[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11488-11509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4465]



[[Page 11487]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Request for Proposals (RFP): Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food 
Systems, FY 2001; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 11488]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


Request for Proposals (RFP): Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems, FY 2001

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, 
Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of Request for Proposals and Request for Input.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service (CSREES) announces the availability of grant funds and requests 
proposals for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems 
Program (IFAFS) for fiscal year (FY) 2001 to support competitively 
awarded research, extension and education grants addressing key issues 
of national and regional importance to agriculture, forestry, and 
related topics. The amount available for support of this program in FY 
2001 is approximately $113,400,000.
    This notice sets out the objectives for these projects, the 
eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, the application 
procedures, and the set of instructions needed to apply for an IFAFS 
grant under this authority.
    By this notice, CSREES additionally solicits stakeholder input from 
any interested party regarding the FY 2001 IFAFS for use in development 
of any future requests for proposals for this program.

DATES: For the FY 2001 competition, a Letter of Intent is requested and 
is due by March 23, 2001. Project proposals and proposals for 
Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship Grants (MGET) must be 
received by COB April 23, 2001. Proposals received after this date will 
not be considered for funding. Critical or Emerging Issues proposals 
must be received by COB on June 1, 2001. Comments regarding this 
Request for Proposals are invited for six months from the issuance of 
this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to 
the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Applicants may e-mail the Letter of Intent to Dr. Rodney 
Foil at [email protected] or send the letter by mail to IFAFS; Mail 
Stop 2213; Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service; 
U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; 
Washington, D.C. 20250-2213; or fax the Letter to IFAFS at (202) 690-
3858. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted 
using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Initiative for 
Future Agriculture and Food Systems; c/o Proposal Services Unit; 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; Room 1307, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th 
Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20024.
    Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the 
following address: Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; 
c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 
Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245.
    Written user comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and 
Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State 
Research, Education and Extension Service; U.S. Department of 
Agriculture; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, 
D.C. 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: [email protected]. In your 
comments, please include the name of the program and the fiscal year of 
the request for proposals (RFP) to which you are responding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Applicants and other interested 
parties are encouraged to contact the Program Director listed in the 
program areas found in the Program Area Description section below, or 
Dr. Rodney Foil, Director IFAFS, Cooperative State Research, Education, 
and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2242; 1400 
Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-2242; telephone: (202) 
720-4423; e-mail: [email protected]; or Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy 
Administrator, CRGAM, Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2240; 1400 
Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington D.C. 20250-2240; telephone: (202) 
401-1761 e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Stakeholder Input
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Part I--General Information
    A. Legislative Authority and Background
    B. Purpose, Priorities and Fund Availability
    C. Definitions
    D. Eligibility
    E. Matching Requirements
    F. Types of Proposals
    G. Restrictions on Use of Funds
Part II--Program Description
    A. Types of Projects to be Supported
    1. Project Grants
    2. Bridge Grants
    3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants
    4. Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship (MGET) 
Grants
    B. Program Description
    1. Agricultural Genomics
    2. Agricultural Biotechnology
    3. Food Safety and Human Nutrition
    4. New Uses for Agricultural Products
    5. Natural Resource Management
    6. Farm Efficiency and Profitability
    7. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants
    8. Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship (MGET)
Part III--Preparation of a Proposal
    A. Program Application Materials
    B. Content of Proposals and Letter of Intent
    1. Letter of Intent
    2. Project Proposals
    3. Critical or Emerging Issues Proposals
    4. MGET Proposals
    C. Submission of Proposals
    1. When to Submit
    2. What to Submit
    3. Where to Submit
    D. Acknowledgment of Proposals
Part IV--Review Process
    A. General
    B. Evaluation Factors
    1. Project Grants
    2. Bridge Grants
    3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants
    4. MGET Grants
    C. Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality
Part V--Additional Information
    A. Access To Review Information
    B. Grant Awards
    C. Funding Mechanisms
    D. Use of Funds; Changes
    E. Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations

Stakeholder Input

    CSREES is requesting comments regarding this RFP from any 
interested party. These comments will be considered in the development 
of any future RFP for the program. Such comments will be forwarded to 
the Secretary or his designee for use in meeting 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 RFP 
from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, education and 
extension for use in formulating future RFPs for competitive programs. 
Comments should be submitted as provided for in the ``Addresses'' and 
``Dates'' portions of this Notice.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under 10.302, Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food 
Systems.

[[Page 11489]]

Part I--General Information

A. Legislative Authority and Background

    Section 401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education 
Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7621) established in the Treasury 
of the United States an IFAFS account and authorized the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish a research, extension, and education 
competitive grants program to address critical emerging U.S. 
agricultural issues related to (1) future food production, (2) 
environmental quality and natural resource management, or (3) farm 
income. Grants are to be awarded that shall address priority mission 
areas related to (a) Agricultural genome, (b) Food safety, food 
technology and human nutrition, (c) New and alternative uses and 
production of agricultural commodities and products, (d) Agricultural 
biotechnology, (e) Natural resource management, including precision 
agriculture, and (f) Farm efficiency and profitability, including the 
viability and competitiveness of small- and medium-sized dairy, 
livestock, crop, and other commodity operations. Priority is to be 
given to projects that are multistate, multi-institutional, or 
multidisciplinary or projects that integrate agricultural research, 
extension and education.
    Subject to the availability of funds to carry out this program, the 
Secretary may award grants to a college or university or a research 
foundation maintained by a college or university. This represents a 
change from the FY 2000 solicitation. Section 724 of Public Law No. 
106-389, as amended by section 101(3) of H.R. 566 which was enacted by 
section 1(a)(4) of Public Law No. 106-554, removed Federal research 
agencies, national laboratories, and private research organizations 
from eligibility for IFAFS awards.
    Grants also may be awarded to ensure that faculty of small and mid-
sized academic institutions that have not previously been successful in 
obtaining competitive grants under subsection (b) of the Competitive, 
Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) (i.e. the 
CSREES National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program) receive 
a portion of the IFAFS grants. Grants are to be awarded to address 
priorities in United States agriculture that involve research, 
extension, and education activities as determined by the Secretary in 
consultation with the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
Education, and Economics Advisory Board; and stakeholders through a 
public meeting held in July of 1998.

B. Purpose, Priorities and Fund Availability

    The purpose of the IFAFS is to support research, education and 
extension grants that address critical emerging U.S. agricultural 
issues related to (1) future food production, (2) environmental quality 
and natural resource management, or (3) farm income.
    In awarding IFAFS grants, priority will be given to projects that 
are multistate, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary or projects 
that integrate agricultural research, extension and education. 
Integrated projects hold the greatest potential to produce and transfer 
knowledge directly to end users, while providing for educational 
opportunities to assure agricultural expertise in future generations. 
The IFAFS also holds great opportunity to bring the agricultural 
knowledge system to bear on issues impacting small and mid-sized 
producers and land managers, thus enabling improvements in quality of 
life and community. In support of the agency's goal to enhance the 
competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, consideration will also be given 
to projects (with U.S. institutions as the lead) that incorporate an 
international dimension with demonstrable domestic benefits.
    IFAFS is distinct from other CSREES programs because of its 
priority on integration of research, extension, and education; its 
consideration of the concerns of small and mid-sized operations; its 
emphasis of agricultural production issues; and its goal to support 
relatively large projects that provide more intensive support to the 
research, extension, and education system.
    There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or 
to make a specific number of awards. Approximately $113,400,000 is 
available in FY 2001 for programs within the IFAFS for the following 
priority areas: Agriculture Genome and Agricultural Biotechnology 
($32,800,000); Food Safety, Food Technology, and Human Nutrition 
($21,900,000); New and Alternative Uses and Production of Agricultural 
Commodities and Products ($10,000,000); Natural Resource Management, 
including Precision Agriculture ($29,000,000); and Farm Efficiency and 
Profitability, Including the Viability and Competitiveness of Small and 
Medium-sized Dairy, Livestock, Crop, and Other Commodity Operations 
($19,000,000). Funds available for each priority area are targets. The 
number and quality of applications, as well as the need to reach 
programmatic goals, may necessitate the movement of funds between 
priority areas. CSREES is not committed to funding any specific amount 
or make any specific number of MGET awards, however, funds in the 
amount of $2.2 million will be made available from the aforementioned 
priority areas to support MGET proposals should they be meritorious.
    Funds will be made available to small or mid-sized academic 
institutions that have not been previously successful in obtaining 
competitive grants under the National Research Initiative Competitive 
Grants Research Program.
    Two additional requests for proposals will be available in FY 2001. 
These are new collaborative programs between CSREES/IFAFS and other 
Federal Agencies. These include the USDA/NSF Microbial Genome 
Sequencing Project (total joint funding of approximately $9 million) 
and the USDA/NASA Application of Geospatial and Precision Technology 
Project (total joint funding of $9.5 million).
    The program areas described herein were developed within the 
context of the authorized purposes of both USDA research, extension, 
and education (7 U.S.C. 3101) and IFAFS (7 U.S.C. 401), within the 
framework of the CSREES Strategic Plan (Available at www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/ree.pdf), and based on stakeholder input.

C. Definitions

    For the purpose of awarding grants under this program, the 
following definitions are applicable:
    (1) Administrator means the Administrator of the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and any other 
officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved 
may be delegated.
    (2) Assistantship means institutional support of graduate students 
for their providing or carrying out teaching or research services.
    (3) Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any 
employee of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify 
grant instruments on behalf of the Secretary.
    (4) Authorized organizational representative 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.
    (5) Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months) 
into which

[[Page 11490]]

the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting purposes.
    (6) Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including 
the outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third 
parties.
    (7) Department or USDA means the United States Department of 
Agriculture.
    (8) Education activity means an act or process that imparts 
knowledge or skills through formal or informal schooling.
    (9) Extension activity means an act or process that delivers 
research-based knowledge and educational programs to people, enabling 
them to make practical decisions.
    (10) Graduate education means recruitment, enrollment, instruction, 
mentoring, retention, and graduation of students seeking master's or 
doctoral degrees; providing resources for thesis research in fields 
related to the research problems in the project; and support of 
graduate students through assistantships, fellowships or traineeships.
    (11) Grant means the award by the Secretary of funds to an eligible 
organization or individual 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 these guidelines.
    (12) Grantee means the organization designated in the grant award 
document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
    (13) Integrated means to bring together the three components of the 
agricultural knowledge system (research, education and extension) 
together around a problem area or activity.
    (14) Internship means student participation in an experiential 
learning activity.
    (15) Matching means that portion of allowable project costs not 
borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind 
contributions.
    (16) Peer review is an evaluation of a proposed project for 
scientific or technical quality and relevance performed by experts with 
the scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed 
work or to give expert advice on the merits of a proposal.
    (17) Principal Investigator/Project director (PI/PD) means the 
single individual designated by the grantee in the grant application 
and approved by the Secretary who is responsible for the direction and 
management of the project.
    (18) Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent 
by an authorized departmental officer as defined in (2) above.
    (19) Project means the particular activity within the scope of the 
program supported by a grant award.
    (20) Project period means the period, as stated in the award 
document and modifications thereto, if any, during which Federal 
sponsorship begins and ends.
    (21) Research activity means a scientific investigation or inquiry 
that results in the generation of knowledge.
    (22) Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other 
officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved 
may be delegated.
    (23) Small- and Mid-Sized Institutions means academic institutions 
having an enrollment of 15,000 or fewer (including part-time students), 
and that are no higher than the 50th percentile of academic 
institutions funded by the National Research Initiative Competitive 
Grants Program in the past three years and are not within the top 100 
Federally funded institutions (see Appendix A.)
    (24) Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions 
of property or services provided by non-Federal third parties, 
including real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable 
property, directly benefitting and specifically identifiable to a 
funded project or program.
    (25) Traineeship means a student centered educational program that 
addresses knowledge needs, personal and professional skills 
development, career experiences and global awareness; student is 
supported like a scholarship or fellowship.

D. Eligibility

    Proposals may be submitted by a college or university or a research 
foundation maintained by a college or university.
    Eligible applicants may subcontract to organizations not eligible 
under these requirements. For Multidisciplinary Graduate Education 
Traineeship (MGET) proposals, eligible colleges or universities are 
those with accredited graduate degree programs in the food and 
agricultural sciences.

E. Matching Requirements

    If a grant provides for applied research that is commodity specific 
and not of national scope, the grant recipient is required to provide 
funds or in-kind support to match the amount of Federal grant funds 
provided.

F. Types of Proposals

    In FY 2001, it is anticipated that projects will be submitted as 
New or Resubmitted Proposals as described below:
    1. New proposal. This is a project proposal that has not been 
previously submitted to the IFAFS Program. All new proposals will be 
reviewed competitively using the selection process and evaluation 
criteria described in Part IV--Selection Process and Evaluation 
Criteria.
    2. Resubmitted proposal. This is a proposal that had been 
previously submitted to the IFAFS but not funded. The resubmitted 
proposal should clearly indicate the changes that have been made in the 
project proposal. Further, a clear statement acknowledging comments 
from the previous reviewers, indicating revisions, rebuttals, etc., can 
positively influence the review of the proposal. Therefore, for 
resubmitted proposals, the investigator(s) must respond to the previous 
panel summary on no more than one page, titled Response to Previous 
Review, which is to be placed directly after the Project Summary as 
described in Part III--Preparation of a Proposal. Resubmitted proposals 
will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and 
evaluation criteria described in Part IV--Selection Process and 
Evaluation Criteria.

G. Restrictions on Use of Funds

1. Funds for Buildings and Facilities
    IFAFS funds may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of 
research spaces; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in 
such spaces; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or 
construction of buildings or facilities.
2. Funds for Human Cloning
    In accordance with the President's Memorandum of March 4, 1997, 
regarding the use of Federal funds for the cloning of human beings (33 
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 278), IFAFS funds shall not be used to support, 
fund, or undertake any cloning activity that could lead to the creation 
of a new human being with genetic material identical to that of another 
human being, including research related directly thereto. The 
prohibition on use of grant funds to ``support'' human cloning activity 
includes using, or making available for use, grant-funded equipment for 
use in connection with human cloning. This ban does not restrict 
research into the cloning of plants, animals, or individual human

[[Page 11491]]

cells that cannot develop into a new human being.

Part II--Program Description

A. Types of Projects To Be Supported

    1. Project grants. Project grants can be proposed that range in 
size to a total grant size of up to five million dollars over four 
years. The amount requested must be commensurate with the activities 
proposed; support for very large requests of funds will be highly 
competitive.
    Project grants may involve any combinations of institutions and 
states but may: involve multiple states and/or institutions that 
conduct research; synthesize previous, ongoing and future research; 
develop curricula and build educational and research capacity; and 
transfer information to producers, end users, and the public. The type 
and number of participating institutions should be appropriate to the 
project proposed, and should include all participants necessary for 
successful completion of the project. All IFAFS project grants will be 
expected to address research, extension and education in a focused 
project area or through larger endeavors that coalesce around project 
areas that cannot be addressed through the funding of individual 
efforts. It is the intent of CSREES to promote collaboration, open 
communication, exchange of information and resources, and integration 
of activities among individuals, institutions, states or regions. 
Larger projects that include many institutions, states or efforts, 
should minimize isolation and over-competitiveness, reduce duplication 
of efforts, and provide an accessible source of expert information, 
technology, and education upon which the public can draw. More focused 
projects are expected to generate new knowledge and/or apply existing 
knowledge quickly through outreach and dissemination to specific issues 
in agriculture where immediate results may be visible.
    Dependent on the merits of proposals received, CSREES will ensure 
that a portion of project grants will be awarded to proposals in which 
the lead institution (recipient of the Federal funds) is a small- or 
mid-sized institution (as defined in Part I., C. Definitions). Other 
institutions or organizations involved in small- and mid-sized 
institution eligible projects need not meet the criteria described in 
the definition of a small- and mid-sized institution.
    A designated lead institution of each project will administer funds 
and be responsible for overall management of activities. Larger grant 
proposals of more than $1 million, or those that are comprised of 
multifaceted participation by a number of institutions must include how 
the administration of the grant will be achieved and monitored since 
proper management of a complex project will influence overall success 
of the project. Plans for how each project will be maintained and 
monitored for progress during and beyond the duration of the grant 
should also be included in the proposal.
    2. Bridge Grants. Applicants may not directly apply for Bridge 
grants. Bridge grants only are awarded to small- and mid-sized academic 
institutions after a review of a submitted Project Grant proposal 
places the application below the funding cutoff.
    Small- and Mid-Sized Institution means academic institutions having 
an enrollment of 15,000 or fewer (including part-time students), ranked 
no higher than the 50th percentile of academic institutions funded by 
the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program in the past 
three years, and are not within the top 100 Federally funded 
institutions (see Appendix A). Bridge grants are designed to assist 
small- and mid-sized academic institutions to sustain and enhance 
important collaborations and activities that might lead to future 
program success or success in obtaining IFAFS and/or other grants. 
Institutions eligible for Bridge grants will be considered for a one-
time infusion of up to $100,000 if a submitted Project Grant proposal 
is considered meritorious but ranks below the funding cutoff during the 
peer review process. Proposals that meet these criteria will be 
forwarded from each program area review panel to the IFAFS 
administration to be considered for funding from a limited pool of 
funds set aside for Bridge Grants.
    3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants. IFAFS is offering the 
opportunity to consider applications based upon critical issues that 
transcend the specific elements of the individual IFAFS program areas 
as well as those issues that are of emerging significance. Critical or 
Emerging Issues grants can be proposed that range in size to a total of 
$5 million over four years. The amount requested must be commensurate 
with the activities proposed. Support for very large requests of funds 
will be highly competitive. See Program Area 16.0 under the ``Program 
Description'' for more information regarding the Critical or Emerging 
Issues Program Area.
    4. Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship (MGET) Grants. 
MGET grants will support innovative, research-based, graduate education 
and training activities in critical, emerging areas of agricultural 
sciences. They must be organized upon a cohesive multidisciplinary 
theme and involve a diverse group of faculty members and other 
investigators with appropriate expertise in research, education and 
extension. Depending upon the availability of funds, each grant may 
receive up to $2,200,000 for a four-year project period which is 
divided into student support in the amount up to $500,000 per year and 
into start-up costs up to an additional $200,000 in the first year for 
appropriate equipment and special purpose materials. Graduate student 
stipend allowance is $18,000 per year accompanied by a cost-of-
education allowance (tuition and normal fees) of $10,500 per year per 
student. All graduate and other stipend recipients must be citizens or 
permanent residents of the U.S. See Program Area 17.0 for more 
information.

B. Program Description

Agricultural Genomics
    The IFAFS seeks to sponsor integrated research, education and 
extension programs in plant, animal and microbe genomics and the 
development of bioinformatic tools and educational resources with 
specific applications to agricultural challenges.
    A more complete understanding of the entire complement of genes in 
agriculturally relevant plants, animals and microbes is imperative. 
More knowledge in this area will have a major impact on the ability of 
the United States to produce nutritious and safe food, while preserving 
the environment and sustaining the economic stability of the 
agricultural enterprise. Greater efforts aimed at identifying, mapping 
and understanding the function and control of genes responsible for 
traits in agriculturally important species of plants, animals and 
microbes are needed. These efforts will lead to the development of new 
genetic technologies for improvements in yield, pest and pathogen 
resistance, and the composition, quality, and safety of U.S. 
agricultural products in the global context.
    New bioinformatic and computational biology tools are needed to 
analyze, interpret and utilize the vast amounts of data that will be 
generated by genomic research in agriculturally important species. 
CSREES expects that bioinformatics will be an integral component of any 
project funded under this Agricultural Genomics program. CSREES is also 
interested in funding integrated projects primarily dedicated

[[Page 11492]]

to the research and development of bioinformatics tools and education 
programs, hence a separate sub-area in bioinformatics. Prospective 
applicants who are primarily interested in working on a particular 
plant, animal or microbial system should address their projects to the 
relevant section. Those primarily interested in developing 
bioinformatics tools, software, and training programs should address 
their proposal to the sub-area on Bioinformatics.
     All agricultural genomics grant recipients are expected to 
present their project plan at the International Plant, Animal, and 
Microbial Genome meetings in January in San Diego, CA. Additional 
information will be made available if an award is made.
     Investigators are expected to explain clearly how the 
ownership of information and research materials and their public 
release will be handled. Rapid and unrestricted sharing of genomic 
sequence data is essential for advancing research on agriculturally 
important species. Early release of unfinished sequence has already 
proven useful in accelerating the pace of experimental discovery in 
non-agricultural fields, such as human health, energy production and 
bioremediation. At the same time, CSREES recognizes that it also is 
necessary to allow investigators time to verify the accuracy of their 
data and to accomplish the goals proposed in their application, which 
often includes the assembly and annotation of the sequence data.
     In addition to the general data release procedures above, 
applications for support of genome sequencing projects must include a 
detailed description of the data release plan. Timely release is 
strongly encouraged in recognition of the benefits to the broader 
research community. Release should be accompanied by appropriate 
information on the reliability of the data (e.g., level of coverage and 
extent of assembly, extent of contamination with vector and other 
sequences, statistical measures of accuracy). At a minimum, it is 
anticipated that sequence data will be released within one month after 
3X coverage of the genome (or chromosome for eukaryotic organisms) is 
achieved. The released data should be provided as assemblies of equal 
to, or greater than, one kilobase contigs. Subsequent releases of 
assembled sequences should be provided at least on a monthly basis.
     In the view of some, raw genomic sequences, in the absence 
of additional demonstrated biological information, lack demonstrated 
utility and therefore are inappropriate for patent filing. Patent 
applications on large blocks of primary genomic sequence could stifle 
future research and the development of future inventions of useful 
products. However, according to the Bayh-Dole Act, the grantees have 
the right to elect to retain title to subject inventions and are free 
to choose to apply for patents should additional biological experiments 
reveal convincing evidence of utility. CSREES grantees are reminded 
that the grantee institution is required to disclose each subject 
invention to CSREES within two months after the inventor discloses it 
in writing to grantee institution personnel responsible for patent 
matters. Where appropriate, a plan for apportionment of rights to 
intellectual property with international partners should be provided.
    10.1 Plant Genome. (For clarification on this sub-area, contact the 
Program Directors, Ed Kaleikau and Liang-Shiou Lin, at (202) 401-5042, 
e-mail: [email protected].)
    Research in plant genomics has advanced rapidly in the past few 
years. The entire genome of Arabidopsis has been sequenced and is being 
annotated, and the rice genome will be sequenced and annotated in the 
near future. Knowledge of these sequences will provide basic 
information on the genes in a flowering plant species. While genomic 
tools and resources are currently available for plant research, they 
will need to be improved and expanded. Additionally, genomic resources 
will need to be developed for other agriculturally important plant 
species. Furthermore, if genomic information is to be applied to plant 
improvement, more research is needed to determine the function of gene 
sequences.
    The IFAFS Plant Genome Program sub-area will support integrated 
projects of research, education and extension that advance our 
knowledge of the structure, organization and function of agriculturally 
important plant genomes. Some examples of education and extension 
components pertinent to this sub-area include training of graduate and 
undergraduate students, postdoctoral associates, and/or colleagues 
(through classes, seminars, workshops, sabbaticals) in the use of 
genomic resources or outreach to the community through informational 
seminars and classes on the benefits and methods of genomic research. 
Wherever appropriate, investigators are encouraged to develop national 
and international collaborations with research groups already working 
on the species of interest to maximize the use of structural and 
functional genomic resources. Collaborations with private industry that 
have made a significant investment in the species are also encouraged 
to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
    Proposals must address at least one of the two specific topic areas 
below:
    (1) Development or improvement of genomic tools and resources for 
plant species important to agriculture or forestry. (a) High throughput 
genomic approaches to understand genome structure and organization of 
horticultural (including fruit and vegetable crop species and 
ornamental plants relevant to U.S. agriculture) and forest plants will 
be given high priority, particularly those plants that have not been 
the focus of major study. Proposals that apply marker assisted 
selection/breeding of horticultural and forest plants are also 
encouraged. (b) Proposals that extend or complement ongoing research on 
complex cereal crop genomes already under study will also be 
considered; potential research areas include innovative approaches to 
sequence gene-rich regions, synteny of cereal genomes with rice 
application of marker assisted selection in public breeding programs, 
and the development of publicly accessible transformation technology.
    (2) Functional analysis of the rice genome. The U.S. is a 
participant in the international project to sequence the genome of 
rice. To build on the sequencing effort now underway, this program area 
will support (a) functional genomic studies in rice that seek to 
uncover the function of cereal crop genes by relating a mutant 
phenotype with sequence information. Examples of approaches include 
gene tagging, proteomics, microarrays, and development of knockout 
lines and ESTs. (b) projects for production of strains and sequences of 
rice that will be made available to the international research 
community, and for development of a public database to consolidate 
information on mutagenized populations and phenotypic information about 
mutants characterized.
    10.2  Animal Genome. (For clarification on this sub-area, contact 
the Program Directors, Ed Kaleikau at (202) 401-6030, e-mail: 
[email protected]; and Richard Frahm, at (202) 401-4895, e-mail: 
[email protected].)
    Proposals are solicited that address one or more of the following 
areas in animal genomics: (a) Develop high density comparative gene 
maps, which include human and mouse, across agricultural animal species 
(Cattle, sheep, swine, horse, poultry species and

[[Page 11493]]

aquaculture species); (b) generate ordered and arrayed BAC libraries 
for those species where such reagents are not presently available 
(Arrangements must be included in the proposal to distribute these to 
other U.S. investigators on a cost-recovery basis); (c) develop novel 
marker (single nucleotide polymorphysims/microarrays) for high through-
put genotyping systems using agricultural animal populations to 
identify quantitative trait loci (QTL) or to apply marker assisted 
selection; (d) develop computational applications to facilitate 
comparative gene mapping; and (e) develop education programs on new 
developments in agricultural animal genome research for outreach to 
producers.
    10.3  Microbial Genome. (For FY 2001, Microbial Genomics will be 
offered through a separate solicitation for a joint USDA/NSF Microbial 
Genomics Sequencing Project. See the CSREES website, www.reeusda.gov, 
under ``funding opportunities'' for additional information concerning 
this program.)
    10.4  Bioinformatics. (For clarification of this topic area, 
contact the Program Directors, Ed Kaleikau and Gail Mclean, at (202) 
401-6060, e-mail: [email protected].)
    The vast amounts of data being generated by genomic research only 
will be of use to plant, animal and microbial improvement and 
protection if technologies are developed to utilize genomic sequence, 
gene maps and gene function information. In addition, new cadres of 
scientists must be trained in the use of these technologies. Because of 
the interdisciplinary nature of genomic science, bioinformatic research 
provides an ideal opportunity for a range of scientists, including 
engineers, computer scientists, chemists, and biologists, to work 
together in a collaborative environment. Bioinformatic tools and 
personnel will play a vital role in applying genomic data to the 
improvement of animal, plant and microbial species of agricultural 
importance. This program sub-area seeks to support proposals to develop 
or improve bioinformatic tools and to develop training programs in 
bioinformatics. Projects may involve experts in computer science, 
software engineering, genomics, genetics, plant, animal, or microbial 
improvement, or related sciences as well as individuals with an 
interest in the development of education and training programs in 
bioinformatics and computational biology.
    Proposals must address at least one of two specific topic areas:
    (1) Development or improvement of bioinformatic tools and 
resources. There is an acute need to manage and interpret genomic data 
efficiently and effectively. The current absence of standardization for 
data management and storage has led to an increasing number of 
databases that do not communicate well among themselves. If this trend 
continues, the progress promised by genomics will be slowed not only 
for agriculture, but for all fields involved in genomics. As 
agricultural databases are developed, it is imperative that they 
exhibit good interconnectivity with new and existing sources of data. 
To meet this challenge, software programs for bioinformatics must be 
developed and/or refined; further, other broadly-defined tools are 
needed to provide the support to handle and interpret the massive 
amounts of genomic data being generated. Research projects in this area 
should develop bioinformatics tools with application to agricultural 
systems. Examples of research areas include: (a) Development or 
improvement of database management techniques and software; (b) 
development or improvement of computational tools for analysis of 
genomic sequence data; and (c) generation of resource web pages for 
specific classes of proteins, genes or metabolic pathways.
    (2) Development of bioinformatic education programs or courses. 
Training programs should address the current gap in the availability of 
professionals trained in plant, animal, and microbe bioinformatics. The 
interaction of biologists and computational scientists must be evident 
in the proposal. Approaches to training may include, but are not 
limited to: (a) Development of courses at the undergraduate and 
graduate level in bioinformatics/computational biology; (b) creation of 
programs which include summer institutes, short courses, sabbaticals or 
training centers designed to educate and train faculty and or graduate 
students in bioinformatics; (c) development of secondary education 
science teaching modules to introduce young students to the 
bioinformatic/computational biological sciences.
Agricultural Biotechnology
    This program area will support research, education, and extension 
that addresses risks and benefits associated with the use of 
biotechnology in agriculture. Biotechnology is believed to have great 
potential for supplying the world's food and fiber needs in a 
sustainable manner. However, the development of agricultural 
biotechnology products has resulted in expressions of concern by 
producers, consumers, media, interest groups, and other stakeholders 
about possible health, environmental, social, and economic effects. 
This program area seeks to address those concerns and assist citizens 
in making informed decisions about the use of this technology in 
agriculture. Higher priority will be given to proposals that integrate 
research, education, and extension activities.
    The application of biotechnology to agriculture has the potential 
to provide a number of public benefits. It is expected to increase 
productivity while reducing the negative environmental effects of 
traditional production methods by reducing the need for antibiotics, 
fertilizers, herbicides, hormones, and pesticides. The technology also 
has the potential to facilitate the development of new food products 
with improved nutritional benefits, flavor, and shelf-stability, as 
well as new non-food products, including lubricants, oils and plastics.
    Successful application of this technology to food and agriculture 
is possible only with the approval and acceptance of consumers, 
environmentalists and other stakeholders. Research, education, and 
extension focused on identifying and assessing present and predicted 
benefits and identifying, assessing, and reducing present and predicted 
risks associated with agricultural biotechnology will aid in addressing 
the needs and concerns of various stakeholder groups.
    Proposals should be submitted to one of the following three areas: 
Section 11.1 focusing on the impact of agricultural biotechnology on 
human and animal health; Section 11.2 focusing on social and economic 
aspects associated with the development and use of biotechnology; or 
Section 11.3 focusing on the management of potential environmental 
effects associated with agricultural biotechnology. Proposals that seek 
to integrate both the biological aspects (Sections 11.1 and 11.3) and 
social aspects (Section 11.2), should be submitted to the section that 
best describes the majority emphasis of the proposed project.
    Where practicable, graduate training opportunities are encouraged 
in proposals submitted to this program area. Also, international 
partnerships are permitted so long as the partnership clearly benefits 
the understanding of U.S. agricultural biotechnology questions and 
concerns.
    11.1  Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology on Human and Animal 
Health. (For clarification of this program area, contact the Program 
Directors,

[[Page 11494]]

Daniel Jones at (202) 401-6854; email: [email protected]; or Deborah 
Sheely at (202) 401-1924, e-mail: [email protected].)
    Research, extension, and education activities regarding the effects 
of genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM food on human and animal 
health, include but are not limited to: (a) Approaches for 
anticipating, detecting, and managing allergenicity in food products 
derived through biotechnology; (b) the role of GM products in the 
development of antibiotic resistance; (c) secondary metabolite 
formation and how this may affect food and feed; (d) changes in 
bioavailability of essential nutrients; (e) development of new and 
enhanced testing and evaluation methods of biologically modified 
products that ensure human and animal safety; (f) development of 
experiential learning opportunities for students, academics, and 
agricultural professionals to study the effects of GM food and feed on 
humans and animals; (g) development of outreach programs to explain the 
risks and benefits of GM food and feed on human and animal health. 
Where practicable, graduate training opportunities are encouraged in 
proposals submitted to this program area.
    This program area is seeking projects to evaluate or assess the 
effects of transgenic organisms or food on human and animal health. It 
will not consider proposals to develop transgenic products of any kind, 
including those designed to improve human or animal health.
    Proposals involving genetically modified functional foods should be 
directed to section 12.2 (Nutritional Impact of Functional Foods).
    11.2  Social and Economic Aspects of Biotechnology. (For 
clarification of this program area, contact Program Directors, John 
Michael at (202) 720-8744, [email protected]; or David Holder at 
(202) 720-3605, [email protected].)
    This section solicits proposals for research, education and 
extension activities that deal with the human dimensions associated 
with agricultural biotechnology. It is concerned with positive and 
negative economic and social impacts on stakeholders--producers, 
processors, input manufacturers, consumers, environmentalists, 
governmental agencies and others; impacts on economic and social 
institutions, communities, and society; reactions to biotechnology; and 
people's beliefs and attitudes about biotechnology and the responses of 
stakeholders, institutions, and communities. ``Social and economic'' is 
broadly defined to also include psychological, cultural, ethical, and 
political aspects of biotechnology. Comparative approaches are invited, 
including comparisons across geography, culture, history, and 
technologies. Other approaches are also invited.
    The expected outcomes of the program include: (a) objective and 
complete assessments of perceived and actual benefits and risks 
associated with agricultural biotechnology; (b) greater stakeholder 
involvement (civic engagement) in decisions regarding agricultural 
biotechnology; (c) more informed decisions by public and private 
decision makers about the development and use of biotechnology; and (d) 
greater clarity regarding the role of research and educational 
institutions in helping stakeholders weigh the risks and benefits of 
alternative approaches and technologies in agriculture.
    The following topic areas and their contents are provided as 
examples and are not intended to be all inclusive:
    (a) Business issues--Economic and other impacts of biotechnology on 
individual firms or groups of firms; firm-level decisions about selling 
or buying biotechnology products and processes, such as a farmer/farm 
family decision to plant herbicide-tolerant soybeans; changes in 
business practices and alliances.
    (b) Agriculture and Food System Issues--Impact of biotechnology on 
the organization, structure and behavior of participants in the 
agricultural industry from input manufacturers to retailers; changes in 
economic institutions and government policies; capacity of the food 
system to segregate genetically modified commodities/products for 
specific markets; competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in world markets; 
and impacts of establishing various standards, oversight arrangements 
and alternative regulations and policies.
    (c) Market/Consumer Issues--Needs, desires, and concerns of 
consumers in domestic and international markets; understanding consumer 
decisions about the use of biotechnology products, including the 
influence of culture, product labeling, advertising, scientific 
information, and recent news events; methods most effective for 
increasing understanding and improving public and private decision 
making ability.
    (d) Societal Issues--Needs of various publics to gain meaningful 
information and be involved in decision making processes surrounding 
the development and use of biotechnology; the role of civic engagement; 
perceived and actual risks and benefits to consumers and other 
stakeholder groups or society in general; policy alternatives and 
analysis; property rights; environmental protection; conflict emergence 
and resolution; role of ethics.
    (e) Institutional Issues--(Economic and social institutions include 
such things as markets, universities, and the policy-making bodies). 
Impact of biotechnology on markets; role of public research, education 
and extension; mechanisms for funding research and disseminating 
results; role of local, state, federal and international governments.
    11.3  Ecological Risk Management of Agricultural Biotechnology. 
(For clarification of this program area, contact the Program Directors, 
Deborah Sheely at (202) 401-1924, e-mail: [email protected]; or 
Daniel Jones at (202) 401-6854; email: [email protected].)
    Research, extension, and education activities regarding the 
management of risks associated with the release of transgenic organisms 
into the environment. These include, but are not limited to: (a) 
Techniques to minimize or eliminate potential negative impacts of 
transgenic products on non-target species, agricultural systems and the 
environment; (b) management systems to slow the evolution of resistance 
to transgenic protection against pests and diseases; (c) techniques or 
methods to prevent the movement of transgenes from transgenic organisms 
to others; or to prevent their expression in new or unintended 
organisms; (d) management systems to control the impact of transgenic 
plants, especially insect resistant or herbicide tolerant plants, on 
biodiversity of agro-ecosystems; (e) experiential learning 
opportunities for students, academics, and agricultural professionals 
to manage environmental risks associated with agricultural 
biotechnology; and (f) outreach programs to develop and share 
techniques or methods to manage ecological risks.
    Where practicable, graduate training opportunities are encouraged 
in proposals submitted to this program area.
    This program solicits projects designed to manage or reduce 
ecological risks associated with the release of transgenic organisms 
into the environment. Projects to assess risks of transgenic organisms 
(i.e. identification of an ecological hazard, and determining its 
probability and impact) will not be considered for funding by this 
program. Research addressing risk assessment should be directed to 
USDA's Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants Program (http://

[[Page 11495]]

www.reeusda.gov/crgam/biotechrisk/biotech.htm).
Food Safety and Human Nutrition
    This program area concentrates resources on two critical areas in 
food technology and nutrition: Factors affecting food and nutrition 
behavior of consumers and the nutritional impact of functional and 
designer foods. Future food production will be impacted by consumer 
food choices, and the health and happiness of Americans is dependent 
upon diets appropriate to individual lifestyles and physical condition. 
Understanding consumer behavior and how to increase the beneficial 
components in food will help inform future food production. A key 
anticipated benefit of this initiative will be to strengthen the 
existing links among research, teaching, and extension/outreach 
activities related to nutrition and food technology. Descriptions of 
the two program subareas are below.
    12.1  Consumer Food Choices. (For clarification of this sub-area, 
contact the Program Directors, Susan Welsh at (202) 720-5544; email: 
[email protected]; or Etta Saltos, at (202) 401-5178; e-mail: 
[email protected].)
    The most fundamental knowledge gap in nutrition research is in 
understanding why people choose what they choose to eat and how to 
effectively intervene to improve diets. Although USDA, together with 
the Department of Health and Human Services, has formulated Federal 
nutrition policy in the form of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 
for 20 years, we know that many consumers are not following this 
guidance. According to the Department's 1996 Healthy Eating Index, a 
measure of how Americans' diets fare in meeting the recommendations of 
the Dietary Guidelines, only 12 percent of Americans have diets that 
can be classified as ``good;'' 71 percent have diets that are 
considered to ``need improvement'' and 17 percent are classified as 
having ``poor'' diets. Additionally, the prevalence of obesity in the 
United States increased from 12 percent in 1991 to 18 percent in 1998. 
In the past decade, the number of U.S. children who are overweight has 
more than doubled and the incidence of type 2 diabetes in adolescents, 
once rare, is increasing.
    USDA researchers have found that in children the risk of becoming 
obese increases as family income decreases. The consistent and visible 
interest of Americans in weight loss diets indicate both an interest in 
and the difficulties in maintaining desirable weight. Community-based 
research on food systems has demonstrated limited food choices in low-
income communities as insufficient resources limit grocery retail 
establishments in economically deprived areas. Food intake of low-
income individuals is dramatically affected by the availability of 
food, especially fruits and vegetables. Food stamp recipients sometimes 
have difficulty stretching food dollars through the month, creating an 
atmosphere of food insecurity late in the month, affecting food 
choices.
    Food choice behavior is influenced by a variety of factors ranging 
from available income to physiologic need to societal standards and 
community resources. Knowledge of how these factors interact to affect 
food choices is limited. Nutrition experts agree that for nutrition 
interventions to be successful, they should be behaviorally-based, but 
the gaps in knowledge of consumer dietary behavior limits development 
of such interventions. When behaviorally-based nutrition interventions 
have been implemented, evaluation of the outcomes of such interventions 
has been limited, primarily due to lack of funds. Research on the 
strengths and weaknesses of an intervention in relation to its 
objectives is essential to improving the intervention and in 
facilitating its application to other situations.
    The goal of this program is to fund projects that improve our 
understanding of factors that affect food and nutrition behavior in 
consumers, and apply this understanding in the development and 
evaluation of model nutrition intervention programs that are 
behaviorally-based. This program invites innovative projects on 
consumer food and nutrition behavior, including: (a) Research on 
factors influencing dietary behaviors of at-risk populations, including 
children and adolescents (at home, in school, and in child care 
settings), ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, overweight 
individuals, and older adults; (b) research on behavioral factors that 
may contribute to the development of obesity; (c) exploration and 
analysis of the impact of community resources on food choices, 
including the effect of insecure food systems in low-income communities 
and prevalence of obesity, unhealthy food choices, and related food 
behaviors; (d) innovative studies, including longitudinal and non-self-
report methods of assessing dietary behavior; (e) multidisciplinary 
studies to examine current theory-based models of behavior change; (f) 
development and evaluation of diet regimens and intervention(s) at 
either the individual or community level; (g) development and 
evaluation of social marketing approaches to target nutrition and 
health messages to lead to behavior changes; and (h) development of 
innovative cross-training programs in nutrition and the social 
sciences.
    12.2  Nutritional Impact of Functional Foods. (For clarification of 
this sub-area, please contact the Program Directors, Ram Rao at (202) 
401-6010; e-mail: [email protected] or Melvin Mathias at (202) 720-4124; 
e-mail: [email protected].)
    Functional foods are fresh or processed foods containing 
significant levels of biologically active components that might provide 
health benefits or desirable physiological effects beyond basic 
nutrition. The national and international market for functional foods 
is growing rapidly as consumers are increasingly interested in 
including functional foods in their diets. Considerable scientific 
information demonstrates that some food components have the potential 
health benefits. Additional research is necessary to substantiate the 
claims of health benefits of the food components and functional foods. 
Advances in food technology through both traditional processing 
methodologies, and genetic engineering of foods, have provided the 
consumer with ever increasing food choices that claim to offer 
increased health benefits due to selection in favor of certain 
components.
    The goal of this program is to foster integrated research, 
education and outreach activities to design and improve functional 
foods from agriculturally important materials. Collaborative 
international activities, which may lead to the discovery, development, 
and use of new functional foods with clear prospects as U.S. 
agricultural products will be considered. Activities that fully 
integrate and encompass the design of commercially feasible functional 
foods, characterization of bioactive components, measurement of health 
benefits, and consumer outreach programs will be given priority. 
Integration should include a holistic approach to developing functional 
foods, including an analysis of impact on the food system and on 
health. Applicants are strongly encouraged to seek industry 
collaboration.
    Examples of potential integrated research, extension and education 
activities include, but are not limited to: (a) Creation of foods that 
have increased amounts of the beneficial components found in fruits, 
vegetables, grains and animal products; (b) interactive (synergistic or 
antagonistic) effects of the bioactive components as consumed

[[Page 11496]]

in the food; (c) improved processes to enhance stability and 
bioavailability of bioactive components; (d) the design of functional 
foods with acceptable sensory attributes; (e) the development of 
methods to monitor the effectiveness of functional foods on improving 
health and preventing diseases; (f) analysis to support the issuance of 
regulatory guidelines to ensure the safety and efficacy of functional 
food products; and (g) provide information usable by and readily 
available to health professionals and consumers.
    Proposals dealing with genetically modified foods that do not fit 
under the definition of functional foods described in this section or 
which deal with risk management of biotechnology derived foods should 
be directed to Program Area 11.1 (Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology 
on Human and Animal Health) or 11.2 (Social and Economic Aspects of 
Agricultural Biotechnology); proposals dealing with consumer choices of 
functional foods for health should be directed to Program Area 12.1 
(Consumer Food Behavior).
New Uses For Agricultural Products (Program Area 13.0)
    (For clarification of this program area, contact the Program 
Director, Carmela Bailey, at (202) 401-6443; e-mail: 
[email protected].)
    The goal of this program area is to provide for research, education 
and extension activities that enhance the competitive value, find new 
uses for, or establish entirely new non-food agricultural and forestry 
products, primarily biomass fuel sources and biobased industrial 
products that can replace petroleum-based fuels and products. This 
program area addresses the Biomass Research and Development Act of 
2000, which calls for expanded public investment in research and 
development of economically competitive, environmentally sound 
bioenergy and biobased products, and to advance their availability and 
widespread use. Further, these efforts address the issues of resource 
depletion and environmental degradation, while building new markets for 
agriculture.
    A comprehensive, system-based approach is required to accomplish 
the goals of this program area, which encompasses: (a) The development 
of crop varieties or agricultural wastes for biomass fuel uses and for 
biobased industrial products; (b) processing biomass; (c) product 
development; (d) test, evaluation and certification for commercial use; 
(e) demonstration of final product(s); (f) consideration of 
environmental impacts of material selection in early stages of product 
development; (g) life cycle cost evaluation of final product(s); and 
(h) establishing marketing networks. Accordingly, integration of these 
activities to the maximum extent practicable, are strongly encouraged. 
A system-based approach is expected to accelerate research and 
development and to result in measurable outcomes, i.e. increased 
production and use of biofuels and biobased products. This initiative 
strongly encourages research, education, and extension activities that 
explicitly recognize, account for, and enhance the interaction among 
growers, processors, manufacturers, markets and the community. To 
increase profitability to the farm and rural business sectors, 
applicants are encouraged to develop proposals which include post-
harvest processing and manufacturing activities that add value at the 
local level. In considering environmental impacts of material choices, 
applicants should refer to EPA's Guidance on Environmentally Preferable 
Purchasing (www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/guidancepage.htm).
    In addition, to facilitate technology transfer and marketing of 
biobased products, the product demonstration phase should be of 
sufficient size to generate data for a life cycle cost evaluation. The 
evaluation should clearly articulate the scope or boundary and the 
product alternative(s) for which the comparison is being made. A full 
life cycle assessment, though desirable, is beyond the scope of this 
RFP, both in terms of time and available funds. However, applicants are 
encouraged to demonstrate how they have integrated a life cycle 
perspective in their proposed product development.
    The education component is expected to be an integral part of the 
proposal and should include graduate training at either the Master's 
degree level or the doctoral degree level. The number of research 
assistants should match the size and scope of the proposal. Graduate 
training programs that include curriculum development and/or 
internships at relevant private companies or national laboratories, or 
other innovative educational models are strongly encouraged.
    Proposers are also encouraged to incorporate collaborative 
international activities which may lead to the discovery of new or 
alternative uses, or which improve the prospects for those uses through 
enhanced production or commercialization, thus improving the prospects 
for U.S. farmers in the global market.
Natural Resource Management (Including Precision Agriculture)
    Successful management of natural resources in an agricultural 
landscape should address environmental integrity, quality of life, and 
economic viability. The purpose of this program area is to address how 
best to integrate the needs of production agriculture, the environment, 
and society, such that an acceptable sustainable system results.
    This area will focus on key environmental problems that are best 
addressed using a holistic systems approach in the below stated program 
areas. Priority will be given to proposals that explicitly address the 
interaction among production, the environment, and the well-being of 
producers and the general public. Preference will also be given to 
multi-state, multi-institutional, and multi-disciplinary projects. The 
emerging agricultural and natural resource issues to be addressed 
include: System-wide management of natural resources, particulary 
involving small and mid-sized tracts of privately owned land within a 
defined geographic area (watershed or eco-region); encroachment and 
subsequent environmental impact of invasive native and non-native 
species (all taxa); conservation of biodiversity; animal waste 
management; and development and evaluation of precision technologies 
for efficient and sustainable production and harvesting of agricultural 
and natural resources.
    14.1  Alternative Natural Resource Management Practices for Private 
Lands. (For further information concerning this program sub-area, 
contact the Program Director, Larry Biles, at (202) 401-4926; e-mail: 
[email protected].)
    As the world's population increases, the demands for delivery of 
natural resource goods and services will also increase. In addition, 
there is an increasing demand for diversity in the commodities being 
produced and an increased recognition that such production changes must 
be accomplished without adversely impacting our capacity to ensure the 
delivery of goods, services, and a healthy environment to future 
generations.
    This program will support integrated projects which address methods 
to maintain environmental integrity, quality of life, and economic 
viability. The focus of this program is on alternative natural resource 
management for private lands with emphasis on the development and 
understanding of integrated natural resources management systems for

[[Page 11497]]

forest, range, wildlife and aquatic resources that improve our capacity 
to support natural resources. Proposals should present a scientific 
framework that qualitatively and quantitatively links production 
practices, societal preferences, demographics, and economic needs to 
the impacts on natural resources. Preference will be given to proposals 
that demonstrate the active participation of the user community that is 
expected to benefit. Proposals should include a plan for coordination 
among scientists, state and federal agencies, commodity organizations, 
environmental groups, and producers to deal with the integrated 
ecological, technological, economic, social and environmental issues in 
a specified geographic region.
    This sub-area of the initiative is intended to provide the 
research, extension and education information needed to support the 
management needs of the small and mid-sized aquatic, range, wildlife, 
and forest systems owners and managers. Projects should address 
management practices and technologies that will increase the 
opportunities for the small to mid-sized manager to operate profitable 
enterprises that respond to the demands for: (a) Alternative natural 
resources production, (b) sustainable forestry certification, (c) 
agroforestry, (d) invasive species management across multiple 
ownerships, (e) wildlife control and management, (f) nutrient 
management, (g) maintaining or enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem 
integrity, including restoration of species and ecosystems, (h) coping 
with the demands imposed by environmental and regulatory requirements 
within the increasingly mixed distribution of urban, rural, and 
wildlands management systems, and (i) training programs to enhance 
success and adoption of regionally-appropriate practices.
    Proposals submitted to this sub-area will enhance our capacity to 
integrate regionally appropriate data and information to increase long-
term, site-specific, and whole system efficiencies and profitability 
while both minimizing unintended impacts on natural resources and 
enhancing environmental integrity. Proposals are encouraged that use a 
whole systems approach (economic, environmental, social and community 
development) to evaluate the practices most conducive to sustaining 
small and mid-sized land management systems in the U.S. Partnerships 
with existing regional and/or long-term projects (including those 
associated with public lands) also are strongly encouraged.
    Proposals should contain a clear plan for technology transfer and 
adoption. Proposals should clearly describe the type (size and 
distribution) of the system being evaluated and should include 
provisions that demonstrate an interdisciplinary problem-solving 
approach to maintain natural resources sustainability and 
profitability.
    Proposals focusing on the financial security and quality of life of 
small to mid-sized family-owned pastures should be submitted to Program 
Area 15.0 (Farm Efficiency and Profitability).
    14.2  Non-native Invasive Species. (For clarification of this 
program area, contact the Program Director, Tom Bewick, at (202) 401-
3356; e-mail: [email protected].)
    The spread of non-native invasive species is one of the greatest 
threats to the long-term health of agricultural environments. The 
invasion of plant, animal and microbial pests is a global issue and it 
is of critical importance to the nation's land and water resources. 
United States agriculture is both losing income and incurring expenses 
to address this issue.
    This program will focus on newly emerging non-native invasive 
species that threaten, or are already impacting agricultural, forest 
and rangeland resources and their associated waterways. In this 
program, non-native invasive species are defined as species (animal, 
plant and microbial) that are not indigenous to a particular eco-system 
and that have not become naturalized there. Priority will be given to 
proposals that: (1) Strongly justify their proposed work in terms of 
impact on U.S. agriculture, and (2) contain a substantial extension 
and/or public education component in addition to research.
    Proposals will be considered that address five key areas: (1) 
Prevention of introductions (including pathway analysis), (2) 
prevention of spread of newly established invasive species (3) early 
detection of and rapid response to invasion, (4) monitoring of control 
efforts, and (5) quantification of impact of the invasive species (e.g. 
economic and/or ecological). The emphasis of this program will be to 
fund proposals that contain objectives that create a measurable outcome 
that can be realized within a relatively short period of time. 
Proposals should clearly indicate the nature of the impact expected to 
result should the proposal be funded. In addition, proposals should 
present a rationale for how the results of the work will be integrated 
into an overall management plan.
    14.3  Animal Manure Management. (For clarification of this program 
area, contact the Program Director, Richard Hegg, at (202) 401-6550; e-
mail: [email protected].)
    There is a great need to prevent the degradation of air, soil, and 
water resources by food animal production systems and to protect the 
ecological integrity of forest, rangeland, crop, aquatic, estuarine, 
and marine systems. Proper management of manure resulting from various 
production systems is one of the most critical issues facing the food 
animal industry. Animal feeding operations vary by region, species, 
size, and management requirements, so that each operation is site-
specific and must be managed accordingly. Physical, chemical and/or 
biological treatment techniques may be used to reduce the pollution 
potential of animal manure. Regulation of animal feeding operations at 
the local, state and federal level is undergoing rapid change. An 
overall goal of this program is to improve American agriculture, 
environmentally and economically.
    Proposals for this section will support integrated research, 
education and extension on regional or multi-state systems that will 
ultimately reduce adverse environmental and human health impacts of 
animal manure. Proposals will be considered that develop and evaluate 
manure management practices, and treatment systems for the protection 
of natural resources. Proposals which employ a watershed, landscape-
scale approach are encouraged and could include the transport and fate 
of nutrients and/or pathogens from animal manure through air, water and 
soil. The incorporation of comprehensive nutrient management planning 
in educational programs is encouraged, as is the development of 
partnerships with already established waste management centers.
    This sub-program will accept proposals which address the following 
topical areas: (a) Determination of the effects of animal manure 
nutrient content and quality, and extension of this knowledge to 
producers or companies who may in turn modify their feed; (b) resolving 
community and regulatory concerns about siting, land application, 
health and economic issues; (c) determination and prediction of odor, 
gas and particulate matter impacts on the atmosphere and society, and 
development of management strategies to alleviate such impacts; (d) 
understanding and predicting source, delivery and fate of pathogens, 
antibiotics and/or endocrine disruptors (hormones) in the environment 
and their potential effects of the environment; and (e) development and 
implementation of alternative waste

[[Page 11498]]

treatment technologies and alternative animal production systems.
    Proposals should indicate which of the following animal groups will 
be addressed: swine, dairy, beef, poultry or aquaculture. If 
appropriate, the proposal should address the economic aspects of the 
described process, methodology, practice, etc. as it affects 
agriculture and the environment.
    Proposals focusing on producing and marketing value-added products 
from manure should be submitted to IFAFS Program Area 13.0 New Uses for 
Agricultural Products. Proposals that are predominantly water quality 
or food safety should be submitted to The Integrated Research, 
Education and Extension Grant Program. This program description can be 
found at www.reeusda.gov/1700/funding/11__99-406.htm.
    14.4  Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies. (For FY 
2001, the Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies will be 
offered through a separate solicitation for a joint USDA/NASA 
Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program. See the 
CSREES website, www.reeusda.gov, under ``funding opportunities'' for 
additional information concerning this program.)
Farm Efficiency and Profitability (Program Area 15.0)
    (For clarification of this program area, contact the Program 
Director, Don West, at (202) 720-5633; e-mail: [email protected]; Mark 
Bailey, at (202) 401-1898; e-mail: [email protected]; or Denis 
Ebodaghe, at (202) 401-4385; e-mail: [email protected].)
    Dramatic changes in the global agricultural environment and in 
domestic farm programs have created new challenges for U.S. farmers as 
they strive to maintain the efficiency and profitability of their 
operations and the financial viability of their families and 
communities. This program emphasizes the use of existing data and 
emerging information to synthesize and deliver knowledge that improves 
profitability for families operating small and medium-sized farms. 
Proposals that address the concerns of family-owned farms with limited 
financial resources will be given priority. Proposals should indicate 
how target audiences will benefit from the proposed programs/projects. 
Proposals ideally will address issues using a system-wide approach. For 
instance, a new crop diversification management scheme should consider 
potential markets, impact on total farm income and availability of 
inputs, and risk management tools for the new production plan.
    All proposals submitted to this program area will undergo a peer 
review in which the efficiency and profitability of small and medium-
sized farms is the most important criterion. New partnerships and new 
administrative mechanisms that involve universities, industry, profit/
non-profit organizations and/or community colleges are also important 
criteria. Consideration will be given to system approaches useful in 
meeting the production, marketing, capital and human resource needs 
associated with dairy, livestock, crop and other commodity operations. 
This priority area recognizes linkages with natural resources and 
environmental issues, and the importance of strengthening the financial 
viability of farm operations, families, and communities. Such proposals 
should provide information on the connections between the 
sustainability of small and medium-sized farms and the viability of 
their communities.
    Projects that utilize a systems approach and are national or 
regional in scope are encouraged as are those that incorporate 
research, extension, and educational functions. Proposals that 
incorporate farmer input in problem identification and have high 
scientific merit in project design, methodology and analytical 
procedures will be given priority. Appropriate innovative methodologies 
are encouraged, including those that make use of electronic technology 
in delivery of extension and formal education programs. Applicants with 
a strong track record of working with owners and managers of small and 
medium-sized farms are encouraged to apply.
    Applicants are encouraged to submit research, extension, or 
education proposals that address one or more of the following areas:
    (a) Development of management (e.g., pest, crop, animal, nutrient, 
economic) systems that improve efficiency and profitability, including 
the reduction of capital and input costs or the diversification of crop 
and livestock enterprises;
    (b) development of effective marketing programs, including the use 
of farmers' markets, community-supported agriculture, marketing to 
restaurants and schools, cooperative approaches to use of inputs and 
marketing, organic production and marketing, Internet marketing, global 
markets, and agrotourism;
    (c) development of farm-based value-added processing and new high-
return production and marketing niches;; and
    (d) development of programs/projects that improve access to 
knowledge and decision-making tools (e.g. production decision tools, 
formal and informal education in entrepreneurship, business planning 
and marketing for new or modified enterprises, and farm and family 
financial planning and management) that allow producers to increase 
options for farm efficiency and profitability in regional and local 
economies, including planning and building community support; and (e) 
development of programs/projects that improve access to and management 
of financial resources, including physical and production capital, 
financial services, innovative investment capital strategies, human 
capital (including availability and effective management of labor), and 
infrastructure and social capital (community resources and 
institutions). Projects addressing management of risks faced by farmers 
and ranchers should be directed to the Risk Management Education 
Program of CSREES.
Critical or Emerging Issues Grants (Program Area 16.0)
    (For clarification of this program area, contact the Program 
Director, Rodney Foil, at (202) 720-7441; e-mail: [email protected].) 
Proposals submitted to this program area (16.0) may not be submitted to 
any other program area.
    IFAFS is offering the opportunity to consider applications based 
upon critical issues that transcend the specific elements of the 
individual IFAFS program areas as well as those issues that are of 
emerging significance.
    A number of critical issue areas do not fit clearly within the 
specified IFAFS program areas announced in this solicitation. Other 
urgent or unforeseen agricultural problems and opportunities may 
present themselves after the IFAFS deadline. To permit these two issues 
areas to be addressed, CSREES is allowing the submission of Critical or 
Emerging Issues proposals up to six weeks after the IFAFS deadline 
date. Proposals should relate generally to an area of interest in the 
IFAFS program but be a critical need that clearly falls outside the 
boundaries of the existing program areas or be an emerging issue that 
has recently arisen.
    Proposals designated as Critical or Emerging Issues will be judged 
by a much higher standard of relevance to critical and/or immediate 
issues than will those projects that address the elements of the 
program directly. Critical or Emerging Issues grants should make the 
case for their merit with strong evidence of the uniqueness or urgency 
of the issue and of the work

[[Page 11499]]

proposed, and explain why the proposal could not have fit and been 
submitted to an existing IFAFS program area at the original deadline. 
The Critical or Emerging Issues grants will be subject to panel review 
in the subject area concerned, and in addition will undergo a second 
evaluation in which meritorious Critical or Emerging Issues proposals 
from all subject panels are considered. It is unlikely that many of 
these proposals will be funded, and those who submit under this 
category bear the burden of proof as to the uniqueness and urgency of 
the need.
    Applicants are cautioned to not use the Critical or Emerging 
proposal category as a way to circumvent the IFAFS deadline date.
Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship (MGET) Program for 
Food and Agricultural Sciences (Program Area 17.0 )
    (For clarification on this sub-area, please contact the Program 
Director, Howard Sandberg, at (202) 720-2193, e-mail: 
[email protected].)
    The purpose of the MGET program is to meet the challenges of 
educating scientists, engineers, and educators with graduate level 
multidisciplinary backgrounds and the technical, professional, and 
personal skills needed for the career demands of future agriculture. 
The program is intended to catalyze a cultural change in graduate 
education, for students, faculty, and universities, by establishing 
new, innovative models for graduate education and training in a fertile 
environment for collaborative research, education, and extension that 
transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries in agriculture. It is 
also intended to facilitate greater diversity in student participation 
and preparation and to contribute to the development of a diverse, 
globally-aware, agricultural research, education, and extension 
workforce.
    Proposals submitted to the MGET program must be innovative, 
research-based, graduate education and training activities in priority 
mission areas of agriculture. At least two academic departments must be 
represented in each grant application. Submissions from multiple 
institutions are also encouraged. Proposals must be organized upon a 
multidisciplinary theme and involve a diverse group of faculty members 
and other investigators with appropriate expertise in research, 
education and extension. The multidisciplinary theme provides a 
framework for integrative, collaborative efforts across departments and 
institutions. Students should gain various strengths while maintaining 
competence in a major field by focusing on problem-oriented rather than 
discipline-oriented education and research. The MGET project should 
offer experience relevant to both academic and nonacademic careers by 
linking graduate education and research, through internships and 
mentoring, with research and extension in industry, national 
laboratory, or other settings. The globalization of graduate education 
and career opportunities places importance on an international 
perspective in graduate education, such as through internships abroad 
or other experiences appropriate to the agricultural education and 
research areas. The graduate experience should also equip students to 
understand and integrate scientific, technical, business, social, and 
ethical issues to confront the challenging agricultural problems of the 
future. The coherent multidisciplinary theme may draw upon 
investigators from two or more academic departments within a single 
institution or from more than one institution. Because the primary 
emphasis of the MGET program is on innovative approaches to education 
and training of graduate students, proposals must make clear what is 
different from existing programs at the institution. Participation of 
individuals at the undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral levels may 
be included if such participation clearly strengthens the graduate 
traineeship program. Please bear in mind that all stipend recipients 
must be citizens or permanent residents of the U.S.
    MGET projects are expected to incorporate the following features:
     A comprehensive multidisciplinary theme, appropriate for 
graduate-level education, to serve as the foundation for traineeship 
activities;
     Integration of the coherent multidisciplinary theme with 
innovative graduate education and training mechanisms, curricula, and 
other educational opportunities that foster strong interactions among 
participating students and faculty;
     An environment that exposes students to a broad base of 
state-of-the-art technologies and methodologies in agriculture;
     Provision for developing professional and personal 
elements such as communication, teamwork, and leadership;
     Integrated instruction in ethics and the responsible 
development of science policy and the conduct of research, education, 
and extension;
     Opportunities for career development, such as may be 
provided by internships in international, industrial, national 
laboratory, or other settings;
     Fostering of a global perspective for students;
     Formal administrative plan and organizational structure 
that ensures effective management of the requested resources to achieve 
the goals of the MGET project;
     Institutional strategy and operational plan for student 
recruitment, mentoring, and retention efforts aimed at members of 
groups under-represented in science and engineering (i.e., women, 
racial and ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities) to ensure 
preparation of a diverse science and engineering workforce; and
     Well-defined strategy and methodology for internal, 
external, and independent assessment of project performance.
    The Principal Investigator/Project Director (PI/PD) shall be the 
director of the MGET project, and is expected to be an essential 
participant in its education, research, and extension activities. The 
PI will have overall responsibility for administration of the award, 
management of the project, and for interactions with CSREES. The PI and 
the home institution are expected to develop an administrative 
structure for the MGET project that enables faculty members, students, 
and others involved to interact effectively in furthering the project's 
goals.

Part III--Preparation of a Proposal

A. Program Application Materials

    Program application materials are available at the CSREES website 
(www.reeusda.gov/IFAFS). If you do not have access to the CSREES web 
page or have trouble downloading material, you may contact the Proposal 
Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/CSREES at (202) 401-
5048. When calling the Proposal Services Unit, please indicate that you 
are requesting forms for IFAFS. These materials may also be requested 
via Internet by sending a message with your name, mailing address (not 
e-mail) and phone number to [email protected]. State that you want a copy 
of the Program Description and application materials (orange book) for 
the Fiscal Year 2001 Initiative on Future Agriculture and Food Systems 
(IFAFS).

B. Content of Proposals and Letter of Intent

1. Letter of Intent
    Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit a Letter of Intent 
before submitting a full proposal. Indicate the

[[Page 11500]]

IFAFS program area to which you plan to apply. In addition, this letter 
should contain these three parts: (1) a descriptive title of the 
proposed project; (2) names and roles of principle investigator(s)/
project director(s) and other key personnel along with their 
institutions; and (3) a brief statement of approaches and objectives 
(500 words or less). This information will be used by CSREES staff in 
planning the review process. Because Letters of Intent will not be 
distributed for peer review, there will be no feedback from CSREES 
staff regarding the content of these letters. See Deadline Dates 
section of this RFP for specific mailing instructions. Failing to 
submit a Letter of Intent will not preclude applicants from submitting 
full proposals, however a Letter of Intent is nonetheless encouraged.
    2. Project Proposals
    a. General. The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling 
reviewers to more easily evaluate the merits of each proposal in a 
systematic, consistent fashion:
    (1) The proposal should be prepared on only one side of the page 
using standard size (8\1/2\'' x 11'') white paper, one inch margins, 
typed or word processed using no type smaller than 12 point font, and 
single or double spaced. Use an easily readable font face (e.g., 
Geneva, Helvetica, Times Roman).
    (2) Each page of the proposal, including the Project Summary, 
budget pages, required forms, and any appendices, should be numbered 
sequentially.
    (3) The proposal should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner. 
Do not bind. An original and 14 copies (15 total) must be submitted in 
one package, along with 10 copies of the ``Project Summary'' as a 
separate attachment.
    (4) If applicable, proposals should include original illustrations 
(photographs, color prints, etc.) in all copies of the proposal to 
prevent loss of meaning through poor quality reproduction.
    Small or mid-sized institutions: An academic institution is 
eligible as small-or mid-sized if the institution is under 15,000 in 
total enrollment (including part-time students) and is not listed in 
Appendix A(Most Successful Universities and Colleges for Receiving 
Federal and/or National Research Initiative Funds).
    b. Cover Page.
    Each copy of each grant proposal must contain an ``Application for 
Funding'', Form CSREES-661. One copy of the application, preferably the 
original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing 
principal investigator(s)/project director(s)(PI/PD) and the authorized 
organizational representative who possesses the necessary authority to 
commit the organization's time and other relevant resources to the 
project. Any proposed PI/PD or co-PI/PD whose signature does not appear 
on Form CSREES-661 will not be listed on any resulting grant award. 
Complete both signature blocks located at the bottom of the 
``Application for Funding'' form.
    Form CSREES-661 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant 
database; it is therefore important that it be completed accurately. 
The following items are highlighted as having a high potential for 
errors or misinterpretations:
    (1) Title of Project (Block 6). The title of the project must be 
brief (80-character maximum), yet represent the major thrust of the 
effort being proposed. Project titles are read by a variety of 
nonscientific people; therefore, highly technical words or phraseology 
should be avoided where possible. In addition, introductory phrases 
such as ``investigation of,'' ``research on,'' ``education for,'' or 
``outreach that'' should not be used.
    (2) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 7). ``IFAFS''.
    (3) Program Area and Number (Block 8). The name of the program 
component, e.g. Plant Genome, 10.1 or Behavior of Food Choice, 12.1. 
should be inserted in this block.
    (4) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for ``new'', 
``resubmission'' or ``renewal.''
    (5) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block 
15). The designation of excessive numbers of co-PI/PDs creates problems 
during final review and award processing. Listing multiple co-PI/PDs, 
beyond those required for genuine collaboration, is therefore 
discouraged. Note that providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, 
but is an integral part of the CSREES information system and will 
assist in the processing of the proposal.
    (6) Type of Performing Organization (Block 18). A check should be 
placed in the box beside the type of organization which actually will 
carry out the effort. For example, if the proposal is being submitted 
by an 1862 Land-Grant institution but the work will be performed in a 
department, laboratory, or other organizational unit of an agricultural 
experiment station, box ``03'' should be checked. If portions of the 
effort are to be performed in several departments, check the box that 
applies to the individual listed as PI/PD #1 in Block 15.a.
    (7) Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). List the names or acronyms 
of all other public or private sponsors including other agencies within 
USDA and other programs funded by CSREES to whom your application has 
been or might be sent. In the event you decide to send your application 
to another organization or agency at a later date, you must inform the 
identified CSREES Program Director as soon as practicable. Submitting 
your proposal to other potential sponsors will not prejudice its review 
by CSREES; however, duplicate support for the same project will not be 
provided. Complete the ``Application for Funding,'' Form CSREES-661, in 
its entirety.
    (8) One copy of the ``Application for Funding'' form must contain 
the signatures (in ink) of the PI/PDs and authorized organizational 
representative for the applicant organization.
    c. Table of Contents. For consistency and ease in locating 
information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents 
just after the cover page. The Table of Contents should contain page 
numbers for each component of the proposal. Page numbers should begin 
with the first page of the Project Description.
    d. Project Summary. The proposal must contain a Project Summary of 
250 words or less on a separate page which should be placed immediately 
after the Table of Contents and should not be numbered. The names and 
institutions of all PI/PDs and co-PI/PDs should be listed on this form, 
in addition to the title of the project. The summary should be a self-
contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and 
should focus on: overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; 
plans to accomplish the project goal(s); and relevance of the project 
to IFAFS goals and to U.S. agriculture. The importance of a concise, 
informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized. If the lead 
institution is eligible as a small and mid-size institution (Project 
Grant or Bridge Grant) as defined in Part I., Section C.(23), of this 
document include a separate sentence on the Project Summary page 
indicating that the institution is ``eligible for small-and mid-sized 
and Bridge Grant consideration.'' For special provisions for MGET 
proposals, see Part III.,B.4.a.
    e. Response to Previous Review. This requirement only applies to 
Resubmitted Proposals as described under Part I.F.3, Types of 
Proposals. Resubmitted proposals are proposals that had previously been 
submitted to IFAFS but not funded. For these proposals, the principle 
investigator(s)/project director(s) must respond to the previous panel 
summary on no more than one page, titled Response to

[[Page 11501]]

Previous Review, which is to be placed directly after the Project 
Summary. If desired, additional comments and responses to the previous 
panel summary may be included in the text of the Project Description, 
subject to the page limitation.
    f. Project Description. The written text may not exceed 20 single-
or double spaced pages of written text including figures and tables, 
but excluding citations.
    Each proposal's Project Description should contain the following:
    (1) Introduction--A clear statement of the long-term goal(s) and 
supporting objectives of the proposed activities should be included. 
Summarize the body of knowledge or other past activities which 
substantiates the need for the proposed project. Describe ongoing or 
recently completed significant activities related to the proposed 
project including the work of key project personnel. Preliminary data/
information pertinent to the proposed project should be included;
    (2) Relevance and significance--The objectives' specific 
relationship to the goals of the IFAFS and to the particular program 
area should be stated. Include a description of the significance of the 
activity and its value in improving agriculture through research, 
education and extension. Clearly describe the potential impact of the 
project. (For Critical or Emerging Issues proposals, see Part 
III.,B.3.)
    (3) Approach--The activities proposed or problems being addressed 
must be clearly stated and the approaches being applied clearly 
described. The following should be included: (a) A description of the 
activities proposed; (b) methods to be used in carrying out the 
project, including the feasibility of the methods; (c) expected 
outcomes; (d) means by which results will be analyzed, assessed, or 
interpreted; and (e) how results or products will be used.
    (4) Time Table--Provide an expected time line for completing the 
project in the requested duration.
    (5) Collaborative Arrangements--Identify collaborations and provide 
a full explanation of the nature of the collaborations.
    (6) Management Plan--It is expected that larger more complex 
projects (usually greater than $1 million) will require more extensive 
and complicated coordination and collaboration than is typically 
proposed for more focused projects. Therefore, explain how the project 
will be managed to ensure efficient administration of the grant and how 
activities will be integrated most effectively. Place this description 
after the Project Description.
    (7) Evaluation and Monitoring of Project--Provide a plan for 
assessing and evaluating the accomplishments of the stated proposal 
objectives during the project and describe ways to determine the 
effectiveness of the end results during and upon termination of the 
project. In addition to the evaluation and monitoring of 
accomplishments associated with the project, evaluation and monitoring 
of the administration of the project must also be included if the 
project is complex and requires administrative oversight and extensive 
management. This description should include how funds and resources 
will be allocated so that collaborative participation of all parties 
throughout the duration of the project is ensured. (For special 
provisions regarding MGET proposals, see Part III., B.4.6.)
    g. References in Project Description. All references cited should 
be complete, including titles and all co-authors, and should conform to 
an accepted journal format.
    h. Appendices to Project Description. Appendices to the Project 
Description are allowed if they are directly germane to the proposed 
project and are limited to a total of two of the following: reprints 
(papers that have been published in peer reviewed journals) and 
preprints (manuscripts in press for a peer reviewed journal; these must 
be accompanied by a letter of acceptance from the publishing journal).
    i. Key Personnel. All senior personnel who are expected to be 
involved in the effort should be clearly identified. For each person 
the following should be included:
    (1) The roles and responsibilities of each PI/PD should be 
described;
    (2) An estimate of time commitment for each PI/PD; and
    (3) Vitae of each PI/PD, senior associate and other professional 
personnel. This section should include vitae of all key persons who are 
expected to work on the project, whether or not CSREES funds are sought 
for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages in 
length, excluding publication lists. A chronological list of all 
publications in refereed journals during the past four (4) years, 
including those in press, must be provided for each project member for 
which a curriculum vitae is provided. Also list those non-refereed 
technical publications which have relevance to the proposed project. 
All authors should be listed in the same order as they appear on each 
paper cited, along with the title and complete reference as these 
usually appear in journals.
    j. Conflict-of-Interest List. A Conflict-of-Interest List must be 
provided for all individuals involved in the project (identified as key 
personnel). Each list should be on a separate page and include 
alphabetically the full names of the individuals in the following 
categories: (a) All collaborators on projects within the past four 
years, including current and planned collaborations; (b) all co-authors 
on publications within the past four years, including pending 
publications and submissions; (c) all persons in your field with whom 
you have had a consulting or financial arrangement within the past four 
years who stand to gain by seeing the project funded; and (d) all 
thesis or postdoctoral advisees/advisors within the past four years 
(some may wish to call these life-time conflicts). This form is 
necessary to assist program staff in excluding from proposal review 
those individuals who have conflicts-of-interest with the personnel in 
the grant proposal. The Program Director, under the specific area or 
sub-area, must be informed of any additional conflicts-of-interest that 
arise after the proposal is submitted.
    k. Collaborative and/or Subcontractual Arrangements. If it will be 
necessary to enter into formal consulting or collaborative arrangements 
with others, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified. 
If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal budget 
narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services, 
a statement of work to be performed, a resume or curriculum vitae for 
each consultant, and rate of pay for each consultant. For purposes of 
proposal development, informal day-to-day contacts between key project 
personnel and outside experts are not considered to be collaborative 
arrangements and thus do not need to be detailed.
    All anticipated subcontractual arrangements also should be 
explained and justified in this section. A proposed statement of work 
and a budget for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive 
programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third 
party must be provided. Agreements between departments or other units 
of your own institution and minor arrangements with entities outside of 
your institution (e.g., requests for outside laboratory analyses) are 
excluded from this requirement.
    If you expect to enter into subcontractual arrangements, please 
note that the provisions contained in 7 CFR Part 3019, USDA Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grant and Other Agreements with 
Institutions

[[Page 11502]]

of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and 
the general provisions contained in 7 CFR 3015.205, USDA Uniform 
Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to subrecipients. In 
addition, required clauses from Sections 40-48 (``Procurement 
Standards'') and Appendix A (``Contract Provisions'') of 7 CFR 3019 
should be included in final contractual documents, and it is necessary 
for the subawardee to make a certification relating to debarment/
suspension.
    1. Budget. (1) Budget Form--Prepare the budget, Form CSREES-55, in 
accordance with instructions provided. Budgets of up to $5 million may 
be requested. Budgets should be commensurate with activities proposed. 
A budget form is required for each year of requested support. In 
addition, a cumulative budget is required detailing the requested total 
support for the overall project period. The budget form may be 
reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any of 
the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or service 
for which support is requested is allowable under the authorizing 
legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, and these program 
guidelines, and can be justified as necessary for the successful 
conduct of the proposed project. Applicants must also include a Budget 
Narrative to justify their budgets (see paragraph (2) below.) For 
special provisions for MGET proposals, see Part III.B.4.c.
    The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal 
budget(s):
    (A) Salaries and Wages. Salaries and wages are allowable charges 
and may be requested for personnel who will be working on the project 
in proportion to the time such personnel will devote to the project. If 
salary funds are requested, the number of Senior and Other Personnel 
and the number of CSREES-Funded Work Months must be shown in the spaces 
provided. Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary or 
rate of salary of project personnel or to reimburse them for time in 
addition to a regular full-time salary covering the same general period 
of employment. Salary funds requested must be consistent with the 
normal policies of the institution.
    (B) Fringe Benefits. Funds may be requested for fringe benefit 
costs if the usual accounting practices of your organization provide 
that organizational contributions to employee benefits (social 
security, retirement, etc.) be treated as direct costs. Fringe benefit 
costs may be included only for those personnel whose salaries are 
charged as a direct cost to the project.
    (C) Nonexpendable Equipment. Nonexpendable equipment means tangible 
nonexpendable personal property including exempt property charged 
directly to the award having a useful life of more than one year and an 
acquisition cost of $5,000 (or lower, depending on institutional 
policy) or more per unit. As such, items of necessary instrumentation 
or other nonexpendable equipment should be listed individually by 
description and estimated cost in the Budget Narrative. This applies to 
revised budgets as well, as the equipment item(s) and amount(s) may 
change.
    (D) Materials and Supplies. The types of expendable materials and 
supplies which are required to carry out the project should be 
indicated in general terms with estimated costs in the Budget 
Narrative.
    (E) Travel. The type and extent of travel and its relationship to 
project objectives should be described briefly and justified. If 
foreign travel is proposed, the country to be visited, the specific 
purpose of the travel, a brief itinerary, inclusive dates of travel, 
and estimated cost must be provided for each trip. Airfare allowances 
normally will not exceed round-trip jet economy air accommodations. 
U.S. flag carriers must be used when available. See 7 CFR Part 
3015.205(b)(4) for further guidance.
    (F) Publication Costs/Page Charges. Include anticipated costs 
associated with publications in a journal (preparing and publishing 
results including page charges, necessary illustrations, and the cost 
of a reasonable number of coverless reprints) and audio-visual 
materials that will be produced. Photocopying and printing brochure, 
etc., should be shown in Section I., ``All Other Direct Costs'' of Form 
CSREES-55.
    (G) Computer (ADPE) Costs. Reimbursement for the costs of using 
specialized facilities (such as a university-or department-controlled 
computer mainframe or data processing center) may be requested if such 
services are required for completion of the work.
    (H) All Other Direct Costs. Anticipated direct project charges not 
included in other budget categories must be itemized with estimated 
costs and justified in the Budget Narrative. This also applies to 
revised budgets, as the item(s) and dollar amount(s) may change. 
Examples may include space rental at remote locations, subcontractual 
costs, and charges for consulting services, telephone, facsimile, 
shipping costs, and fees necessary for laboratory analyses. You are 
encouraged to consult the ``Instructions for Completing Form CSREES-55, 
Budget,'' of the Application Kit for detailed guidance relating to this 
budget category. Form AD-1048 must be completed by each subcontractor 
or consultant and retained by the grantee.
    (I) Indirect Costs--Section 1462 of the National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310) 
limits indirect costs for this program to 19 percent of total Federal 
funds provided under each award. Therefore, the recovery of indirect 
costs under this program may not exceed the lesser of the institution's 
official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 19 percent 
of total Federal funds awarded. If no rate has been negotiated, a 
reasonable dollar amount (equivalent to less than 19 percent of total 
Federal funds requested) in lieu of indirect costs may be requested, 
subject to approval by USDA.
    m. Budget Narrative. All budget categories, with the exception of 
Indirect Costs for which support is requested, must be individually 
listed (with costs) and justified on a separate sheet of paper and 
placed immediately behind the Budget Form. Explanations of matching 
funds or lack thereof on commodity-specific projects also are to be 
included in this section.
    n. Matching Funds. If an applicant concludes that matching funds 
are not required as specified in Part I. E, a justification should be 
included in the Budget Narrative. CSREES will consider this 
justification when ascertaining final matching requirements. CSREES 
retains the right to make final determinations regarding matching 
requirements.
    For those grants requiring matching funds as specified in Part I. 
E., proposals should include written verification of commitments of 
matching support (including both cash and in-kind contributions) from 
third parties. Written verification means:
    (1) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge 
agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational 
representatives of the donor organization and the applicant 
organization, which must include: (a) the name, address, and telephone 
number of the donor; (b) the name of the applicant organization; (c) 
the title of the project for which the donation is made; (d) the dollar 
amount of the cash donation; and (e) a statement that the donor will 
pay the cash contribution during the grant period; and
    (2) For any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge

[[Page 11503]]

agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized 
organizational representatives of the donor organization and the 
applicant organization, which must include: (a) the name, address, and 
telephone number of the donor; (b) the name of the applicant 
organization; (c) the title of the project for which the donation is 
made; (d) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the 
third party in-kind contribution; and (e) a statement that the donor 
will make the contribution during the grant period.
    The sources and amount of all matching support from outside the 
applicant institution should be summarized on a separate page and 
placed in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All 
pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal immediately following 
the summary of matching support.
    The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be 
established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Applicants 
should refer to OMB Circulars A-21, Cost Principles for Educational 
Institutions, A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Tribal 
Governments, A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations, and 
for-profit organizations, the cost principles in the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR 31.2 (see 7 CFR 3015.194).
    o. Current and Pending Support. All proposals must contain Form 
CSREES-663 listing other current public or private support (including 
in-house support) to which key personnel identified in the proposal 
have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support 
for person(s) involved is included in the budget. Analogous information 
must be provided for any pending proposals that are being considered 
by, or that will be submitted in the near future to, other possible 
sponsors, including other USDA Programs or agencies. Concurrent 
submission of identical or similar proposals to the possible sponsors 
will not prejudice proposal review or evaluation by the CSREES for this 
purpose. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially 
with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by 
another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. 
Note that the project being proposed should be included in the pending 
section of the form.
    p. Assurance Statement(s), (Form CSREES-662). A number of 
situations encountered in the conduct of projects require special 
assurances, supporting documentation, etc., before funding can be 
approved for the project. In addition to any other situation that may 
exist with regard to a particular project, it is expected that some 
applications submitted in response to these guidelines will involve the 
following:
    (1). Recombinant DNA or RNA Research.
    As stated in 7 CFR 3015.205 (b)(3), all key personnel identified in 
the proposal and all endorsing officials of the proposing organization 
are required to comply with the guidelines established by the National 
Institutes of Health entitled, ``Guidelines for Research Involving 
Recombinant DNA Molecules,'' as revised. If your project proposes to 
use recombinant DNA or RNA techniques, you must so indicate by checking 
the `yes' box in Block 19 of Form CSREES-661 (the Cover Page) and by 
completing Section A of Form CSREES-662. For applicable proposals 
recommended for funding, Institutional Biosafety Committee approval is 
required before CSREES funds will be released.
    (2). Animal Care. Responsibility for the humane care and treatment 
of live vertebrate animals used in any grant project supported with 
funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization. Where 
a project involves the use of living vertebrate animals for 
experimental purposes, all key project personnel identified in a 
proposal and all endorsing officials of the proposing organization are 
required to comply with the applicable provisions of the Animal Welfare 
Act of 1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) and the regulations 
promulgated thereunder by the Secretary in 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 
pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of these animals. If 
your project will involve these animals, you should check `yes' on 
block 20 of CSREES-661 and complete Section B of Form CSREES-662. In 
the event a project involving the use of live vertebrate animals 
results in a grant award, funds will be released only after the 
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee has approved the project.
    (3) Protection of Human Subjects--Responsibility for safeguarding 
the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project 
supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing 
organization. Guidance on this issue is contained in the National 
Research Act, Pub. L No. 93-348, as amended, and implementing 
regulations promulgated by the Department under 7 CFR Part 1c. If you 
propose to use human subjects for experimental purposes in your 
project, you should check the `yes' box in Block 21 of Form CSREES-661 
and complete Section C of Form CSREES-662. In the event a project 
involving human subjects results in a grant award, funds will be 
released only after the appropriate Institutional Review Board has 
approved the project.
    q. Certifications. Note that by signing Form CSREES-661 the 
applicant is providing certifications required by 7 CFR Part 3017, as 
amended, regarding Debarment and Suspension and Drug Free Workplace, 
and 7 CFR Part 3018, regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are 
included in the application package for informational purposes only. 
These forms should not be submitted with the proposal since by signing 
form CSREES-661 your organization is providing the required 
certifications. If the project will involve a subcontractor or 
consultant, the subcontractor/consultant should submit a form AD-1048 
to the grantee organization for retention in their records. This form 
should not be submitted to USDA.
    r. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
Form CSREES-1234. As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service regulations implementing 
NEPA), the environmental data for any proposed project is to be 
provided to CSREES so that CSREES may determine whether any further 
action is needed. In some cases, however, the preparation of 
environmental data may not be required. Certain categories of actions 
are excluded from the requirements of NEPA.
    In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is 
needed with respect to NEPA, pertinent information regarding the 
possible environmental impacts of a particular project is necessary; 
therefore, Form CSREES-1234, ``NEPA Exclusions Form,'' must be included 
in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the opinion that 
the project falls within a categorical exclusion and the reasons 
therefore. If it is the applicant's opinion that the proposed project 
falls within the categorical exclusions, the specific exclusion must be 
identified. Form CSREES-1234 and supporting documentation should be 
included as the last page of this proposal.
    Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions, 
CSREES may determine that an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for an activity, if 
substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other 
extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may

[[Page 11504]]

cause such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
3. Critical or Emerging Issues Proposals
    Proposals submitted to the Critical or Emerging Issues Program Area 
16.0 should contain all of the components listed above for a Project 
grant application. In addition the ``Relevance and Significance'' 
section of the proposal should include a statement explaining, with 
strong evidence, the uniqueness or urgency of the issue and of the work 
proposed, and an explanation why the proposal could not have fit and 
been submitted to an existing IFAFS program area at the original 
deadline.
4. MGET Proposals
    Proposals submitted to the MGET Program Area 17.0 should contain 
all of the components listed above for a Project Grant application with 
the following exceptions:
    a. Project Summary--On the Project Summary Page provide a brief 
description of the traineeship program, including the multidisciplinary 
education features, objectives, and related theme.
    b. Project Description--The project description section should 
contain the following items:
    (1) List of Participants--Include departmental and institutional 
affiliation of all faculty members and senior level personnel expected 
to mentor students or otherwise play an important role in the project;
    (2) Vision, Goals, and Thematic Basis--Discuss the vision, goals, 
and anticipated impact of the proposed MGET project. Describe the 
thematic basis and unifying aspects of the multidisciplinary research, 
education, and extension activities to be offered. Discuss what is 
currently missing from graduate education and training or what could be 
done more effectively, and how the proposed project will address these 
issues. How will this project meet national needs for placement of the 
graduates in the workforce? Benefits to be realized from opportunities 
for cross-disciplinary cooperation in education, research, and 
extension should be emphasized. What is new and innovative?
    (3) Education and Training--Describe the multidisciplinary 
education and training activities central to the proposed MGET project. 
Novel aspects should be emphasized to help reviewers judge potential 
impacts of proposed activities. Indicate how the proposed educational, 
research, and extension experiences will be integrated into an 
effective graduate traineeship program. Needs for interdisciplinary 
courses must be justified. If planned student training includes 
international, industrial or other internships, potential mentors 
should be identified. Describe provisions for developing professional 
and personal elements such as communication, teamwork, leadership, 
international perspective, and instruction in ethics, policy, and 
responsible conduct of science, education and extension. Elaborate on 
the role of diversity, and on the expected time for completing the 
degree. The role of undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral 
components, when proposed, must be described with sufficient detail to 
clarify the benefit to the graduate traineeship program and to justify 
support.
    (4) Major Research Efforts--Describe the major research efforts 
that are intended to serve as the foundation of the MGET project. At 
most, five (5) research areas may be described. This restriction is to 
limit the size of the proposal, not the number of participating faculty 
members or the scope of the project. In describing research areas, 
emphasize the cutting-edge aspects as well as how the research areas 
integrate to form the coherent thematic basis for the multidisciplinary 
project. Each research area must specify faculty members and principal 
participants and be written in sufficient detail to enable assessment 
of scientific merit and impact. Be clear about what is different from 
existing programs. Needs for special materials, shared instruments, or 
travel must be justified in the context of the research areas for which 
they are required.
    (5) Recruitment and Retention--Describe plans for recruitment, 
mentoring, and retention of trainees, including provisions for members 
of groups under-represented in the food and agricultural sciences. 
Identify the graduate program(s) in which the MGET graduate students 
may enroll.
    (6) Organization and Management--Describe plans and procedures for 
organization and management of the proposed activity. The plan should 
be specific and clear, and include a formal mechanism that assures fair 
and effective allocation of group resources. Procedures for selecting 
students and others who will receive stipends or share in group funds 
must be described, as should methods for allocating use of shared 
equipment to be acquired with MGET funds. Relationships to other 
faculty and equipment at the institution, and elsewhere if relevant, 
should be described as should the relationship to existing grants that 
provide funds for related training and educational activities.
    (7) Performance Assessment--Describe a performance plan and 
methodology that relates the goals of the project to indicators and 
specific measurements for assessing progress toward goal achievement. 
This should involve evaluators external to the project, who can render 
an objective evaluation and whose expertise spans the education, 
research, and extension objectives of the project.
    (8) Recruitment and Retention History--Explain your capacity to 
host an MGET site, and past performance and ability to attract well-
qualified students, including those from under-represented groups. 
Provide the following information regarding recruitment and retention 
of students in the participating departments/programs: (a) Total 
applicants, (b) total applicants accepted, (c) total applicants 
enrolled, (d) total students currently enrolled in the program 
indicating part-time and full-time status, (e) total number of masters 
and doctorates awarded, (f) average time to degree, (g) other relevant 
measures of student success. Provide separate data for women, under-
represented minorities, and persons with disabilities for each of the 
above categories. A tabular format should be used with separate tables 
for each participating department/program.
    (9) Recent Training Experience--Provide information about any 
recent experience with other traineeship programs, including a 
discussion of outcomes. If the MGET program builds on a recent 
traineeship experience, discuss what would be the new value-added 
aspects of the project.
    (10) Collaborators--To identify potential conflicts of interest in 
the review process, provide a consolidated alphabetical list of current 
and past collaborators during the last four (4) years, and their 
current institutional affiliation, for all personnel in List of 
Participants. This list must also include former graduate students and 
postdoctoral fellows who have been associated with the faculty 
participants over the last four years.
    (11) Existing Facilities and Equipment--Include a brief description 
of available facilities, including major instruments required. If 
requested equipment or materials duplicate existing items, explain the 
need for the additional equipment.
    c. Budget--Provide a budget for each year of support requested, not 
to exceed $500,000 each year for up to four years, exclusive of first-
year equipment funds discussed below. The major portion of awarded 
funds must be used for

[[Page 11505]]

graduate student stipends, training and educational activities, and for 
related expenditures, such as student travel, publication costs, and 
recruitment. Travel funds should be budgeted in each year for the PI/PD 
and for an additional person to attend annual meetings in Washington, 
D.C. No funds for faculty research or extension or faculty salaries may 
be requested, with the exception that up to one month per year of 
salary support for the PI/PD for management purposes may be requested. 
Support for short-term visitors and funding of a limited amount of 
administrative support may be requested. The contribution to the 
graduate stipend is up to $18,000 per year per student, accompanied 
with a cost-of-education allowance of up to $10,500 per year per 
student (tuition and normal fees). List funds requested for graduate 
students' stipends in A.2.c, cost-of-education allowances in I, and 
travel in F of the budget form. Undergraduate stipends and postdoctoral 
stipends may be determined by the institution. If applicable, they 
should be listed separately on lines A.2.d and A.2.a of the budget 
form, respectively. All stipend recipients must be citizens or 
permanent residents of the U.S. Funds for the purchase of shared, 
special-purpose equipment may be requested. Personnel and shop costs 
may be requested for developing and constructing special instruments, 
and for purchasing computer software or other special purpose 
materials. The total funds requested for equipment, software, and 
special purpose materials may not exceed $200,000; if awarded, these 
funds will be provided in the first year of the grant. Limited funds 
intended to partially defray the costs of research and extension by 
students may also be requested. Funds for facility renovation or for 
equipment installation or maintenance are not allowed. For multi-
institution projects, the lead institution shall submit the proposal, 
with other participating institutions included under subcontracts.

C. Submission of Proposals

1. When To submit (Deadline Date)
    ``Letters of Intent'' must be received by March 23, 2001. Proposals 
must be received by COB (5:00 p.m. EST) on April 23, 2001. Proposals 
received after this date will not be considered for funding.
2. What To Submit
    For full proposals, an original and 14 copies must be submitted. In 
addition submit 10 copies of the proposal's Project Summary. All copies 
of the proposals and the Project Summaries must be submitted in one 
package.
3. Where To Submit
    Applicants should e-mail the ``Letter of Intent'' to Dr. Rodney 
Foil at [email protected] or send the letter by mail to IFAFS; Mail 
Stop 2213; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; 
Washington, D.C. 20250-2213; or fax the letter to IFAFS at (202) 690-
3858.
    Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals 
via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the 
USDA. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted 
using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Initiative for 
Future Agriculture and Food Systems, c/o Proposal Services Unit, 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; Room 1307, Waterfront Centre, 800 9th 
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20024, (202) 401-5048.
    Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the 
following address: Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, 
c/o Proposal Services Unit, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 2245, 1400 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-2245.

D. Acknowledgment of Proposals

    The receipt of proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, 
applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses, where 
designated, on the Form CSREES-661. If the applicant's e-mail address 
is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of the proposal by 
letter.
    Once the proposal has been assigned an identification number, 
please cite that number on all future correspondence. If the applicant 
does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission 
deadline, please contact the Program Director.

Part IV--Review Process

A. General

    All proposals will be reviewed together by a panel in the pertinent 
program area. Prior to technical examination, a preliminary review will 
be made for responsiveness to the program area. Proposals that do not 
fall within the guidelines as stated in the Program Area Description 
will be eliminated from program competition and will be returned to the 
applicant.
    Individual written comments and in-depth discussions will be 
provided by a peer review panel prior to recommending applications for 
funding. Peer review panel members will be selected based upon their 
training and experience in relevant scientific, extension, or education 
fields taking into account the following factors: (a) The level of 
formal scientific, technical education, and 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 peer reviewers experts from various areas of specialization 
within relevant scientific, education, and extension fields; (c) the 
need to include as reviewers other experts (producers, range or forest 
managers/operators, consumers, etc.) who can assess relevance of the 
proposals to targeted audiences and to program needs; (d) the need to 
include as peer 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 peer 
review groups with regard to minority and female representation and an 
equitable age distribution; and (f) the need to include members that 
can judge the effective usefulness to producers and the general public 
of each proposal.

B. Evaluation Factors

1. Project Grants
    Priority will be given to projects that integrate agricultural 
research, education and extension and projects that have included the 
appropriate team to achieve the goals of the project, notably teams 
that are multistate, multi institutional or multidisciplinary.
    The following evaluation factors apply to all proposals.
    a. Relevance. All proposals will be judged as to their relevance to 
critical emerging agricultural issues related to future food 
production; environmental quality, and natural resource management; or 
farm income. Further factors include:
    (1) Documentation that the research, extension and education 
activities are directed towards current or likely future problems or 
problems identified in this document;
    (2) Evident linkage of research, extension and education functions.

[[Page 11506]]

    (3) Evidence of involvement of stakeholders and/or communities of 
interest.
    b. Merit. All proposals will be judged on their scientific, 
extension, or education merit including:
    (1) Novelty, innovation, uniqueness, and originality;
    (2) Conceptual adequacy of the research, extension and education 
components;
    (3) Clarity and delineation of objectives;
    (4) Adequacy of the description of the undertaking and suitability 
and feasibility of methodology;
    (5) Demonstration of feasibility;
    (6) Probability of success of the project;
    c. Quality. All proposals will be judged on their quality 
including:
    (1) Selection of most appropriate and qualified individuals to 
address the problem;
    (2) Training and demonstrated awareness of previous and alternative 
approaches to the problem identified in the proposal, and performance 
record or potential for future accomplishments;
    (3) Time allocated for systematic attainment of objectives;
    (4) Institutional experience and competence in subject area;
    (5) Adequacy of available or obtainable support personnel, 
facilities, and instrumentation;
    (6) Adequacy of plans for reporting, assessing and monitoring of 
results of the project over its duration.
    (7) The planned administration of the project and its maintenance, 
partnerships, collaborative efforts, evaluation and monitoring efforts, 
and the planned dissemination of information over the duration of the 
project.
2. Bridge Grants
    Bridge grants will be judged using the same evaluation factors as 
Project Grants. In addition the following factor will be applied once a 
project has been identified for BRIDGE grant consideration:
    All proposals under consideration for Bridge grant support will be 
judged as to the potential that further funding will sustain and 
enhance important collaborations and activities that might lead to 
future program success or success in obtaining IFAFS and/or other 
grants.
3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants
    Critical or Emerging Issues grants will be judged using the same 
evaluation factors as Project Grants. In addition the following factor 
will be applied:
    All proposals will be evaluated as to the uniqueness or urgency of 
the issue and of the work proposed and whether support of the project 
will likely provide results that are applied to an issue that otherwise 
would not have been funded through typical IFAFS support.
4. Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship (MGET) Grants
    MGET proposals will be judged using the following criteria:
    a. How well the proposal addressed recognized needs for highly 
trained personnel in the research, education and extension programs 
supporting the food and agricultural system of the U.S.;
    b. Whether attention has been given to opportunities for removal of 
cultural and technical barriers preventing appropriate growth and 
development of new disciplines with emerging technologies;
    c. How well the proposal integrates disciplines across physical, 
biological and social sciences to meet integrated agricultural and food 
science needs as well as meeting needs for supplying future extension 
personnel and practitioners;
    d. The intellectual merit, qualifications of the proposed 
leadership team and the sufficiency of the proposed resources;
    e. How well the proposing institution(s) provide abundant 
opportunities for individuals to concurrently assume responsibilities 
as researchers, educators, extensionists, and students where all can 
engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of 
discovery and enrich research and extension through the diversity of 
learning perspectives;
    f. How well the proposal integrates diversity into programs, 
projects, and activities by broadening opportunities and enabling the 
participation of all citizens--women and men, under-represented 
minorities, and persons with disabilities--which is essential to the 
health and vitality of the food and agricultural sciences. CSREES is 
committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the 
programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports;
    g. Successful proposals should include provisions for developing 
personal and professional competencies in communications, teamwork, 
leadership, and ethics with opportunities for internships and other 
career development opportunities should be provided for as appropriate, 
and an emphasis on the global dimensions of the subject area as an 
integral part of the program.
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 January 1998 issue of the 
Codebook for Compatible Statistical Reporting of Federal Support to 
Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, prepared by Quantum 
Research Corporation for the National Science Foundation.
    Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as 
proposal 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 reviewers will not be released to applicants. At the end of the 
fiscal year, names of panelists will be made available in such a way 
that the panelists cannot be identified with the review of any 
particular proposal.

Part V--Additional Information

A. Access To Review Information

    Copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of reviewers, 
will be sent to the applicant PI/PD after the review process has been 
completed.

B. Grant Awards

1. General
    Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding 
official of CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible 
applicants whose proposals are judged most meritorious under the 
procedures set forth in this RFP. The date specified by the 
Administrator as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than 
September 30. 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 RFP 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, 3016, and 3019 of 
7 CFR).

[[Page 11507]]

2. Organizational Management Information
    Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be 
submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility 
determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFP, 
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 preaward 
process.
3. Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award
    The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
    (a) Legal name and address of performing organization or 
institution to whom the Administrator has awarded a grant under the 
terms of this request for proposals;
    (b) Title of project;
    (c) Name(s) and address(es) of principal investigator(s) chosen to 
direct and control approved activities;
    (d) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
    (e) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department 
intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for 
funds;
    (f) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by 
the Administrator during the project period;
    (g) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
    (h) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds 
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
    (i) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to 
carry out its respective granting activities or to accomplish the 
purpose of a particular grant.
    The notice of grant award, in the form of a letter, will be 
prepared and will provide pertinent instructions or information to the 
grantee that is not included in the grant award document.

C. Funding Mechanisms

    The two mechanisms by which grants may be awarded are as follows:
    1. Standard grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the 
Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a 
predetermined time period without the announced intention of providing 
additional support at a future date.
    2. Continuation grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the 
Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a 
predetermined period of time with a statement of intention to provide 
additional support at a future date, provided that performance has been 
satisfactory, appropriations are available for this purpose, and 
continued support will be in the best interests of the Federal 
government and the public. This kind of mechanism normally will be 
awarded for an initial one-year period, and any subsequent continuation 
project grants will be awarded in one-year increments. The award of a 
continuation project grant to fund an initial or succeeding budget 
period does not constitute an obligation to fund any subsequent budget 
period. Unless prescribed otherwise by CSREES, a grantee must submit a 
separate application for continued support for each subsequent fiscal 
year. Requests for such continued support must be submitted in 
duplicate at least three months prior to the expiration date of the 
budget period currently being funded. Decisions regarding continued 
support and the actual funding levels of such support in future years 
usually will be made administratively after consideration of such 
factors as the grantee's progress and management practices and the 
availability of funds. Since initial peer reviews are based upon the 
full term and scope of the original application, additional evaluations 
of this type generally are not required prior to successive years' 
support. However, in unusual cases (e.g., when the nature of the 
project or key personnel change or when the amount of future support 
requested substantially exceeds the grant application originally 
reviewed and approved), additional reviews may be required prior to 
approving continued funding.

D. Use of Funds; Changes

1. Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility
    Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the 
grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another 
person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or 
expenditure of grant funds.
2. Changes in Project Plans
    a. The permissible changes by the grantee, PI/PD(s), or other key 
project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to 
changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to 
expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee 
and/or the PI/PD(s) are uncertain as to whether a change complies with 
this provision, the question must be referred to the CSREES Authorized 
Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination.
    b. Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by 
the grantee and approved in writing by the CSREES 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 leadership or the replacement or 
reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the 
grantee and approved in writing by the awarding official of CSREES 
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 grantee 
and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers, 
unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
    e. Changes in Project Period: 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. Any extension of time shall be 
conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing 
by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of 
a grant, but in no case shall a grant period of performance exceed 5 
years.
    f. Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must 
be requested by the grantee 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 in the 
grant award.

E. Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations

    Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant 
proposals considered for review and to project grants awarded under 
this program. These include, but are not limited to:
    7 CFR Part 1.1--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 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,

[[Page 11508]]

implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and 
incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (formerly the Federal 
Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Public Law No. 95-224), as 
well as general policy requirements applicable to recipients of 
Departmental financial assistance.
    7 CFR Part 3016--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and 
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
    7 CFR Part 3017--USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment 
and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and 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 3019--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 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.
    29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR 
Part 15d (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).

F. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards

    When a proposal results in a grant, 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 proposal. The original copy of a 
proposal that does not result in a grant will be retained by the CSREES 
for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such a 
proposal will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to 
the extent required by law. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time 
prior to the final action thereon.

G. Regulatory Information

    For the reasons set forth in the final Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR 
part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, 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, as amended (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements 
contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 
0524-0022.

    Done at Washington, D.C., this 16th day of February 2001.
Colien Hefferan,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.

Appendix A--Most Successful Universities and Colleges for Receiving 
Federal and/or National Research Initiative Funds \1\

    Baylor College of Medicine
    Boston University
    Brown University
    California Institute of Technology
    Carnegie-Mellon University
    Case Western Reserve University
    Colorado State University
    Columbia University
    Cornell University
    CUNY Mount Sinai School of Medicine
    Dartmouth College
    Duke University
    Emory University
    Florida State University
    Georgetown University
    Georgia Institute of Technology
    Harvard University
    Indiana University
    Iowa State University of Science and Technology
    Johns Hopkins University
    *Kansas State University
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Medical College of Wisconsin
    Michigan State University
    New York University
    North Carolina State University
    Northwestern University
    Ohio State University
    Oregon Health Sciences University
    Oregon State University
    Pennsylvania State University
    Princeton University
    Purdue University
    Rockefeller University
    Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
    Scripps Research Institute
    Stanford University
    State University of New York at Stony Brook
    State University of New York at Buffalo
    Texas A&M University, College Park
    Thomas Jefferson University
    Tufts University
    Tulane University
    University of Alabama Birmingham
    University of Arizona
    University of California Berkeley
    University of California Davis
    University of California Irvine
    University of California Los Angeles
    *University of California Riverside
    University of California San Francisco
    University of California Santa Barbara
    University of Chicago
    University of Cincinnati
    University of Colorado
    University of Florida
    University of Georgia
    University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
    University of Illinois Chicago
    University of Iowa
    University of Kansas
    University of Maryland Baltimore Prof Sch
    University of Maryland College Park
    University of Massachusetts Amherst
    University of Massachusetts Medical School Worcester
    University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
    University of Miami
    University of Michigan Ann Arbor
    University of Minnesota Twin Cities
    University of Missouri Columbia
    *University of Nebraska--Lincoln
    University of New Mexico
    University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
    University of Pennsylvania
    University of Pittsburgh
    University of Rochester
    University of South Carolina
    University of Southern California
    University of Texas at Austin
    University of Texas Health Science Center Houston
    University of Texas Health Sci. Center San Antonio
    University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
    University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston
    University of Texas SW Medical Center Dallas
    University of Utah
    University of Virginia
    University of Washington
    University of Wisconsin Madison

[[Page 11509]]

    *Utah State University
    Vanderbilt University
    Virginia Commonwealth University
    Wake Forest University
    Washington University
    *Washington State University
    Wayne State University
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
    Yale University
    Yeshiva University, New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on data from the table Federal obligations for science 
and engineering research and development to the 100 universities and 
colleges receiving the largest amounts, ranked by total amount 
received: in fiscal year 1997 of Federal Science and Engineering 
Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions 
(National Science Foundation, accessible through the Internet at 
www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf99331/).
    * Annotated institutions are not in the list for the most 
successful Federally funded, but were among the top 50th percentile 
of those funded by the National Research Initiative (Competitive, 
Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) over 
the past three years (1997-1999).

[FR Doc. 01-4465 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P