« PreviousContinue »
Regional or Local Office:
Headquarters Office: Errol Bragg, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, District of Columbia 20250 Phone: (202) 720-8317.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/MSB/index.ht RELATED PROGRAMS:
Not Applicable. EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: Not Applicable. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Applications are evaluated on the following criteria: need for the project, direct benefit to farmers/vendors, project innovation, degree of collaboration/partnerships and farmer/producer participation, quantitative evaluation and measurement of the project's impact, long-term project sustainability, transferability of project outcomes, and reasonableness of the budget.
10.170 SPECIALTY CROP BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - FARM BILL
competitive process in order to ensure maximum public input and benefit. The States should develop a transparent process of receiving and considering public comment. States are encouraged to submit grant plans that include multi-State and regional project proposals. Award Procedure: Applications are reviewed by the Agricultural Marketing Service. Grantees are notified of the amount awarded by allotment letter. Grant payments are made by the electronic transfer system. Deadlines: Contact the headquarters or regional office, as appropriate, for application deadlines. Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: 90 to 180 days from the application deadline. Appeals: No formal appeal procedure. Renewals: Awards are for 3 years. Additional time to complete the project may be requested. Formula and Matching Requirements: Statutory formulas are not applicable to this program. This program has no matching requirements. This program does not have MOE requirements. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: Funds are advanced in one lump sum. Applicants have up to 3 years to use the funds. See the following for information on how assistance is awarded/released:
As provided for in agreements. Reports: No program reports are required. As provided for in agreements. Annual performance reports are required. A final performance report and financial report are required within 90 days after the expiration date of the grant period. No expenditure reports are required. No performance monitoring is required. Audits: In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations," nonfederal entities that expend financial assistance of $500,000 or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular No. A-133. The State is required to conduct an audit of the expenditures of specialty crop block grant funds. Not later than 30 days after completion of the audit, the State shall submit a copy of the audit results with an executive summary to the Agricultural Marketing Service. Records: The State shall retain financial and other records relating to the funds and these programs for a period of three years after expiration of the grant period or until final resolution of any audit findings or litigation claims relating to this program. Account Identification:
USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS:
Projects must enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. Funds under this program may be used to support horticulture, including turfgrass sod and herbal crops; horticulture is not eligible under 10.169. Use of funds will be monitored to ensure that funds are promoting specialty crops as defined under the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. Applicant Eligibility:
tate department of agriculture, agency, commission, or department of a government responsible for agriculture within the State. Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands are eligible to receive grants under this program; they are not eligible under 10.169. Beneficiary Eligibility: State department of agriculture, agency, commission, or department of a State government responsible for agriculture within the State. Credentials/Documentation: A grant agreement is entered into between the Agricultural Marketing Service and the State department of agriculture that submits the application. OMB Circular No. A-87 applies to this program. Preapplication Coordination: Preapplication coordination is required. Environmental impact information is not required for this program. This program is excluded from coverage under E.O. 12372. Application Procedures: OMB Circular No. A-102 applies to this program. This program is excluded from coverage under OMB Circular No. A-110. The State department of agriculture submits SF-424 and a State plan identifying the lead agency charged with the responsibility of carrying out the plan and indicating how the grant funds will be utilized to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. In developing their plans, States must take into consideration the views of beginners and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and take steps to perform outreach to these groups. State plans should be developed through a
TYPES OF ASSISTANCE:
Direct Payments for Specified Use (Cooperative Agreements)
USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS:
The Organic Certification Cost Share Programs reimburse eligible producers and handlers for a portion of the costs of organic certification. Applicants may receive reimbursements of up to 75% of the costs of certification, with an annual maximum of $750.
1. Description of the outreach activities carried out by the State and/or subrecipients, including the methods used to identify potential applicants, means of contact with potential applicants, and outreach materials for distribution, i.e. publications, announcements press releases, etc. 2. Description of problems or obstacles related to reimbursement, program administration, outreach, etc. during the reporting period. 3. Explanation for any denial of requests for reimbursement. No cash reports are required. No progress reports are required. Quarterly and final reports are required, utilizing Standard Form 425, Federal Financial Report. No performance monitoring is required.
State agencies (typically Departments of Agriculture) work with the USDA to administer the program. After entering into a cooperative agreement, the state agencies process applications for cost share funds from certified organic producers and handlers, and the USDA reimburses them. Applicants typically submit a one-page application form, along with proof of certification and an itemized invoice, to their States department of agriculture. Funds may only be used to provide reimbursements to certified organic producers and handlers. A 10% indirect cost recovery is allowed. Applicant Eligibility: Not Applicable. Beneficiary Eligibility: See <a href>http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPCostSharing</a> for more information.
In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations," nonfederal entities that expend financial assistance of $500,000 or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular No. A-133.
The program requires record of applicant by name, applicants' certification expenses, and the reimbursement paid to the applicants. In accordance with 7 CFR 3016.42, grant recipients should retain all records relating to the grant for a period of three years after the final Federal Financial Report been submitted to the Federal Agency, or until final resolution of any audit finding or litigation, whichever is later. Electronic records retention is acceptable.
No Credentials or documentation are required. This program is excluded from coverage under OMB Circular No. A-87. Preapplication Coordination:
conference presentations, advertising in trade publications, direct mail, and email marketing. Fiscal Year 2012: No Current Data Available Fiscal Year 2013: No Current Data Available
(1) Critical Agricultural Materials (Pub. L. 95-592) (2) Federal Administration - Research (3) Pest Management Alternatives (aka PMAP) (4) Supplemental and Alternative Crops [ 7 U.S.C. 3319d (c)]. (5) Policy Research Centers (Section 1419A of 7 U.S.C. 3155) and (6) Rangeland Research
REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: Regulations may be viewed at http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPCostShareLegislation. Guidelines may be viewed at http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPCostSharing. Regional or Local Office:
For the above-referenced EXCEPTIONS to the general rule, [i.e. #'s (1) thru (5)], the following provisions are applicable:
Betsy Rakola 1400 Independence Ave, SW
Section 720 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub.L. No. 112-55) limits indirect costs to 30 percent of the total Federal funds provided under each award. Therefore, when preparing budgets, applicants should limit their requests for recovery of indirect costs to the lesser of their institutions official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 30 percent of total Federal funds awarded. Therefore, when preparing budgets, applicants should limit their requests for recovery of indirect costs to the lesser of their institutions official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 30 percent of total Federal funds awarded.
No Data Available
EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS:
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS:
10.200 GRANTS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, SPECIAL
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Department of Agriculture
Special Note on Indirect Costs as in-kind matching contributions: Indirect costs may be claimed under the Federal portion of the award budget or, alternatively, indirect costs may be claimed as a matching contribution (if no indirect costs are requested under the Federal portion of the award budget). However, unless explicitly authorized in the RFA, indirect costs may not be claimed on both the Federal portion of the award budget and as a matching contribution, unless the total claimed on both the Federal portion of the award budget and as a matching contribution does not exceed the maximum allowed indirect costs or the institutions negotiated indirect cost rate, whichever is less. An awardee may split the allocation between the Federal and non-Federal portions of the budget only if the total amount of indirect costs charged to the project does not exceed the maximum allowed indirect costs or the institutions negotiated indirect cost rate, whichever is less. For example, if an awardees' indirect costs are capped at 30 percent pursuant to FY 2012 appropriated funds, Section 720 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division A of Pub. L. 112-55), the awardee may request 15 percent of the indirect costs on both the Federal portion of the award and as a matching contribution. Or, the awardee may request any similar percentage that, when combined, does not exceed the maximum indirect cost rate of 30 percent.
Section 2 (c), Public Law 89-106, 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), as amended.
To carry out research, to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the food and agricultural sciences of importance to the nation and to facilitate or expand on-going State-Federal food and agricultural research programs.
TYPES OF ASSISTANCE:
USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS:
Per 7 CFR 3401.5, Indirect Cost is allowable if the award is made to a Federal lab.
Grant funds must be used for allowable costs necessary to conduct approved fundamental and applied research, extension and education objectives to address food and agricultural sciences. Awards are generally limited to high priority problems of a regional or national scope. NIFA has determined that grant funds awarded under this authority may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of research, education, or extension space; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in such space; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of buildings or facilities.
Funds may not be used for any purposes other than those approved in the grant award documents.
Funds shall not be used for tuition remission.
Pursuant to Section 1480 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 as amended [7 USC 3333(b)(1)], applicants are required to provide 50 percent matching funds from non-federal sources for all proposed Federal funds sought in the application. Non-federal matching contributions, such as cash and third party in kind, are accepted under this program as qualified by 7 USC 3015 and 7 USC 3019. Foregone indirect costs cannot be used as part of the required match. Fully discretionary. Applicant Eligibility: Special Research Grants: State agricultural experiment stations, all colleges and universities, other research institutions and organizations, Federal agencies, private organizations or corporations and individuals having a demonstrable capacity to conduct research activities to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the food and agricultural sciences of importance to the United States.
: 152 for specific details.
Proposals must be signed electronically by an official authorized to commit the institution or organization in business and financial affairs and who can commit the organization to certain proposal certifications. Prior to the award of a standard or continuation grant by NIFA, any proposed project shall have undergone a review arranged by the grantee as specified in Subpart C of 7 CFR 3400. For research projects, such review must be a scientific conducted in accordance with 3400.21. For education and extension projects, such review must be a merit review conducted in accordance with 3400.22. A notice of completion of review shall be conveyed in writing to NIFA either as part of the submitted proposal or prior to the issuance of an award, at the option of NIFA. The written notice constitutes certification by the applicant that a review in compliance with these regulations has occurred. Applicants are not required to submit results of the review to NIFA; however, proper documentation of the review process and results should be retained by the applicant.
Specific details are provided in the Request for Applications (RFA) each fiscal
Formula and Matching Requirements:
This program has no statutory formula.
Generally, NIFA does NOT require matching or cost sharing support for this
However, the Rangeland Research Program is an EXCEPTION to the general rule. The following represents pertinent information regarding the Rangeland Research Program ( 7 U.S.C. 3333(a)(1)]:
All RFAs are published on the Agencys website and Grants.gov. Applicants must complete the Grants.gov registration process. Please see the following Grants.gov link for more information: http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp. An environmental impact statement is required for this program. This program is excluded from coverage under E.O. 12372.
Pursuant to Section 1480 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 as amended [7 USC 3333(b)(1)], applicants are required to provide 50 percent matching funds from non-federal sources for all proposed Federal funds sought in the application. Non-federal matching contributions, such as cash and third party in kind, are accepted under this program as qualified by 7 USC 3015 and 7 USC 3019. MOE requirements are not applicable to this program. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance:
OMB Circular No. A-102 applies to this program. OMB Circular No. A-110 applies to this program. Applications should be submitted as outlined in the RFA. Applications must follow the instructions provided per Grants.Gov and in the Agency guide to submitting applications via Grants.gov.
The term of competitive project grants and/or cooperative agreements under this program may not exceed three (3) years. Method of awarding/releasing assistance: by letter of credit.
Applications are subjected to a system of peer and merit review in accordance with section 103 of the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 1613) by a panel of qualified scientists and other appropriate persons who are specialists in the field covered by the proposal. Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the NIFA Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose applications are judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in the RFA. Reviewers will be selected based upon training and experience in relevant scientific, extension, or education fields, taking into account the following factors: (a) The level of relevant formal scientific, technical education, or extension experience of the individual, as well as the extent to which an individual is engaged in relevant research, education, or extension activities; (b) the need to include as reviewers experts from various areas of specialization within relevant scientific, education, or extension fields; (c) the need to include as reviewers other experts (e.g., producers, range or forest managers/operators, and consumers) who can assess relevance of the applications to targeted audiences and to program needs; (d) the need to include as reviewers experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit organizations) and geographic locations; (e) the need to maintain a balanced composition of reviewers with regard to minority and female representation and an equitable age distribution; and (f) the need to include reviewers who can judge the effective usefulness to producers and the general public of each application. Evaluation Criteria will be delineated in the RFA.
Reports: Grantees are to submit initial project information and annual summary reports to NIFAs electronic, Web-based inventory system that facilitates both grantee submissions of project outcomes and public access to information on Federally-funded projects. The details of the reporting requirements are included in the award terms and conditions. Cash reports are not applicable. Grantees are to submit initial project information and annual summary reports to NIFAs electronic, Web-based inventory system that facilitates both grantee submissions of project outcomes and public access to information on Federally-funded projects. The details of the reporting requirements are included in the award terms and conditions. A final Financial Status Report (SF-269) or Federal Financial Report (SF-425) is due within 90 days of the expiration date of the grant and should be submitted to the Awards Management Branch, Office of Extramural Programs at the address listed below, in accordance with instructions contained in 2 CFR 3430.55 (also refer to Section 3015.82 of the Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations).
harvested. This lends confidence to our evaluations of the effects of treatments by rating disease symptoms. Incremental reductions in diseased leaf area also should increase marketable yields.
or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular No. A-133. Audits will be conducted in accordance with guidelines established in the revised OMB Circular No. A-133 and implemented in 7 CFR 3052. This program is also subject to audit by the cognizant Federal audit agency and the USDA Office of Inspector General. Records: In accordance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-profit Organizations [2 CFR 215, Subpart C, Section 215.53, (OMB Circular A-110)] grantees shall maintain separate records for each grant to ensure that funds are used for authorized purposes. Grant-related records are subject to inspection during the life of the grant and must be retained at least three (3) years. Records must be retained beyond the three-year period if litigation is pending or audit findings have not been resolved. Account Identification:
Using the new Grape Berry Moth (GBM) degree day model to time border-targeted applications of new insecticides provides effective control of GBM. At all five farms in our study, the per acre cost for insecticide was lower for vineyards treated with the IPM Program compared to the Standard Program. Focusing control efforts on high-pressure areas, i.e., vineyard borders, is an effective way to manage GBM, both in terms of reducing damage and reducing insecticide costs. This approach has been adopted widely in Michigan due to the strong economic benefits for growers. SPLAT-GBM provided reduction of infestation at vineyards borders but is currently not a cost-effective means of controlling this pest in conventional vineyards. This project supported the further development of IPM programs for eastern U.S. vineyards, and the results have been shared with researchers, extension colleagues, growers and consultants. Adoption of the degree-day model and selective insecticides has increased because of this project, reducing the environmental footprint of Michigan viticulture, and contributing to the sustainability goals of National Grape Cooperative, Welchs, and the Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council. For FY 2011, there were 63 applications with eight of them funded.
Obligations: (Project Grants) FY 11 $24,205,295; FY 12 est $28,868,388; and FY 13 est $5,151,789 - The difference between the appropriation and obligation numbers reflects legislative authorized set-asides deducted as appropriate, and in some cases the availability of obligational authority from prior years.
(F) Other (Potato Breeding Research in FY 2011)
For the FY 2011 award cycle, $ 1,333,752 was available for this program.
A total of four applications, requesting a total of $ 1,677,995, were received in this years competition. On May 12, 2011, a seven -member peer review panel evaluated these applications. The peer panel included scientists from U.S. land grant colleges and universities and private industry, the Canadian public sector, and a grower-group representative .
The funding levels for the various programs under CFDA Number 10.200 are the appropriated amounts for FY 2010 and FY 2011 and the President's Budget amounts for FY 2012 minus administrative costs. In addition, a program also may have carryover funds in FY 2010 and FY 2011 if it is no-year money. Range and Average of Financial Assistance: If minimum or maximum amounts of funding per competitive project grant or cooperative agreement are established, these will be announced in the annual program announcement or Request for Application (RFA). PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Fiscal Year 2011: (A) Expert IPM Decision Support System: Pertinent details to be provided by Program at a future date.
Funds were available to support a total of four awards.
The funding ratio for this program in FY11 was 100 %.
Funded projects should support potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) research programs that focus on varietal development and testing and potato varieties for commercial production. Aspects of evaluation, screening and testing must support variety development.
(B) GlobalGlobal Change, UV-B Monitoring Pertinent details to be provided by Program at a future date.
Advances in polymer science have resulted in products with superior functional performance that also address environmental and human health concerns. For example, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are considered to be a major human health issue and polymer products that can meet performance requirements with minimal or no use of VOCs are of interest to NIFA. Examples of products include: paints, protective industrial coatings, adhesives for wood-based composites, and such products that offer other human health and environmental benefits over petrochemical counterparts.
Two bacterial leaf diseases have threatened turnip and mustard greens in South Carolina. Yearly losses have been as much as $1.7 million. Bacterial blight caused by Pseudomonas cannabina pathovar disalensis and a Xanthomonas leaf blight caused by a unique strain of Xanthomonis campestris pathovar campestris form a bacterial disease complex on leafy brassica greens. Pseudomonas is present in the spring and late in the fall, while Xanthomonas predominates in the hot summer months. In this project, fertility, bactericides and host-plant resistance were tested to manage bacterial blights on turnip and mustard greens in field experiments on farms at the research center. Across all 12 cultivars and lines, there was a highly significant correlation between visual ratings of percentage diseased leaf area with percentage of healthy leaves
In FY 2011, the program was funded with $1M, 13 applications were received and three awards were made: 1. The Development of New Coating and Adhesive Systems Derived from Novel Plant Oil-Based Polymers. 2. Development and Demonstration of a Low VOC Polyurethane Coating System Using Biopolyols Derived from Crude Glycerol 3. UV-Curable Biobased wood Flooring Coatings