BDJV 2020 RFP_FINAL_18FEB2020.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Migratory Bird Management

Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (Black Duck Joint Venture) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 15.637

Notice of Funding Opportunity

OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters Opportunity Title: Black Duck Joint Venture Request for Proposals 2020 CFDA Number: 15.637, Migratory Bird Joint Ventures Announcement Type: This is a periodic request for proposals from the Black Duck Joint Venture

KEY DATE: Proposal deadline is 11:59 pm (ET) 27 March 2020

FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Description of Funding Opportunity

Program Description

The Black Duck Joint Venture (BDJV) is a partnership-based program under the North

American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) that promotes the conservation of black ducks by providing scientific information to support effective conservation and management.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, or Service), a partner in the BDJV, administers financial assistance awards (grants and cooperative agreements), purchase orders, and contracts on a competitive basis for projects and studies that advance both our and the general scientific community’s understanding of black duck ecology and is seeking proposals from interested parties. The BDJV will a accept proposals addressing any aspect of black duck ecology and management, but proposals that address priority research needs (see below) will have a greater probability of funding.

The USFWS is authorized to support Migratory Bird Joint Ventures through the Fish and

Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a–754); Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of

1958 (16 U.S.C. 661–667e); Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C, 2901-2911);

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 709a); and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531–43).

Department of Interior Priorities

Financial assistance awards through the BDJV directly support Department of Interior (DOI) priorities:

1. Creating a conservation stewardship legacy second only to Teddy Roosevelt: The NAWMP is an international accord signed by the U.S. and Canada in 1986 and by Mexico in 1994. The

NAWMP, and the BDJV formed under its directive, have helped to sustain abundant waterfowl populations across North America. Through innovative partnerships combining sound-science, boots-on-the-ground conservation and management delivery, and public and policy engagement, the NAWMP has world-wide recognition as a model to effectively achieve continental-scale wildlife conservation.

2. Utilizing our natural resources: The goal of the BDJV is to foster greater research and monitoring of black ducks and other waterfowl species that share its range for the purpose of improving and refining management. The strategy of the BDJV is to achieve this goal by planning, facilitating, communicating, and coordinating scientific research and long-term monitoring to improve our understanding of black ducks and other eastern waterfowl species.

Improved understanding allows for effective management and sustainable utilization of this valuable resource. The BDJV supported projects have informed population and habitat management practices which help to improve traditional outdoor activities, such as hunting, and bird watching.

3. Restoring trust in local communities: The BDJV is a self-directed partnership involving

Federal, State, Provincial, and non-government conservation groups. The BDJV supports research, monitoring, and management at local, regional, and continental scales, which benefit birds, other wildlife, and people in a variety of communities. Black Duck Joint Venture projects involve students and individuals throughout eastern North America and provide unique opportunities to strengthen partnerships in the United States and Canada. The BDJV helps to support sustainable waterfowl populations, which sustain a wide variety of outdoor recreational activities that generate significant economic stimulus in many rural communities.

4. Generating additional revenues to support DOI & National Interests: The DOI does not fund the entire scope of BDJV projects. The broad-based partnership of the BDJV allows for a very cost effective approach to support research and monitoring activities necessary for the DOI and

USFWS.

BDJV Research Priorities

The BDJV has developed a decision support framework based on a full annual life-cycle model to aid managers in estimating regional habitat conservation goals necessary to achieve desired black duck population abundance and distribution (Robinson et al. 2014, Robinson et al. 2016).

The underlying predictive framework also serves as a tool to explicitly state our assumptions about black duck ecology and management and identify information needs to be addressed through research and monitoring. This framework is based on 3 competing hypotheses regarding black duck population ecology at the continental scale:

1. The black duck population is limited by density-dependent productivity based on the amount and quality of breeding habitat;

2. The black duck population is limited by density-dependent post-hunting season survival based on the amount and quality of non-breeding habitat; and

3. The black duck population is limited by density-dependent productivity based on the amount and quality of non-breeding habitat (i.e., cross-over hypothesis).

In addition to the population level annual life-cycle model of Robinson et al. (2016), the BDJV is working with the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) and Eastern Habitat Joint Venture

(EHJV) to develop sub-regional models. These models would inform habitat conservation strategies during the non-breeding season (in the ACJV region) and breeding season (in the

EHJV region). The non-breeding season work is based on a bio-energetics framework and assumes non-breeding survival and/or subsequent productivity are limited by the amount of energy available on the landscape relative to demand. Development of a complimentary breeding habitat model is in the initial planning stages. The critical link underlying the population model of Robinson et al. (2016) and the developing sub-regional models of the ACJV and EHJV is that carrying capacity is declining. Habitat delivery (including protection, restoration, and enhancement), can mitigate or reverse the loss, thus influencing finite population growth rate

(through changes in survival or productivity), equilibrium population size, and harvest opportunity. Our priority information needs relate to key uncertainties and information gaps in

≥1 of these developing frameworks.

Sport harvest of black ducks in Canada and the United States is governed by an international, adaptive harvest management strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). This strategy is based on two hypotheses relating harvest rate to annual survival and mallard abundance to black duck productivity. The underlying mathematical model is constructed from 3 long-term monitoring programs including annual banding and recoveries, parts collection survey of hunter harvested birds, and annual estimates of breeding population abundance. Key uncertainties associated with this framework include the representativeness of pre-season banded sample and associated estimates of productivity (i.e., adjusted fall age ratios).

Primary Research Priority

CHARACTERIZATION OF CARRYING CAPACITY AND HABITAT USE DURING THE

BREEDING SEASON AND LINKAGES TO POPULATION DYNAMICS.

Hypothesis: Black ducks have exhibited a declining breeding population (-15.64 [-24.67- -6.19

95% confidence interval] between 1998 and 2019 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2019; Fig. 1).

However, this information does not indicate which season (e.g., breeding, hunting, or winter) is regulating population growth nor the drivers. A primary hypothesis regarding black duck population dynamics is that population growth is limited by carrying capacity and environmental covariates during the breeding season (i.e., May–August) resulting in changes in productivity.

Recent research using the single visit occupancy model indicated 44% of wetlands in boreal

Québec were never observed to be occupied by breeding black ducks (Roberts et al. 2019).

Further, estimates of wetland colonization rates and extinction rates were similar. These results suggest breeding habitat is sufficient to support a larger breeding population, and that population limitation occurs during a different period in the annual cycle. However, the single-visit occupancy modeling was based on a snap shot of the breeding population which may not accurately describe black duck occupancy and use of wetlands throughout the breeding season https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/AHMReport2018.pdf

(i.e., accounting for home range). For example black ducks breeding in Maine were found to use multiple wetlands throughout the day (McAuley et al. 2004). The BDJV seeks additional research that can provide additional insights into breeding ground carrying capacity.

Desired Product: The BDJV seeks information and models to increase our understanding of black duck breeding ecology and potential limiting factors. The proposed work should address the hypothesis that black duck occupancy of wetlands during the breeding season is low and that unoccupied breeding habitat is available to support a larger breeding population (Roberts et al.

2019).

The BDJV is committed to a 3-year investigation during which black ducks will be captured during late winter (i.e., February and early March) and fitted with global positioning system

Figure 1. Estimated abundance of American black ducks breeding in eastern Canada

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2019).

(GPS) tracking units. The spatial location and annual banding quotas for instrumented birds will be determined in collaboration with the successful applicant using contemporary post-season

(January-March) banding and encounter data (Devers et al. in preparation). The BDJV anticipates a data collection cycle designed to provide multiple daily locations during the breeding and brood rearing season (late April through August) to allow investigation of the linkages between movement, resource selection and population dynamics. Obtaining a minimum number of locations sufficient to estimate survival during the spring migration period (date of capture to late April) and fall-winter period (September through January) will also be an objective of this research.

II. Award Information

The BDJV expects to have approximately $360,000 USD available to support projects in each of the next three years (FY 2020, 2021 and 2022) and potentially less funds in FY 2023 sufficient to support data analysis and publishing. The BDJV anticipates issuing a single award to address the priority information need. Funds will be awarded to the successful applicant annually conditional on progress toward annual and final objectives and availability of funds. To be competitive for funding, proposals should provide at least a 0.25:1 cash-match and 1:1 in-kind match for BDJV funds, preferably from non US federal sources.

If BDJV funding is requested as part of a large, multi-faceted study or program with multiple, diverse research objectives and projects, the proposal and budget should focus on the specific project(s) that seek BDJV funding. General proposals including non-BDJV research priorities may not be considered. The specific project(s) and outcomes from the use of BDJV funding need to be clearly identifiable.

USFWS agency personnel have different responsibilities for Cooperative Agreements versus

Grants (additional information available at https://www.fws.gov/grants/index.html). If a

Cooperative Agreement award is made, then substantial involvement on the part of the USFWS is required for the successful completion of the activities to be funded. USFWS substantial involvement would need to be determined before the official award is executed.

https://www.fws.gov/grants/index.html

III. Basic Eligibility Requirements

Eligible Applicants

All potential applicants are eligible. Applications are encouraged from nonprofit organizations, public and private educational organizations, federal, state, provincial, local, and tribal governments and organizations, foreign governments, and individual companies.

U.S. non-profit, non-governmental organizations must provide a copy of their Section 501(c)(3) or (4) status determination letter received from the Internal Revenue Service.

Applicants must ensure that activities occurring outside the U.S. are coordinated as necessary with appropriate U.S. and foreign government authorities and that any necessary licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained prior to undertaking proposed activities. The USFWS does not assume responsibility for recipient compliance with the laws and regulations of the country in which the work is to be conducted.

Federal law mandates that all entities applying for Federal financial assistance must have a valid

Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number and have a current registration in the System for Award Management (SAM). See Title 2 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Part 25 for more information. Exemptions: The SAM registration requirement does not apply to individuals submitting an application on their own behalf and not on behalf of a company or other for-profit entity, state, local or Tribal government, academia or other type of organization.

A. DUNS Registration

Request a DUNS number at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. For technical difficulties, contact

Dun & Bradstreet by email at: govt@dnb.com, or by calling the Government Customer Resource

Center at voice phone: 866-705-5711 or TTY line: 877-807-1679 (hearing impaired customers only). Once assigned a DUNS number, entities are responsible for maintaining up-to-date information with Dun & Bradstreet.

http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform mailto:govt@dnb.com

B. Entity Registration in SAM

Register in SAM at www.sam.gov. Once registered in SAM, entities must renew and revalidate their SAM registration at least every 12 months from the date previously registered. Entities are strongly urged to revalidate their registration as often as needed to ensure that their information is up to date and in synch with changes that may have been made to DUNS and IRS information.

Foreign entities who wish to be paid directly to a U.S. bank account must enter and maintain valid and current banking information in SAM.

Note: The official U.S. government website address for SAM is www.sam.gov. There is NO

COST to register in or access SAM.gov. There are third-party vendors who charge a fee in exchange for registering entities in SAM; please be aware that you can register to do business with the U.S. government FOR FREE directly in SAM at www.sam.gov.

C. Excluded Entities

Applicant entities or their key project personnel identified in the SAM.gov Exclusions database as ineligible, prohibited/restricted or excluded from receiving Federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain Federal assistance and benefits will not be considered for Federal funding, as applicable to the funding being requested under this Federal program. The Service conducts a review of the SAM.gov Exclusions database for all applicant entities and their key project personnel prior to award.

D. Cost Sharing or Matching

To be competitive for funding, proposals should provide a cash match of 0.25:1 and in-kind of

1:1 for BDJV funds. Proposals using a match contribution which has its origin from other U.S.

Government Federal funds will be ranked lower than proposals citing a match funded through non-U.S. Government Federal funds.

IV. Application Requirements

To be considered for funding under this funding opportunity, an application must contain:

http://www.sam.gov/

A. Application for Federal Assistance Form – Standard Form (SF) 424

Individuals applying on their own (unrelated to any business or non-profit organization s/he may own or operate in his/her own name) must use the SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance-

Individual Form (http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-individual-family.html#sortby=1). All other applicants must use the SF 424, Application for Federal

Assistance form (http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html#sortby=1). Do not include other Federal sources of funding, requested or approved, in the total entered in the

“Federal” funding box on the Application for Federal Assistance form. Enter only the amount being requested under this program in the “Federal” funding box. Include any other Federal sources of funding in the total funding entered in the “Other” box.

B & C. Project Proposal with BDJV Budget Form

Project proposals should follow the format described below and be ≤20 pages in length with font size 12 and 1 inch margins.

1. Cover Page: Project Title, Principal Investigator name(s) and affiliation, key words, proposal date. Indicate the amount of annual and total funding requested.

2. Problem/Issue Statement: What is the problem or issue addressed by the proposed work, in relation to the BDJV research priorities? (See above).

3. Justification: Complete and concise review of the issue and why it is important to management (supported by relevant literature). What new information will be generated by the study and how far will it go toward solving the problem (i.e., considering the assumptions and limitations of the study provide some perspective about how the work fits into the big picture)?

4. Objectives or Hypotheses: The proposal should have specific and concise objectives or hypotheses to be tested.

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-individual-family.html#sortby=1 http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-individual-family.html#sortby=1 http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html#sortby=1

a. If BDJV funding is requested for only a specific component of a larger study or program, describe how that specific element(s) relates to the larger effort, but do not write a proposal that encompasses the objectives and budget of a much larger program. The proposal and budget should focus on the project component(s) that seek BDJV funding.

5. Study Area: Provide a description and general map of the proposed study area and other important features as necessary. Provide a verbal description of the temporal and spatial bounds of the study. Does the project encompass an appropriate portion of the population range and involve relevant jurisdictions to address the stated problems/issues?

6. Experimental Design: This section is critical to determining the scientific merit of the proposal and probability of funding. Describe the hypotheses to be tested and provide predictions from each hypothesis. Describe explanatory variables to be measured or provide an a-priori model set for contrasting hypotheses. Describe the sampling design and explicitly identify the experimental or observation unit for each objective. Explicitly identify the sample size based on literature or preferable an ‘a-priori’ power analysis.

Describe the anticipated statistical analysis or modeling (e.g., state-space model [Jonsen et al. 2005]) that will be used to analyze the data. The BDJV recognizes the specific statistical analysis and modeling approaches employed may differ to the proposed methods due to a variety of circumstances.

7. Anticipated Output: List products or data sets expected to be generated.

8. Management Implications: What is the significance of the work to management of the black duck population? Be as specific as possible.

9. Literature Cited: As appropriate.

10. Personnel: Briefly describe the role and background of each staff position in the study

(<1 paragraph) and include a list of recent publications of the principal investigator(s).

Maximum 2 pages.

11. Timing: Beginning, milestones, and completion dates of project activities. Applicants should assume the official award will be signed prior to 31 September 2020 and the desired initiation of field work is January 2021.

12. Budget: Use the budget format provided below so it is clear what BDJV funding is requested and its intended use. If a multi-year request, provide detailed annual budgets for each year. Penalty for non-compliance may be rejection of the proposal. Budget items should be detailed to allow objective evaluation of costs and comparisons among proposals. Lack of detail will result in lower overall proposal ranking.

13. Matching funds: Applicants should strive for 0.25:1 cash-match and 1:1 in-kind match and must be identified in the proposal. Include matching contributions ONLY if there is a high likelihood you will indeed receive them. If part of a larger study, include ONLY the costs directly relevant to the study element being considered for BDJV funding.

Acceptable matching contributions include real purchases as well as in-kind costs (e.g., full time agency staff or tenured professor's salaries, student or technician salaries covered by other sources) provided they are reasonable and commensurate with the particular study element. For example, if the proposal is to add or augment an element to an existing study, you may pro-rate a portion of the total costs for, say, maintaining a field camp. Requests for salaries of principal investigators, students or technicians are acceptable provided they are reasonable and commensurate with the person’s involvement in the particular study element. Indicate the actual time the person will spend on the project (e.g., 4 weeks @ $800/wk).

14. Letters of commitment: Attach any letters of commitment from funding cooperators, endorsements, or other documentation in support of the proposal.

Note: The entire proposal should be submitted as one file in MS Word Format, not multiple files. The budget table should be incorporated into the proposal document, not submitted as a separate attachment.

Annual summary reports and contribution and expenditure reports are required annually for all projects supported by the BDJV.

ANNUAL BUDGET (U.S. Dollars) Other (Non-BDV) Funding Sources

(Indicate in-kind contributions in italics) (*Add as many columns as needed)

Expense category with examples (*add or delete rows/items as needed)

BDJV

TOTAL

Status of funding (i.e., secured, highly probable, requested)

Requested

Personnel

PI salary (name: xx weeks @ $xxx/wk) Field staff (xx weeks @ $xxx/wk)

Travel/accommodations Commercial travel Chartered aircraft (xx hrs @ $/hr) Lodging (xx days @ $/day) Freight

Materials/equipment Transmitters and telemetry equipment Surgical supplies Camping gear Fuel Food Boats/motors Capture gear

Contractual Veterinary services ARGOS data acquisition and processing Vehicle/vessel charter Laboratory analyses

Indirect Cost/Overhead charge Is this indirect cost required by your agency/organization? Indicate yes or no; if yes, provide justification.

TOTALS by funding source RATIO of matching contributions to requested BDJV funds =

RATIO of non-US-Federal matching contributions to requested BDJV funds =

FOR MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS (this should include in-kind costs noted in above table) Funding source 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL

BDJV

Other Other Other Other Annual totals

D. Budget Form – SF 424A In addition to the BDJV Budget Form (above), complete the Budget Information for Non- Construction Programs (SF 424A). The SF 424A budget form is available at http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html#sortby=1. When developing your budget, keep in mind that financial assistance awards and sub-awards are subject to the Federal cost principles in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, as applicable to the recipient organization type. Links to the full text of the Federal cost principles are available on the Internet at http://www.ecfr.gov/.

Note on Multiple Federal Funding Sources: If the project budget includes multiple Federal funding sources, you must show the funds being requested from this Federal program on the budget form separately from any other requested/secured Federal sources of funding. Enter the funds being requested from this Federal program in the first row of the Budget Summary section of the form, and then enter funding related to other Federal programs in the subsequent row(s).

Be sure to enter each Federal program’s CFDA number in the corresponding fields on the form.

The CFDA number for this Federal program appears on the first page of this funding opportunity.

E. Budget Justification If applicable:

1. If Federally-funded equipment will be used for the project, provide a list of that equipment, including the Federal funding source.

2. Indirect costs may be requested only if they are beyond the control of the applicant; for example, mandatory agency overhead charges (indicate as “YES” in BDJV Budget Form and provide justification as described below in “Required Indirect Cost Statement”).

Required Indirect Cost Statement Recipients that do not have an approved indirect cost rate cannot charge indirect costs to their Federal award. All applicants except individuals applying for funds separate from a business or non-profit organization he/she may operate must include one of the following statements and attach to their application any required documentation identified in the applicable statement:

“We are:

1. A U.S. state or local government entity receiving more than $35 million in direct Federal funding each year with an indirect cost rate of [insert rate]. We will submit our indirect cost rate proposals to our cognizant agency. A copy of our most recently approved rate agreement/certification is attached.

2. A U.S. state or local government entity receiving less than $35 million in direct Federal funding with an indirect cost rate of [insert rate]. We are required to prepare and retain for audit an indirect cost rate proposal and related documentation to support those costs.

3. A [insert your organization type; U.S. states and local governments, please use one of the statements above or below] that has previously negotiated or currently has an approved indirect cost rate with our cognizant agency. Our indirect cost rate is [insert rate]. [Insert either: “A copy of our most recently approved but expired rate agreement is attached. In the event an award is made, we will submit an indirect cost rate proposal to our cognizant agency within 90 calendar days after the award is made.” or “A copy of our current, approved rate agreement(s) is attached.”]

4. A [insert your organization type] that has never submitted an indirect cost rate proposal to our cognizant agency. Our indirect cost rate is [insert rate]. In the event an award is made, we will submit an indirect cost rate proposal to our cognizant agency within 90 calendar days after the award is made.

5. A [insert your organization type] that has never submitted an indirect cost rate proposal to our cognizant agency and has an indirect cost rate that is lower than 10%. Our indirect cost rate is [insert rate; must be lower than 10%]. However, in the event an award is made, we will not be able to meet the requirement to submit an indirect cost rate proposal to our cognizant agency within 90 calendar days after award. We request as a condition of award to charge a flat indirect cost rate of [insert rate; must be lower than 10%] of [insert a clear description of the direct cost base against which your rate is charged (e.g., salaries; salaries and fringe benefits; or modified total direct costs). However, please note that your organization cannot charge indirect costs in excess of the indirect costs that would be recovered if applied against modified total direct costs as defined in 2 CFR 220.68]. We understand that we must notify the Service in writing immediately if we establish an approved rate with our cognizant agency at any point during the award period.

6. A [insert your organization type] that has never submitted an indirect cost rate proposal to our cognizant agency and has an indirect cost rate that is 10% or higher. Our indirect cost rate is [insert your organization’s indirect rate; must be 10% or higher]. However, in the event an award is made, we will not be able to meet the requirement to submit an indirect cost rate proposal to our cognizant agency within 90 calendar days after award. We request as a condition of award to charge a flat de minimis indirect cost rate of 10% of modified total direct costs as defined in 2 CFR 200.68. We understand that we must notify the Service in writing immediately if we do establish an approved rate with our cognizant agency at any point during the award period. We understand that additional Federal funds may not be available to support an unexpected increase in indirect costs during the project period and such changes are subject to review, negotiation, and prior approval by the Service.

7. A [insert your organization type] that is submitting this proposal for consideration under the [insert either “Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program” or “Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit Network”], which has a Department of the Interior-approved indirect cost rate cap of [insert program rate]. If we have an approved indirect cost rate with our cognizant agency, we understand that we must apply this reduced rate against the same direct cost base as identified in our approved indirect cost rate agreement. If we do not have an approved indirect cost rate with our cognizant agency, we understand that the basis for direct costs will be the modified total direct cost base defined in 2 CFR 200.68 “Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC)”. We understand that we must request prior approval from the Service to use the MTDC base instead of the base identified in our approved indirect cost rate agreement, and that Service approval of such a request will be based on: 1) a determination that our approved base is only a subset of the MTDC (such as salaries and wages); and 2) that use of the MTDC base will still result in a reduction of the total indirect costs to be charged to the award. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.405, we understand that indirect costs not recovered due to a voluntary reduction to our federally negotiated rate are not allowable for recovery via any other means.

8.A [insert your organization type] that will charge all costs directly.

All applicants are hereby notified of the following:

• Recipients without an approved indirect cost rate are prohibited from charging indirect costs to a Federal award. Accepting a flat de minimis rate as a condition of award is an approved rate.

• Failure to establish an approved rate during the award period renders all costs otherwise allocable as indirect costs unallowable under the award.

• Recipients may not charge to their Service award any indirect costs calculated against the portion of total direct project costs paid by any other Federal funding source or non-Federal partner.

• Recipients must have prior written approval from the Service to transfer unallowable indirect costs to amounts budgeted for direct costs or to satisfy cost-sharing or matching requirements under the award.

• Recipients are prohibited from shifting unallowable indirect costs to another Federal award unless specifically authorized to do so by legislation.

Applicants who are individuals applying for funds separate from a business or non-profit organization he/she may operate are not eligible to charge indirect costs to their award. If you are an individual applying for funding, do not include any indirect costs in your proposed budget.

For more information on indirect cost rates, see the Service’s Indirect Costs and Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreements (NICRA) guidance document on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/grants/atc.html.

Negotiating an Indirect Cost Rate with the Department of the Interior Entities that do not have a NICRA must first have an open, active Federal award before they can submit an indirect cost rate proposal to their cognizant agency. The Federal awarding agency that provides the largest amount of direct funding to your organization is your cognizant agency, unless otherwise assigned by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If the Department of the Interior is your cognizant agency, your indirect cost rate will be negotiated by the Interior Business Center (IBC). For more information, contact the IBC at:

Indirect Cost Services Acquisition Services Directorate, Interior Business Center U.S. Department of the Interior 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 7-400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-930-3803 Email: Through https://www.doi.gov/ibc/contactus/ibcfeedback web form Internet address: https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-cost-services

F. Single Audit Reporting Statements As required in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Subpart F, all U.S. states, local governments, federally-recognized Indian tribal governments, and non-profit organizations expending $750,000 USD or more in Federal award funds in a fiscal year must submit a Single Audit report for that year through the Federal Audit Clearinghouse’s Internet Data Entry System.

All U.S. state, local government, federally-recognized Indian tribal government and non-profit applicants must provide a statement regarding if your organization was/was not required to submit a Single Audit report for the organization’s most recently closed fiscal year and, if so, state if that report is available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse Single Audit Database website (https://harvester.census.gov/facweb/) and provide the EIN under which that report was submitted.

G. Assurances – SF 424B Include the appropriate signed and dated Assurances form available at http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html#sortby=1. Use the Assurances for Non-Construction Programs (SF 424B). The form includes a statement that some of the assurances may not be applicable to your organization and/or your project or program. Signing this form does not make you or your organization subject to laws that are otherwise not applicable to you or your organization. Changing, crossing out, or making notations on the form before signing has no impact on the applicability of law.

H. Certification and Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Under Title 31 of the United States Code, Section 1352, an applicant or recipient must not use any federally appropriated funds (both annually appropriated and continuing appropriations) or matching funds under a grant or cooperative agreement award to pay any person for lobbying in connection with the award. Lobbying is defined as influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress connection with the award. Submission of an application also represents the applicant’s certification of the statements in 43 CFR Part 18, Appendix A-Certification Regarding Lobbying. If you/your organization have/has made or agrees to make any payment using non-appropriated funds for lobbying in connection with this proposal AND the Federal share exceeds $100,000, complete and submit the SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form available at http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/post-award-reporting-forms.html#sortby=1. See 43 CFR, Subpart 18.100 for more information on when additional submission of this form is required.

I. Conflict of Interest Disclosures Applicants must notify the Service in writing of any actual or potential conflicts of interest that are known at the time of application or that may arise during the life of this award, in the event an award is made. Conflicts of interest include any relationship or matter which might place the recipient, the recipient’s employees, or the recipient’s subrecipients in a position of conflict, real or apparent, between their responsibilities under the award and any other outside interests.

Conflicts of interest may also include, but are not limited to, direct or indirect financial interests, close personal relationships, positions of trust in outside organizations, consideration of future employment arrangements with a different organization, or decision-making affecting the award that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question the impartiality of the applicant, the applicant’s employees, or the applicant’s future subrecipients in the matter. Applicants must notify the Service in writing in their application if any key project personnel, including subrecipient and contractor personnel, are known to be related to, married to, or have a close personal relationship with any Federal employee in or associated with the program to which you are applying for funding or who otherwise may be involved in the review and selection of the application. Upon receipt of such a notice, the Service program, in consultation with their Ethics Counselor, will determine if a conflict of interest exists and, if so, if there are any possible actions to be taken by the applicant to reduce or resolve the conflict.

Failure to disclose and resolve conflicts of interest in a manner that satisfies the Service may result in the project not being select for funding.

J. Required Overlap/Duplication Statement Applicants must provide a statement that addresses if there is any overlap between the proposed project and any other active or anticipated projects in terms of activities, costs, or time commitment of key personnel. If any overlap exists, applicants must provide a description of the overlap in their application. Applicants must also state if the proposal submitted for consideration under this program is/is not in any way duplicative of any proposal that was/will be submitted for funding consideration to any other potential funding source (Federal or non- Federal). If such a circumstance exists, applicants must detail when the other duplicative proposal(s) were submitted, to whom (entity name and program), and when funding decisions are expected to be announced. If at any time a proposal is awarded funds that would be duplicative of the funding requested from the Service, applicants must notify the Service point of contact for this funding opportunity immediately.

Application Checklist

To be considered for funding under this funding opportunity, an application must contain:

□ IV-A. SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance

□ IV-B & C. Project Proposal with BDJV Budget Form

□ IV-D. SF 424A, Budget Form

□ IV-G. SF 424B, Assurances Form

AND IF APPLICABLE:

□ III. Evidence of non-profit status: If a non-profit organization, a copy of their Section 501(c)(3) or (4) status determination letter received from the Internal Revenue Service.

□ IV-E. Budget Justification

□ IV-E. Federally-funded equipment list

□ IV-E. Indirect cost statement

□ IV-E. NICRA: A copy of the organization’s current Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate

Agreement.

□ IV-F. Single Audit Reporting statement: If a U.S. state, local government, federally-recognized Indian tribal government, or non-profit organization, statements regarding applicability of and compliance with Single Audit reporting requirements.

□ IV-H. SF LLL form: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form.

□ IV-I. Conflict of Interest disclosure

□ IV-J. Overlap/Duplication statement

V. Submission Instructions

Submission Deadline Proposals must be submitted to the contacts below by 11:59 pm (ET) March 27, 2020.

To Submit an Application The recommended proposal submission process is via email to the contact below. Applicants should send application via email with an automatic notification of delivery receipt to confirm that they are received. We recognize that some applicants may not have access to email and in those cases we will accept proposals by fax or mail. Should you wish to submit a proposal via fax or mail, you must call the contacts below to inform them that you have submitted a proposal by fax or mail. Proposals submitted after the specified deadline will not be considered for evaluation. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure receipt of their proposal by the deadline. The Service bears no responsibility for misplaced or mishandled proposals when the recipient did not alert the contact to the incoming proposal and method of transmission prior to the submission deadline.

The required SF 424 Application for Federal Assistance and Assurances forms and any other required standard forms must be signed by your organization’s authorized official. The Signature and Date fields on some standard forms downloaded from Grants.gov may be pre-populated with the text “Completed by Grants.gov upon submission” or “Completed on submission to Grants.gov”. Remove this text (manually or digitally) before signing the forms.

Intergovernmental Review Before submitting an application, U.S. state and local government applicants should visit the following website (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/grants_spoc) to determine whether their application is subject to the state intergovernmental review process under Executive Order (E.O.) 12372 “Intergovernmental review of Federal Programs.” E.O. 12372 was issued to foster the intergovernmental partnership and strengthen federalism by relying on state and local processes for the coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. The E.O. allows each state to designate an entity to perform this function. The official list of designated entities is posted on the website. Contact your state’s designated entity for more information on the process the state requires to be followed when applying for assistance. States that do not have a designated entity listed on the website have chosen not to participate in the review process.

Submit proposal applications to (email preferred):

Patrick K. Devers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708 Phone: 301-497-5549 Fax: 301-497-5885 Email: patrick_devers@fws.gov

VI. Application Review Information

Criteria It is important for applicants to review the evaluation criteria that will be used to score proposals received as well as the reasons for rejection or low scores (see below). Criteria have been organized into 4 categories. A score of 0–10 (0 being lowest and 10 highest) is assigned to each criteria and multiplied by its weight. Next the weighted scores are summed to calculate an overall score.

Evaluation Criteria and Weights:

1. Management/Conservation Considerations:

(a) Does the proposed project address a priority BDJV information need?

(weight 15).

(b) Are there clear management implications that will result from the project?

(weight 10).

(c) Will the study provide information useful for improving monitoring or management? (weight 10).

2. Scientific Merit:

(a) Are the goals clearly stated? (weight 10).

(b) Are the objectives clearly stated and associated with appropriate goal?

(weight 10).

(c) Is the sample design clearly described, sound, and justified? (weight 5).

(d) Are the experimental or observational units identified and appropriate?

(weight 5).

(e) Are the required sample sizes identified, justified, and adequate? (weight 5).

(f) Are the null and alternative hypotheses explicitly stated and supported by literature? (weight 4).

(g) Are the hypothesized explanatory variables or a priori model sets identified and justified with supporting literature? (weight 4).

(h) Is the timing and data collection schedule realistic? (weight 4).

(i) Is the proposal adequately documented with relevant literature? (weight

3).

3. Budget Considerations:

(a) Is the total BDJV request reasonable and realistic within our budget?

(weight 3).

(b) Are the cost estimates detailed, justified, and reasonable? (weight 6).

(c) Is the study cost efficient; is the logistical infrastructure in place to make efficient use of BDJV funds? (weight 1).

(d) If requesting multi-year funding are the final products/results worth the risks of failure, potential for inadequate funding, and lost opportunity to fund other studies? (weight 1).

4. Other Considerations

(a) Does the proposed project significantly complement other on-going projects? (weight 0.75).

(b) Does the proposed project integrate multiple research categories? (weight 0.75).

(c) Does the proposed project involve multiple partners? (weight 0.75).

(d) Will the project bring new partners to the BDJV? (weigh 0.5).

(e) Is this a one-time opportunity? (weight 0.5).

(f) Is the proposal complete and does it conform to the required format?

(weight 0.75).

Review and Selection Process Proposals will be given full review, evaluated, and scored by the BDJV Technical Committee.

Evaluation scores will be used as a primary basis for ranking proposals, along with considerations for the most efficient use of BDJV funds. The BDJV Technical Committee will make an endorsement recommendation and priority funding designation, if required, to the BDJV Management Board. The BDJV Management Board will make final funding decisions.

VII. Award Administration

Award Notices Successful applicants will receive written notice in the form of a notice of award document.

Notices of award are typically sent to recipients by e-mail. If e-mail notification is unsuccessful, the documents will be sent by courier mail (e.g., FedEx, DHL or UPS). Award recipients are not required to sign/return the Notice of Award document. Acceptance of an award is defined as starting work, drawing down funds, or accepting the award via electronic means. Awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the Service. The notice of award document will include instructions specific to each recipient on how to request payment. If applicable, the instructions will detail any additional information/forms required and where to submit payment requests.

Transmittal of Sensitive Data Recipients are responsible for ensuring any sensitive data being sent to the Service is protected during its transmission/delivery. The Service strongly recommends that recipients use the most secure transmission/delivery method available. The Service recommends the following digital transmission methods: secure digital faxing; encrypted emails; emailing a password protected zipped/compressed file attachment in one email followed by the password in a second email; or emailing a zipped/compressed file attachment. The Service strongly encourages recipients sending sensitive data in paper copy to use a courier mail service. Recipients may also contact their Service Project Officer and provide any sensitive data over the telephone.

Award Terms and Conditions Acceptance of a financial assistance award from the Service carries with it the responsibility to be aware of and comply with the terms and conditions applicable to the award. Acceptance is defined as the start of work, drawing down funds, or accepting the award via electronic means. Awards are based on the application submitted to and approved by the Service and are subject to the terms and conditions incorporated into the notice of award either by direct citation or by reference to the following: Federal regulations; program legislation or regulation; and special award terms and conditions. The Service’s Standard Award Terms and Conditions are available on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/grants/atc.html. If you do not have access to the Internet and require a full text copy of the award terms and conditions, contact the Service point of contact identified in the Agency Contacts section below.

VIII. Agency Contact Contact the following individual for questions about the application process:

Patrick K. Devers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708 Phone: 301-497-5549 Fax: 301-497-5885 Email: patrick_devers@fws.gov https://www.fws.gov/grants/atc.html mailto:patrick_devers@fws.gov

VIIII. Literature Cited

Devers, P. K., R. L. Emmet, J. A. Royle, G. S. Boomer, and G. Zimmerman. In preparation.

Pilot two-season banding program to estimate seasonal survival and test hypotheses of population regulation.

Jonsen, I. D., J. M. Flemming, and R. A. Myers. 2005. Robust state-space modeling of animal movement data. Ecology 86:2874–2880.

McAuley, D. G., D. A. Clugston, and J. R. Longcore. 2004. Dynamic use of wetlands by black ducks and mallards: evidence against competitive exclusion. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:465— 473.

Morales, J. M., P. R. Moorcroft, J. Matthiopoulos, J. L. Frair, J. G. Kie, R. A. Powell, E. H.

Merril, and D. T. Haydon. 2010. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 365:2289– 2301.

Roberts, A. J., J. A. Royle, P. I. Padding, C. LePage, and D. Bordage. 2019. Occupancy patterns of breeding American black ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 1:150–160

Robinson, O. J., C. P. McGowan, P. K. Devers, R. W. Brook, M. Huang, M. Jones, D. G.

McAuley, and G. Zimmerman. 2016. A full annual life cycle modeling framework for American black ducks. Natural Resource Modeling 29(1).

Robinson, O. J., C. P. McGowan, and P. K. Devers. 2016. Disentangling density-dependent dynamics using full annual life cycle models and Baysian model weight updating. Journal of Applied Ecology 2017(54):670-678.

Evaluation Criteria and Weights: