets will be assessed for appropriateness based on planned
    activities and justification provided for each funded component
    including IPM Coordinator(s), IPM Collaborations, and each emphasis
    area included in the proposed budget. A 1-10 scale will be used to
    rank appropriateness and that guidance will be considered prior to
    the Agency requesting adjusted final budgets.

**Criteria for EIPM -- CS: *Support* Program proposals**

**1. Proposal Relevance and Demonstration of Need (50 points)**:

(a) Documented need. Application includes documentation substantiating
    that the project/program is directed to current or likely future
    problems/challenges in IPM. The proposal should address relevant IPM
    issues and desired outcomes described in the RFA (5 points).

(b) Clearly demonstrates the institution's ability to fulfill the
    proposed activities (5 points);

(c) Stakeholder involvement. Application includes information on how
    stakeholders will be involved in the project/program and how their
    input will be solicited and incorporated (10 points);

(d) Extension outreach plan. Application includes a detailed outreach
    plan that includes project benefits and a description of how impacts
    will be measured, including the likelihood that the project/program
    will provide solutions that lead to measurable benefits to producers
    and consumers, and will facilitate information dissemination. Value
    of plan to evaluate how well the information technology need is
    being met (10 points);

(e) Demonstrated understanding of evaluation or emerging pest systems
    within the greater IPM system concept (10 points); and

(f) Documented trans-disciplinary approach that addresses economic,
    environmental and human health aspects of IPM. Proposal addresses
    appropriateness to all applicable pest groups and disciplines (10
    points).

**2. Proposal Quality (50 points)**:

(a) Conceptual adequacy -- Application clearly states objectives that
    are potentially attainable within project/program time, scope and
    budget (10 points);

(b) Design -- The application's methodology and analytical approach are
    appropriate to project/program objectives (15 points);

(c) Involvement of appropriate, relevant expertise (5 points);

(d) Experience of Senior/Key project personnel (5 points);

(e) Appropriateness of budget (5 points);

(f) Feasibility, probability of success (including the likelihood that
    the project/program will contribute to the overall sustainability of
    an IPM system), and ability to meet timelines defined in the RFA (5
    points); and

(g) Adherence to RFA guidelines (5 points).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073044 .anchor}C. Conflicts of Interest and
Confidentiality

During the peer evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to
prevent any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may impact
review or evaluation. For the purpose of determining conflicts of
interest, the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution
shall be determined by reference to the current Higher Education
Directory, published by Higher Education Publications, Inc., 6400
Arlington Boulevard, Suite 648, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Phone:
(703) 532-2300. Web site:
[[http://www.hepinc.com]{.underline}](http://www.hepinc.com/).

Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as application
content and peer evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those
involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In
addition, the identities of peer reviewers will remain confidential
throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names of the
reviewers will not be released to applicants.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073045 .anchor}D. Organizational Management
Information

Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be
submitted on a one time basis, with updates on an as needed basis, as
part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of a grant
identified under this RFA, if such information has not been provided
previously under this or another CSREES program. CSREES will provide
copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling these requirements as
part of the pre-award process. Although an applicant may be eligible
based on its status as one of these entities, there are factors which
may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal financial and
nonfinancial assistance and benefits under this program (e.g., debarment
or suspension of an individual involved or a determination that an
applicant is not responsible based on submitted organizational
management information).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073046 .anchor}PART VI---AWARD ADMINISTRATION

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073047 .anchor}A. General

Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding
official of CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible
applicants whose applications are judged most meritorious under the
procedures set forth in this RFA. The date specified by the awarding
official of CSREES as the effective date of the grant shall be no later
than September 30 of the Federal fiscal year in which the project is
approved for support and funds are appropriated for such purpose, unless
otherwise permitted by law. It should be noted that the project need not
be initiated on the grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as
practical so that project goals may be attained within the funded
project period. All funds granted by CSREES under this RFA shall be
expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are granted in
accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations,
the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost
principles, and the Department\'s assistance regulations (parts 3015 and
3019 of 7 CFR).

Pre-Award costs may be approved for successful applicants in accordance
with the CSREES Terms and Conditions. For more information about CSREES
Award Terms and Conditions:

[[http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/awards/awardterms.html]{.underline}](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/awards/awardterms.html)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073048 .anchor}B. Award Notice

The award document will provide pertinent instructions and information
including, at a minimum, the following:

\(1\) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution
to whom the Administrator has issued an award under the terms of this
request for applications;

\(2\) Title of project;

\(3\) Name(s) and institution(s) of PDs chosen to direct and control
approved activities;

\(4\) Identifying award number assigned by the Department;

\(5\) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department
intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for
funds;

\(6\) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by the
Administrator during the project period;

\(7\) Legal authority(ies) under which the award is issued;

\(8\) Appropriate Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number;

\(9\) Applicable award terms and conditions (see
<http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/awards/awardterms.html> to view
CSREES award terms and conditions);

\(10\) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to
accomplish the stated purpose of the award; and

\(11\) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to
carry out its respective awarding activities or to accomplish the
purpose of a particular award.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073049 .anchor}C. Administrative and National
Policy Requirements

Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant applications
considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program.
These include, but are not limited to:

2 CFR Part 215**---**USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit
Organizations.

7 CFR Part 1, subpart A**---**USDA implementation of the Freedom of
Information Act.

7 CFR Part 3**---**USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129
regarding debt collection.

7 CFR Part 15, subpart A**---**USDA implementation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

7 CFR Part 331 and 9 CFR Part 121**---**USDA implementation of the
Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002.

7 CFR Part 3015**---**USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,
implementing OMB directives (i.e., OMB Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122, now
codified at 2 CFR Parts 220 and 230) and incorporating provisions of 31
U.S.C. 6301-6308 (formerly the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-224), as well as general policy requirements
applicable to recipients of Departmental financial assistance.

7 CFR Part 3017**---**USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment
and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and 7 CFR Part 3021**---**Governmentwide
Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Grants).

7 CFR Part 3018**---**USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying.
Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification
related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants,
cooperative agreements, and loans.

7 CFR Part 3052**---**USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133,
Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non profit Organizations.

7 CFR Part 3407**---**CSREES procedures to implement the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

7 CFR Part 3430 -- CSREES Competitive and Noncompetitive Nonformula
Grant Programs---General Grant Administrative Provisions.

29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR Part
15b (USDA implementation of statute) **---**prohibiting discrimination
based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.

35 U.S.C. 200 et seq. **---**Bayh Dole Act, controlling allocation of
rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and
domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally
assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR Part
401).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073050 .anchor}D. Expected Program Outputs and
Reporting Requirements

[]{.mark}

Grantees are required to submit initial project information and annual
and summary reports to CSREES\' Current Research Information System
(CRIS). The CRIS database contains narrative project information,
progress/impact statements, and final technical reports that are made
available to the public. For applications recommended for funding,
instructions on preparation and submission of project documentation
will be provided to the applicant by the agency contact. Documentation
must be submitted to CRIS before CSREES funds will be released. Project
reports will be requested by the CRIS office when required. For more
information about CRIS, visit
[[http://cris.csrees.usda.gov]{.underline}](http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073051 .anchor}**PART VII---AGENCY CONTACT**

Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact Dr.
Martin Draper; National Program Leader for Plant Pathology; Plant and
Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400
Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2220; telephone: (202)
401-1990; fax: (202) 401-4888; e-mail: <mdraper@csrees.usda.gov>.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073052 .anchor}PART VIII---OTHER INFORMATION

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073053 .anchor}A. Access to Review Information

Copies of reviews, not including the identity of reviewers, and a
summary of the panel comments will be sent to the applicant PD after the
review process has been completed.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073054 .anchor}B. Use of Funds; Changes

**1. [Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility]{.underline}**

Unless the terms and conditions of the award state otherwise, the
awardee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another
person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or
expenditure of award funds.

**2. [Changes in Project Plans]{.underline}**\
\
a. The permissible changes by the awardee, PD(s), or other key project
personnel in the approved project shall be limited to changes in
methodology, techniques, or other similar aspects of the project to
expedite achievement of the project\'s approved goals. If the awardee or
the PD(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this
provision, the question must be referred to the Authorized Departmental
Officer (ADO) for a final determination. The ADO is the signatory of the
award document, not the program contact.

b\. Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the
awardee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such
changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which
are outside the scope of the original approved project.

c\. Changes in approved project/program leadership or the replacement or
reassignment of other key project/program personnel (including IPM
Extension Coordinator(s)) shall be requested by the awardee and approved
in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes.

d\. Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work
in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not
Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the awardee and
approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers, unless
prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the award.

e\. The project period may be extended by CSREES without additional
financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines
may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved
project, but in no case shall the total project period exceed five
years. Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by
the awardee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed
otherwise in the terms and conditions of award.

f\. Changes in Approved Budget: Unless stated otherwise in the terms and
conditions of award, changes in an approved budget must be requested by
the awardee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such
changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of
amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal
cost principles, Departmental regulations, or award.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073055 .anchor}C. Confidential Aspects of
Applications and Awards

When an application results in an award, it becomes a part of the record
of CSREES transactions, available to the public upon specific request.
Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential,
privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the
extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant
wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary
should be clearly marked within the application. The original copy of an
application that does not result in an award will be retained by the
Agency for a period of three years. Other copies will be destroyed. Such
an application will be released only with the consent of the applicant
or to the extent required by law. An application may be withdrawn at any
time prior to the final action thereon.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073056 .anchor}D. Regulatory Information

For the reasons set forth in the final Rule related Notice to 7 CFR part
3015, subpart V (48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded
from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter
35), the collection of information requirements contained in this Notice
have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0039.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073057 .anchor}E. Definitions

For the purpose of awarding grants under this program, the following
definitions are applicable:

[1862 Land-Grant Institution]{.underline} means an institution eligible
to receive funds under the Act of July 2, 1862, as amended (7 U.S.C. 301
et seq.). Unless otherwise stated for a specific program, this term
includes a research foundation maintained by such an institution.

[1890 Land-Grant Institution]{.underline} means one of those
institutions eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890,
as amended (7 U.S.C. 321 *et seq*.), including Tuskegee University and
West Virginia State University. Unless otherwise stated for a specific
program, this term includes a research foundation maintained by such an
institution.

[Administrator]{.underline} means the Administrator of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and any other
officer or employee of the CSREES to whom the authority involved is
delegated.

[Authorized Departmental Officer or ADO]{.underline} means the Secretary
or any employee of the Department with delegated authority to issue or
modify grant instruments on behalf of the Secretary.

[Authorized Representative or AR]{.underline} means the President or
Chief Executive Officer of the applicant organization or the official,
designated by the President or Chief Executive Officer of the applicant
organization, who has the authority to commit the resources of the
organization to the project.

[Budget period]{.underline} means the interval of time (usually 12
months) into which the project period is divided for budgetary and
reporting purposes.

[Citizen or national of the United States]{.underline} means a citizen
or native resident of a State; or, a person defined in the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), who, though not a citizen of
the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. When
eligibility is claimed solely on the basis of permanent allegiance,
documentary evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service as
to such eligibility must be made available to CSREES upon request.
College or university means, unless defined in a separate subpart, an
educational institution in any State which:

\(1\) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of
graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the
recognized equivalent of such a certificate;

\(2\) Is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of
education beyond secondary education;

\(3\) Provides an educational program for which a bachelor's degree or
any other higher degree is awarded;

\(4\) Is a public or other nonprofit institution; and

\(5\) Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or
association. Unless otherwise stated for a specific program, this term
includes a research foundation maintained by such an institution.

[Department]{.underline} means the United States Department of
Agriculture.

[Extension]{.underline} means informal education program conducted in
the States in cooperation with the Unites States Department of
Agriculture.

[Extension activity]{.underline} means an act or process that delivers
science-based knowledge and informal educational programs to people,
enabling them to make practical decisions.

[Food and agricultural sciences]{.underline} The term ''food and
agricultural sciences'' means basic, applied, and developmental
research, extension, and teaching activities in food and fiber,
agricultural, renewable natural resources, forestry, and physical and
social sciences, including activities relating to the following:

\(1\) Animal health, production, and well-being.

\(2\) Plant health and production.

\(3\) Animal and plant germplasm collection and preservation.

\(4\) Aquaculture.

\(5\) Food safety.

\(6\) Soil and water conservation and improvement.

\(7\) Forestry, horticulture, and range management.

\(8\) Nutritional sciences and promotion.

\(9\) Farm enhancement, including financial management, input
efficiency, and profitability.

\(10\) Home economics.

\(11\) Rural human ecology.

\(12\) Youth development and agricultural education, including 4--H
clubs.

\(13\) Expansion of domestic and international markets for agricultural
commodities and products, including agricultural trade barrier
identification and analysis.

\(14\) Information management and technology transfer related to
agriculture.

\(15\) Biotechnology related to agriculture.

\(16\) The processing, distributing, marketing, and utilization of food
and agricultural products.

[Grant]{.underline} means the award by the Authorized Departmental
Officer of funds to an eligible grantee to assist in meeting the costs
of conducting for the benefit of the public, an identified project which
is intended and designed to accomplish the purpose of the program as
identified in the program solicitation or RFA.

[Grantee]{.underline} means the organization designated in the grant
award document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is
awarded.

[Insular area]{.underline} means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
the Republic of Palau, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

[IPM Collaboration(s)]{.underline} refer to a section of a program
proposal that contains a component of collaboration with another
institution: (1) in which an applicant institution includes a
cooperative element with at least one other entity that is not legally
affiliated with the applicant institution; and (2) where the applicant
institution and each cooperating entity will assume a significant role
in the implementation of the proposed collaborative program component.
Funds need not be subcontracted in all cases, and may be administered by
the applicant institution. Only the applicant institution must meet the
definition of an eligible institution as specified in this RFA.

[IPM Coordinator(s)]{.underline} refers to the individual(s) with
programmatic lead responsibilities at institutions with IPM programs.
Programs may exist with or without funding from this program, but in
reference to this program, the term is used to identify the individual
responsible for executing the institutional IPM program funded through
EIPM-CS Coordination Program.

[Methodology]{.underline} means the project approach to be followed.

[National IPM Evaluation Group]{.underline} (NIPMEG) was formed to
facilitate and harmonize IPM impact assessment and program evaluation.
In existence since October 2004, the group is composed of individuals
from federal, state, public and private entities associated with IPM.
 The group works to devise long-term strategies of cooperation to
evaluate the current status of IPM throughout the nation and determine
how best to promote and convey broad national impacts.

[Peer reviewers]{.underline} means experts or consultants qualified by
training and experience to give expert advice on the scientific and
technical merit of grant applications or the relevance of those
applications to one or more of the application evaluation criteria. Peer
reviewers may be adhoc or convened as a panel.

[Prior approval]{.underline} means written approval by an Authorized
Departmental Officer evidencing prior consent.

[Project]{.underline} means the particular activity within the scope of
the program supported by a grant award.

[Project Director or PD]{.underline} means the single individual
designated by the grantee in the grant application and approved by the
Authorized Departmental Officer who is responsible for the direction and
management of the project, also known as a Principal Investigator (PI)
for research activities.

[Project period]{.underline} means the total length of time, as stated
in the award document and modifications thereto, if any, during which
Federal sponsorship begins and ends.

[Scientific peer review]{.underline} is an evaluation of the technical
quality of a proposed project and its relevance to regional or national
goals, performed by experts with the scientific knowledge and technical
skills to conduct the proposed research work.

[Secretary]{.underline} means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other
officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved is
delegated.

[Specialty crop]{.underline} means fruits and vegetables, tree nuts,
dried fruits, and horticulture and nursery crops (including
floriculture).

[State]{.underline} means any one of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the insular areas.

[United States]{.underline} means the several States, the District of
Columbia, and the insular areas.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc216073058 .anchor}F. Electronic Application
Checklist

Only electronic applications may be submitted to CSREES via Grants.gov
unless indicated otherwise in the specific program Request for
Applications (RFA). All applications submitted to CSREES must contain
the applicable elements outlined in these guidelines. The following
checklist has been prepared to assist in ensuring that the application
is complete prior to submission:

� **Are you eligible to apply for the funding offered in the RFA?**
Eligibility information is stated in Part III, Eligibility Information,
of each RFA.

� **Are you applying to the correct funding opportunity associated with
the RFA?** Field 1 of the CSREES Supplemental Information Form will
pre-populate to indicate the program to which you are applying.

[]{.mark}

� **Have you followed the guidelines for filling out your electronic
application provided in the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide, which
is posted along with the electronic SF 424 R&R application package on
Grants.gov?** Electronic applications should be prepared according this
guide and the specific program RFA. This guide is part of the
corresponding electronic application package for the specific program to
which you are applying.

� **Has your institution properly registered with Grants.gov to enable
you to submit an application?** Those who wish to submit an application
to CSREES should first contact their Authorized Representative (AR) to
determine if the organization is prepared to submit applications through
Grants.gov. See <http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted> for steps for
preparing to submit applications through Grants.gov.

� **Have all attachments been submitted in the portable document format
(PDF)?** CSREES will only accept PDF attachments. See Part III of the
CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide.

� **Do all submitted PDF documents have one-inch margins and are typed
or word processed using no type smaller than 12 point regardless of line
spacing? Are all PDF documents numbered sequentially on each page of the
attachment? Are all page limitations for a given attachment followed?**
**Submitted proposals that do not meet these requirements for PDF
attachments will not be accepted.**

� **Did you use the "Check Package for Errors" feature (see section 1.8
of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide)?**

� **Have all required components of the SF 424 Research and Related
(R&R) Application Package posted under the funding opportunity on
Grants.gov been completed?**

� **[SF 424 R&R Cover Sheet]{.underline}**

-   Have all required fields (highlighted in yellow) been completed?

� [R&R Other Project Information]{.underline}

-   Have the fields describing project potential or actual environmental
    impact been properly completed?

> [Project Summary/Abstract]{.underline}

-   Has the Project Summary PDF been attached to this form in Field 6?

-   Are the names and affiliated organizations of all Project Directors
    listed at the top of the page in addition to the title of the
    project?

-   Does this section adhere to the format and page limitations?

-   Did you use the suggested Project Summary/Abstract Template found
    at:
    [www.csrees.usda.gov/home/faq_apply.html#abstract](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/home/faq_apply.html#abstract)?

> [Project Narrative]{.underline}

-   Has the Project Narrative PDF been attached to this form in Field 7?

-   Is the project fully described?

-   Does this section adhere to the format and page limitations?

> [Bibliography & References Cited]{.underline}

-   Has the Bibliography & References Cited PDF been attached to this
    form in Field 8?

-   Are all references cited and are all citations referenced?

-   Do all citations contain a title, the names of all authors, and are
    they in accepted journal format?

> [Facilities & Other Resources (Optional)]{.underline}

-   Has the Facilities & Other Resources PDF been attached to this form
    in Field 9?

-   Has a description of your facilities, sufficient to indicate that
    you will be able to carry out this project, been given?

> [Equipment (Optional)]{.underline}

-   Has the Equipment PDF been attached to this form in Field 10?

-   Is the description of your equipment sufficient to indicate that you
    will be able to carry out this project?

� [R&R Senior/Key Person Profile]{.underline}

> [Biographical Sketch]{.underline}

-   Has the biographical sketch (vitae) PDF for the PD and each co-PD,
    senior associate, and other professional personnel been attached
    (including IPM Coordinator(s))?

> [Current and Pending Support]{.underline}

-   Has the current and pending support PDF for key personnel been
    attached?

-   Have all current and pending projects been listed and summarized,
    **including this proposal**?

-   Did you use the suggested Current and Pending Support Template found
    at:
    [www.csrees.usda.gov/home/faq_apply.html#current](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/home/faq_apply.html#current)?

� [R&R Personal Data]{.underline}

-   Have all fields been completed? DO NOT INCLUDE SOCIAL SECURITY
    NUMBERS.

� [R&R Budget]{.underline}

-   ::: Definition-Term
    Have all fields been completed?
    :::

-   Are appropriate budgets included? For multi-institution
    applications, has a subaward budget been included for each
    institution involved?

> [Budget Justification]{.underline}

-   Has the Budget Justification PDF been attached to this form in Field
    K?

-   Are budget items individually justified?

-   For multi-institutional applications, has a subaward budget
    justification been included for each institution involved?

� [CSREES Supplemental Information Form]{.underline}

-   Has Field 1 been pre-populated?

-   Does Field 2 indicate the Program Code Name and Program Code to
    which you are applying?

> [Conflict of Interest List]{.underline}

-   Has the Conflict of Interest List PDF been attached to this form in
    Field 8?

-   Has a Conflict of Interest List been provided for all individuals
    who have submitted a Biographical Sketch?

-   Does the Conflict of Interest list include the four categories as
    appropriate?

-   Did you use the suggested Conflict of Interest Template found at:
    [www.csrees.usda.gov/home/faq_apply.html#coi](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/home/faq_apply.html#coi)?