FOA.docx

[Attachment B] Budget Detail Page 6

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY TITLE:

BLM-(MT), Geospatial Riparian-Wetland Data Development

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY NUMBER:

L17AS00203

ANNOUNCEMENT TYPE:

Request for Applications/Notice of Intent Issued: July 10, 2017

CFDA NUMBER & TITLE:

15.236 - Environmental Quality and Protection

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY:

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 43 USC §1737, Public Law 94-579

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS:

September 7, 2017, 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT

for Federal Financial Assistance

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Name, Grants Management Specialist Telephone: 406-896-5188, Email: blinford@blm.gov

Rev 6-2016

A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1. Authority This Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Federal Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity is being announced under the following legislative authority:

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 43 USC §1737, Public Law 94-579

2. Description of Program and/or Project

a. Background: The Montana Wetland Coordination Council (multiple Federal & State agencies) has identified riparian-wetland mapping and corresponding geospatial layers as a top priority throughout the state. Since 2008, the BLM has collaborated with numerous funding partners to map the locations and key attributes associated with riparian-wetland systems. These collaborative efforts have led to one of the most comprehensive inventories in the Western U.S., which is improving riparian-wetland management by all interested parties.

Now that we know the locations of these systems, we need to leverage the power of the embedded attributes and related datasets to prioritize conservation, restoration, and management. Consequently, the next step is to use the existing datasets and supplemental information to extract new geospatial representations and develop conceptual models that depict riparian-wetland functions, resource values, and management priorities. This will essentially create information from data and thereby improve the Montana Wetland Coordination Council Member’s (and others) ability to manage riparian-wetland habitat.

b. Objectives: This project will seek to produce geospatial products and corresponding reports/guidebooks to improve riparian-wetland resource management, including but not limited to the following general statewide needs:

(1) New geospatial layers that represent riparian-wetland characteristics.

Now that riparian-wetland mapping is nearly complete for most areas throughout the state, individual layers that represent unique riparian-wetland characteristics will maximize the utility of those efforts because the attributes that need to be considered for a project depend on the proposed actions and facilitating access to the various geospatial representations will enable resource specialists to analyze key features at multiple scales and thereby improve their ability to develop holistic management plans that include the physical, biological, and ecological components of riparian-wetland management.

New geospatial layers should help groups across the state to develop Resource & Drought Management Plans, identify desired resource values (fisheries, water quality, wildlife, etc.), and describe the corresponding Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of NEPA documents (or MEPA documents associated with Montana State authorizations under the Montana Environmental Policy Act).

Examples of potential geospatial layers include:

· Risk/Vulnerability rating for livestock grazing during drought (i.e. low slope, fine grained sediment, broad valley type, dominance of herbaceous vegetation, permanent water regime, and distance from other perennial water sources). This layer could be used to identify areas that are most likely to be impacted by livestock grazing during hydrologic drought and may be good locations for effectiveness/compliance monitoring;

· Topographic Position Index & Modified Topographic Position Index

· Landscape Context/Human Disturbance Index;

· An aggregation of LLWW classes into a handful of physically-based HGM classifications that correspond to BLM management strategies;

· Area/density based classification of anthropogenically modified riparian-wetland systems;

· Density of wetlands per watershed;

· Index of beaver activity;

· Heat map depicting susceptibility of grazing operations to hydrologic drought (i.e. via water regime and estimated distances of livestock travel to water);

· Riparian-Wetland layer depicting the type of hydrologic modification (Note: must add “natural condition” to the hydrologic modifiers list);

· Riparian-wetland subsystems (i.e. lotic, emergent; lotic, scrub shrub; etc.);

· Combinations of biological layers with riparian-wetland data (i.e. classify riparian-wetland types most commonly used by sage grouse & located within Priority Sage Grouse Habitat polygons as “priority for sage grouse management”);

Once new geospatial layers are complete, a summary document that describes the methods, assumptions, cautions, and example uses for each layer should be made publicly available to assist individuals most likely to use the data (including the BLM). In addition to the information provided in the “General Description” section for each layer, the metadata should meet the standards required by state and federal land managers.

(2) Run the Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool (BRAT) for Montana and sections of eastern South Dakota (i.e. within the vicinity of BLM surface estate). This should include a summary report with a chapter on validation, so that all users can cite the information in future decisions, public grants, etc. Output layers (including adequate metadata) should be formatted to simplify interpretations & cover the full spectrum of the BRAT’s estimates.

(3) Finalize riparian-wetland mapping of priority quads. Data should be mapped according to NWI Plus standards, so that it’s compatible with the rest of the existing data across the state.

(4) Reclassify the LLWW mapping and related attributes into several HGM classes that are most useful to the Integrated Riparian Management Framework and develop a corresponding document that identifies key attributes of each riparian-wetland category.

This document should be designed to help field specialists complete proper functioning condition assessments by providing information such as:

· hydrogeomorphic riparian-wetland functional groups. When binning the riparian-wetland classes into increasingly homogeneous groups, characteristics that are most important to riparian-wetland function and sensitivity to disturbance should be considered.

· the “potential natural condition” of each riparian-wetland class, as well as discussion & photos of the spatial variability that can be expected within each respective class;

· The common degradation pathways for each riparian-wetland type (i.e. channel evolution models and/or conceptual diagrams similar to those included in “Characterization & Restoration of Slope Wetlands in New Mexico” for slope wetlands).

· photos & written descriptions of the “states” that commonly exist along a degradation sequence of each riparian-wetland type (to help staff identify the current “potential,” realizing that many degraded systems will not return to PNC, but can achieve a better state (like channel evolution models, but also include wetlands).

· Common symptoms of degradation and/or recovery for each riparian-wetland class. Ideally, the symptoms will be identified in photo and narrative form and correspond to the various states in the evolution sequences (Note: BLM has a PowerPoint for lotic systems that can provide a reasonable template for expanding the concept to lentic systems);

· common disturbances that lead to degradation of each riparian-wetland class;

· key management considerations for each riparian-wetland class Overall Objective: To provide the best available/easily accessed data and reference documents for managing riparian-wetland habitat and developing conservation strategies in Montana and sections of the Dakotas.

To accomplish the overall goal, the aforementioned project elements are tied to specific objectives, identified below:

Finalize Riparian-Wetland Mapping and Create New Geospatial Layers Objective: To identify the location and key characteristics of riparian wetland systems & make the full spectrum of geospatial information that can be obtained from the mapping project readily available to resource managers for analysis in GIS.

Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool (BRAT) Objective: To provide riparian-wetland managers the data required to develop a cohesive framework for improving riparian-wetland conditions & drought resiliency through beaver management and corresponding restoration strategies.

Reclassify LLWW & related attributes into HGM classes & develop a corresponding field guide that helps riparian managers improve the quality of their assessments;

Objective: To bin riparian-wetland classes identified in the mapping project into a handful of hydrogeomorphic classes & then “step down” that information to a field guide that provides riparian-wetland managers the information required to improve the accuracy and precision of riparian assessments & prioritize actions in the Integrated Riparian Management Framework.

c. Public Benefit:

The public would directly benefit, as the geospatial layers and corresponding reports will cover the entire state and be publicly available through the Montana National Heritage Program’s website. This data will assist all interested groups with riparian-wetland habitat management and could likely even lead to the formation of new partnerships. Public benefits associated with each project element include:

Finalize Riparian-Wetland Mapping and Create New Geospatial Layers Now that riparian-wetland mapping is nearly complete for most areas, individual layers that represent unique riparian-wetland characteristics will maximize the utility of those products. This is because the attributes that need to be considered for a project depend on the expected impacts associated with the proposed actions. However, creating the individual layers/indexes from the core riparian-wetland mapping products can be time consuming, requires a thorough understanding of the datasets (assumptions, variance, resolution, etc.), and often involves research/validation studies.

Consequently, it will benefit riparian-wetland managers if a single entity with a long history and thorough understanding of the riparian-wetland datasets creates the new geospatial layers statewide and then distributes them to the end users. This will ensure that everyone: (1) is working with the same standardized datasets that have been vetted by the state’s top subject matter experts and properly documented, (2) is aware of the information that is currently embedded in the various geodatabases, (3) spends less time formatting and extracting information from datasets and more time analyzing it and implementing corresponding management actions, (4) can utilize studies that are built from the same datasets, but cross jurisdictional boundaries (enabling coordination & collaboration with partners), and (5) maximizes efficiency because the research and validation studies required to produce new geospatial layers only have to be completed once, for the entire state. Furthermore, once these geospatial layers are standardized, the BLM can develop geoprocessing tools that extract key data for recurring projects throughout the field offices.

Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool The BRAT output is expected to help land managers throughout the state account for the beaver’s role in supporting healthy ecosystems, ensure that their habitat needs are considered when authorizing land use activities, and prioritize restoration actions in areas that are best suited to beaver and least likely to conflict with human infrastructure (i.e. canals, roads, culverts, railroads, stream crossings by road etc.). Since the modeling will be statewide, the results should help focus the efforts of diverse stakeholders onto the areas that will produce the “biggest bang for the buck”, thereby increasing coordination and collaboration, and enabling landscape-scale restoration.

Reclassify LLWW & related attributes into HGM classes & develop a corresponding field guide that helps riparian managers improve the quality of their assessments;

Binning the LLWW classes & related attributes into a smaller group of riparian-wetland classes that (1) have similar vegetative, geomorphic, and hydrologic characteristics; (2) produce similar functions; and (3) respond similarly to disturbance, will help prioritize management efforts. For example, identifying riparian-wetland systems that produce similar resource values and respond similarly to management will help resource specialists customize management plans to address those factors and monitoring strategies that stratify and sample accordingly. Furthermore, reducing the LLWW classes into a handful of HGM classes will enable the creation of a guidebook that describes functions, defining characteristics, conceptual models for disturbance cycles, common indicators of condition, and even a framework for associating the ecologic utility of the various wetland types.

This will help resource specialists account for these key characteristics when completing condition assessments & identifying resource objectives, which should greatly improve the accuracy and utility of the resulting data.

3. Program/Project Performance Goals

a. Riparian-Wetland Mapping and New Geospatial Layers The goal of this project is to finish the riparian-wetland mapping and append all new/historic data into a single dataset (year 1, but updates could be requested as new needs are identified or funding becomes available).

Once mapping is complete, embedded attributes and/or supplemental data can be used to create new geospatial layers that will improve riparian-wetland managers’ ability to manage riparian-wetland habitat. This includes metadata that meet the requirements of end-users and a corresponding report that provides sufficient information for entry level specialists to understand the layers, their purpose, the methods used to create them, relevant assumptions, examples of questions to which the data is best suited to answer, as well as pertinent warnings. While the recipient is highly encouraged to explore new ways to represent riparian-wetland information, they will work closely with the BLM to ensure that the products align with overall priorities.

b. Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool In year 1, the goal is to run the BRAT model & compare the modeled estimates to observed beaver dams & determine whether Montana needs to be stratified into smaller, more homogenous regions with calibrated parameters that account for the spatial variability in the controls on beaver dam distribution (i.e. woody vegetation may be more highly correlated with beaver dam density in Western Montana than the prairie). After identifying the optimal stratification and parameterization, the recipient will present BLM with the proposed strategy for finalizing the model run and corresponding validation study.

The output from the Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool should be made publicly available and produce a corresponding report that describes the methodology, parameter adjustments, uncertainty, and other information that is pertinent to the project goals & objectives.

c. Reclassification of LLWW & related attributes into hydrogeomorphic classes & development of a corresponding field guide that describes each riparian-wetland type and assists specialists with riparian assessments and the establishment of goals/objectives.

In year 1, the recipient and BLM will work together on the classification strategy, as well as the overall structure for the corresponding field guide. Once the core hydrogeomorphic classes are identified, data will be collected from reference sites, a conceptual framework for the degradation pathways will be developed, and efforts to crosswalk the LLWW classes to the new riparian-wetland classes will commence. Refinement of the field guide may occur over the life of the agreement.

B. FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION

1. Award Instrument

In accordance with the Legislative Authority, a cooperative agreement will be used and substantive Bureau of Land Management (BLM) involvement will consist of the following: The BLM Program Officer (PO) will collaborate with the recipient's Project Manager/Principal Investigator (RPM/PI) to manage all stages of project development, implementation, and evaluation. Responsibility for project management, control, and direction will be shared by the recipient and the BLM, however the BLM will have the right to intervene by modifying the project management plan if the project is not staying on schedule and/or technical issues arise.

7. No Obligation to Award The BLM is under no obligation to award funds for this project. Only BLM Grants Management Officers (GMO) may obligate funds for financial assistance.

C. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

D. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Application Package This announcement includes all information, documents, and electronic addresses needed to submit an application through www.Grants.gov. Paper copies may be requested by contacting the individual(s) listed on the application coversheet.

a. Provide a valid DUNS number (Dun & Bradstreet Universal Numbering System) on its application. DUNS numbers are nine-digit numbers established and assigned by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. (D&B) to uniquely identify business entities. DUNS numbers may be obtained free of charge from Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., at: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform or by calling them at (877) 930-5228.

b. Be registered in SAM (System for Award Management, www.SAM.gov) before submitting its application. SAM is the Official U.S. Government system that consolidated the capabilities of CCR/FedReg, ORCA, and EPLS. There is no fee to register at this site. Register in the System for Award Management (SAM) at: http://www.sam.gov.

c. Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the applicant has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

WHAT TO SUBMIT:

Form Name and Number

SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance

SF-424A Budget Information - Non-Construction Programs

SF-424B Assurances - Non-Construction Programs

Grants.gov Lobbying Form

Project Proposal (Attachment A to this document)

Budget Detail (Attachment B to this document)

Federal Agency-approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), if applicable

Financial Assistance Evaluation Questionnaire (if applicable)

a. Project Proposal (Attachment A)

1) Attachment A is a suggested project proposal template and may be used when submitting your proposal. The proposal must be no longer than 15 pages, with a type-face no smaller than 11-point, and have at least one (1) inch margins on all sides. The 15 page limit includes all text, figures, references, and vitae, but does not include the Budget Detail (Attachment B).

2) All proposals are confidential.

b. Budget Detail (Attachment B)

1) Use the Budget Detail form (Attachment B) to present the breakdown of your estimated costs by category needed to accomplish project activities. Estimated costs should be described in sufficient detail so that they may be checked for reasonableness. Include a description of any cost share (cash, in-kind, etc.) listed. Lump sum costs are not acceptable in any category, without a detail breakdown of how the cost were arrived out. No profit or fees are allowable.

2) Budget details should be broken down into the following categories:

(a) Personnel Costs. Salaries or wages of employees working directly on this agreement project, indicate program manager and other key personnel by name and title. Other personnel may be indicated by title alone. For all positions, indicate salaries or wages and estimated hours or percent of time to be spent on the agreement.

(b) Fringe Benefit Costs. The costs of fringe benefits of employees working directly on this agreement project. Indicate rates/amounts, what costs are included in this category, and the basis of the rate computations. Federally approved rate agreements are acceptable for compliance with this item.

(c) Travel Costs. The estimated costs for travel related to agreement activities. Include the purpose of trip, destination, number of persons traveling, length of stay, and all travel costs including airfare, per diem, lodging, and miscellaneous travel-related expenses. For local travel, include mileage and rate of compensation. If applicable, indicate that the costs are per your organization's written travel policy. Current Federal per diem rates (the maximum allowances that federal employees are reimbursed for expenses incurred while on official travel) may be found at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104877.

(d) Equipment Costs. Equipment is defined as expendable tangible personal property having a useful life of more than one (1) year and an acquisition cost of more than $5,000.00, or a value which reaches the capitalization threshold level established by the organization for financial statement purposes.

(e) Supply Costs. The costs of consumable supplies and materials to be used for agreement activities. List each item and quantity individually.

(f) Contractual Costs. Include estimated costs of proposed professional and technical consultants and contractors participating on the project. Identify all work that will be accomplished, including a breakdown of all tasks to be completed, and a detailed budget estimate of time, rates, supplies, and materials that will be required for each task. Any changes or additions will require a request for approval. Procurement procedures must comply with 2 CFR Parts 200.317 through 200.326.

(g) Construction Costs. The cost of any construction directly related to the project activities.

(h) Other Costs. The cost of items not listed above and which do not fit in any other category, such as the cost of duplicating and printing, equipment rental, postage, etc. No profit or fee will be allowed.

(i) Total Direct Costs. The sum of categories (a) through (h).

(j) Indirect Costs.

(1) If indirect costs will be charged to the project, complete this section and show the proposed rate, cost base, and proposed amount for allowable indirect costs. It is not acceptable to simply incorporate indirect rates within other direct cost line items.

(2) Include a copy of any federally approved negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA).

(3) If your organization has never had a NICRA, the BLM Grants Management Officer (GMO) may allow an indirect cost rate of up to 10% of your base modified total direct costs (MTDC). MTDC includes all salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and subgrants and subcontracts up to the first $25,000 of each. Include the computational basis for the indirect expense pool and corresponding allocation base for your rate.

(4) Information on obtaining a NICRA, "Preparing and Submitting Indirect Cost Proposals," is available from the Department of the Interior, National Business Center, Indirect Cost Section, at http://www.aqd.nbc.gov/services/ICS.aspx.

(k) Total Costs. The total of both direct and indirect costs estimated to be expended on this agreement's activities.

4. Submission Dates and Times See announcement cover sheet for the deadline (date and time) for submission of applications. Applications must be received by the BLM prior to the posted deadline. Any application received after the deadline for submission may not be considered for award unless it can be determined the delay was caused by Federal government mishandling.

a. All applicants should register at www.Grants.Gov and all applications should be submitted electronically through www.Grants.gov unless other arrangements are made and approved of in advance of the submission deadline. If you have any questions or problems with the registration or application submission process, contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at 1-800-518-4726, or go to http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support/technical-support/troubleshooting.html for online help.

b. Applications submitted through www.Grants.gov are considered to be electronically signed applications.

E. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

A total of 100 points will be used to score each proposal received. The scores assigned to each criteria in the second level evaluation correspond to their relative importance. Proposals will be evaluated, scored, and ranked by appropriate BLM Staff expert in the program's field of study.

The Government reserves the right to reject any and all proposals which do not meet the requirements of this funding opportunity announcement and which are determined to be outside the scope of the authority under which this announcement is posted.

Award will be made to responsive, responsible applicants submitting proposals which conform to the funding opportunity announcement and are most advantageous to the Government considering the evaluation factors listed below.

The evaluation process will be comprised of the following three screening levels:

1. First Level Screening --Basic Eligibility

b. Applications must satisfy basic eligibility screening requirements to be considered for further review.

2. Second Level Evaluation -- Merit Review Evaluation

a. Merit Review Evaluation. Eligible applications will be evaluated in an objective and unbiased manner using the following merit review criteria using numerical scoring based on a 100 point maximum score.

1. OBJECTIVE (Maximum score 20 /100 Points) Describe how the proposal will achieve the project objectives.

2. TECHNICAL APPROACH (Maximum score 30 /100 Points) Describe the techniques, processes, methodologies to be used.

Describe how data collection, analysis, and means of interpretation will be accomplished.

Describe how the proposed objectives will be achieved within the proposed period of performance (POP).

Describe significant goals or milestones and how they will be measured.

Describe tasks and relationships of partners, if applicable.

3. PUBLIC BENEFIT (Maximum score 10 /100 Points) Describe how this project benefits the general public.

4. QUALIFICATIONS and PAST PERFORMANCE (Maximum score 40 /100 Points) List key project personnel and their contact information.

Describe key personnel responsibilities, time to be dedicated to the project, and how their experience and qualifications are appropriate to success of the project.

List contractors, if known, and their qualifications.

Describe any unique qualifications which support being awarded assistance for this project, such as continuation of the proposed project, technical expertise, cost-sharing ability, etc.

Indicate the type and amount of any offered cost share or match (any offered match must be from non-Federal sources).

5. OFFERED COST SHARE or MATCH (NOT REQUIRED) Indicate the type and amount of any offered cost share or match (any offered match must be from non-Federal sources).

3. Third Level Review Pre-award Clearance and Approvals

Following the described review process, BLM will also complete a business evaluation and determination of responsibility. During these evaluations the Grants Management Officer will evaluate variables such as:

a. Risk Management. The BLM uses a risk-based approach to evaluate the risk posed by the supporting applicants’ projects before it awards Federal funds.

If the results of all pre-award reviews and clearances are satisfactory, an award of funding will be made once the agreement is finalized. If the BLM determines that a Federal award will be made, special conditions that correspond to the degree of risk assessed may be applied to the Federal award

If the results of pre-award reviews and clearances are unsatisfactory, consideration of funding for the project may be withdrawn.

4. Application Selection Process

a. Applications eligible for merit review will be evaluated by an ad hoc evaluation team assembled to review, rate, rank, and recommend applications for award using the above evaluation criteria. Evaluation teams are made up of two or more qualified personnel familiar with the program and who have been certified to have no conflict of interest with any persons or organizations applying for award.

b. Reviews are treated as confidential documents. Once award decisions are made, applicants may request in writing a written summary of the evaluation of their application/proposal.

F. FEDERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Federal Award Notices

a. Any award made from this announcement will be based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and will be regulated by OMB's Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

b. Acceptance. Acceptance is defined as the start of work, drawing down of funds, or accepting the award via electronic means. Costs may not be incurred before the effective date listed on the award. Acceptance of a Federal Financial Assistance award from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, carries with it the responsibility to be aware of, and comply with, the administrative and national policy requirements and terms and conditions of award.

2. Reporting

Periodic submission of Federal Financial reports (SF-425), Performance/Progress reports, and Youth Employment reports (if applicable) will be required under this financial assistance agreement. Submission of financial and performance/progress reports may be required either quarterly, semi-annually, or annually. Submission of youth employment reports (if applicable) is required quarterly.

3. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

a. Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. By accepting additional Federal funding under the current Federal assistance, your organization agrees to abide by the applicable OMB Guidance for Grants and Agreement in the expenditure of Federal funds and performance under this program. OMB guidance is available at the following web site: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=954b81d94bf127c6de3c76a3c99d8d9f&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2subtitleA.tpl

b. Administrative Requirements.

3) Indirect Facilities and Administration (F&A) Costs.

(1) The provisions of 2 CFR 200.414(c) require Federal agencies to accept federally negotiated indirect cost rates. The BLM has applied the following policies, procedures and general decision-making criteria for deviations from negotiated Indirect Cost Rates for financial assistance programs and agreements.

(2) Distribution Basis. For all deviations to the Federal negotiated indirect cost rate, including statutory, regulatory, programmatic, and voluntary, the basis of direct costs against which the indirect cost rate is applied must be:

(i) The same base identified in the recipient’s negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, if the recipient has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement; or

(ii) The Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) base in cases where the recipient does not have a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or, with prior approval of the Awarding Agency, when the recipient's federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement base is only a subset of the MTDC (such as salaries and wages) and the use of the MTDC still results in an overall reduction in the total indirect cost recovered. MTDC is the base defined by 2 CFR 200.68, "Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC)."

(iii) In cases where the recipient does not have a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, under no circumstances will the Department use a modified rate based upon Total Direct Cost or other base not identified in the federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or defined within 2 CFR 200.68. The purpose of this restriction is to ensure that the reduced rate is applied against a base that does not include any potentially distorting items (such as pass-through funds, subcontracts in excess of $25,000, and participant support costs) and is based on the requirements outlined in 2 CFR 200.68; 2 CFR 200.414(f); 2 CFR 200 Appendix III, Section C.2.; 2 CFR 200 Appendix IV, Section B.3.f.; and Appendix VII, Section C.2.c.

(3) Indirect Cost Rate Reductions Used as Cost-Share. Instances where the recipient elects to use a rate lower than the federally negotiated indirect cost rate, and uses the balance of the unrecovered indirect costs to meet a cost-share or matching requirement required by the program and/or statute, are not considered a deviation from 2 CFR 200.414(c) as the federally negotiated indirect cost rate is being applied under the agreement in order to meet the terms and conditions of the award.

c. Program Legislation and/or Regulations.

4. Standard Award Terms and Conditions

a. Code of Federal Regulations/Regulatory Requirements, as applicable (contact your program officer with any questions regarding the applicability of the following):

Recipients must not require their employees or contractors seeking to report fraud, waste, or abuse to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or contractors from lawfully reporting such waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a federal department or agency authorized to receive such information.

Recipients must notify their employees or contractors that existing internal confidentiality agreements covered by this condition are no longer in effect

b. Funding.

1) Awards shall be funded subject to availability of BLM funding. Initial funding does not guarantee additional funding in subsequent years.

2) Once the grant or cooperative agreement is signed by a BLM Grants Management Officer (GMO), funding is obligated and the recipient may incur approved costs beginning on the effective date of the award and as specified in their submitted and approved budget.

c. Payment Mechanism. Payment will be made by draw-down reimbursement through the Department of the Treasury, Automated Standard Application for Payment (ASAP) System. See following website: http://www.fms.treas.gov/asap Treasury Circular 1075 (31 CFR 205) requires that draw-downs to a recipient organization shall be limited to the minimum amounts needed and shall be timed to be in accordance with the actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient organization in carrying out the purposes of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of cash advances shall be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient organization for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs

d. Conflicts of Interest. The Recipient must establish safeguards to prohibit its employees and sub-recipients from using their positions for purposes that constitute or present the appearance of a personal or organizational conflict of interest. The Recipient is responsible for notifying the Grants Management Officer (GMO) in writing of any actual or potential conflicts of interest which may 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 recipient and/or recipient's employees and sub-recipients in the matter.

5. Special Award Terms and Conditions:

a. Liability, Insurance, and Indemnification. Recipients of awards arising from this announcement will be required to agree to the following:

1) Liability. The BLM assumes no liability for any actions or activities conducted under this agreement except to the extent that recourse or remedies are provided by Congress under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC 2671.

2) Indemnification. The recipient hereby agrees:

(a) To indemnify the federal government, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), from any act or omission of the recipient, its officers, employees, or (members, participants, agents, representatives, as appropriate) (1) against third party claims for damages arising from one or more activities carried out in connection with this financial assistance agreement and (2) for damage or loss to government property resulting from such an activity, to the extent the laws of the State where the recipient is located permit. This obligation shall survive the termination of this agreement.

(b) To pay the United States the full value for all damage to the lands or other property of the United States caused by the recipient, its officers, employees, or (members, participants, agents, representatives, agents as appropriate).

(c) To provide workers' compensation protection to the recipient’s officers, employees, and representatives.

(d) To cooperate with the BLM in the investigation and defense of any claims that may be filed with the BLM arising out of the activities of the recipient, its agents, and employees.

(e) In the event of damage to or destruction of the buildings and facilities assigned for the use of the recipient in whole or in part by any cause whatsoever, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the BLM to replace or repair the buildings or facilities. If the BLM determines in writing, after consultation with the recipient that damage to the buildings or portions thereof renders such buildings unsuitable for continued use by the recipient, the BLM shall assume sole control over such buildings or portions thereof. If the buildings or facilities rendered unsuitable for use are essential for conducting operations authorized under this agreement, then failure to substitute and assign other facilities acceptable to the recipient will constitute termination of this agreement by the BLM.

(f) Flow-down. For the purposes of this clause, "recipient" includes such sub-recipients, contractors, or subcontractors as, in the judgment of the recipient and subject to the Government's determination of sufficiency, have sufficient resources and/or maintain adequate and appropriate insurance to achieve the purposes of this clause.

(g) Identified Activities. All activities carried out in connection with financial assistance arising from this funding opportunity announcement.

b. Recipients must successfully complete an appropriate Defensive Driving Course before operating a Government-owned vehicle (GOV).

c. Recipients must successfully complete appropriate safety and training requirements before operating Government-owned equipment, 4-wheel all-terrain vehicles (ATV) or other Government-furnished property (GFP).

d. Recipient/Sub-recipient Personnel Security and Suitability Requirements.