[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41742-41753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19831]



[[Page 41741]]

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

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





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



Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service



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





Environmental Protection Agency





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



Nutrient Science for Improved Watershed Management Program: Request for 
Proposals and Request for Input; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 41742]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


National Center for Environmental Research; Nutrient Science for 
Improved Watershed Management Program: Request for Proposals and 
Request for Input

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
USDA and the National Center for Environmental Research, USEPA.

ACTION: Notice of request for proposals and request for input.

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

SUMMARY: As a collaborative, interagency effort, the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Center for 
Environmental Research (NCER) of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (USEPA) are soliciting proposals for the Nutrient Science for 
Improved Watershed Management Program. It is anticipated that the 
amount available for support of this program in fiscal year (FY) 2002 
will be approximately $7,000,000 ($4,000,000 from NCER and $3,000,000 
from CSREES). This joint request for proposals (RFP) is soliciting 
proposals that integrate research and extension activities aimed at 
addressing nutrient management issues at the watershed scale.
    This notice sets out the objectives for the Nutrient Science for 
Improved Watershed Management Program projects, the eligibility 
criteria for projects and applicants, the application procedures, and 
the set of instructions needed to apply for a grant under this RFP.
    By this notice, CSREES and NCER additionally solicit stakeholder 
input from any interested party regarding the FY 2002 Nutrient Science 
for Improved Watershed Management Program for use in the development of 
any future RFP's for this program.

DATES: Proposals must be received by close of business (COB) on 
November 6, 2001 (5 p.m. Eastern Time). Proposals received after this 
date will not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this RFP 
are requested within six months from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent 
practicable.

ADDRESSES: The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals 
submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: 
Nutrient Science for Improved Watershed Management; c/o Proposal 
Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Waterfront Centre, Room 1307; 
800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DCY 20024; Telephone: (202) 401-5048.
    Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the 
following address: Nutrient Science for Improved Watershed Management 
Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 
2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-2245.
    Written user comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and 
Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-CSREES; STOP 
2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 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 RFP to which you are 
responding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Applicants and other interested parties are 
encouraged to contact Dr. Michael P. O'Neill; National Program Leader 
for Water Quality; Natural Resources and Environment Unit; Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of 
Agriculture; STOP 2210; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20250-2210; Telephone: (202) 205-5952; Fax: (202) 401-1706; email: 
[email protected]; or Ms. Barbara Levinson; National Center for 
Environmental Research (NCER); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 
564-6911; Fax: (202) 565-2448; 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. Eligibility
    D. Types of Proposals
    E. Matching Requirements
    F. Funding Restrictions
Part II--Program Description
    A. Project Types
    B. Program Area Description
Part III--Preparation of a Proposal
    A. Program Application Materials
    B. Content of Proposals
    C. Submission of Proposals
    D. Acknowledgment of Proposals
Part IV--Review Process
    A. General
    B. Evaluation Criteria
    C. Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality
Part V--Grant Awards
    A. General
    B. Funding Mechanisms
    C. Organizational Management Information
    D. Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award
Part VI--Additional Information
    A. Access to Review Information
    B. Use of Funds; Changes
    C. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
    D. Applicable Federal Statues and Regulations
    E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards
    F. Regulatory Information

Stakeholder Input

    CSREES and NCER are soliciting 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 used to meet 
the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), Pub. L. No. 105-
185, as amended (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 RFP's 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 (CFDA) for CSREES under CFDA No. 10.303, Integrated 
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program and for 
NCER under CFDA No. 66.500, Environmental Protection Consolidated 
Research.

Part I--General Information

A. Legislative Authority and Background

    The funding provided by CSREES for this program is governed by 
section 406 of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7626). That section authorized the 
Secretary of Agriculture to establish an integrated research, 
education, and extension competitive grants program to provide funding 
for integrated, multifunctional agricultural research, extension, and 
education activities. Subject to the availability of appropriations to 
carry out this program, the Secretary may award grants to colleges and 
universities (as

[[Page 41743]]

defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA), Pub. L. No. 95-
113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3103)) on a competitive basis for integrated 
research, education, and extension projects. Grants are to be awarded 
to address priorities in United States agriculture that involve 
integrated research, education, and extension activities.
    CSREES administers the Integrated Research, Education, and 
Extension Competitive Grants Program by determining priorities in 
United States agriculture through Agency stakeholder input processes 
and in consultation with the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
Education, and Economics Advisory Board. See 7 U.S.C. 7601(4) and 
7626(c). Each RFP for the different program areas (e.g., Water Quality) 
is developed each fiscal year based on these established priorities and 
the resulting approaches to solving these critical agricultural issues. 
Although this overall grant program seeks to solve critical 
agricultural issues through an integration of research, education, and 
extension activities, a component of a RFP, depending on the priority 
being addressed and/or the stage at which the priority is being 
addressed, may request proposals that are research, education, or 
extension only, or a combination thereof. However, the overall, 
overarching approach to solving the critical agricultural issue, 
priority, or problem will be through an integration of research, 
education, and extension activities within each individual program 
area.
    For FY 2001, Congress appropriated funds pursuant to section 406 of 
AREERA to CSREES for an integrated research, education, and extension 
competitive grants program in seven areas: Water Quality, Food Safety, 
National Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment, Food Quality 
Protection Act Risk Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems, Food 
Quality Protection Act Implementation, Methyl Bromide Transition, and 
Organic Transition. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-948, at 10-11 (2000). It is 
anticipated that the same level of funding will be available in FY 2002 
for the Water Quality area. The goal of the CSREES Water Quality 
Program under this authority is to fund appropriate research, 
extension, and education efforts at the national, regional, state, and 
local levels necessary to protect or improve the quality of water 
resources in the United States and its territories, particularly in 
agriculturally managed watersheds to address the impacts of 
agricultural activities on those resources. Projects funded by CSREES 
should contribute to this goal through an integration of research and 
extension programs in natural or managed agricultural watersheds. The 
FY 2002 RFP's for the other program areas funded under the AREERA 
section 406 authority will be published in the Federal Register at a 
later date.
    The funding provided by NCER is governed by separate statutory 
provisions. The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-240, as 
amended, was passed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 
biological integrity of the Nations' waters. The Clean Air Act (CAA), 
Pub. L. No. 88-206, as amended, mandates USEPA to investigate, monitor, 
assess, and control nitrogen in its various forms. The CAA amendments 
of 1990, Pub. L. No. 104-316, mandate USEPA to reduce year-round 
nitrogen loadings to curb effects of acid deposition on aquatic and 
terrestrial ecosystems. Both Acts authorize research to meet their 
legislative mandates.
    Grants by USEPA in this program will be awarded under the authority 
of section 104 of CWA.

B. Purpose, Priorities, and Fund Availability

    Excessive nutrients have been linked to a wide variety of human 
health and environmental problems. These include lake acidification, 
soil degradation, hazardous algal blooms, dissolved oxygen problems in 
coastal waters, and forest declines, among others. If these complex 
problems are to be addressed, new integrative approaches that consider 
the management of multiple sources across multiple spatial and temporal 
scales must be developed and implemented. In order to pro-actively 
mitigate the nutrient over-enrichment problem, NCER and CSREES have 
come together to sponsor this solicitation. The outcome of this 
research will provide the scientific foundation for improved tools for 
managing and controlling nutrients by enhancing our understanding of 
the fate of nutrients from sources (i.e., atmospheric and terrestrial) 
through biogeochemical cycling in ecosystems to their effects on 
biological communities.
    An extensive body of literature exists regarding nutrient pollution 
in the Nation's water bodies. There remains, however, a need to conduct 
basic research to identify substantial nutrient sources and processes 
in the Nation's watersheds at a variety of spatial and temporal scales 
and across a broad spectrum of geographic locations. Much of the past 
research focused on the examination of nutrient loads in specific water 
bodies, such as streams, rivers, lakes, groundwater and estuaries. 
However, much of this research has been conducted without detailed 
documentation of the interactions among terrestrial, atmospheric, and 
hydrologic components of the nutrient cycle. Moreover, these sources 
and processes that act to remove nutrients from the watershed system 
require investigation across entire watersheds at a variety of spatial 
and temporal scales. Unlike most previous research, new efforts must 
focus on the integration of nutrient dynamics across a watershed and 
the evaluation of linkages among sources, processes for removal of 
nutrients, and the overall quality of water resources in these 
watersheds.
    Similarly, much of the past research focused on the utility of 
specific management practices to reduce nutrient inputs to streams, 
lakes, rivers, and groundwater. This work traditionally has been 
conducted on specific plots or stream reaches. Impacts of different 
management activities within the sub-basin need to be considered within 
the context of an entire watershed. Thus, research is needed to 
establish how land management strategies work to complement or 
counteract one another within a specific watershed.
    Equally important to resolving watershed nutrient pollution is 
enhancing the community's understanding of environmental issues, 
building the capacity for communities to address these problems, 
developing tools, information and data to assist communities in 
addressing environmental problems, and ensuring communities have access 
to the most creditable available scientific information. For this 
competition, the proposals will demonstrate involvement of local 
governments and/or community groups from inception (developing the 
research questions and designing the project) to completion of the 
research project (analyzing and disseminating the results of research). 
Because nutrient management is fundamentally related to activities that 
occur in time and space, communication efforts (dissemination of 
results) that make use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or other 
graphical approaches to convey research findings are especially sought. 
All research projects funded through this solicitation must include 
innovative efforts to establish effective communication of scientific 
results to the appropriate audiences through outreach and extension 
efforts.
    CSREES' highest priority is to fund research in agricultural 
watersheds.

[[Page 41744]]

NCER's interest lies in multiple use watersheds.
    There is no commitment by CSREES or NCER to fund any particular 
proposal or to make a specific number of awards. It is anticipated that 
the participating agencies will have a total of approximately $7 
million available for this Program in FY 2002 ($4 million from NCER and 
$3 million from CSREES). CSREES and NCER will fund awards separately.

C. Eligibility

    Academic institutions and non-profit organizations are eligible to 
receive awards through this joint program. Details regarding specific 
eligibility for the two agencies are presented below.
1. CSREES Funds
    The source of CSREES funds for the Nutrient Science for Improved 
Watershed Management Program is the Integrated Research, Education, and 
Extension Competitive Grants Program established pursuant to section 
406 of AREERA. Under this program, proposals may be submitted by 
colleges and universities as defined in section 1404 of NARETPA. The 
terms ``college'' and ``university'' mean an educational institution in 
any State which (1) admits as regular students only persons having a 
certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, 
or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate, (2) is legally 
authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond 
secondary education, (3) provides an educational program for which a 
bachelor's degree or any other higher degree is awarded, (4) is a 
public or other nonprofit institution, and (5) is accredited by a 
nationally recognized accrediting agency or association. Although an 
applicant may be eligible based on its status as one of these entities, 
there are factors which may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal 
financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits under this program 
(e.g., debarment or suspension of an individual involved or a 
determination that an applicant is not responsible based on submitted 
organizational management information). Eligible applicants may 
subcontract to organizations not eligible under these requirements. 
Please note that a research foundation maintained by a college or 
university is not eligible to receive an award under this program. 
Proposals received from research foundations will not be considered for 
CSREES funding.
2. NCER Funds
    Academic and not-for-profit institutions located in the United 
States and state or local governments are eligible for NCER funds under 
all existing authorizations. Profit-making firms and Federal agencies 
and national laboratories funded by Federal agencies (e.g., Federally-
funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC's)) are not eligible for 
NCER funds.
    Federal employees are not eligible to serve in a principal 
leadership role on a grant. FFRDC employees may cooperate or 
collaborate with eligible applicants within the limits imposed by 
applicable legislation and regulations (40 CFR 30.20 et seq). They may 
participate in planning, conducting, and analyzing the research 
directed by the principal investigator, but may not direct projects on 
behalf of the applicant organization or principal investigator. The 
principal investigator's institution may provide funds through its 
grant from NCER to a FFRDC for research personnel, equipment, and other 
expenses directly related to research. However, salaries for permanent 
FFRDC employees may not be provided through this mechanism.
    Federal employees may not receive salaries or in other ways augment 
their agency's appropriations through grants made by this program. 
However, Federal employees may interact with grantees so long as their 
involvement is not essential to achieving the basic goals of the grant. 
NCER encourages interaction between its own laboratory scientists and 
grant principal investigators for the sole purpose of exchanging 
information in research areas of common interest that may add value to 
their respective research activities. However, this interaction must be 
incidental to achieving the goals of the research under a grant. 
Interaction that is ``incidental'' is not reflected in a research 
proposal and involves no resource commitments.
    The principal investigator's institution may also enter into an 
agreement with a Federal agency to purchase or utilize unique supplies 
or services unavailable in the private sector. Examples are the 
purchase of satellite data, census data tapes, chemical reference 
standards, analyses, or use of instrumentation or other facilities not 
available elsewhere, etc. A written justification of Federal 
involvement must be included in the application, along with an 
assurance statement from the Federal agency involved which commits it 
to supply the specified service.

D. Types of Proposals

    In FY 2002, it is anticipated that most projects under the Nutrient 
Science for Improved Watershed Management Program will be submitted as 
new proposals. However, applicants who applied previously to the 
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants 
Program--Water Quality and were not awarded grants may choose to submit 
a proposal to the Nutrient Science for Improved Watershed Management 
Program as a resubmission. Therefore, two types of proposals may be 
submitted:
    (1) New proposal. This is a project proposal that has not been 
previously submitted to the Integrated Research, Education, and 
Extension Competitive Grants Program--Water Quality. All new proposals 
will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and 
evaluation criteria described in Part IV--Review Process.
    (2) Resubmitted proposal. This is a proposal that had previously 
been submitted to the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension 
Competitive Grants Program--Water Quality 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--Review 
Process.

E. Matching Requirements

1. CSREES Funds
(a) General Requirement
    If a grant awarded with CSREES funds provides a particular benefit 
to a specific agricultural commodity, the grant recipient is required 
to provide funds or in-kind support to match the amount of the grant 
funds provided (7 U.S.C. 7626(d)(1)). See section 13.c. on ``Matching 
Funds'' under Part III, B, ``Content of Proposals'' for more details.
(b) Waiver
    CSREES may waive the matching funds requirement specified in the 
above paragraph for a grant if CSREES determines that (a) the results 
of the

[[Page 41745]]

project, while of particular benefit to a specific agricultural 
commodity, are likely to be applicable to agricultural commodities 
generally; or (b) the project involves a minor commodity, the project 
deals with scientifically important research, and the grant recipient 
is unable to satisfy the matching funds requirement (7 U.S.C. 
7626(d)(2)).
2. NCER Funds
    NCER does not require matching funds.

F. Funding Restrictions

    CSREES and NCER have determined that grant funds awarded under 
these authorities may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment 
of research, education, or extension space; the purchase or 
installation of fixed equipment in such space; or the planning, repair, 
rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of buildings or 
facilities.

Part II--Program Description

A. Project Types

    Approximately $7,000,000 will be available for Nutrient Science for 
Improved Watershed Management Program proposals. The maximum total 
award is $750,000, with an annual funding limitation of $250,000. The 
project period may be one to three years in duration.

B. Program Area Description

    CSREES and NCER seek proposals for research that will provide 
scientifically defensible methods for integrated management of 
nutrients within a watershed. The nutrients of interest for this 
solicitation are nitrogen and phosphorus. The intent of this 
solicitation is to develop methods suitable for managing watershed 
nutrients throughout the United States. However, proposals of more 
limited scope are anticipated. Such proposals are acceptable if they 
demonstrate ``proof of concept'' over large watershed areas and if the 
study design is able to address nutrient issues in disparate ecological 
settings.
    The focus of this research should be on methods to identify and 
integrate all significant sources and sinks of nutrients within air-
sheds and watersheds, across a variety of land cover types and land 
management activities. Methods are sought that will permit evaluation 
of linkages among nutrient sources, processes for nutrient removal, and 
the overall quality of water resources within watersheds. In addition, 
the research should result in methods for determining how air, water, 
and land management strategies for managing nutrients complement or 
negate one another within a specific watershed with respect to meeting 
water quality objectives. The research must also provide the basis for, 
and be integrated with, approaches for communicating results to land 
managers and the public through outreach and extension efforts. The 
ultimate focus and application of this research is the management of 
nutrients across a spectrum of spatial (nested watersheds: small to 
eco-regional) and temporal (daily, seasonal, inter-annual) scales. 
Consequently, proposals for research that enable estimation and 
visualization of the spatial and temporal dynamics of alternative 
nutrient management options are especially desired.
    It is expected that projects will address at least two of the 
following questions and clearly identify their relationship to a 
management objective. For example, if the management objective were to 
calculate the total loading of nutrients into the Everglades from 
agricultural lands, but instead elucidated the denitrification 
processes in isolation, the proposal would be non-responsive. The 
questions are:
    (1) What are the sources and magnitudes of nutrients (particularly 
nitrogen and phosphorous) entering watersheds and how do these sources 
and magnitudes vary with watershed size (small watershed to ecoregion), 
geographic location, and position within a watershed?
    (2) What processes (ground and surface waters, terrestrial) control 
the biogeochemical cycling of nutrients to and through an ecosystem and 
how do these processes vary over space and through time?
    (3) How do terrestrial, freshwater, and estuarine communities 
respond to changes in nutrient loads?
    (4) What land management activities are responsible for measureable 
fluxes of nutrients into and out of watersheds and how can these 
activities be altered to improve the quality of water resources within 
a watershed?
    (5) How do interactions between management practices with competing 
objectives affect the delivery of nutrients to streams, rivers, lakes, 
groundwater and estuaries and how can management practices be adapted 
to better control nutrient delivery across an entire watershed?
    In addition to addressing two of the five questions presented 
above, all projects must include a description of how results will be 
communicated to land managers and the public through appropriate 
outreach and extension efforts. Projects also should address how the 
impacts of these outreach and extension efforts will be assessed in the 
project.
    In research projects in which models are developed or applied, the 
grantee must provide, as part of the Quality Assurance Statement 
described in the Standard Instructions, information on how the quality 
of the data used for or produced by the models will be assured. Special 
attention to this need should be applied to the six points for 
consideration in the Quality Assurance Statement. Of particular 
importance will be the aspects of model development, such as software 
verification and validation, the need for quality control of data used 
for modeling, and assurance that information obtained by GIS and/or 
remote sensing is accurate and verifiable. Reviewers will be asked to 
critically evaluate this aspect of the application.

Part III--Preparation of a Proposal

    The participating agencies have agreed to use the CSREES guidelines 
for proposal format (see below) and application kit. Other material may 
be required at the time of funding to facilitate the implementation of 
the award. Proposals that are funded by NCER must meet additional 
submission and reporting requirements at the time of award.

A. Program Application Materials

    Program application materials are available at the Integrated 
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program website 
(http://www.reeusda.gov/integrated/). 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 the FY 2002 Nutrient Science 
for Improved Watershed Management Program. 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 2002 Nutrient Science for Improved 
Watershed Management Program.

B. Content of Proposals

1. General
    The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling reviewers to 
more easily evaluate the merits of each

[[Page 41746]]

proposal in a systematic, consistent fashion:
    (a) 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).
    (b) Each page of the proposal, beginning with the Project 
Description and including the budget pages, required forms, and any 
appendices, should be numbered sequentially.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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.
2. Cover Page (Form CSREES-661)
    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:
    (a) Title of Project (Block 6). The title of the project must be 
brief (140-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.
    (b) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 7). ``Nutrient Science 
for Improved Watershed Management Program.''
    (c) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for ``new'' 
or ``resubmission.''
    (d) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block 
15). The designation of excessive numbers of co-PI/PD's creates 
problems during final review and award processing. Listing multiple co-
PI/PD's, 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.
    (e) 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.
    (f) Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). List the names or acronyms 
of all other public or private sponsors including other agencies within 
USDA or USEPA and other programs funded by CSREES or NCER 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 or NCER; however, duplicate support 
for the same project will not be provided. Complete the ``Application 
for Funding,'' Form CSREES-661, in its entirety.
    (g) One copy of the ``Application for Funding'' form must contain 
the signatures of the PI/PD(s) and authorized organizational 
representative for the applicant organization.
3. 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.
4. 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 affiliated 
organizations of all PI/PD's and co-PI/PD's 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 project goal(s); and relevance of the project to 
regional, State, or local water quality efforts aimed at addressing 
nutrient management issues at the watershed. The importance of a 
concise, informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized.
5. Response to Previous Review
    This requirement only applies to ``Resubmitted Proposals'' as 
described under Part I, D, ``Types of Proposals.'' For these 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. 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.
6. Project Description
    The project description may not exceed 15 single-or double-spaced 
pages of written text and may not exceed a total of 20 pages after 
inclusion of figures and tables.
    The Project Description must include all of the following:
    a. 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 
substantiate 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. In 
addition, this section should include in-depth information on the 
following, when applicable:
    (1) Estimates of the magnitude of the issues and their relevance to 
stakeholders, land managers, and the public;
    (2) Role of the stakeholders in problem identification, planning, 
and

[[Page 41747]]

implementation and evaluation as appropriate; and
    (3) Reasons for having the work performed at the proposing 
institution.
    b. Objectives: Clear, concise, complete, and logically arranged 
statement(s) of specific aims of the proposed effort must be included 
in all proposals.
    Projects should address at least two of the six questions 
identified in Part II, B, ``Program Area Description'' and clearly 
identify their relationship to the stated management objectives.
    c. Methods: The procedures or methodology to be applied to the 
proposed effort should be explicitly stated. This section should 
include but not necessarily be limited to:
    (1) A description of stakeholder involvement in problem 
identification, planning, implementation and evaluation;
    (2) A description of the proposed project activities in the 
sequence in which it is planned to carry them out;
    (3) Techniques to be employed, including their feasibility and 
rationale for their use in this project;
    (4) Kinds of results expected;
    (5) Means by which extension and outreach activities will be 
evaluated;
    (6) Means by which data will be analyzed or interpreted;
    (7) Details of plans to communicate results to stakeholders, land 
managers and the public;
    (8) Pitfalls that might be encountered; and
    (9) Limitations to proposed procedures.
    d. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved: Cooperative, 
multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary applications are encouraged. 
Identify each institutional unit contributing to the project and 
designate the lead institution or institutional unit. Clearly define 
the roles and responsibilities of each institutional partner of the 
project team.
    e. Facilities and Equipment: All facilities which are available for 
use or assignment to the project during the requested period of support 
should be reported and described briefly. All items of major equipment 
or instrumentation available for use or assignment to the proposed 
project should be itemized. In addition, items of nonexpendable 
equipment needed to conduct and bring the project to a successful 
conclusion should be listed, including dollar amounts and, if funds are 
requested for their acquisition, justified.
    f. Project Timetable: The proposal should outline all important 
phases as a function of time, year by year, for the entire project, 
including periods beyond the grant funding period.
7. References
    All references cited should be complete, including titles and all 
co-authors, and should conform to an accepted journal format.
8. 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).
9. Quality Assurance Statement
    For any project involving data collection or processing, conducting 
surveys, environmental measurements, and/or modeling, or the 
development of environmental technology (whether hardware-based or via 
new techniques) for pollution control and waste treatment, provide a 
statement on quality processes that will be used to assure that results 
of the research satisfy the intended project objectives. The statement 
must describe a quality system that complies with the requirements of 
ANSI/ASQC E4, Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for 
Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs, 
and must not exceed two consecutively numbered, 8.5x11-inch pages of 
single-spaced standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins. This 
Statement should, for each item listed below, present the required 
information, reference the specific page and paragraph number of the 
Research Plan containing the information, or provide a justification as 
to why the item does not apply to the proposed research:
    a. Discuss the activities to be performed or hypothesis to be 
tested and criteria for determining acceptable data quality.

    Note: Such criteria may be expressed in terms of precision, 
accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability or in 
terms of data quality objectives or acceptance criteria. 
Furthermore, these criteria must also be applied to determine the 
acceptability of existing or secondary data to be used in the 
project. In this context secondary data may be defined as data 
previously collected for other purposes or from other sources, 
including the literature, compilations from computerized data bases, 
or results from models of environmental processes and conditions.

    b. Describe the study design, including sample type and location 
requirements, all statistical analyses that were or will be used to 
estimate the types and numbers of physical samples required, or 
equivalent information for studies using survey and interview 
techniques.
    c. Describe the procedures for the handling and custody of samples, 
including sample collection, identification, preservation, 
transportation, and storage.
    d. Describe the procedures that will be used in the calibration and 
performance evaluation of all analytical instrumentation and all 
methods of analysis to be used during the project. Explain how the 
effectiveness of any new technology will be measured and how it will be 
benchmarked to improve existing processes, such as those used by 
industry.
    e. Discuss the procedures for data reduction and reporting, 
including a description of all statistical methods, with reference to 
any statistical software to be used, to make inferences and 
conclusions; discuss any computer models to be designed or utilized 
with associated verification and validation techniques.
    f. Describe the quantitative and/or qualitative procedures that 
will be used to evaluate the success of the project, including any 
plans for peer or other reviews of the study design or analytical 
methods prior to data collection.
    ANSI/ASQC E4, ``Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems 
for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology 
Programs,'' is available for purchase from the American Society for 
Quality, phone 1-800-248-1946, item T55. Only in exceptional 
circumstances should it be necessary to consult this document. A USEPA 
guidance document, Guidance on Satisfying EPA Quality System 
Requirements for STAR Grants (EPA QA/G-1STAR) is available for 
potential applicants which addresses in detail how to comply with ANSI/
ASQC E4 for STAR grants. This may be found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa.
10. Key Personnel
    The following should be included, as applicable:
    (a) The roles and responsibilities of each PI/PD and/or 
collaborator should be clearly described;
    (b) An estimate of the time commitment involved for each PI/PD and/
or collaborator, including current and pending projects; and
    (c) 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 Federal grant funds are

[[Page 41748]]

sought for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages 
each in length, excluding publications listings. A chronological list 
of all publications in refereed journals during the past four (4) 
years, including those in press, must be provided for each professional 
project member for whom a curriculum vitae is provided. Also list only 
those non-refereed publications that 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.
11. Conflict-of-Interest List
    A Conflict-of-Interest List must be provided for all individuals 
involved in the project (i.e., each individual submitting a vitae in 
response to item 10.(c) of this part). 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 must be 
informed of any additional conflicts-of-interest that arise after the 
proposal is submitted.
12. 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. In addition, evidence should be provided 
that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services. 
If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal 
narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services, 
a statement of work to be performed, a resume or curriculum vita 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 Grants and Agreements with Institutions 
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and 
the general provisions contained in 7 CFR 3015.205, part of the USDA 
Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to subrecipients. In 
addition, required clauses from Sections 3019.40-.48 (``Procurement 
Standards'') and Appendix A (``Contract Provisions'') of 7 CFR Part 
3019 should be included in final contractual documents, and it is 
necessary for the subawardee to make a certification relating to 
debarment/suspension.
13. Budget (Form CSREES-55)
a. Budget Form
    Prepare the budget, Form CSREES-55, in accordance with instructions 
provided. 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 section b below.)
    The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal 
budget(s):
    1. 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/NCER-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.
    2. 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 (e.g., social 
security and retirement) 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Travel. The type and extent of travel and its relationship to 
project objectives should be described briefly and justified. If travel 
is proposed, the destination, 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 3015.205(b)(4) for further guidance.
    6. 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 brochures, 
etc., should be shown in

[[Page 41749]]

Section I., ``All Other Direct Costs'' of Form CSREES-55.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Indirect Costs. When submitting a proposal, institutions should 
use their current Federal negotiated rate for indirect costs. Please 
note that pursuant to section 1462 of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3310), indirect 
costs for all competitive proposals funded by CSREES are capped at 19% 
of total Federal funds provided under the award. Therefore, awards made 
by CSREES for the Nutrient Science for Improved Watershed Management 
Program are subject to the 19% indirect costs limitation. (This 
limitation also applies to the recovery of indirect costs by any 
subawardee or subcontractor, and should be reflected in the 
subrecipient budget.) A method for calculating the maximum allowable 
amount of indirect costs for an CSREES award is by multipling total 
direct costs by 0.23456. To accommodate the differences in allowable 
indirect costs between CSREES and NCER, the applicant may be required 
at the time of award to submit a separate budget with indirect cost 
rates appropriate to each agency. If no rate has been negotiated, a 
reasonable dollar amount (equivalent to or less than 19% of total 
Federal funds requested) in lieu of indirect costs may be requested, 
subject to approval by CSREES.
b. Budget Narrative
    All budget categories, excluding Indirect Costs, for which support 
is requested, must be individually listed (with costs) in the same 
order as the budget and justified on a separate sheet of paper which 
should be placed immediately behind the Budget Form. For grants awarded 
with CSREES funds, explanations of matching funds or the lack thereof 
on commodity-specific projects also are to be included in this section.
c. Matching Funds
    If a grant awarded with CSREES funds provides a particular benefit 
to a specific agricultural commodity, the grant recipient is required 
to provide funds or in-kind support to match the amount of grant funds 
provided.
    If an applicant for CSREES funds concludes that matching funds are 
not required as specified under Part I, E, ``Matching Requirements,'' a 
justification should be included in the budget narrative. CSREES will 
consider this justification when ascertaining final matching 
requirements or in determining if required matching can be waived. See 
Section E1(b) of Part I--General Information. CSREES retains the right 
to make final determinations regarding matching requirements.
    For those grants requiring matching funds as specified under 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:
    (a) 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: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3) 
the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) the dollar 
amount of the cash donation; and (5) a statement that the donor will 
pay the cash contribution during the grant period; and
    (b) For any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge 
agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized 
organizational representatives of the donor organization and the 
applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and 
telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant 
organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is 
made; (4) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the 
third party in-kind contribution; and (5) 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 Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational 
Institutions, for further guidance and other requirements relating to 
matching and allowable costs.
    Although NCER does not require matching funds, proposed budgets 
should provide matching funds (when applicable) so that awards will not 
be delayed should CSREES be the Funding Agency.
14. Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-663)
    All proposals must contain Form CSREES-663 listing other current 
public or private support (including in-house support) to which 
personnel (i.e., individuals submitting a vitae in response to 10.(c) 
of this subpart) 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 and USEPA Programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of 
identical or similar proposals to possible sponsors will not prejudice 
proposal review or evaluation by CSREES and NCER 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.
15. 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:

[[Page 41750]]

a. 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 or NCER funds will be released.
b. Animal Care
    Responsibility for the humane care and treatment of live vertebrate 
animals used in any grant project supported with funds provided by 
CSREES or NCER 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, Pub. L. No. 89-544, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), and the 
regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of USDA 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'' in block 20 of Form 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.
c. 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 or NCER 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.
16. Certifications
    Note that by signing Form CSREES-661 the applicant is providing the 
certifications required by 7 CFR part 3017, as amended, regarding 
Debarment and Suspension and Drug-Free Workplaces, 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 with the 
application.
17. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form 
CSREES-1234)
    As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (i.e., the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service regulations implementing 
NEPA, Pub. L. No. 91-190, as amended), the environmental data for any 
proposed project is to be provided to CSREES so that the cooperating 
agencies 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, 
the agencies 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 cause 
such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
    The USEPA regulations implementing NEPA are found in 40 CFR part 6, 
Subpart G.

C. Submission of Proposals

1. When To Submit (Deadline Date)
    Proposals must be received by COB on November 6, 2001 (5:00 p.m. 
Eastern Time). Proposals received after this date will not be 
considered for funding.
2. What To Submit
    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 are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals 
via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by 
CSREES. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted 
using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Nutrient Science 
for Improved Watershed Management Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; Waterfront Center, Room 1307; 800 9th 
Street, SW.; Washington, DC 20024; Telephone: (202) 401-5048.
    Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the 
following address: Nutrient Science for Improved Watershed Management 
Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 
2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2245.

D. Acknowledgment of Proposals

    The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail. 
Therefore, applicants are strongly 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 
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.

[[Page 41751]]

Part IV--Review Process

A. General

    Each proposal will be evaluated in a multi-part process. First, 
each proposal will be screened to ensure that it meets the 
administrative requirements as set forth in this request for proposals. 
Second, proposals that meet these requirements will be technically 
evaluated by a peer review panel.
    Peer review panel members will be selected based upon their 
training and experience in relevant scientific, education or extension 
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 and/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 (e.g., 
producers, range or forest managers/operators, and consumers) who can 
assess the 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.
    Proposals rated highly by the peer reviewers are subjected to a 
programmatic review within the agencies to assure a balanced research 
portfolio. Proposals are selected for award on the basis of agency 
goals, technical merit, relevancy to agency research priorities, 
program balance, and budget.

B. Evaluation Criteria

    Technical merit and relevance to program goals and potential impact 
will be evaluated for each proposal. Proposals must show evidence of 
strength in each of these areas to be rated highly for funding. 
Specific criteria for these proposal attributes are listed below.
    (1) Technical merit of all aspects of the proposal, including 
research and extension components.
    (a) Conceptual adequacy of overall approach;
    (b) Extent to which proposed work addresses identified stakeholder 
needs;
    (c) Conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or hypotheses on which plan 
is based;
    (d) Suitability and feasibility of the methodology for conducting 
the work;
    (e) Time allocated for attainment of objectives;
    (f) Qualifications of project personnel;
    (g) Institutional experience and competence in the identified area 
of work;
    (h) Adequacy of available support personnel, equipment, and 
facilities;
    (i) Extent to which proposed work integrates research with 
extension and outreach programs;
    (j) Suitability and feasibility of the methodology for evaluating 
the effectiveness of extension and outreach activities; and
    (k) Appropriateness of the Quality Assurance Plan outlined above 
(III.B.9).
    (2) Relevancy to Program Goals and Potential Impact.
    (a) Relationship of project objectives to national issues and 
objectives;
    (b) Regional or national magnitude of problem addressed;
    (c) Applicability to other watersheds or regions;
    (d) Evidence of partnerships with other disciplines and 
institutions;
    (e) Extent to which end users are involved in problem 
identification, planning, implementation and evaluation;
    (f) Probability of success of the project; and
    (g) Extent to which potential impact can be documented.

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 2000 Higher Education 
Directory, published by Higher Education Publications, Inc., 6400 
Arlington Boulevard, Suite 648, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Phone: 
(703) 532-2305.
    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 the 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--Grant Awards

    The Nutrient Science for Improved Watershed Management Program will 
be administered and managed as an interagency program involving both 
participating agencies throughout the entire process from development 
of the program announcement to the review, selection, and monitoring of 
awards. The interagency program managers will coordinate program 
administration activities such as review of periodic reporting of 
project evaluations and annual investigator team meetings.
    CSREES and NCER will fund awards separately. The amount of each 
award will be determined jointly by CSREES and NCER and their 
representatives after the panel review process has been completed. 
Other material may be required prior to funding to facilitate the 
implementation of the award from participating agencies.

A. General

    Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding 
official 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 awarding official as the 
effective date of the grant shall be no later than September 30 of the 
Federal fiscal year in which the project is approved for support and 
funds are appropriated for such purpose, unless otherwise permitted by 
law. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated on the 
grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so that 
project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All 
funds granted 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 applicable 
participating agency assistance regulations.

B. Funding Mechanisms

    The two mechanisms by which grants may be awarded are as follows:
    (1) Standard grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the Federal 
government 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.

[[Page 41752]]

    (2) Continuation grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the 
Federal government 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 or NCER, 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.

C. 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 program for which the sponsoring agency is responsible. Copies 
of forms recommended for use in fulfilling the requirements contained 
in this section will be provided by the awarding agency as part of the 
preaward process.

D. Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award

    The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
    (1) Legal name and address of performing organization or 
institution to whom the Agency has awarded a grant under the terms of 
this request for proposals;
    (2) Title of project;
    (3) Name(s) and address(es) of PI/PD's chosen to direct and control 
approved activities;
    (4) Identifying grant number assigned by the Funding Agency;
    (5) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Funding 
Agency intends to support the project without requiring recompetition 
for funds;
    (6) Total amount of financial assistance approved by the Agency 
during the project period;
    (7) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
    (8) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds 
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
    (9) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by the 
granting agency 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 provide 
pertinent instructions or information to the grantee that is not 
included in the grant award document.

Part VI--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. 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) or NCER Grants Officer for a final 
determination.
    (b) Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by 
the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO or the grants officer 
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 agency official 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 or the grants officer 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 the sponsoring agency without additional financial support, for such 
additional period(s) as the ADO or the Grants Officer determines may be 
necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project, 
but in no case shall the total project period exceed five years. Any 
extension of time shall be conditioned upon a prior request by the 
grantee and approval in writing by the ADO or Grants Officer, unless 
prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant.
    (f) Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must 
be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO or the 
Grants Officer 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.

C. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements

    It is expected that outputs from successful projects will include: 
the development of watershed management partnerships, increased 
involvement of community and business sectors in watershed restoration 
and management, enhanced understanding of regionally-appropriate 
watershed management practices, increased coordination and partnership 
between universities and other Federal research and management 
agencies, and the establishment and maintenance of monitoring and

[[Page 41753]]

assessment activities including agricultural-water quality interface.
    Successful projects should describe how implementation of the 
project will lead to overall improvements in the quality of water 
resources. Additionally, projects should describe all measureable 
outcomes and results and where appropriate, how they will evaluate the 
effectiveness of extension and outreach programs.
    All projects selected for award will be required to deliver 
metadata and annual reports, a final summary report, a bibliography of 
publications and training materials resulting from support, and an 
impacts analysis. All reports will be geo-referenced to the watersheds 
where activities were performed. The final summary report must include 
total funding (Federal, matching and other) and a listing of students 
who worked on the project (report graduate degrees awarded and 
undergraduates trained).
    The grantee must prepare an annual report that details all 
significant activities towards achieving the goals and objectives of 
the project. The narrative should be succinct and be no longer than 10 
pages, using 12-point, single-spaced type. A budget summary should be 
attached to this report, which will provide an overview of all monies 
spent during the reporting period.
    All projects funded by CSREES under this program will be required 
to submit copies of the above reports and materials to the appropriate 
Regional Water Quality Coordination Project funded under the Integrated 
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program pursuant 
to AREERA, section 406.

D. 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. For CSREES awards, applicable regulations are those cited 
in Part VI. D. of the FY 2001 Integrated Research, Education, and 
Extension Competitive Grants Program--Water Quality RFP published in 
the Federal Register on March 13, 2001 [66 FR 14774, 14786]. For NCER 
awards, the applicable regulations are cited in the section entitled 
REGULATION, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE in the Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance under CFDA No. 66.500, Environmental Protection 
Consolidated Research.

E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards

    When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record 
of the Agency's transactions, available to the public upon specific 
request. Information that the Agency 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 Agency 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.

F. 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, Pub. L. No. 104-
13, 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, DC, this 30th day of July, 2001.
Colien Hefferan,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Research, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 01-19831 Filed 8-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P