Table of Contents

I. SUMMARY
II. BACKGROUND: THE CENTER AND PARTNERSHIP GRANTS
III. PROPOSAL CRITERIA
IV. PROJECT TYPES
V. FUNDS
VI. PROPOSAL PREPARATION
VII. SELECTION CRITERIA
VIII. FINAL REPORTS AND PROGRESS REPORTS
IX. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

I. SUMMARY
This Request for Applications (RFA) solicits proposals for projects that will further the purpose of the Northeastern Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Center. Our mission is to

foster the development and adoption of integrated pest management, a science-based approach to managing pests in ways that generate economic, environmental, and human health benefits. We work in partnership with stakeholders from agricultural, urban, and rural settings to identify and address regional priorities for research, education, and outreach.

1. It will further the mission of the Northeastern IPM Center, which is stated at the beginning of this proposal in the Summary.
2. It will address or develop priorities of people in the region who care about IPM, and it will benefit the region at large. We encourage you to see “Finding and Developing Stakeholder Priorities” on our website (http://NortheastIPM.org/stakeholder_priorities.cfm).
3. The proposal will be written according to the style and formatting guidelines outlined in this RFA.
4. It will fulfill the specific criteria of one or more of the project types listed below.
   

back to table of contents

1. You may combine proposals for project types A (IPM Working Groups) and B (State Network Projects) into one document.
2. You may combine proposals for project types C (IPM Working Group Priorities), D (Regional Publications), E (Critical and Emerging Issues), or F (IPM Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, and Pest Management Strategic Plans) into one document.

A. IPM Working Groups (IWGs)

We expect to fund four to six IPM Working Groups at amounts of about $15,000 each (a total of approximately $75,000). Funding amounts for each IPM Working Group will depend on the objectives presented in the proposal. Last year we funded three IPM Working Groups for $40,000 total. We anticipate that most IWG projects will be completed in one year, but two-year projects will be approved with adequate justification.

IWGs must be multistate and multidisciplinary, with 10-15 members (selected by IWG leaders) that include IPM stakeholders such as researchers, extension educators, IPM practitioners, government agency representatives, producers, and agricultural consultants. Each IPM Working Group must consist of stakeholders working on or actively concerned with:

1. an IPM setting (e.g., parks or schools) or a crop; or
2. an activity or issue. Issues important to the Center are:
   • planning a conference or workshop of regional interest;
   • gathering and communicating IPM success stories;
   • evaluating the economics of a given IPM practice;
   • explaining or promoting IPM to the public via television, radio, or other media;
   • developing lists of standards with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and helping farmers to practice IPM with these standards;
   • co-training with the Northeast Plant Diagnostic Network;
   • collaborating with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS);
   • packaging and marketing IPM products to consumers;
   • planning a way to address an invasive species problem;
   • furthering the development of IPM guidelines for a given crop or setting;
   • developing IPM educational materials and conducting outreach programs; and
   • improving coordination among northeastern IPM-related websites.
   
   
   Applicants considering issue-based topics can find further examples at http://NortheastIPM.org/grants_partnership_WGexample.cfm.

All IPM Working Groups will:

• identify and prioritize regional IPM needs (in particular, gaps in research and extension) for their specific IPM setting or issue. These IPM needs are used as funding priorities for other Northeastern IPM Center and USDA grant programs.
• represent the views of relevant stakeholder groups to the Center. IWGs are encouraged to engage Center staff on a regular basis.
• represent the Center to relevant stakeholders. IWG members are expected to pass information from the Center to their own organizations and peers.
• incorporate at least some of the goals of the National IPM Roadmap (http://NortheastIPM.org/whatis_ipmroadmap.pdf) and the Northeastern IPM Center’s mission (http://NortheastIPM.org/abou_mission.cfm) into their own proposed project.

Groups are encouraged to outline a plan of work with outcome-based objectives and milestones. Addressing and developing priorities (see http://NortheastIPM.org/stakeholder_priorities.cfm) might entail collaborating with:

• institutions or groups in other states;
• other colleges and universities;
• representatives of private and nongovernmental agencies—including, but not limited to, grower and commodity organizations,
• environmental groups, and consumer groups;
• other federal and state agencies, such as NRCS; or
• additional stakeholders appropriate to the needs of the project.

Members of IPM Working Groups may apply for IPM Working Group Priorities funding (described below) and are encouraged to compete for funding through external sources to meet their objectives.

B. State Network Projects (SNPs)

We expect to designate $180,000 to support up to 12 State Network Projects. Typical awards in 2005 were $15,000 per state. Only one SNP per state will be funded. Additional funding may be awarded to project directors who efficiently coordinate multistate SNPs across state boundaries. It is expected that SNPs will function as ongoing entities pending their success in meeting the requirements outlined in this section. Links to existing SNPs can be found online (http://NortheastIPM.org/about.cfm#program).

State Network Projects are expected to:

• serve as the primary information source for federal and state regulatory agencies and other agencies regarding use of IPM tactics (including pesticides) in all IPM settings in the state. SNPs respond in a timely fashion to requests for information from these agencies.
• link the Northeastern IPM Center, state Extension IPM coordinators, the land grant institution, and other key agencies in the state. They are expected to connect stakeholders to appropriate working groups and other components of the Northeastern IPM Center. State Network Projects also provide information (such as release of RFAs and meeting dates) in a timely fashion to all appropriate contacts.
• maintain a project website. Required attributes of the website can be found online at http://www.NortheastIPM.org/pubs_webstandards.cfm.
• use an advisory committee consisting of a diverse group of stakeholders interested in IPM. This committee should convene at least once annually (conference calls are acceptable), and more frequent meetings or other types of interaction are encouraged. The committee must include at least the state IPM Coordinator, a representative of the state regulatory agency, the state Pesticide Safety Education Program Coordinator, a representative from the Northeastern IPM Center, appropriate research and extension faculty (including a representative from the 1890 institution if such an institution exists in the state), IPM users (such as growers and crop consultants), and representation from environmental and consumer advocacy groups.

All those applying for State Network Project funds:

• may also compete for other types of funds in this RFA; and
• may participate in subcontracts between the Northeastern IPM Center and other entities of the SNP’s own institution to minimize total indirect costs for the Center, and are expected to pass funds from the Northeastern IPM Center to any programs or individuals of the same institution that have contracts with the Center.

Those applying for continued SNP funding must submit a proposal as well as a separate detailed progress report, which is also due on December 16, 2005 (for guidelines, see http://NortheastIPM.org/grants_programs.cfm). Continued funding is contingent on adequate performance.

C. IPM Working Group (IWG) Priorities

We expect to designate approximately $80,000 for projects that address priorities proposed by IPM Working Groups. Last year, three projects were funded at an average of $21,000 each. Each IWG Priorities project can be funded for up to two years.
The priorities proposed by IPM Working Groups are listed online at http://NortheastIPM.org/work_priorities.cfm. Project directors may be expected to collaborate with present or past IWG members; the Center staff will assist applicants in making those connections, as necessary. Proposals must address at least one important priority and have strong potential for success.

D. Regional IPM Publications

We will likely designate a total of $25,000 to support the development of regional and multistate IPM publications. Each project is limited to one year and $15,000 funding.

Funds may be used to plan, develop, or print IPM-related documents with multistate and/or regional applicability. Up to 10% of your budget may be used for distribution. Printed publications are strongly encouraged, but other types of publications, such as websites, videos, and educational exhibits, are acceptable. Preference will be given to projects that (1) address priorities identified by IPM stakeholders in the region; (2) fill important existing gaps; (3) have wide applicability within the northeastern region; (4) facilitate and promote interstate collaboration; and (5) might otherwise be undertaken by two or more state programs. We welcome proposals to tailor IPM success stories to public officials or to develop IPM information for the general public.

Content and design of all products must meet standards delineated in the Northeastern IPM Center Guidelines for Center-Funded Communications Projects, available online at http://NortheastIPM.org/pubs_guide.cfm.

E. Critical and Emerging Issues

We will designate up to $40,000 for projects that address a critical or emerging IPM issue. The purpose of this category is to fund timely responses to critical issues, under the assumption that an early regional response can lead to fast, effective solutions. Our goal is to provide some funds for work on new and critical issues and to support projects that offer innovative solutions to IPM challenges. We envision funding proposals that range from research, extension, or education projects for two years, to small highly-focused projects that may need only $10,000–$15,000 for a few months.

Applicants must make a strong case for the need for the proposed project. Evidence of stakeholder input into the identification of the need will strengthen the application. Suitable projects in this category will likely focus on pest problems of regional or national magnitude. Examples of issues that could fit into this project type are plum pox virus, soybean rust, West Nile virus, or perhaps a newly discovered invasive species that could have a significant impact on the economics of the Northeast.

We strongly encourage submission of Critical and Emerging Issues proposals on December 16, 2005. Proposals submitted by that date will be reviewed and ranked by the review panel. However, proposals for this particular project type may be submitted at any time during the year. Submissions made after the deadline will be reviewed by the Northeastern IPM Center Steering Committee. The Center may choose to rate any Critical and Emerging Issues proposal as part of the annual application review process, if appropriate. Funding of qualified proposals will be based on the availability of funds at the time of submission. For further information, including updates on funds remaining in this category throughout the year, see http://NortheastIPM.org/abou_fund.cfm.

F. IPM Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, and Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs)

We will likely designate about $70,000 for the development of IPM Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, and PMSPs. In 2005, awards ranged from $4,400 to $30,000, depending on the complexity of the task and the number of states involved. Projects are typically funded for one year.

Successful proposals will be guided by the prioritization matrixes found at http://NortheastIPM.org/grants_partnership_epamatrix.cfm and http://NortheastIPM.org/grants_partnership_pp.cfm. These matrixes include information about:

• presence and need for revision of existing documents;
• prioritization by the EPA, IPM Working Groups, State Network Projects, and other entities;
• importance of crops and other IPM settings in each state; and
• designation of certain crops as “kids’ foods.”

Funded crop profiles and PMSPs must conform to Northeastern IPM Center’s standards for content, format, and distribution. Instructions on how to prepare crop profiles and PMSPs can be found at http://NortheastIPM.org/rese_profiles.cfm. Documents are not considered completed until they are approved by Northeastern IPM Center leadership and are included in the National IPM Centers’ database.

back to table of contents

V. FUNDS

Successful applicants will be funded via a subcontract from The Pennsylvania State University. It is our goal to issue only one subcontract per institution to minimize overall indirect costs to the project. PDs of successful proposals will be contacted to work out the funding mechanism. Applicants must follow USDA budgetary guidelines, as presented in the instructions that accompany the required Budget form (CSREES-2004).You can obtain these forms and instructions at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/forms_standard.html by downloading the file “application_form,” which is available in pdf and MS Word format.

Matching funds are not required for this proposal; however, preference may be given to proposals with matching funds.

back to table of contents

A. Format

Proposals should be written clearly and succinctly, and must be:

• printed on one side of 8.5" x 11" white paper using a 12-point font and 1-inch margins;
• numbered, beginning with the Table of Contents (hand numbering is acceptable);
• single-spaced text with two returns (one blank line) between paragraphs; and
• stapled in the upper left-hand corner.

B. Order of Sections

1. Proposal Cover Page (form CSREES-2002*)
2. Project Summary (form CSREES-2003*), including project type as described in Part IV
3. Table of Contents
4. Project Description
5. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved
6. Key Personnel description, including curricula vitae (CVs) for project directors
7. Collaborative Arrangements and Letters of Support
8. Budget (form CSREES-2004*)
9. Budget Narrative
10. Attachments:

• Current and Pending Support for each project director and co-project director (form CSREES-2005*)
• National Environmental Policy Act Exclusions Form for each person (CSREES-2006*)
• Conflict of Interest List (CSREES-2007*)
• Assurance Statement[s] (form CSREES-2008*), if required (see Part VI.D.10, below).

* Obtain the USDA/CSREES forms at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/forms_standard.html by downloading the file “application_form,” which is available in pdf and MS Word format.

C. Page Limits

Please do not allow the Project Description portion of your proposal to exceed the following page limits, listed by project type:

• IPM Working Groups: 8 pages
• State Network Projects: 8 pages
• IPM Working Group Priorities: 10 pages
• Regional IPM Publications: 6 pages
• Critical and Emerging Issues: 15 pages for full-fledged research or extension proposals; 5 pages for proposals that address a rapidly emerging issue and are submitted after the RFA deadline
• IPM Tactics, Crop Profiles, and PMSPs: 8 pages

D. Description of Sections

1. Proposal Cover Page

One copy of the Proposal Cover Page (form CSREES-2002) must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the PDs and co-PDs. Appropriate institutional representatives must sign also. The title should be no longer than 100 characters (letters, punctuation, and spaces between words).

2. Project Summary

The Project Summary (use form CSREES-2003) should provide a brief description of the problem or opportunity, project objectives, and a description of the effort in simple terms that can be understood by a diverse audience, including the general public, university personnel, various public and private organizations, and budget staff. Applicants must identify which project type(s) is being proposed at the beginning of this summary. Place this form immediately following the Proposal Cover Page and do not number. In addition to printing the Project Summary on form CSREES-2003, applicants should submit these summaries electronically to Northeastern IPM Center directors along with the Table of Contents, Project Description, and Cooperation and Institutional Units sections (described below).

3. Table of Contents

For ease in locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents. The Table of Contents should be placed after the Project Summary and contain page number references for each subsequent component of the proposal. Begin page numbering with this page. The Table of Contents should be submitted both in printed copies of the proposal and electronically.

4. Project Description

In this section you should describe the need for your project; your goals and how you will achieve them; and how you (and the Northeastern IPM Center) will know you have succeeded. The Project Description should be submitted both in printed copies of the proposal and electronically.

For State Network Project proposals, applicants should use this section to provide a brief summary of pertinent experience with pest management information networking (especially relating to regulatory issues), coordination with other agencies and programs, and stakeholder outreach (including website development and newsletters). Applicants should describe the current need for additional information networking, coordination with other agencies and programs, advisory committee activities, and stakeholder outreach in the state or multistate project area. Applicants should also indicate how the proposed project will address these needs. Information pertaining to IPM tactics surveys, crop profiles, and PMSPs should be presented in a separate proposal for that project type.

For all other project types (IPM Working Groups; IPM Working Group Priorities; Regional IPM Publications; Critical and Emerging Issues; and IPM Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, and PMSPs), include all of the following:

a. Problem, Background and Justification

• Describe, in simple terms, the problem. Consider including the economic importance of the crop or problem, the importance of the pest(s), and the reason for your study.
• Address the specific need(s) identified by growers and other stakeholders in the northeastern region. Demonstrate that you are engaged with constituents on some level and that your project addresses their needs. Authors of IPM Working Group Priority proposals should cite at least one IPM Working Group priority used to formulate the project (see http://NortheastIPM.org/work_priorities.cfm for a list of these priorities); citing additional needs-assessment evaluations may strengthen your proposal (see http://NortheastIPM.org/regu_regional.cfm).
• Specify who stands to benefit from your project. Consider environmental, health, or economic benefits or how the project indirectly can feed into these objectives. If it strengthens your case, choose one or two real people from your target audience as examples, name them, and describe in a few words their predicament.
  Review ongoing or completed work (local/regional/national) that is relevant to your project, and include references. If relevant, describe how previous work funded by the Northeastern IPM Center or other sources might contribute to the proposed project.
• If possible, tell us about the potential applicability of the proposed approach to other regions.

b. Objectives and Anticipated Impacts.

Provide clear, concise, and logically numbered statement(s) of the specific aims of the proposed effort. Your objectives should tie directly to the goals of the appropriate project type, as outlined in Part IV of this RFA (you may also want to consult Part VII, Selection Criteria, to understand how the review panels will assess objectives).

Then, if possible for your project type, describe the anticipated impacts that could be associated with the fulfillment of your objectives (you may do this in list or table format). Your impacts should connect to the goals of the Northeastern IPM Program: encouraging science-based pest management that safeguards human health and the environment; promoting economic benefits; and furthering the implementation of IPM. (We encourage applicants to review the National IPM Roadmap, available at http://NortheastIPM.org/whatis_ipmroadmap.pdf, and to briefly discuss how their proposed project will address any or all of the goals outlined in the roadmap.) Ideally, the stated project impacts will refer to measurable changes that can be substantiated by data analysis, as indicated in Part d, Your Evaluation Plans, below. Your plan for verifying that these impacts have been achieved will significantly strengthen your application.

The following table poses questions that may help you identify appropriate types of impacts:

Type of Impact	Questions to Help Identify Potential Impacts
Safeguarding human health and the environment	a. Could new IPM practices be adopted as a direct result of your project? Could your project lead to an increase in the total number of acres (or homes, schools, greenhouses, nurseries) on which these practices could be implemented? b. Could the project reduce risk by changing the use of pesticides on farms, or in homes, schools, etc.? For example, could it result in fewer sprays per season or a switch to lower-risk pesticides? (Since there is no unanimous definition of high and low risk, investigators selecting this indicator are asked to categorize given pesticides as high or low risk according to the particular situation, such as lower risk to natural enemies).
Economic benefits	a. What could be the economic benefit (e.g., dollars saved) for clientele who adopt the IPM strategies and systems you studied? Do you envision potential commercialization or mass production of these systems? b. How many IPM personnel might be employed as a result of your work (e.g., private consulting services, nursery operators, food service growers)? c. How many clients do you anticipate would be satisfied with IPM results (e.g., due to improved yield, quality of yield, reduced pest populations, more effective pest control, greater preservation of nonpest species)?d. Are there other financial benefits that might be realized as a result of your project?
Implementation of IPM	a. How many IPM strategies and systems will be validated through this project (e.g., through on-farm trials, large plot tests, or other methods used to confirm efficacy)? b. How many educational materials will be delivered? To whom? c. How many growers/personnel will be trained? d. For a website, what volume of traffic and type of use will the site experience (e.g., # visitors per day/month; # page views; # of unique user sessions; change in volume during growing season; average viewing time)? e. How many more people might adopt IPM practices as a direct result of your project, or how many people might adopt new IPM practices? f. Are there other ways in which your work will result in improved use or increased implementation of IPM strategies in your region or across the Northeast? g. How could your project or study enhance collaboration among stakeholders interested in the development and implementation of improved IPM strategies and systems (e.g., number of growers or other types of stakeholders that have participated in advisory committees, surveys)?

c. Approach and Procedures.

Describe how each of the stated objectives will be reached, in the same order as listed above in Part VI.D.4.b, Objectives and Anticipated Impacts. These descriptions should outline the essential working plans and methods that will be used to attain each objective. You should show that the proposed work has the potential of providing data and information that will permit accomplishing the objectives. Construct a timetable for the start and completion of each phase of the project (e.g., Objective / Phase / Tasks / Complete by...). For multiorganizational or multistate projects, describe how the project will be managed, i.e., who will coordinate the different organizations and states, and how.

d. Your Evaluation Plans.

In this section, briefly describe how you will verify that your project objectives have been met and how you will measure the extent to which any associated impacts have occurred. For example, if you are authoring an IPM Working Group Priority proposal, indicate how you will determine whether the anticipated impacts stated above have been achieved. If measurement of these anticipated impacts will not be possible in the context of the proposed project, describe how the tactic or system you studied, once developed, might be incorporated into an IPM setting. Evaluation plans that include surveys should indicate survey expertise of investigators and/or describe the survey methodology that will be used.

5. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved

Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the lead institution and each institutional unit or stakeholder group contributing to the project. If multi-institutional teams are cooperating on a proposal, a single budget should be submitted for that proposal. This section should be submitted both in printed copies of the proposal and electronically.

6. Key Personnel

Applicants must identify key personnel and their specific roles in the proposed project. Attach for each PD and co-PD a two-page CV that lists relevant publications.

7. Collaborative Arrangements and Letters of Support

If the project includes consulting, collaborative, or subcontractual arrangements, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified in the budget and budget narrative. In addition, you should provide evidence that the collaborators involved, even if unpaid, have agreed to render these services, such as a letter of intent or statement of work from the individual or organization. Such letters of support should be addressed to the PD and should show the name and affiliation of the sender (letterhead is preferred), the level of commitment or scope of the work, and the individual’s signature. Both faxed and original letters are acceptable. All letters of support must be included in this section and not sent separately to the grants manager.

8. Budget

Each proposal must include a detailed budget form (CSREES-2004) for each year of requested support and a budget form that summarizes total project costs for the duration of the project. Follow the instructions accompanying the form. Indirect costs of up to 20% of the total funds awarded (equivalent to 25% of Total Direct Costs) can be requested.
PDs should budget for travel to attend one meeting within the region over the life of the project to present project results to the Center’s Advisory Council.
If you are applying for more than one project type in a combined proposal (see the restrictions in Part IV), submit one budget but indicate in the budget narrative the amount of funds being requested for each project type. A table would be helpful.

9. Budget Narrative

Include a detailed, self-explanatory Budget Narrative. If you are applying for more than one project type (e.g., your proposal combines project types A and B, or combines types C, D, E, or F), write separate Budget Narratives for each project type. Separate each year, and within each year, follow the order of the budget form (CSREES-2004). Show the sum of each category, copied from the budget form; describe costs; and indicate breakdowns (e.g., hourly wages, printing estimates, travel expenses).
If consulting, collaborative, or subcontractual arrangements are included in the proposal, these arrangements should be fully explained and justified. Clearly identify the lead institution, all collaborators, and the role of each in your Budget Narrative.
For collaborative arrangements, the transfer of substantive programmatic work, or the provision of financial assistance to a third party, provide letters of intent or other evidence that collaborators have agreed to render these services (such as a proposed statement of work and a simple budget for each arrangement).

10. Attachments

A completed form CSREES-2005 (Current and Pending Support) and CSREES-2006 (National Environmental Policy Act Exclusions Form) must be included for each project director and co-project director. Form CSREES –2007 (Conflict of Interest List) should also be submitted. Form CSREES-2008 (Assurance Statement[s]) is required if the question in Box 20 of CSREES-2002 is answered “Yes.” Other relevant items, such as reprints or reports, may also be attached.

back to table of contents

VII. SELECTION CRITERIA

We will acknowledge the receipt of your proposal and will make funding decisions by the end of March 2006. Two separate review panels, consisting of professionals from inside and outside the region, will judge the merits and technical qualities of the proposals. Project types A (IPM Working Groups) and B (State Network Projects) will be grouped together for one panel; project types C (IPM Working Group Priorities), D (Regional Publications), E (Critical and Emerging Issues), and F (IPM Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, and PMSPs) will be grouped together for the other panel. Selection will be based on the criteria below. If a number of excellent proposals are equally ranked but the panel is unable to fund them all, additional criteria may be considered in order to fund a variety of projects covering different disciplines and settings.

A. Quality of Proposal Preparation

• All components are included and the proposal is properly assembled.
• Letters of support from collaborators are attached, if applicable.
• Information is presented clearly and succinctly in the format described in this RFA.

B. Objectives and Anticipated Impacts

• The objectives further the mission of the Northeastern IPM Center, are relevant to the Northeast, and show promise of benefiting northeasterners.
• The proposal links to nontraditional participants, such as grower organizations, commodity groups, other colleges and universities, environmental groups, and governmental entities.
• Objectives tie directly to the goals of the appropriate project type, as follows:

  A. IPM Working Groups: Stakeholders are, or will be, well represented from as many states in the region as possible; the goal of the group is clear and is consistent with goals of the Northeastern IPM Center and the National IPM Roadmap; a timetable is in place.
  
  B. State Network Projects: The SNP is capable of serving as a state information source and liaison; mechanisms for establishing pest management information and communication networks are explained; an appropriate advisory committee is planned (if SNP is new) or active, including State IPM Coordinator(s); an ability to maintain the website is shown. In addition, a separate, detailed progress report of the previous year’s impacts must have been submitted if the SNP was funded for that year.
  
  C. IPM Working Group Priorities: The proposal clearly addresses a priority defined by an existing Northeastern IPM Center IPM Working Group.
  
  D. Regional IPM Publications: The project addresses a priority recently identified by IPM stakeholders in the region; it fills important existing gaps; it has wide applicability within the northeastern region; the project facilitates and promotes interstate collaboration.
  
  E. Critical and Emerging Issues: A strong case is made for the critical or emerging nature of the problem; there is evidence of stakeholder input; the project will either start important new work or will promote innovative and effective solutions.
  
  F. IPM Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, Pest Management Strategic Plans: The importance of the setting or crop to the state or region is explained and the priority for a new or revised document is demonstrated; PDs coordinating multistate efforts have defined areas of common interests; the planning process and involvement of stakeholders in identifying the necessity for and prioritization of crop profiles and/or PMSPs is demonstrated.

• Anticipated impacts show potential to be measurable outcomes, not merely accomplishments.

C. Approach, Procedures, and Evaluation

• The work plan addresses appropriate objectives, and the time frame is realistic.
• The procedures are appropriate for the specified outcomes.
• The evaluation plan is sensible and will likely be effective.

D. Budget

• The budget is well defined and reasonable for the proposed project. It follows the guidelines in the RFA and those accompanying the USDA-CSREES form.

back to table of contents

VIII. FINAL REPORTS AND PROGRESS REPORTS

You will be asked to submit a final report, due 60 days after the termination date of the contract. For multiple-year projects, a brief annual progress report will be required. SNPs report prior to the end of the funding year. Report formats and instructions are available on our website, http://NortheastIPM.org/grants_programs.cfm.

IX. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 16, 2005. Faxed copies are not acceptable. You must submit both of these ways:

1. Mail the original and fourteen (14) paper copies of each proposal to:

   Dr. John E. Ayers
   Northeastern IPM Center
   The Pennsylvania State University
   114 Buckhout Laboratory
   University Park, PA 16802
   Phone: 814-865-7776

2. Email an attached electronic copy, in Microsoft Word, Rich Text Format, or WordPerfect, to John Ayers (jea@psu.edu) and to Carrie Koplinka-Loehr (ckk3@cornell.edu) by the same date. You may include your entire proposal, but we’re primarily interested in receiving the:
   • Project Summary (as printed on form CSREES-2003);
   • Table of Contents;
   • Project Description; and
   • Cooperation and Institutional Units.
     
     

back to table of contents