Section 3 of Grants Program

In addition to the annual CRIS reports, principal investigators will be expected to provide annually written progress reports to the coordinator. A termination report is required within 90 days of project completion.

An original and 10 copies of each proposal must be submitted to the address shown in Section X. Proposals should contain all requested information when submitted. Each proposal should be typed on 8 1/2" x 11" white paper; all pages should be numbered, and should be double-spaced on one side of the page with one-inch margins. Sections D through G should not exceed 15 pages. Please note that the text of the proposal should be prepared using type no smaller than 12-point font size. Staple each copy of the proposal in the upper left-hand corner. Please do not bind copies of the proposal. Proposals not conforming to this format will be returned without review.

2. Proposals must be received by Dr. Toscano on or before the "close of business" on the following dates:

3. Proposals will be reviewed, evaluated, scored, and ranked during April 2000 by a peer review panel consisting of scientists representing the research and extension areas addressed and who have not submitted proposals for support on the proposed activity. Reviewers may be from other regions. Reviewers from within the region will not review proposals submitted from their institution. The review panel will consist of members from the pest management disciplines (entomology, nematology, plant pathology, and weed science) and an appropriate mix of scientists from production disciplines. Evaluation criteria are listed in Section XI.

4. The grants manager will convey peer scores and recommendations including funding level and duration to a subcommittee of western regional experiment station directors and/or cooperative extension directors for review, concurrence and submission to CSREES.

Proposal # Title
I.	Importance and significance of the pest/production problem(s) and relevance of the proposal to the development of a successful IPM program.	(20 points)
II.	Appropriate objectives, design, and methodology.	(30 points)
III.	Degree of interdisciplinary and multi-organizational collaboration, including appropriate statewide and multiple-state collaboration among research, extension, private consultants, industry, and the user community, appropriately scaled to the problem. The feasibility of increasing IPM implementation as a result of the project.	(20 points)
IV.	Appropriate strategy/process to evaluate the success of the project, including milestones, developed by IPM implementation team.	(10 points)
V.	Appropriateness of the budget.	(10 points)
VI.	Professional competence of the project team.	(5 points)
VII.	Relevance to the proposal guidelines.	(5 points)
TOTAL SCORE (100 points)

Additional Comments: