NAWCA Standard Grants - applications - U,S, (indiv)

North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant Programs

StandardGrantsapplication instructions

NAWCA Standard Grants - applications - U,S, (indiv)

OMB: 1018-0100

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1018-0100 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

North American Wetlands Conservation Act
United States Standard Grant

2008 Proposal Instructions

Proposal Deadlines = MARCH 7, 2008 and August 1, 2008

Office of Management and Budget Information Collection Statement In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C
3501), note the following information. This information collection is authorized by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act of
1989, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.). The information collection solicited: is necessary to gain a benefit in the form of a grant,
as determined by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission; is necessary
to determine the eligibility and relative value of wetland projects; results in an approximate paperwork burden of 400 hours per
application; and does not carry a premise of confidentiality. Your response is voluntary. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This
information collection has been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number is 1018-0100. The public is invited to submit
comments on the accuracy of the estimated average burden hours for application preparation and to suggest ways in which the burden
may be reduced. Comments may be submitted to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 224 ARLSQ, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 20240 and/or Desk Officer for Interior Department (1018-0100), Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

INTRODUCTION
This document contains instructions for preparing a North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) Standard Grant proposal.
You need to consult other files on the web site for guidance regarding eligibility requirements, format, costs and the NAWCA
schedules and processes:
Eligibility Criteria & Processes (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/files/EligibilityCriteria.pdf) and U.S.
Grant Administration Standards (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/files/GrantStandards.pdf)
Proposals will be returned as ineligible if they do not adhere to proposal eligibility and cost criteria given in the preceding files and in
these instructions.
We recommend you read the information in all of these files BEFORE you write a proposal. These instructions are applicable
to Standard Grant proposals submitted through August 1, 2008. We further recommend that you prepare the Budget and
Tract Tables first. These will provide a reference point to ensure that the proposal data is consistent throughout the various
sections.
This document is organized into the following sections. To proceed directly to a specific section or example, click on the provided
link below. The sections highlighted in bold contain an example. With the exception of the example maps, the information
provided in the examples is based on a single proposal and is intended to be consistent among the various sections. Use the examples
as general guidelines in preparing the sections for your proposal. All examples are found at the end of the instructions.
1. Introduction
2. Changes from the 2007 Standard Grant Instructions
3. Proposal Project Officer’s Page
4. Proposal Summary
Click here for the Proposal Summary example: Summary Page Example
5. Proposal Purpose and Scope
6. Proposal Budget and Work Plan (includes Budget Table and Budget Justifications).
Click here for the Budget Table example: Budget Table Example
Click here for the Budget Justification examples:
Acquisition Budget Justification Example
Restoration Budget Justification Example
Enhancement Budget Justification Example
Indirect Cost Budget Justification Example
7. Proposal Technical Assessment Questions and Scoring Table
To proceed directly to a specific Technical Assessment Question, click on the appropriate question below:
Question #1
Question #2 (Click here for the TAQ#2 example: TAQ # 2 Example)
Question #3
Question #4 (Click here for theTAQ#4 example: TAQ # 4 Example)
Question #5 (Click here for the TAQ#5 example: TAQ# 5 Example)
Question #6
Question #7
8. Proposal Attachments:
Budget Table (Click here for the Budget Table example: Budget Table Example), Tract Table,
Partner Contribution Statements, Optional Matching Contributions Plan (Click here for the Optional Matching
Contributions Plan Example: Optional Matching Contributions Plan Example), Programmatic Project Proposal,
Standard Form 424 and Assurances B and D, Maps and Optional Aerial Photographs
9. Proposal Easements, Leases, and Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement.
10. Click here for ALL Examples
To aid you in completing a proposal, blank proposal outlines and tables may be downloaded from the following files on the web site.
1. Word Proposal Outline (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/files/ProposalOutline.doc), and
2. Excel Budget Table (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/USStandard/files/ExcelBudgetTable.xls).
These files do not contain any instructions or examples, so you should use the instructions in this file when you are completing one of
the blank proposals. Please ensure that the Summary Page is submitted in Microsoft Word format.
Copy the proposal and accompanying information as follows:
1. One unbound (a binder clip is allowed), one-sided original proposal and attachments. Include easements, leases or the
Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, if applicable.
2. One copy of the proposal, the Budget Table, Tract Table, maps, and Partner Letters to be sent electronically.

Instructions for submitting the proposal:
1. Do not send the proposal by facsimile machine.
2. Mail the proposal to the Council Coordinator at the address below. You may also mail a copy to your North American
Waterfowl Management Plan Joint Venture Coordinator (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/JointVentures/index.shtm) and proposal
partners (as you deem appropriate).
Coordinator, North American Wetlands Conservation Council
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Bird Habitat Conservation
Attn: David Buie
Mail Stop MBSP - 4075
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
3. Attach a copy of the proposal, Budget Table, and Tract Table, maps, and partner letters to an e-mail message sent to
[email protected]. (Do not send a file larger than 5MB)
Proposal Deadlines: Due dates for receipt of the complete proposal are March 7 and August 1, 2008. Any group or individual may
submit proposals at any time before those dates. Proposals received after the March deadline will be processed, but will be considered
for funding as an August deadline proposal. Proposals received after the August deadline will be ineligible unless the proposal is
clearly labeled as an early 2009 submission (these will be subject to modifications depending on any changes in the submission
guidelines that occur for 2009). Complete electronic proposals must be received no later than 4 pm Eastern Standard Time March 7
and August 1, 2008. Complete written proposals (identical to the electronic version) must be postmarked no later than 4 pm Eastern
Standard Time March 7 and August 1, 2008. We suggest that you mail your written proposal with adequate lead-time and do not rely
on meeting the proposal deadline at the last minute through mail delivery companies.

CHANGES FROM THE 2007 STANDARD GRANT INSTRUCTIONS
Following are the major changes from the 2007 instructions. There are minor changes other than those listed here, so please read each
section of the instructions carefully. Also see process changes in Eligibility Criteria & Processes
(http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/files/EligibilityCriteria.pdf).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The Project Officer’s Page asks the applicant to indicate whether a Matching Contributions Plan (MCP) is submitted with
the proposal or if the proposal contains match associated with a previously submitted MCP .
The Summary Page should be submitted in Microsoft Word format only.
The use of parenthesis for designating non-add acres has been expanded. Reference the explanation and example below,
under Proposal Summary, Specific Requirements, 7. Grant and Match – Activities, Costs and Acres.
Building envelope acres associated with any proposal activities should not be included in the acreage totals for the proposal.
(reference Proposal Summary, Specific Requirements, 7. Grant and Match – Activities, Costs and Acres).
As part of the grant administration process, successful applicants will be required to provide GIS shape files for the location
of the acquisitions, restorations, and enhancements they achieve. This GIS data will most likely be part of the final report
required in the grant administration phase.

The following are not changes but are critical portions that must be completed accurately for a proposal to be eligible for evaluation:
1. Only Partner Contribution Statements will now be accepted as verification of partner match. Partner letters that do not
follow the format provided in the guidelines will adversely impact the timely review of a proposal and may result in the
contribution being considered as non-match.
2. All applicants, EXCEPT the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, must submit a SF 424 core form and D Assurances form with the
proposal (all projects involving acquisition, restoration, or enhancement are considered construction projects).

PROPOSAL PROJECT OFFICER’S PAGE
NOTE: Please do NOT include a cover/transmittal letter with the proposal. The Project Officer’s page should be the first page of
the proposal. The information below in italics is intended to assist you as you fill out the blank proposal outline.
What is the proposal title? Enter a short, succinct, descriptive, and unique title, such as “Falcon Bottoms”, “Turtle Bog Marsh” or
“Great Bay”. If the proposal is a phase of an earlier funded proposal, include the appropriate numeral to denote that this is a
subsequent proposal, such as “Falcon Bottoms II”. If a title is too long (more than 50 characters, including spaces), we will shorten
it.
What are the geographical landmarks for the proposal?
1. State(s):
2. County (ies):
3. Congressional District(s):
4. Central latitude and longitude point in decimal degrees:
What is the date you are submitting the proposal?
Is an Optional Matching Contributions Plan (MCP) submitted with the proposal? Yes/No
Does the proposal contain match associated with a previously submitted MCP? Yes/No

Are you requesting that this proposal be considered as a continuation of a previous grant agreement (a Programmatic Project
Proposal)? Yes/No
What is the status of previous NAWCA-funded proposals you have submitted in the same project area? For example, if the
current proposal is Falcon Bottoms III, give the status of Falcon Bottoms I and II. The status may be summarized briefly, but should
note when the previous proposal was approved and whether the previous proposal is completed, ongoing as scheduled, or changed in
any material manner.
How many more proposals are planned for the same project area?
What is the Project Officer information?
1. Name:
2. Title:
3. Organization: The Project Officer must be affiliated with/employed by the Grantee’s organization; thus it will be assumed
that the organization entered here is the grantee organization. If not, explain. (see 2007 Eligibility Criteria and Processes)
4. Address:
5. Telephone number:
6. Facsimile machine phone number:
7. Electronic mail address:
Will any of the NAWCA funds requested as part of this proposal be received or spent by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
another Federal agency?
Yes/No
If yes, which agency(ies) will receive these funds and what is the fund amount:
Agency_______________________
Amount______________
(add additional lines as necessary)
Are carbon sequestration credits involved in your proposal?
Yes/No
If yes, please highlight and provide details in the appropriate budget narrative section.
To ensure that the proposal complies with available guidelines and to ensure that partners are aware of their responsibilities,
the Project Officer certifies to the following statement: I have read the current standard grant instructions, eligibility information,
and grant administration policies and informed partners or partners have read the material themselves. To the best of my knowledge,
the proposal is eligible and complies with all NAWCA, North American Wetlands Conservation Council, and Federal grant
guidelines. The work in this proposal consists of work and costs associated with long-term wetlands and migratory bird habitat
conservation.
Do you have any comments about, or suggestions for, the NAWCA program? You may provide comments with this proposal, or

you may send them at any time:
• In writing to

•
•
•

Coordinator, North American Wetlands Conservation Council
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Bird Habitat Conservation
Mail Stop MBSP 4075
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Via phone to
703-358-1784;
Via facsimile machine to 703-358-2282;
Via electronic mail to
[email protected].

PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The Proposal Summary is the only narrative material provided to the North American Wetlands Conservation Council and Migratory
Bird Conservation Commission, so it must be descriptive and succinct. Consider developing the Summary after you have written the
rest of the proposal, as this will help to ensure that information in the Summary is the same as in the rest of the proposal. Due to the
importance of the format for, and information in this section, the Proposal Summary must follow the format provided in the
blank proposal outline exactly, including margins, spacing, font size, etc. Click here for the Summary Page Example: Summary
Page Example

General Requirements
1. The Proposal Summary will be used as a stand-alone document and will be subject to editing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Start the Proposal Summary on a new page (i.e., do not begin the Proposal Summary on the same page as the Project
Officer’s page), and enter a page break at the end of the Proposal Summary.
2. Do not number Proposal Summary pages.
3. The Proposal Summary, which includes tabular and narrative information, MUST NOT EXCEED TWO PAGES.
4. Margins: The Summary is the only part of the proposal that has specific margin requirements. Left margin should be 1 inch
and all other margins should be ½ inch.
5. Format must be in Microsoft Word.
6. Font size: 11 point.
7. Font typeface: Times New Roman.
8. The information in the Summary table must be exactly the same as provided elsewhere in the proposal.
Specific Requirements (see the example link).
1. Center the label “NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT PROPOSAL SUMMARY” in all capital
letters, and center the project title and state with initial capital letters beneath it. If the proposal is a phase of an earlier funded
proposal, use the title of the earlier proposal with an appropriate Roman numeral denoting the phase number.
2. All other information is left-justified, without indentation, except for financial totals listed on the right side of the page.
3. Type the header for each paragraph category in all capital letters (e.g. COUNTY(IES), STATE(S), CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT(S); GRANT AMOUNT; MATCHING PARTNERS; etc.).
4. Using the prescribed format shown in the example, provide the requested information for each category. However, do not
include categories shown in the example if no information for that category exists. For instance, if there are no nonmatching partners, do not include that heading in the table; or if there is no restoration work being done, do not include a
“Restored” line in the “ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES” section.
5. Enter the total grant amount to the right side of the page on the same line as the header “GRANT AMOUNT.” Under “Grant
Amount”, type “Allocation:”. Enter the name of the organization(s) that will be allocated grant funds (normally, this will be
the Grantee organization, which then administers the funding as planned in the proposal; however, in certain circumstances,
other organizations may be receiving grant funds directly). Enter the allocation amount after the organization(s) name. Enter
the total for MATCH AMOUNT, the total amount for NON-MATCHING PARTNERS, and the total for ACTIVITIES,
COSTS AND ACRES each on the same line as their respective headers, in alignment with the total grant amount.
6. MATCHING PARTNERS: Enter the grantee’s name/organization and contribution immediately underneath the category
header. If the grantee is not contributing, enter $0. Continue to list matching partners and contributions under the grantee.
List all the matching partners, whether they contribute more or less than 10% of the grant request (see Technical Assessment
Question 7B). If a partner’s match amount is associated with a Matching Contributions Plan (either a Match Plan
submitted with this proposal or a Match Plan already approved by the Council for a previous grant award), list only
the match amount that is being applied to this proposal. For example, a partner may have spent $1 million to acquire
2,000 acres to form the core of your project. The Council approved the Matching Contributions Plan for $1 million. In
Proposal I you listed the partner and showed the partner contributing $500,000 match. Therefore, in Proposal II you show the
partner with the remaining match of $500,000. See instructions below (in ACTIVITIES COSTS, AND ACRES) for handling
acreage associated with a Match Plan.
7. GRANT AND MATCH - ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES: Insert the total costs and acreage associated with the grant
and match funds to the right on the same line as the header. Underneath the header, list appropriate activities, costs, and
acreages choosing from the following activity categories: Fee Acquired; Fee Donated; Easement(s) Acquired; Easement(s)
Donated; Lease(s) Acquired; Lease(s) Donated; Other Acquisition Costs; Restored; Enhanced; Established Wetlands; Other;
and Indirect Costs. List the activities in that order, but do not list categories in which no activity will take place. After
each category listed, type a hyphen (-) and indicate the amount being expended, then type a slash (/) and the total acreage
involved. If building envelope acres are involved with any activities, ensure that these acres are not included in the acreage
totals for the proposal.
•
Include only those activities, costs, and acres associated with grant or match funds. See below for contributions from
non-match funds.

•

If acquired or donated acreage also will be restored or enhanced in the current proposal, place parentheses around the
restored or enhanced acreage amount to show that they have already been accounted for under the acquired or donated
categories. For instance, in the example link cited above, a total of 241 acres are being acquired in fee and easement,
none through donation. Because 150 of those acres are also being restored, that acreage is indicated as “(150)” on the
“Restored” line. Also shown on the Restored line are an additional 337 acres that are not accounted for in another
category.
If any acreage is associated with a proposed Matching Contributions Plan submitted with the proposal, show the full
acreage in the proposal. However, if the acreage is associated with a previously approved Matching Contributions Plan
or a designated Programmatic Project Proposal, show the acreage in parentheses in the proposal, to indicate that the
acreage has previously been accounted for:
In this simplified example, 300 new acres are to be acquired in Fee Title using grant and/or match funds.
200 new acres are to be restored using grant and/or match funds; 150 of the 300 acres acquired in fee are also restored
– (150); an additional 200 acres acquired in a previous phase as part of a designated Programmatic Project Proposal
(PP) will also be restored – (200 PP).
100 new acres are to be enhanced using grant and/or match funds; 100 of the 300 acres acquired in fee are also
enhanced – (100); an additional 300 acres acquired in an previous phase as part of an approved Matching
Contributions Plan (MCP) will also be enhanced – (300 MCP).
GRANT AND MATCH - ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES
$3,000,000/600 (250) (200 PP) (300 MCP) acres
(___) = acres accounted for in another category
(___ PP) = acres accounted for in a prior phase of a Programmatic Project Proposal
(___ MCP) = acres accounted for in a prior phase of a Matching Contributions Plan
Fee Acquired - $1,000,000/300 acres
Restored - $500,000/200 (150) (200 PP) acres
Enhanced - $500,000/100 (100) (300 MCP) acres

This categorization also applies to non-match activities, costs and acres.
8. NON-MATCHING PARTNERS: List all non-matching partners and contributions in the same format as for matching
partners.
9. NON-MATCH – ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES: Insert the total costs and acreage associated solely with the non-match
funds to the right on the same line as the header. Underneath the header, list the appropriate activities, costs, and acreages
associated with the non-match funds by category in the same manner as above for GRANT AND MATCH - ACTIVITIES,
COSTS AND ACRES. List the activities in that order, but do not list categories in which no activity with take place.
•
Include all only acres not otherwise associated with grant or match funds. Use only these acres in the total acreage
number in the first line, noted above. For instance, in the example, non-match funds are acquiring a 300-acre easement
(without pooling funds with grant or match funds), and therefore all 300 acres are shown in this NON-MATCH listing
and included in the non-match total.
•
For acres being acquired, restored, or enhanced by pooling both grant/match funds and non-match funds, in which
NAWCA will acquire an undivided interest in those acres, these acres should already be listed in GRANT AND
MATCH – ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES. In this non-match section, list these acres in parentheses with the note
that this is an undivided interest in acres already accounted for above. For instance, in the example, a 21-acre easement
is being acquired by pooling matching funds with $50,000 of non-match federal funds. NAWCA will have an undivided
percentage interest in all 21 acres, and therefore these 21 acres are included in the total for Easement Acquired under
GRANT AND MATCH – ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES. In the section listing Easement Acquired under NONMATCH – ACTIVITIED, COSTS AND ACRES, these 21 acres are indicated as “(21 acres in undivided interest
accounted for above)”.
10. FINAL TITLE HOLDERS/MANAGERS AND ACREAGE: List the entities who will hold title at the end of the project, the
associated acreage, and the responsible land managers in the prescribed format shown in the example. Make sure the acres
total those listed under ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Describe the proposed project’s goals and objectives; why the work is proposed; who will be
doing what activity(ies); where they will be doing the activity(ies) (for example, on a refuge, on private land, near a
conservation area); how they will accomplish the work (building dikes, installing water-control structures, etc.); what, if any,
North American Waterfowl Management Plan joint venture is involved or benefiting.
12. HABITAT TYPES AND WILDLIFE BENEFITTING: Describe the habitat types involved in the proposed project activities;
provide examples of the species (blue-winged teal, American bittern, etc.) benefiting and their uses of the habitats (breeding,
feeding, resting, etc.); list endangered species found on the proposed project site(s).
13. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Describe the benefits of the proposed project to the public (hiking, hunting, birding, education, water
quality, etc.).

14. NEW PARTNERS: Identify the partners who have not participated in a NAWCA grant before.

PROPOSAL PURPOSE AND SCOPE
What are the proposal objectives, affected habitats, and affected wildlife (especially wetland-associated migratory birds) and
wetland functions?
How does the proposed work form a long-term wetlands and migratory bird conservation proposal that should be funded
under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)?
What are the linkages between the proposal and conservation objectives of the following programs/plans and other
international migratory bird and wetlands conservation programs/plans: North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan? How do proposal
activities address specific habitat priorities stated in these conservation plans? If there are no direct linkages to conservation
plans, how and why was the proposal was developed?
If the proposal is part of a larger multi-phase or landscape level project, how does it fit into the larger effort?
How is the proposal unique from, or complementary to, previously funded proposals?
How did you determine the proposal boundaries?
What are the threats and special circumstances that make NAWCA funding important at this time? Will any partner match
become unavailable as match if the proposal is not funded at this time, so that it could not be used as match for a later
proposal? Will any partner match be rescinded – and therefore not used at all, whether or not as part of a NAWCA grant -- if
the proposal is not funded?
What are the current public and private uses of lands in the proposal area and are you proposing any changes?
Will you allow public access? Will you limit the number of people permitted access or the season of access?
Has the public been informed about the proposal? Have landowners been contacted? If applicable, what is the willingness of
landowners to sell properties?

PROPOSAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN
BUDGET TABLE
Is the required Budget Table submitted here or as an attachment?
1. Complete the Budget Table provided in the Word or WordPerfect proposal outline and insert it as a numbered or unnumbered
page in this section of the proposal or as an attachment at the end of the proposal. Click here for the Budget Table Example:
Budget Table Example.You may submit additional tables if you believe they will help explain the budget, but keep them to
a minimum. The Word Proposal Outline
(http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/files/ProposalOutline.doc) contains blank Budget Tables or
you can use the table in the file Excel Budget Table
(http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/files/ExcelBudgetTable.xls).
2. Identify each tract (or logical groupings of tracts) using a consistent method on all maps and throughout the proposal. Show
all costs covered by grant, each matching partner, and each non-matching partner for all tracts.
3. You may show grant and one partner’s contribution on one line for the same tract, but do not combine different partner
contributions on the same line. For example, if there are 10 separate partners contributing to fee acquisition for Tract Z, then
there should be 10 separate partner entries for Tract Z. Add lines to the budget table as needed. In the example below, a line
was added under Land Costs: Fee Acquired for Tract A because partners DNR and PF should not be shown on one line. In
the example, a line was added under Land Costs Easement Acquired because different tracts are affected.
4. Separate match funds into "Old" (spent prior to proposal submission) and "New" (costs to occur after proposal is submitted
and during the Grant Agreement period).
5. If you are submitting a Matching Contributions Plan, be sure the Budget Table only includes funds for the current proposal
and not the whole contribution by any partner in the Match Plan.
6. Show each private landowner by name, contribution amount, and tract if they are providing a matching or non-matching
contribution.
7. For acres being acquired, restored, or enhanced by pooling both grant/match funds and non-match funds, in which NAWCA
will acquired an undivided interest in those acres, list the total acreage in either grant or match in the table, as appropriate.
Do not list these same acres a second time as non-match acres, unless the non-match funds are acquiring, restoring, or
enhancing additional acres not otherwise associated with grant or match funds.
8. All cost categories are shown in the example below. Leave blank or delete inappropriate categories (e.g., there is no
enhancement in your proposal, so you can leave that section blank or delete it).
9. You may use a landscape, versus portrait, orientation for the printed page if needed.
10. You may abbreviate partner names in the Budget Table, but be sure to spell them out somewhere in the Budget section of the
proposal.
11. NA in the example below means “Not Applicable”.
In the last column of the Budget Table, identify each sub-grantee agency or organization (or abbreviate and spell the name out
below the table) that will receive, as a result of this proposal, any of the following. Contractors or vendors who will be paid for
goods, construction, planting or services purchased for the project and individuals are NOT considered subrecipients,
o Federal grant funds or “new” matching funds,
o Property (e.g., land, structures, dikes, levees, earthen dams, equipment, supplies) that will be purchased with
Federal grant or matching funds or
o Property committed as “new” match.
Do you need to explain any abbreviations in the Budget Table?
If your grant request exceeds $1,000,000, what is your justification?
Has any match been previously approved by the Council via an Optional Matching Contributions Plan? In the current
proposal, what tracts are affected, how much of each partner’s match has been used in previous proposals, how much is being
used in this proposal, and how much will remain after the current proposal is funded?
What information justifies the budget?
1. Explain all costs shown in the Budget Table (grant, match and non-match dollars and non-add acres), including unusually
high costs or large differences between per acre value of match and grant tracts. Remember to refer to the Eligibility Criteria
& Processes (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/files/EligibilityCriteria.pdf) file for information
on eligible and ineligible direct and indirect costs and negotiated indirect cost rate agreements. Explain if a cost estimate is

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

different from the fair market/reasonable value.
Include a Budget Justification section for each activity in the Budget Table and delete any Budget Justification sections that
are blank or deleted from the Budget Table. For example, if the proposal does not include any acquisition, then the Budget
Table would have that section blank or deleted and the Budget Justification section regarding acquisition should be deleted
from the proposal.
Type the Budget Justification section titles in all capital letters and enter the total cost and acreage after it. For example,
“ACQUISITION BUDGET JUSTIFICATION - $3,000,000 AND 20,000 acres”. On the next line, separately enter the
amount of grant, match, and non-match funding. All costs (“Total $” column in each table below) must be described and
equal the figures in the section headers.
All figures should be the same as in the Budget Table.
Very limited information on habitats and species may be included, but only if you have first given the required information.
Note that all questions are in the future tense, but they also apply to past (match) work and costs.
NA in the tables below means “Not Applicable”.
For acres being acquired, restored, or enhanced by pooling both grant/match funds and non-match funds, explain how the
grant/match funds will be pooled with the non-match funds, and the percentage undivided interest that will be assigned to
NAWCA. The NAWCA portion is the percentage of NAWCA funds invested relative the total cost of the initiative, although
all acres should be counted as NAWCA accomplishments. For instance, in the example provided, if 50% of the funds are
NAWCA grant/match to acquire 200 acres, and therefore the NAWCA portion is a 50% undivided interest in all 200 acres,
rather than a 100% interest in 100 acres.
Note that examples of how to answer the questions are given below to enable, and encourage, you to provide the requested
information in the most efficient manner possible. When appropriate, use tables, bulleted lists, or short statements instead of
full sentences and paragraphs to provide the information. When tables are given as examples, that indicates that answers
should be presented in columns, however it is not required that a table be developed. For example, information for the first
question “When will each fee tract be acquired?” could also be answered by showing information in the following columns:
Month, Year When Fee Acquisition Will Occur
Cost
Tract

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
ACQUISITION BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
Click here for the Acquisition Budget Justification Example: Acquisition Budget Justification Example

Grant - $_________

$_______ and _____ acres
Match - $_________
Non-Match - $_________

When will each fee tract be acquired and what are the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method
to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Tract
Month, year when fee acquisition will occur
Total $

When will each fee donation occur, who are the donors and recipients, and what are the costs?
Tract
Month, year when fee donation will occur
Donor
Recipient

Total $

When will each easement tract be acquired and what are the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the
method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Tract
Month, year when easement acquisition will occur
Total $

When will each easement donation occur, who are the donors and recipients, and what are the costs?
Tract
Month, year when easement donation will occur
Donor
Recipient

Total $

For each tract acquired or donated in fee or easement, what is the cost per acre, what method did you use to determine costs,
how do you know the costs are reasonable, and explain unusually high costs or large differences between per acre value of
match and grant tracts or fee and easement tracts.
If a tract is donated, how does the donation increase resource values or degree of protection/management of wetlands? There is
no need to answer this question if the donation is from a private landowner to a conservation organization.
Will acquisition of any tracts be credited to wetlands mitigation banks or be used to satisfy wetlands mitigation requirements?
For each easement, answer the following questions. Consider using the sample table below for your answers.
1. What tract is associated with the easement?
2. What is the term/length?
3. What organization will monitor the easement?
4. Who will the easement revert to in the event the primary easement holder ceases to exist?
5. Have you adopted the Land Trust Alliance or other easement monitoring standards?
6. Do you have a stewardship endowment dedicated to the project area? How much?
7. What are the restrictions, allowed structures, allowed activities and reserved rights?
Tract

Term

Restrictions:
Allowed structures:
Allowed activities:
Reserved rights:
Restrictions:
Allowed structures:
Allowed activities:
Reserved rights:

Monitoring
Organization

Reversionary
Organization

Monitoring Standards

Stewardship Endowment

What work will be done, when, and on what tract(s) through the APPRAISALS and OTHER ACQUISITION COSTS budget
(e.g., contract costs, closing costs, surveys, etc.) and how did you determine the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified,
explain why and the method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
How do you know the costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the APPRAISALS and OTHER
ACQUISITION COSTS budget?
Item & Work

Units

$/unit

TOTAL COSTS

Total $

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the NON-CONTRACT PERSONNEL and TRAVEL budget and
how did you determine the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method to be used to select tracts
during proposal implementation.
How do you know the costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the NON-CONTRACT PERSONNEL and
TRAVEL budget?

RESTORATION BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
Click here for the Restoration Budget Justification Example: Restoration Budget Justification Example

Grant - $________

$_________ and ______ acres
Match - $________
Non-Match - $________

What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the CONTRACTS budget and how did you determine costs?
If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Item and Work

Units

$/unit

TOTAL COSTS

Total $

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

How do you know the costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the CONTRACTS budget?
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the MATERIALS and EQUIPMENT budget, what will be
purchased, and how did you determine costs? For plantings of seeds or seedlings are to be planted, what seed or plant species
will be planted and what percentage of each species is in the total planting?
Item & Work

Units

$/unit

TOTAL COSTS

Total $

Schedule
(month, year)

Tract

Are costs pro-rated and how do you know that costs are reasonable? What other information justifies the MATERIALS and
EQUIPMENT budget?
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the NON-CONTRACT PERSONNEL budget and how did you
determine the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method to be used to select tracts during
proposal implementation.
Item & Work

Units

$/unit

Total $

Schedule (month,
year)

Tract

TOTAL COSTS

How do you know costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the NON-CONTRACTS PERSONNEL budget?
Will restoration of any tracts be credited to wetlands mitigation banks or be used to satisfy wetlands mitigation requirements?
Are there any other restoration costs shown in the Budget Table that are not described above?

ENHANCEMENT BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
Click here for the Enhancement Budget Justification Example: Enhancement Budget Justification Example

Grant - $________

$_________ and _______ acres
Match - $________
Non-Match - $________

Units

TOTAL COSTS

$/unit
$/
NA

Total $
$
$

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

Units

$/unit

Total $

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

TOTAL COSTS

Units

TOTAL COSTS

$/unit
$/
NA

Total $
$
$

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

How do you know costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the NON-CONTRACT PERSONNEL budget?
Will enhancement of any tracts be credited to wetlands mitigation banks or be used to satisfy wetlands mitigation
requirements?
Are there any other enhancement costs shown in the Budget Table that are not described above?

ESTABLISHED WETLANDS BUDGET JUSTIFICATION – $_______ and ______ acres
Grant - $________
Match - $________
Non-Match - $________
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the CONTRACTS budget and how did you determine costs? If
some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.

Item and Work

Units

TOTAL COSTS

$/unit
$/
NA

Total $
$
$

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

How do you know costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the CONTRACTS budget?
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the MATERIALS and EQUIPMENT budget, what will be
purchased, and how did you determine costs? For plantings of seeds or seedlings are to be planted, what seed or plant species
will be planted and what percentage of each species is in the total planting? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why
and the method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Item and Work

Units
1
NA

TOTAL COSTS

$/unit
$/
NA

Total $
$
$

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

Units

TOTAL COSTS

$/unit
$/
NA

Total $
$
$

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

How do you know costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the NON-CONTRACT PERSONNEL budget?

OTHER DIRECT COSTS BUDGET JUSTIFICATION – $________
Grant - $________
Match - $________
Non-Match - $_________
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the OTHER DIRECT COSTS budget and how did you determine
the costs?
Item and Work

Units

$/unit

Total $

Schedule (month, year)

Tract

TOTAL COSTS

How do you know costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the OTHER DIRECT COSTS budget?

INDIRECT COSTS BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
Click here for the Indirect Costs Budget Justification Example: Indirect Cost Budget Justification Example
$_________
Grant $________
Match $________
Non-match $_________
Indirect Cost rates are only eligible as grant or match costs only when you have a previously negotiated and approved rate
agreement with the Federal government that establishes the activities on which your organization may charge an indirect rate.
Usually, unless your agreement specifically allows it, any indirect cost calculated on the following are ineligible:
a. subgrants (subawards), major subcontracts, any in-kind match provided by a party other than the applicant;
b. non-match, in-kind match from partners other than the partner with the negotiated indirect cost rate agreement,
contributions from Federal agencies and other items that “distort” the cost base;
c. the purchase price of interests in real property; and
d. the purchase price of equipment with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit and a useful life of more than one year
(consistent with recipient policy, lower limits may be established).
Complete the table below and attach your current approved negotiated indirect cost rate agreement signed by your
cognizant agency to the proposal, application for rate, or other proof that the indirect costs you have claimed are
compliant with the applicable Federal regulations. If more than one negotiated indirect cost rate applies, attach all
applicable agreements. If you do not provide the information in the table and your current agreement, your indirect
cost information will be eliminated from your proposal. The Indirect Costs shown in this table should match the
Indirect Costs shown in the proposal’s Budget Table. You must identify the specific budget line items to which you
are applying a negotiated indirect cost rate in column two. Each line entry shown should identify only one source
(either Grant amount or Match amount). For more on indirect costs, go to Eligibility Criteria & Processes
(http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/files/EligibilityCriteria.pdf), Eligible Grant Costs I, second
paragraph.

Allowable
Category from
Negotiated
Indirect Costs
Agreement

Specific NAWCA Budget Line
Items to Which Indirect Cost
is Applied

Grant
Amount

Match
Amount

$
$
$
$
$

Approved Indirect
Cost Rate (%)*/
Agreement Date

Indirect Cost

$
$
$
$
$

*The indirect cost rate applied to any cost should reflect the rate approved for the time period in which the cost was incurred, or best
estimate of an anticipated future rate.

PROPOSAL TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (http://law2.house.gov/usc.htm) specifies criteria to be used to evaluate proposals.
The criteria are displayed through the following 7 Technical Assessment Questions (Questions).
Question 1 - How does the proposal contribute to the conservation of waterfowl habitat?
Question 2 - How does the proposal contribute to the conservation of other wetland-associated migratory birds?
Question 3 - How does the proposal location relate to the geographic priority wetlands described by the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan?
Question 4 - How does the proposal relate to the national status and trends of wetlands types?
Question 5 - How does the proposal contribute to long-term conservation of wetlands and associated habitats?
Question 6 - How does the proposal contribute to the conservation of habitat for wetland associated federally listed or proposed
endangered species; wetland associated state-listed species; and other wetland-associated fish and wildlife that are specifically
involved with the proposal?
Question 7 - How does the proposal satisfy the partnership purpose of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act?
Answer the Questions as follows:
1. Provide separate answers for each question. Remember that the questions, including species lists, are available in the Word
Proposal Outline (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/files/ProposalOutline.doc). Proposals
without answers to the Questions will be returned.
2. Answers should cover benefits derived from completed grant- and match-funded work in the proposal that occurred within
the past 2 years and will occur during the two-year Assistance Award period.
3. Do NOT include information/benefits/acres associated with non-match work or tracts except in Questions 7C and 7D.
4. Be as qualitative and as quantitative as possible.
5. Select the best methods to provide as much information as possible (such as giving species, abundance and seasonal use
information in a table followed by a narrative), while adhering to format and proposal length guidelines.
6. Specifically explain linkages between the proposal tracts and conservation objectives (national and regional) of the following
programs and plans: North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
7. Do NOT include benefits to a larger area, such as previous or future phases of the current proposal area.
8. Include all habitat types (not just wetlands).
9. Make sure acreage figures are consistent with those given elsewhere in the proposal.
10. Include only benefits from actions covered by the proposal. For example, if the proposal includes acquisition of sites that
need restoration and restoration is not part of the proposal, do not include restored habitat values in answers to the Questions.
Note that unless restoration is also included in the proposal, proposals for acquisition of degraded wetlands will be evaluated
on the basis of the degraded condition and subsequent resource benefits.
11. If a Matching Contributions Plan is submitted with the proposal, include that acreage and those benefits in your answers.
However, if a Matching Contributions Plan was previously approved, do NOT include the associated acreage and benefits in
your answers.
12. Reviewers assign points based on information in the proposal. In addition, reviewers evaluate the Questions and the proposal
in relation to the group of proposals under review. This is a scoring factor that you can neither control nor predict. Scores are
available about 8 weeks after the proposal due dates.
13. Review the file U.S. Grant Administration Standards
http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/files/GrantStandards.pdf to see how Technical Assessment Question
answers will be incorporated into the Assistance Award/Grant Agreement.

SCORING TABLE
CATEGORIES OF QUESTIONS
#1. WATERFOWL
A. High priority species
B. Other priority species
C. Other waterfowl
#2. WETLAND-ASSOCIATED MIGRATORY BIRDS
A. Priority bird species
B. Other wetland-associated bird species

POINTS = 100
MAXIMUM = 15
0-7
0-5
0-3
MAXIMUM = 15

CATEGORIES OF QUESTIONS

POINTS = 100

#3. NORTH AMERICAN GEOGRAPHIC PRIORITY WETLANDS AS RECOGNIZED BY MAJOR
MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION PLANS
A. National geographic priority wetland areas
B. Regionally important wetland areas
#4. WETLANDS STATUS AND TRENDS
A. Decreasing wetlands types
B. Stable wetlands types
C. Increasing wetlands types
D. No trend data types
E. Uplands
#5. LONG-TERM CONSERVATION
A. Benefits in perpetuity
B. Benefits for 26-99 years
C. Benefits for 10-25 years
D. Benefits for <10 years
E. Significance to long-term conservation
#6. ENDANGERED SPECIES AND OTHER WETLAND-DEPENDENT FISH AND WILDLIFE
A. Federal endangered, threatened or proposed species = 1, 2, >2 species
B. State-listed species = >1 species
C. Other wetland-dependent fish and wildlife = >1 species
#7. PARTNERSHIPS
A. Ratio of non-Federal match to grant request = < 1:1, 1.01-1.49:1, 1.5-1.99:1, > 2:1
B. Matching partners contributing 10% of the grant request = 0-1, 2, 3, >3
C. Partner categories = 1, 2, 3, >3
D. Important partnership aspects

MAXIMUM = 15
0-9
0-6
MAXIMUM = 10
0-10
0-4
0-1
0-?
0-8
MAXIMUM = 15
0-12
0-8
0-6
0-4
0-3
MAXIMUM = 10
0-3, 0-4, 0-5
0-3
0-2
MAXIMUM = 20
0, 1, 3, 6
0, 1, 2, 3
0, 2, 3, 4
0-7

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION #1 - HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL CONTRIBUTE TO THE
CONSERVATION OF WATERFOWL HABITAT?
Under A, B, and C below, list species that will be impacted by the grant and match work (do NOT include non-match) and succinctly
provide the additional requested information to explain how the proposal will impact the species.
A. HIGH PRIORITY SPECIES Tule Greater White-fronted Goose, Dusky Canada Goose, Cackling Canada Goose, Southern James
Bay Canada Goose, Northern Pintail, Mottled Duck, American Black Duck, Mallard, Lesser Scaup, Greater Scaup
How proposal will aid in meeting objectives of waterfowl conservation plans:
How many individuals/pairs will use the proposal area and for what life cycle stage and whether this is an improvement in population
numbers over the current situation:
How proposal will impact species and improve habitat quality (describe before- and after-proposal environment):
Importance of each tract or logical groupings of tracts shown in the proposal to the species (if tracts are not yet identified, explain
what procedure will be used to ensure that high quality habitat is targeted):
B. OTHER PRIORITY SPECIES Pacific Greater White-fronted Goose, Wrangel Island Snow Goose, Atlantic Brant, Pacific Brant,
Wood Duck, Redhead, Canvasback, Ring-necked Duck, Common Eider, American Wigeon
How proposal will aid in meeting objectives of waterfowl conservation plans:
How many individuals/pairs will use the proposal area and for what life cycle stage and whether this is an improvement in population
numbers over the current situation:
How proposal will impact species and improve habitat quality (describe before- and after-proposal environment):

Importance of each tract or logical groupings of tracts in the proposal to the species groups (if tracts are not yet identified, explain
what procedure will be used to ensure that high quality habitat is targeted):
C. OTHER WATERFOWL
Species and Narrative:

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION # 2 - HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL CONTRIBUTE TO THE
CONSERVATION OF OTHER WETLAND-ASSOCIATED MIGRATORY BIRDS?
A. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES
Using habitat and population objectives from the bird conservation plans listed below (with contact information for the plan
coordinators), and the species in the Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs; reference the BCR lists at the end of these instructions; for
more information on BCRs, see http://www.nabci-us.org/map.html), identify up to ten priority bird species that best demonstrate
the benefits of the project activities to non-waterfowl species.
• Partners in Flight (songbirds) (http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/pifplans.htm)
([email protected])
• US Shorebird Conservation Plan (http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov)
([email protected])
• North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (http://www.waterbirdconservation.org)
([email protected])
• Joint Venture plans (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/JointVentures/index.shtm)
([email protected] for national coordination, or contact individual Joint Venture
Coordinators through the above link)
Using a table format (see TAQ # 2 example), succinctly describe the impact of the grant and match work in the proposal on each
selected species. DO NOT include benefits from non-match work, and address only non-waterfowl species.

Which species or population will benefit and in which plan(s) is it a priority?
How many individuals/pairs are expected to use the proposal area and, if the proposal area is being restored or enhanced,
what is the expected increase in population numbers over the current situation?
How will the proposal activities positively affect the species and improve habitat quality?
What is the importance of each tract (or logical grouping of tracts) shown in the proposal to the species or population, and for
what life cycle stage? (If tracts are not yet identified, explain what procedure will be used to ensure that the high quality
habitat is targeted.)

B. OTHER WETLAND-ASSOCIATED BIRD SPECIES
Identify up to ten bird species not included in the priority species lists provided in Part A. above that help demonstrate the
benefits of the project activities to non-waterfowl species.
Using a table format (see TAQ # 2 example), succinctly describe the impact of the grant and match work in the proposal on each
selected species. DO NOT include benefits from non-match work, and address only non-waterfowl species.

Which species or population will benefit and in which plan(s) is it a priority?
How many individuals/pairs will use the proposal area and, if the proposal area is being restored or enhanced, what is the
expected increase in population numbers over the current situation?
How will the proposal activities impact the species and improve habitat quality?
What is the importance of each tract (or logical grouping of tracts) shown in the proposal to the species, and for what life
cycle stage? (If tracts are not yet identified, explain what procedure will be used to ensure that the high quality habitat is
targeted.)

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION #3 - HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL LOCATION RELATE TO THE
GEOGRAPHIC PRIORITY WETLANDS DESCRIBED BY THE NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL
MANAGEMENT PLAN, PARTNERS IN FLIGHT, the U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN, and/or the
NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN?
A. NATIONAL PRIORITY WETLAND AREAS. Briefly describe how the proposed grant and match activities will address the
national and/or continental geographic priorities for wetland habitat conservation as outlined in the four major migratory bird
conservation plans (Partners In Flight (songbirds), U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan). Separate geographic priority maps for these bird groups are located at:
http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/Maps.shtm.
Exact project location will be based on the proposal coordinates you provide on the Project Officer’s page.
Do NOT include benefits from non-match work.
B. REGIONAL IMPORTANT WETLAND AREAS. Briefly describe how the proposed grant and match activities will address the
current regional geographic priorities based on Joint Venture science and planning information. To access this information or contact
plan coordinators, click below:
North American Waterfowl management Plan Joint Venture Coordinators (http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/JointVentures/index.shtm).
Do NOT include benefits from non-match work.

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION #4 - HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL RELATE TO THE NATIONAL
STATUS AND TRENDS OF WETLANDS TYPES?
For more information about wetlands functions, maps, the classification system/types/codes used below, and national and regional
status and trends, go to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) web site (http://wetlands.fws.gov/). Contact regional coordinators for
state or regional information. All wetland types are not listed below, but they are given in the Cowardin report on the NWI web site.
Narrative:
• For any types listed as Stable or Increasing below, explain the importance to wetland-associated migratory birds.
• If a wetland type (including subsidiary types not listed below) in the proposal has a different regional or local status than
shown below, give the type, give evidence (citation, references, etc.) to justify the status, and explain the importance of the
type to wetland-associated migratory birds.
• List types of uplands (e.g., cropland, grassland, forest) and describe the relationship of the uplands to wetlands and migratory
bird conservation (i.e., reason for including in proposal).
Table: By activity and individual or logical groupings of match and grant tracts give the acreage of each wetland type or group of
types. Do NOT include non-match tracts. Do NOT include duplicated/non-add acres that are indicated with parentheses in
your Proposal Summary. Non-add acres, benefits from non-add acres, and work on non-add acres should be reported in all sections
of the proposal EXCEPT Technical Assessment Question 4. If your proposal is funded, you will be required to submit reports that
compare actual accomplishments with the acreage figures and habitat types you give here. [NOTE: Should your proposal be awarded
a grant, you will be asked for actual accomplishments of your project in this format as part of your final report. This data will be used
to determine the success of your project.]
Click here for the TAQ#4 example: TAQ # 4 Example

ACTIVITY AND
TRACTS/GROUPS
OF TRACTS IN THE
PROPOSAL

STATUS, TYPES, AND ACRES OF WETLANDS
Note: Types subsidiary to types listed below have the same status.
DECREASING
PEM

Fee Acquired
Fee Donated
Easement Acquired
Easement Donated
Lease Acquired
Lease Donated

STABLE

PFO E2Veg E2AB,
E2US

INCREASING NO TREND
DATA
M2, PAB,
E1, PML,
PUB/POW,
PRB
PSS, PUS

UPLANDS

TOTAL

ACQUIRED TOTAL
RESTORED
ENHANCED
CREATED
OTHER
TYPE TOTALS
STATUS TOTALS
GRAND TOTALS
Tract:
Tract:
Tract:
Tract:
E1=estuarine subtidal, E2AB=estuarine intertidal aquatic bed, E2US=estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore, E2Veg=estuarine
intertidal vegetated (E2EM, intertidal emergent marsh, and E2SS, estuarine intertidal scrub-shrub), L=lacustrine, M2=marine
intertidal, PAB=palustrine aquatic bed, PEM=palustrine emergent, PFO=palustrine forested, PML=palustrine moss-lichen,
PRB=palustrine rock bottom, PSS=palustrine scrub-shrub, PUB/POW=palustrine unconsolidated bottom/palustrine open water,
PUS=palustrine unconsolidated shore, R=riverine

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION #5 - HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL CONTRIBUTE TO LONGTERM CONSERVATION OF WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED HABITATS?
Table: Describe the completed proposal area (grant and match tracts) in a table (such as the one below) by showing acres according to
activity and tenure of activity or structures. Do NOT include non-match tracts. Include duplicated acres indicated with parentheses
in the Proposal Summary. All possible activities are shown in the example, but if your proposal does not contain a certain activity,
such as Lease Acquired, do not include that line. Restoration and enhancement activities should be considered less than perpetual in
tenure. [NOTE: If your proposal is funded, you will be required to submit reports that compare actual accomplishments with the
acreage figures you give here; you will be using this format as part of those reports. This data will be used to determine the success of
your project.]
Click here for the TAQ#5 example: TAQ# 5 Example

ACTIVITY

ACRES BY TENURE (years) OF BENEFITS CATEGORY
* Includes water control structures made of material other than wood.
** Includes wood water control structures and pumps.
PERPETUITY
*26-99
**10-25
< 10

TOTAL
ACRES

Fee Acquired
Fee Donated
Easement Acquired
Easement Donated
Lease Acquired
Lease Donated
TOTAL ACQUIRED
RESTORED
ENHANCED
ESTABLISHED
TOTAL
Tract:
Tract:
Tract:
Tract:
Tract:
Tract:
Narrative: Provide narrative needed to explain the table information. Also answer the following questions.
• How significant is the proposed work on each tract and the cumulative work in the completed proposal to long-term wetlands
conservation in terms of 1) how work on each tract complements work on other tracts; 2) threats to wetlands values (address

•
•
•
•

acquisition of water rights, if applicable); 3) conservation or management of larger wetland areas; and 4) objectives of
wetlands conservation plans.
What is your justification for modifying existing wetlands from one type to another?
Specifically for proposed restoration and enhancement activities, how long will the results last and when will maintenance or
additional work be needed? How reliable and successful are any proposed vegetation control techniques?
What is the long-term conservation and management plan for the proposal area? What are your plans to sell any tracts in the
proposal?
How will the easement restrictions and reserved rights serve to ensure long-term wetland conservation and health?

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION #6 - HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL CONTRIBUTE TO THE
CONSERVATION OF HABITAT FOR WETLAND ASSOCIATED FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED
ENDANGERED SPECIES; WETLAND ASSOCIATED STATE-LISTED SPECIES; AND OTHER WETLANDASSOCIATED FISH AND WILDLIFE THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY INVOLVED WITH THE PROPOSAL?
For more information on Federal species and critical habitat go to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Endangered Species Program’s
web site (http://endangered.fws.gov/). Click on Species Information for species-specific information. Go to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Endangered Species Program’s contacts page (http://endangered.fws.gov/contacts) for information in a regional or state
context. Under A, B, and C below, list species that will be impacted by the grant and match work (do NOT include non-match
tracts) and succinctly provide the additional requested information to explain how the proposal will impact the species.
A. FEDERALLY THREATENED, ENDANGERED OR PROPOSED SPECIES
Species:
How many individuals/pairs will use the proposal area and for what life cycle stage and whether this is an improvement in population
numbers over the current situation:
How proposal will improve habitat quality (describe the before- and after-proposal environment):
Whether proposed actions and proposal area are identified in a recovery plan or other species plan:
Whether the completed proposal will contribute towards relieving the need for any special protective status for the species:
Importance of each tract or logical groupings of tracts in the proposal to the species (if tracts are not yet identified, explain what
procedure will be used to ensure that high quality habitat is targeted):
Additional information:

B. STATE-LISTED ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES
Species: Do NOT list species listed in A.
How many individuals/pairs will use the proposal area and for what life cycle stage and whether this is an improvement in population
numbers over the current situation:
How proposal will improve habitat quality (describe the before- and after-proposal environment):
Whether proposed actions and proposal area are identified in a recovery plan or other species plan:
Whether the completed proposal will contribute toward relieving the need for any special protective status for the species:
Importance of each tract or logical groupings of tracts in the proposal to the species (if tracts are not yet identified, explain what
procedure will be used to ensure that high quality habitat is targeted):
Additional information:
C. OTHER WETLAND-DEPENDENT FISH AND WILDLIFE
Species and narrative:

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION #7 - HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL SATISFY THE PARTNERSHIP
PURPOSE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT?
A. RATIO State the ratio of the non-Federal match to the grant request (e.g., the ratio of a non-Federal match of $1,500,000 to a
$1,000,000 grant request = 1.5:1). A 2:1 match or higher gains maximum points. To receive credit, signed Partner Contribution
Statements from matching partners must be submitted with the proposal.
B. 10% MATCHING PARTNERS List the matching partners who contribute at least 10% of the grant request (e.g., for a
$1,000,000 grant request, list the matching partners who contribute at least $100,000). To receive credit, signed matching Partner
Contribution Statements must be submitted with the proposal.
C. PARTNER CATEGORIES Show the partner diversity by listing each partner (irrespective of contribution amount) under one of
the following categories. To receive credit, signed Partner Contribution Statements from matching and non-matching partners must be
submitted with the proposal.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

State agencies;
Non-governmental conservation organizations (e.g., local wildlife club, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., The Nature Conservancy);
Local governments, counties or municipalities (e.g., Conservation District);
Private landowners;
Profit-making corporations (e.g., Exxon);
Native American governments or associations;
Federal agencies; and
Other partner groups.

D. IMPORTANT PARTNERSHIP ASPECTS Describe other important partnership aspects of the proposal (e.g., new grant
recipient, significant new partners, unique partners, large number of partners under any category in C. above, and non-financial
contributions). For each non-matching partner listed in the Proposal Summary, explain why they are important to the proposal and
what work they will do to support and complement the match- and grant-funded work To receive credit, signed Partner Contribution
Statements from matching and non-matching partners must be submitted with the proposal.

PROPOSAL ATTACHMENTS
Have you attached the following?
BUDGET TABLE. You may insert the table as an unnumbered page in the budget section of the proposal or as an attachment.

TRACT TABLE. Ensure that each tract involved in the proposal is consistently identified in each section of the proposal (Summary,
narratives, tables, Technical Assessment Questions, etc.). For any tract(s) involved in the proposal that is/are not yet identified,
complete the Tract Table as much as possible, explain why the tract(s) is/are not yet identified and describe the methods to be used to
select the tract(s).
For acquired tracts, please provide the following information for each tract individually. For restored, enhanced, and created tracts,
information should be combined within activity category, but FWS Refuge System land should be separate from land held by any
other entity.
Please provide the following information for each tract.
• Tract identification (same as on a map submitted with the proposal).
• Wetland, upland acres and riparian miles within each tract.
• Funding source (for non-matching partner tracts, enter the partner’s name and “nonmatch”).
• The county the tract is located in.
• A central tract location latitude/longitude point in decimal degrees
• Title holder after the proposal is completed (for easements, give both the fee and easement holders).
• Matching Contributions Plan information: Make sure tracts and acres that are part of a Matching Contributions Plan are
shown here as in the Proposal Summary; i.e., funding is apportioned according to the Matching Contributions Plan, but all
acres are counted in the first proposal. Subsequent proposals show acres in parentheses and account for partner funding as
defined in the Matching Contributions Plan.

You may provide a table on a separate page and/or in landscape orientation, if that enables you to fit all the information into the table.
[NOTE: Should your proposal be awarded a grant, you will be asked for actual accomplishments of your project in this format as part
of your final report. This data will be used in Government Performance and Results Act reporting.]

Tract Table:
Acquisition

Tract ID

Wetland
Acres

Upland
Acres

Riparian
Miles

Funding
Sources*

County
and State

Central
Tract
Location
in Decimal
Degrees

Final Title
Holder

County
and State

Central
Tract
Location
in Decimal
Degrees

Final Title
Holder

Restoration/Enhancement/Established

Tract ID/
Activity

Wetland
Acres

Upland
Acres

Riparian
Miles

Funding
Sources*

* Grant, match and non-match sources. List all that apply.

Definitions: (from USFWS Strategic Plan 2000 - 2005)
Riparian: A landscape position – lands contiguous to perennial or intermittent streams, channels and rivers. Riparian areas may
include upland, wetland, and riparian plant communities. Riparian plant communities are affected by surface or subsurface hydrology
of the adjacent water source. Riparian plant communities have one or both of the following characteristics: 1) distinctively different
vegetative species than adjacent areas, and 2) species similar to adjacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or robust growth forms.
Upland: Land or an area of land lying above the level where water flows or where flooding occurs.
Wetland: From Cowardin et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. -- “Wetlands are
lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered
by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least
periodically the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soils; and (3) the
substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.” By
definitions wetlands include areas meeting specific criteria included in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, as
well as in the USDA-NRCS’s National Food Security Act Manual.

PARTNER CONTRIBUTION STATEMENTS.
• Each matching (including the grantee and private landowners if providing funds and/or donating title to
property) and non-matching partner (including Federal partners) listed in the proposal must complete a
Statement.
• Each Statement must be submitted with the proposal before the deadline date.
• The Statements must be signed and dated for the contribution to be considered documented.
• It is preferred that each partner listed in the proposal complete a Statement. If this cannot be done, another party
may vouch for the matching partner, but no credit will be gained in the Partnership Technical Assessment
Question 7 under the categories of "10% partners" and "partner categories". These situations will be handled on
a case-by-case basis.
• If you want to display support from non-funding sources, do not send Statements, but instead include a
statement in the proposal such as "To illustrate the overwhelming support for this proposal, we have 37 letters
on file from landowners and State and Federal representatives”.
• Please do not make the grantee’s Statement a cover or transmittal sheet for the proposal.
• If the North American Wetlands Conservation Council has approved a prior Matching Contributions Plan that
involves match for the current proposal, include a copy of the original approval letter in this section.
• Remember that the contribution amount on the Statement must be the same as the amount shown in the proposal
for the partner. If the amount differs in any section of the proposal or on the Statement, the lesser of the two will
be considered the partner's contribution. If there are many such inconsistencies in the proposal, it will be
returned as ineligible.

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT PROPOSAL
PARTNER CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT
What is the title of the proposal that you are contributing to?
What is the name of your organization (private landowners indicate “Private”)?
When will you make the contribution?
What is the value of your contribution and how did you determine the value? Does the contribution have a non-federal
origin? If this is based on a fund-raising event or other future action, if that future action fails, will you still provide the
contribution amount?
What long-term migratory bird and wetlands conservation work will the contribution cover?
Does the proposal correctly describe your contribution, especially the amount?
If applicable to the proposal, is your organization competent to hold title to, and manage, land acquired with grant funds and
are you willing to apply a Notice of Grant Agreement or other recordable document to the property?
Do you have any additional comments?
Signature:
Your Name (printed), Organization, and Title:
Date Signed:

OPTIONAL MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN. A Match Plan may be submitted with a proposal when you have matching
funds in addition to what you will use for this proposal and need to maintain the eligibility of this match beyond two years for future
proposals. Council will consider waiving the two-year eligibility rule based on the circumstances by which the additional match was
obtained, your need, and how the match will be utilized. You will be notified in writing if your Match Plan is rejected or approved.
Other sections of these instructions contain information on how to apply the Match Plan dollars, acres, and natural resource benefits
in future proposals.
• What is the Match Plan Amount and Purpose? State the amount of match that you need to keep eligible for
future proposals (*use this same amount in the lower right-hand cell of the chart below) and briefly describe the
conservation goals to be achieved by future proposals supported by this match.
• What is the Match Plan Intent? Describe how/why the additional match was obtained, including the sources
(partners) and the relationship of these partners to the proposal.
• What is the Match Plan Need? Describe why this match, that will be over two years old, is necessary to complete
future phases of the proposal as opposed to obtaining new match for these proposals.
• Is there a Match Plan Chart? Provide a chart showing Match Plan partner contributions used in the current
proposal and future proposals. See the example below.
•
Click here for the Optional Matching Contributions Plan example: Optional Matching Contributions Plan Example

OPTIONAL PROGRAMMATIC PROJECT PROPOSAL REQUEST. If a new grant award funds essentially the same, ongoing
project as the work being done in a previously-awarded grant, the applicant may request that the subsequent grant award be a
continuation and expansion of the same grant agreement. An applicant requesting that a proposal be treated as a programmatic
project, and incorporated into an existing grant agreement, must justify the request in the proposal. Relevant factors in the request
would include:
The existing grant agreement number and title
The number of proposals previously added to the existing grant agreement (if any)
How the additional project is related to warrant consideration as a continuation of the existing grant agreement
The progress that has been made on the original grant agreement
How the new proposal is part of a long-term strategic planning and programmatic effort
The planned termination date of the revised grant agreement
For more information concerning Programmatic Proposals, see the 2007 Eligibility Criteria, “Programmatic Project Proposals” under
NAWCA Standard Grant Proposal Eligibility Criteria.

STANDARD FORM 424. The SF-424 Assurances for Construction Projects are required for all NAWCA projects (all projects that
involve acquisition, restoration or enhancement are considered construction projects).
“Application for Federal Assistance” and “Assurances D – construction program”. All applicants, EXCEPT the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, must send a SF 424 core form and D Assurances form with the proposal. All Federal grant recipients must comply
with the laws listed on the Assurances form. You can access the forms through the Grants.gov web site at
http://www.grants.gov/agencies/approved_standard_forms.jsp
The following instructions for completing the SF 424 to accompany a NAWCA supersede those on the back of the SF 424.
NOTE: The SF 424 was updated in October 2005. We will only accept the updated form. It is required to obtain a DUNS
number from Dun and Bradstreet in order to apply for any Federal grant. Instructions for obtaining a DUNS number are
found at the grants.gov website above.
CELL NUMBER and TITLE
INSTRUCTIONS
See instructions on back of SF 424.
1. Type of Submission
See instructions on back of SF 424.
2. Type of Application
Leave blank
3. Date Received
Leave blank.
4. Applicant Identifier
See instructions on back of SF 424.
5. a. Employer Indentification
See instructions on back of SF 424.
5 .b. Federal Award Identifier
Leave blank
6. Date Received by State
Leave blank
7. State Application Identifier
See instructions on back of SF 424.“”,c. *DUNS # required
8. (a-e) – Applicant Information
See instructions on back of SF 424.
9. Type of Applicant
Enter "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service"
10 – Name of Federal Agency
11 – Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number and Enter "15.623" and “NAWCA U.S. STANDARD GRANTS”
Title
Enter “15.623” and “NAWCA U.S. STANDARD GRANTS”
12. Funding Opportunity Number/Title:
Leave blank
13. Competition Identification Number/Title:
Enter only information for "Counties and States".
14 – Areas Affected by Project
Enter title used in Part 1 of proposal.
15. Descriptive Title of Applicant’s Project
Enter only information for "b. Project".
16 – Congressional Districts of Applicant/Project
Leave blank
17. Proposed Project Start and End Dates
Do not include non-match $. In “a”, only include NAWCA grant
18 – Estimated Funding
$. In “b-e”, only include matching partner $. Leave "f" blank.
19 – Is Application Subject to Review by State EO 12372 Only applicable to states.
Process?
See instructions on back of SF 424.
20 – Is Applicant Delinquent on any Federal Debt?
See instructions on back of SF 424.
21 – Authorized Representative

MAPS. As the last attachment, provide one to two maps that show the following. Additionally, you may also provide a very limited
number of maps that provide tract details. Please be prudent and limit the number of maps. Color maps are preferred. Several copies
of the proposal, including maps, will be made, so it is critical that maps reproduce well in color. More than one map may be included
on a page.
Three examples of maps are provided. These maps represent large-, intermediate- and small-scale project areas, respectively. Maps
are critical sections of the proposal. Well constructed and informative maps can have a significant impact on understanding the scope
and significance your proposal has to wetland conservation. This understanding will be reflected in the scoring process. Your maps
should include:
• Proposal title
• Location of the WHOLE proposal area (all grant, match, and non-match tracts) within State(s) and counties
• Identification and location of all fee-title, easement and lease tracts (or acquisition priority areas if tracts have not
been identified)
• Identification and location of all restoration and enhancement tracts, major water control structures and other major
restoration/enhancement features
• A legend, if needed
• Map scale

•
•
•
•

A north directional arrow
Location of natural features (rivers, lakes) to show how the proposal fits into the natural landscape
Location of previous grant and future proposal sites
If applicable and possible, where the proposal is in relation to a larger wetlands conservation project (show larger
project boundary and boundary of current proposal).

OPTIONAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. One or two aerial photographs (copied onto 8 ½ by 11inch paper) may be submitted,
but are not required. Do not send other types of photographs.

PROPOSAL EASEMENT, LEASES, AND INDIRECT COST RATE AGREEMENT
Have you included the following?
Copies of easements and leases in place when the proposal was submitted and models for easements and leases to be
acquired through the proposal.
If you are requesting grant funds for indirect costs or using indirect costs as match, attach a copy of your current approved
negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (and any other former approved negotiated indirect cost rate agreement used to
determine match costs in this proposal) signed by your cognizant agency.

EXAMPLES BELOW ARE PROVIDED FOR:
1.
2.
3.

Summary page
Budget Table
Budget Justifications:
-Acquisition Budget Justification
-Restoration Budget Justification
- Enhancement Budget Justification
- Indirect Cost Budget Justification
4. TAQ#2
5. TAQ#4
6. TAQ#5
7. Optional Matching Contribution Plan
Also attached:
TAQ#2 Priority NAWCA Species List

PROPOSAL SUMMARY EXAMPLE
NOTE: This example is adapted from a July 2005 submission.
NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT PROPOSAL SUMMARY
St. John Islands, Washington
COUNTY (IES), STATE (S), CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT (S): San Juan County, WA, District 2.
GRANT AMOUNT
Allocation: Ducks Unlimited, Inc.: $1,000,000

$1,000,000

MATCHING PARTNERS
Grantee: Ducks Unlimited, Inc. $125,520
St. John Preservation Trust $475,000
San Juan County Land Bank $1,545,000
Sam Meyers $30,000
San Juan County Conservation District $10,000
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $5,000
St. John Islands School District $5,600
Friends of the St. Johns $19,000

$2,215,120

GRANT AND MATCH - ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES
() = acres accounted for in another category or phase
Fee Acquired - $1,475,000/30 acres
Easements Acquired - $1,031,000/211 acres
Restored - $572,880/337 (150) acres
Enhanced - $67,000/90 acres
Indirect Costs - $69,240

$3,215,120/668 (150) acres

NON-MATCHING PARTNERS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $1,440,000
U.S. Department of Agriculture $50,000
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $27,000

$1,517,000

NON-MATCH - ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND ACRES
$1,517,000/300 acres
() = acres accounted for in another category or phase
Easement Acquired - $1,490,000/300 acres (21 acres in undivided interest accounted for above)
Restored - $27,000
FINAL TITLE HOLDERS/MANAGERS AND ACREAGE: Private landowners Meyers/Sheehan 175 acres; private landowners
Pressenda/Harris 25 acres; private landowners at Port Stanley 12 acres; private landowner at Mosquito Pass 321 acres; St. John
Preservation Trust 21 acres; private landowners Odegard/Grove 30 acres; private landowner Taylor 150 acres; San Juan County Land
Bank 89 acres; private landowners Kiraly/Roberts 100 acres; private landowner to be determined later 40 acres; private landowners
marine riparian project (several existing and several to be determined) 5 acres.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposal represents Phase I of a long-term effort to protect, restore and enhance approximately 2,000
acres of unique, diverse and important wetland habitats and associated upland buffers in the St. John Islands. Located in the heart of
the ecologically significant Puget Sound, and within 130 miles of the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, the St. John Islands have
seen tremendous development pressures. Subdivision of properties and construction of homes, in combination with intense
recreational uses, has resulted in the loss and degradation of important wetland habitats and associated upland buffers. The wetland
habitats in the Puget Sound support a rich and diverse group of fish and wildlife species. The estuarine and freshwater wetlands in the
region provide migration and wintering habitat for millions of migratory birds, including vast numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds.
The rivers and wetlands in the region are famous for their salmon populations. The Puget Sound is home to a large number of marine
mammals, including resident pods of orcas.
The St. John Islands are located in the heart of the Puget Sound. Estuarine and marine nearshore wetland habitats support large
numbers of sea birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, fish and marine mammals. The freshwater wetland habitats on the islands provide
migration, wintering and breeding habitat to wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, including sea ducks and Trumpeter swans.
This project will allow partners to restore, enhance and protect 668 acres of wetlands and associated uplands through grant and match
funds, in coordination with an additional 300 acres addressed through non-matching funds. The partnership includes combining the
land protection expertise of two local land conservation organizations with the wetland restoration expertise of Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
(DU). The St. John Preservation Trust (SJPT), a private, not-for-profit land trust, and the San Juan County Land Bank (SJCLB), a
county government agency, have invested millions of dollars in the protection of the unique natural resources found in the St. John
Islands. Lands conserved by the SJPT and the SJCLB are protected from future development and subdivision. However, many of
these properties contain degraded wetland habitats, altered years ago by previous landowners for the purposes of agricultural
production.
Under this proposal, many of these properties will be permanently restored, providing significant benefits to a wide and diverse mix of
fish and wildlife species. Approximately 487 acres of freshwater and saltwater wetlands will be restored and enhanced. Included in
this total are 290 acres of wetlands that are located on property already protected by conservation easements or fee ownership through
SJPT or SJCLB. Also included in this proposal, grant and match funds will protect approximately 241 acres of wetlands and
associated habitats through purchase in fee or through conservation easements, including 150 acres that are also being restored, and
non-matching partners will protect an additional 300 acres (non-matching funds will also assist with the protection of 21 acres already
accounted for among the grant and match acreage). Finally, 90 acres of forested uplands will be restored on property that surrounds a
wetland and is already protected by a conservation easement held by SJPT. The ecologically diverse wetland habitats conserved
through this proposal include: palustrine emergent marsh, scrub-shrub communities, forested wetlands, estuaries and marine nearshore
wetlands. Fish and wildlife species that will benefit by this project include: marine mammals, sea birds, waterfowl, salmon, and
forage fish species that support the complex food web of the Puget Sound.
HABITAT TYPES AND WILDLIFE BENEFITTING: A wide variety of habitat types will be conserved through this proposal,
including diverse types of both freshwater and saltwater wetlands. Freshwater habitats include palustrine emergent marsh and forested
wetlands (both decreasing wetland types), and palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. Saltwater wetlands conserved through this proposal
include estuarine intertidal emergent marsh (decreasing type) and marine intertidal unconsolidated bottom. Some of the wetlands to
be restored are former peat bogs, and will once again support a unique group of flora and fauna after restoration is completed.
Restored emergent marsh will be used by large numbers of waterfowl, including sea ducks, which use Puget Sound wetlands as
wintering and migration habitat. This region of Puget Sound supports several million waterfowl and shorebirds during migration
periods and is used by hundreds of thousands of waterfowl as wintering habitat. Marine “nearshore” habitats are important for
shorebirds, sea birds marine mammals and fish. One of the most important aspects of the marine intertidal “sand beaches” found in
the St. Johns are that these habitats are used as spawning sites by “forage fish”, including sand lance and surf smelt. These species are

preyed upon by dozens of species of larger fish, sea birds, waterfowl and marine mammals. The importance of forage fish species to
the food web of the Puget Sound has only recently been recognized.
PUBLIC BENEFITS: The public will enjoy several significant benefits as a result of this project. The community of Fray Harbor, on
St. John Island, is by far the most significant destination for the tens of thousands of tourists that vacation in the islands each year.
Alongside each of the three main roads leaving town, a large wetland will be restored as part of this project. These wetlands will offer
outstanding opportunities for bird watching and environmental education. This project will also provide critical benefits to
groundwater. Surrounded by saltwater, potable water is a severely limited resource in the Islands, particularly on Lopes Island.
Groundwater is the only available source of freshwater on Lopes Island. Extensive groundwater withdrawals, combined with wetland
drainage and land uses that have increased runoff rates, have drastically lowered the water table. Many wells have become tainted
with saltwater. The restoration and enhancement of wetlands on Lopes Island will serve to recharge groundwater levels, alleviating
many of the problems being experienced by local residents. Many of these projects, particularly the nearshore marine and estuarine
habitat projects, will benefit salmon populations, a world famous commercial and recreational fishery in the Puget Sound. Tourism is
one of the leading industries in the St. Johns Islands, primarily for the opportunities to enjoy natural resources. Recreational activities
include: bird watching, bicycling, kayaking, hiking, whale watching, sailing, fishing, and crabbing. The restoration of wetlands and
associated habitats will provide additional opportunities to enjoy these activities.
NEW PARTNERS: This project brings together many partners new to wetland restoration and the NAWCA process. The SJCLB is a
significant, new partner. In 1990, San Juan County voters approved a 1% real estate transfer tax to fund purchase of conservation
easements and to acquire conservation lands outright. The conservation of properties with non-Federal dollars is a perfect match with
Federal grant dollars to further wetland restoration activities on protected lands. The Friends of the St. Johns, St. John Islands School
District, San Juan County Conservation District and the numerous landowners involved with this project are all new to the NAWCA
process. The SJPT has been involved with a small NAWCA grant, but this is the first time this non-profit conservation group has
been involved with a large NAWCA proposal.

BUDGET TABLE EXAMPLE

MATCHING & NONMATCHING PARTNERS

ACTIVITIES

GRANT $

PARTNER
NAME

Land Costs: Fee Acquired
Land Costs: Easement Acquired

$
$450,000

SJPT
SJCLB
SJCLB

OLD
MATCH $

NEW
MATCH $

$475,000
$1,000,000
$475,000

SJCLB
USFWS
USDOA
Appraisals & Other Aq. Costs
TOTAL ACQUIRED
Contracts
Contracts
Contracts
Contracts
Contracts
Contracts
Materials & Equipment
Materials & Equipment
Materials and Equipment
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
TOTAL RESTORED
Contracts
Materials & Equipment
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
Non-Contract Pers. & Travel
TOTAL ENHANCED
GRAND TOTAL DIRECT
TOTAL INDIRECT
GRAND TOTAL

$36,000
$486,000
$24,250
$22,000
$25,000
$22,000
$103,000
$45,500
$52,650
$25,000
$11,858
$17,275
$17,275
$56,350
$26,750

$70,000
$1,440,000
$50,000
$1,950,000

$70,000

$1,490,000

WDFW

$12,000

WDFW

$15,000

DU
SM
DU
SJCCD
DU
DU
SJISD
DU
WDFW

$448,908

$29,667
$10,000
$6,480
$10,000
$6,480
$25,500
$5,600
$25,245
$5,000
$123,972

$27,000

$18,000
$10,000
$28,000
$962,908
$37,092

Grant $1,000,000 NA
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
St. John Preservation Trust
San Juan County Land Bank
Wa. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Sam Meyers
San Juan Co. Conservation Dist.
St. John Is. School District

NONMATCH $

SM
FSJ

$15,000
$15,000

FUND SOURCES
NA
NA
DU
$
SJPT
$475,000
SJCLB $1,475,000
WDFW
SM
SJCCD
SJISD

$20,000
$4,000
$24,000
$2,182,972
$32,148

$1,517,000

NA
$125,520
$
$70,000
$5,000
$30,000
$10,000
$5,600

$
$
$
$27,000

TOTAL

SUBTRACT GRANTEE
$
ID
NAMES

$475,000
$1,000,000
$475,000
$450,000
$70,000
$1,440,000
$50,000
$36,000
$3,996,000
$24,250
$22,000
$37,000
$22,000
$103,000
$45,500
$52,650
$15,000
$25,000
$41,525
$10,000
$23,755
$10,000
$23,755
$81,850
$5,600
$51,995
$5,000
$599,880
$0
$18,000
$20,000
$29,000
$67,000
$4,662,880
$69,240
$4,732,120

MP
FBS
MP
BVAM
CPR
MP
MP
BVAM
NA
M
FBR
PSL
O
BVAM
USJV
M
PSL
BVAM
M
M
FBR
PSL
O
BVAM
BVAM
USJV
USJV
NA
NA
M
M
MR
NA
NA
NA
NA

None
None
None
SJCLB
None
None
None
SJCLB
NA
SM
PH
PL
OG
SJCLB/T
KR
SM
PL
SJCLB/T
None
None
PH
None
None
None
None
None
None
NA

$1,000,000
$125,520
$475,000
$1,545,000
$32,000
$30,000
$10,000
$5,600

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

SM
None
PL
NA
NA
NA
NA

MATCHING & NONMATCHING PARTNERS

ACTIVITIES

GRANT $

PARTNER
NAME

Friends of the St. Johns
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
GRAND TOTAL $1,000,000 NA

FSJ
USFWS
USDOA

OLD
MATCH $
$15,000

$1,965,000

NEW
MATCH $

NONMATCH $

$4,000

$250,120

$1,440,000
$50,000
$1,517,000

TOTAL

SUBTRACT GRANTEE
$
ID
NAMES

$19,000
$1,440,000
$50,000
$4,732,120

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION EXAMPLES
ACQUISITION BUDGET JUSTIFICATION EXAMPLE
ACQUISITION BUDGET JUSTIFICATION –$3,996,000 and 541 acres
Grant - $486,000
Match - $2,020,000 Non-Match - $1,490,000
When will each fee tract be acquired and what are the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method
to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Tract
Month, year when fee acquisition will occur
Total $
Mosquito Pass
2003
$475,000
Fisherman Bay Spit
2002
$1,000,000
When will each easement tract be acquired and what are the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the
method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Tract
Month, year when easement acquisition will occur
Total $
Mosquito Pass
2003
$1,965,000
Cattle Point Road
Approximately July 2005
$70,000
Beaverton Valley/Al’s
Approximately September 2005
$450,000
Marsh
For each tract acquired or donated in fee or easement, what is the cost per acre, what method did you use to determine costs,
how do you know the costs are reasonable, and explain unusually high costs or large differences between per acre value of
match and grant tracts or fee and easement tracts?
Mosquito Pass: The St. John Preservation Trust, the San Juan County Land Bank and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
completed the acquisition of the Mosquito Pass tract in 2003. The project included the fee-simple purchase of 21 acres by the St. John
Preservation Trust; the purchase of a conservation easement on an additional 21 acres by the San Juan County Land Bank pooled with
non-matching funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the purchase of a conservation easement on 300 acres by the
USFWS (via non-matching Partners for Wildlife conservation funds). The cost per acre was approximately $6,988. The value was
determined by negotiations with the landowner and was consistent with local land values in the region for highly developable
properties. The price per acre is similar to other high value properties that have been acquired in fee or easement by the Preservation
Trust and the Land Bank, both of whom have extensive experience in land conservation in the St. John Islands.
Fisherman Bay Spit: The San Juan County Land Bank completed the purchase of the Fisherman Bay Spit property in 2002. The
property, totaling 29 acres in size, was acquired for $3,250,000. The purchase price was determined through an appraisal process. A
portion of the property, and a portion of the acquisition prices, is being used as match for this proposal. A total of 9 acres, and an
acquisition cost of $1,000,000, is being used as match. This cost is approximately $111,100 per acre. The property is located on the
tip of the Fisherman Bay Spit, the most developed piece of property on Lopes Island. The acquisition of this property will prevent
development on the tip of the Spit, which contains significant intertidal emergent marsh and mudflat habitat at the entrance to
Fisherman Bay.
Cattle Point Road: The San Juan County Land Bank completed the fee simple purchase of this 40-acre parcel in 2003 for a total
purchase price of $435,000. It is the intent of the Land Bank to attach a conservation easement on the property and then sell it. The
value of that conservation easement is expected to be approximately $70,000. For purposes of this proposal, the $70,000 conservation
easement to be held in perpetuity by the Land Bank is being used as match.

Beaverton Valley/Al’s Marsh: Grant funds will be used to acquire a conservation easement on approximately 150 acres of privately
owned land at a total cost of $450,000. The expected cost per acre is $3,000. The site consists of two large, drained peat wetlands
that are connected by a common drainage ditch. The San Juan County Land Bank acquired the balance of the drained wetland (80
acres) and approximately 48 acres of surrounding upland buffer in 2001. The acquisition cost is not being used as match for this
proposal because it occurred prior to the grant 2-year window. The drained wetland area can’t be developed into housing sites due to
site conditions and zoning. This explains the relatively low cost as compared to the match tracts. Due to cost factors and habitat
restoration goals, it was decided that at this time the partners would not propose to secure the relatively expensive upland habitats that
surround a portion of the wetland. Rather, the partners would first concentrate on securing the entire wetland in easement or fee in
order to allow the restoration of the 230-acre marsh. The partners are working with the current landowner to ensure adequate buffer
habitat will exist surrounding the wetland prior to any future development activities. The exact value of the easement will be
determined through an appraisal process as required by the grant guidelines.
Will acquisition of any tracts be credited to wetlands mitigation banks or be used to satisfy wetlands mitigation requirements?
No
What tract is associated with each easement? This was explained previously.
What is the term/length of each easement? Every easement shall be perpetual.
What organization will monitor each easement? The San Juan County Land Bank will be responsible for the four easement tracts
that are being used as “match” for this proposal, or are being acquired with grant funds. These three tracts include: Beaverton
Valley/Al’s Marsh, Cattle Point Road and Mosquito Pass.
Who will each easement revert to in the event the primary easement holder ceases to exist? This has not been established.
Have you adopted the Land Trust Alliance or other easement monitoring standards The San Juan County Land Bank and St.
John Preservation Trust have active easement monitoring programs.
Is there a stewardship endowment dedicated to the project area for each easement? A stewardship endowment of $25,000 made
by the San Juan County Land Bank to its endowment fund is planned for the Cattle Point Road Property. The same endowment fund
holds additional funds to provide financial resources to cover monitoring costs on other properties, including the Mosquito Pass tract.
What are the restrictions, allowed structures, allowed activities and reserved rights for each easement?
Tract

Term

Monitoring
Reversionary
Monitoring Standards
Stewardship Endowment
Organization
Organization
Mosquito
Perpetual San Juan County Land
Not established
Pass
Bank
Restrictions: No structures except those mentioned, mining, waste disposal, overnight camping, motorized vehicles, campfires, signs
(except for small boundary signs), paving and road construction, removing vegetation except for weed control, commercial uses
(except for recreational purposes), industrial uses, collecting and harvesting plants, shellfish, seaweed, and other natural products
(except for specimens collected for educational purposes with permission)
Allowed structures: a single wildlife viewing platform, and gates as necessary to regulate traffic
Allowed activities for SJPT as fee owner: Includes public access consistent with conservation values and the following reserved rights
Reserved rights for SJPT as fee owner: uses consistent with conservation values, use as nature preserve, primitive trails, weed control
Cattle
Perpetual San Juan County Land
Not established
$25,000 planned
Point
Bank
Road
Restrictions: This easement will be established during the implementation of the grant proposal. Easement language has not been
drafted, but will be consistent with standard conservation easements that seek to protect the existing habitat conditions present at the
time of easement execution.
Allowed structures:
Allowed activities:
Reserved rights:
What work will be done, when, and on what tract(s) through the APPRAISALS & OTHER ACQUISITION COSTS budget
(e.g., contract costs, closing costs, surveys, etc.) and how did you determine the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified,
explain why and the method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Item & Work
Boundary survey

Units
1

$/unit
Lump sum

Total $
$20,000

Schedule (month, year)
June 2005

Tract
BVAM

Appraisal
Realty specialist for landowner
negotiations
Closing and miscellaneous costs
TOTAL COSTS

1
1

Lump sum
Lump sum

$5,000
$7,500

June 2005
June – September 2005

BVAM
BVAM

1
NA

Lump sum
NA

$3,500
$36,000

June – September 2005
NA

BVAM
NA

How do you know the costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the APPRAISALS & OTHER ACQUISITION
COSTS budget? These costs are in line with similar costs on other projects completed in the area and with the same degree of
complexity.

RESTORATION BUDGET JUSTIFICATION EXAMPLE
RESTORATION BUDGET JUSTIFICATION – $599,880 and 337 (150) acres
Grant - $448,908
Match - $123,972
Non-Match - $27,000
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the CONTRACTS budget and how did you determine costs? If
some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Item & Work

Units

$/unit

Total $
$7,500
$1,250
$10,500
$5,000
$22,000

Schedule
(month, year)
April 2006
April 2006
Sept. 2005
Sept. 2005
Sept. 2006

Planting shrubs and small trees
Tree planting, large trees
Fence installation
Install waterlines for tree irrigation and livestock
Acquire and install one concrete water control
structure
Install self-regulating tide gate
Excavation to remove sediment, and disposal
Acquire and install one concrete water control
structure
Mobilization
Remove and dispose of old fencing
Ditch filling
Acquire and install one concrete water control
structure
Buy and install culverts for driveways
Mobilization
Acquire and install one concrete water control
structure
Acquire and install culverts for driveways
Disking to remove reed canary grass
TOTAL COSTS

7,500 shrubs
250 trees
7,000 feet
5,000 feet
1

$1.00
$5.00
$1.50
$1.00
$22,000

1
2,500 cy
1

Tract
M
M
M
M
FBR

$12,000
$10.00
$22,000

$12,000
$25,000
$22,000

Sept. 2006
Sept. 2006
Sept. 2006

PSL
PSL
O

Lump sum
3,000 feet
5,000 feet
1

$10,000
$3/ft
$6/foot
$30,000

$10,000
$9,000
$30,000
$30,000

August 2006
August 2006
Sept. 2006
Sept. 2006

BVAM
BVAM
BVAM
BVAM

2
Lump sum
1

$12,000
$10,000
$17,500

$24,000
$10,000
$17,500

Sept. 2006
August 2006
Sept. 2006

BVAM
USJV
USJV

2
90 acres
NA

$4,500
$100/ac
NA

$9,000
$9,000
$253,750

Sept. 2006
July 2006
NA

USJV
USJV
NA

How do you know the costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the CONTRACTS budget? Personnel familiar
with these types of projects in the area have determined these costs. The restoration plans that have been developed are appropriate
restoration plans for these types of projects and have been proven to be highly successful in this area.
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT budget, what will be
purchased, and how did you determine costs? For plantings of seeds or seedlings are to be planted, what seed or plant species
will be planted and what percentage of each species is in the total planting?
Item & Work

Units

$/unit

Total $

Shrubs and small trees
Tree/shrub protectors for small trees
Large trees
Tree protectors for large trees
Fence materials
Waterline materials
Livestock tanks
Culverts
Self-regulating tide gate
Trees and shrubs
Tree and shrub protectors
TOTAL COSTS

7,500 ea
7,500 ea.
250
250
7,000 ft
5,000 ft
7
320 ft.
1
10,000
10,000
NA

$1.50
$1.00
$20
$5
$1.75
$0.75
$750
$20
$15,000
$1.50
$1.00
NA

$11,250
$7,500
$5,000
$1,250
$12,250
$3,750
$5,250
$6,400
$15,000
$15,000
$10,000
$92,650

Schedule
(month, year)
April 2006
April 2006
April 2006
April 2006
Sept. 2005
Sept. 2005
Sept. 2005
Sept. 2006
Sept. 2006
April/May 2006
April/May 2006
NA

Tract
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
PSL
BVAM
BVAM
NA

Are costs pro-rated and how do you know that costs are reasonable? What other information justifies the MATERIALS &
EQUIPMENT budget? These cost estimates were developed by personnel familiar with completing these types of projects in the St.
John Islands. The restoration plans being proposed are appropriate for the sites and have been determined to be highly successful.

What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the NON-CONTRACT PERSONNEL budget and how did you
determine the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method to be used to select tracts during
proposal implementation.
Item & Work

Units

$/unit

Total $

Biologist: planning, permitting, reporting
Engineer: planning, design, permits, mgmt., inspection
AutoCAD technician: topographic survey and plans
Tree planting and fencing crew supervisor, planning,
Travel by DU staff
Biologist: planning, permitting, reporting
Engineering technician: topographic survey, staking
Engineer: planning, design, permits, mgmt., inspection
AutoCAD technician: topographic survey and plans
Travel by DU staff
Engineering by San Juan County Conservation District
Biologist: planning, permitting, reporting
Engineering technician: topographic survey, staking
Engineer: planning, design, permits, mgmt., inspection
AutoCAD technician: topographic survey and plans
Travel by DU staff
Biologist: planning, permitting, reporting
Engineering technician: topographic survey, staking
Engineer: planning, design, permits, mgmt., inspection
AutoCAD technician: topographic survey and plans
Travel by DU staff
Tree planting donated labor
Biologist: planning, permitting, reporting
Biological planning/assistance from WDFW
Engineering technician: topographic survey, staking
Engineer: planning, design, permits, mgmt., inspection
AutoCAD technician: topographic survey and plans
Travel by DU staff
TOTAL COSTS

200 hrs
200 hrs
50 hrs
333.3 hrs
15 trips
80 hrs
35 hrs
100 hrs
40 hrs
10 trips
Lump sum
80 hrs
35 hrs
100 hrs
40 hrs
10 trips
200 hrs
200 hrs
400 hrs
100 hrs
30 trips
560 hrs
120 hrs
125 hrs
90 hrs
300 hrs
80 hrs
15 trips
NA

$81
$81
$70
$30
$375
$81
$75
$81
$70
$375
$10,000
$81
$75
$81
$70
$375
$81
$75
$81
$70
$375
$10
$81
$40
$75
$81
$70
$375
NA

$16,200
$16,200
$3,500
$10,000
$5,625
$6,480
$2,625
$8,100
$2,800
$3,750
$10,000
$6,480
$2,625
$8,100
$2,800
$3,750
$16,200
$15,000
$32,400
$7,000
$11,250
$5,600
$9,720
$5,000
$6,750
$24,300
$5,600
$5,625
$253,480

Schedule (month,
year)
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
April/May 2006
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
Entire grant period
NA

Tract
M
M
M
M
M
FBR
FBR
FBR
FBR
FBR
PSL
O
O
O
O
O
BVAM
BVAM
BVAM
BVAM
BVAM
BVAM
USJV
USJV
USJV
USJV
USJV
USJV
NA

How do you know costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the NON-CONTRACTS PERSONNEL budget?
DU personnel very familiar with implementing projects of this nature developed these cost estimates. Rates used were Ducks
Unlimited’s “hourly rate charges”.
Will restoration of any tracts be credited to wetlands mitigation banks or be used to satisfy wetlands mitigation requirements?
No
Are there any other restoration costs shown in the Budget Table that are not described above? No

ENHANCEMENT BUDGET JUSTIFICATION EXAMPLE
ENHANCEMENT BUDGET JUSTIFICATION – $67,000 and 90 acres
Grant - $28,000
Match - $39,000
Non-Match - $0
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT budget, what will be
purchased, and how did you determine costs? For plantings of seeds or seedlings are to be planted, what seed or plant species
will be planted and what percentage of each species is in the total planting? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why
and the method to be used to select tracts during proposal implementation.
Item & Work
Rental, excavator and bulldozer

Units
2
months
Lump
sum
Lump
sum
NA

Fuel
Trees, shrubs and protectors
TOTAL COSTS

$/unit
$7,000

Total $
$14,000

Schedule (month, year)
Summer 2006

Tract
M

$4,000

Summer 2006

$3,250

2005 and 2006

$21,250

Are costs pro-rated and how do you know that costs are reasonable? What other information justifies the MATERIALS &
EQUIPMENT budget? These costs are normal costs to be expected for the proposed work. Personnel experienced with this type of
work developed cost estimates. Renting equipment to be operated by the landowner is the most efficient method to complete the
proposed work on the Meyers wetland project. The trees and shrubs to be planted on the Marine Riparian projects will be determined
later by selecting the appropriate native species for the specific sites selected. The highest priority sites, determined through the
forage fish spawning survey work, will be targeted first. Landowners will be contacted and the willing landowners with the highest
priority sites will be selected for the Marine Riparian Restoration project.
What work will be done, when and on what tract(s) through the NON-CONTRACT PERSONNEL budget and how did you
determine the costs? If some tracts are not yet identified, explain why and the method to be used to select tracts during
proposal implementation.
Item & Work
Equipment operator, donated time
Manager, Riparian Program
Volunteer tree planting
TOTAL COSTS

Units
666.7 hrs
.15 FTE
1900 hrs
NA

$/unit
$30/hour
$45,000
$10
NA

Total $
$20,000
$6,750
$19,000
$45,750

Schedule (month, year)
Summer 2006
2005 and 2006
Entire grant period
NA

Tract
M
MR
MR
NA

How do you know costs are reasonable and what other information justifies the NON-CONTRACT PERSONNEL budget?
These costs are normal costs to be expected for the proposed work. Personnel experienced with this type of work developed cost
estimates. Volunteer and in-kind values for work to be performed are appropriate. Personnel with the FRIENDS of the St. Johns will
manage the Marine Riparian Restoration Project. The landowner of the Meyers Wetland site, an experienced equipment operator, will
donate his time to operate the equipment and complete the wetland enhancement objective of the project.
Will enhancement of any tracts be credited to wetlands mitigation banks or be used to satisfy wetlands mitigation
requirements? No
Are there any other enhancement costs shown in the Budget Table that are not described above? No

INDIRECT COST BUDGET JUSTIFICATION EXAMPLE
INDIRECT COSTS BUDGET JUSTIFICATION - $69,240
Grant $37,092
Match $32,148
Non-match $0
Allowable
Category from
Negotiated
Indirect Costs
Agreement
Allowable direct

Specific NAWCA Budget Line Items
to Which Indirect Cost is Applied
Contracts, materials, and non-contract

Grant
Amount

Match
Amount

Approved
Indirect Cost
Rate */
Agreement Date

Indirect
Cost

costs, except
capital
expenditures
(buildings,
individual items of
equipment,
alterations and
renovations), passthrough funds, and
othe costs which
would
proportionately
distort the base.

personnel and travel for the Meyers
Tract

$106,758

12.12%
9/2005

$12,939

DU contributed non-contract personnel
12.12%
and travel costs for the Meyers Tract
$29,667
9/2005
$3,596
Contracts, non-contract personnel and
12.12%
As above
travel costs for the Fisherman Bay Road $39,275
9/2005
$4,760
tract
Non-contract personnel costs
12.12%
As above
contributed by DU for the Fisherman
9/2005
$786
$6,480
Bay Road tract
As above
Contracts, non-contract personnel and
12.12%
travel costs for the Odegard tract
$39,275
9/2005
$4,760
As above
Non-contract personnel costs
12.12%
contributed by DU for the Odegard tract
$6,480
9/2005
$786
As above
Boundary survey, appraisal, realty
specialist, closing costs, contracts,
materials, non-contract personnel and
12.12%
travel for the Beaverton Valley/Al’s
$220,350
9/2005
$26,706
Marsh tract
As above
Non-contract personnel costs
12.12%
contributed by DU for the Beaverton
9/2005
Valley/Al’s Marsh tract
$25,500
$3,091
As above
Contracts and non-contract personnel
costs for the Upper St. Johns Valley
12.12%
wetlands tract
$72,250
9/2005
$8,757
As above
Non-contract personnel and travel costs
contributed by DU for the Upper St.
12.12%
Johns Valley wetlands tract
$25,245
9/2005
$3,059
*The indirect cost rate applied to any cost should reflect the rate approved for the time period in which the cost was incurred, or best
estimate of an anticipated future rate.
As above

TAQ#2 EXAMPLE
A. Priority Bird Species
Species/Plan
Numbers Affected
Marsh Wren
~80 breeding pairs. This
(PIF, JV plans) project expected to
(BCR 5)
increase numbers by 50
pairs over current
numbers.

Benefits of Project
Permanent protection of
30 acres of nesting habitat
toward goal of 1000 acres
in focus area.

Northern
Harrier
(BCR 5)

Permanent protection of
habitat for year-round
resident

Brandt's
Cormorant
(BCR 5)

25-50 individuals.
Recent declines in
numbers of Northern
harriers in the area point
to a need for protection.
Unknown. Project
activities expected to
provide required habitat.

Protection of suitable
nesting habitat.

Tract Importance
Tract A provides 80 acres of
brush for nesting; Tracts B, C,
F provide foraging
opportunities during nesting
season. Species is a priority
both in the PIF and the Joint
Venture plan.
Local surveys have shown
Tracts H and J to be important
feeding locations for this
species.
Restoration of Tract J will
provide this habitat in historic
range where little currently

Marbled
Godwit
(BCR 5)

100-200 individuals.
Restoration expected to
double the numbers of
Marbled Godwits in this
area.

exists in the area.
Coastal marsh habitat targeted
for restoration in Tracts L, O,
and P is ideal for these birds.
Protection/restoration of this
type of habitat has been
identified as a goal of the PIF,
Joint Venture, and State
planning efforts.

Restoration of winter
habitat.

B. Other Wetland-Associated Bird Species
Species/Plan
Numbers Affected
Willow
100 breeding pairs.
Flycatcher
Activities are expected to
(BCR 5)
improve populations by
25-50%.

Benefits of Project
Permanent protection of
nesting and foraging
habitat.

Red-breasted
Sapsucker
(BCR 5)

Permanent protection of
nesting and foraging
habitat.

15-30 individuals.
Habitat protection
necessary to halt rapid
decline of these birds
throughout their
remaining habitat.

Tract Importance
Tract A provides 80 acres of
diverse brush for nesting Tract
A is ideal nesting and foraging
habitat. Restoration of Tract J
will provide additional
foraging habitat. Both habitats
are rapidly disappearing due to
seral succession in
surrounding forests.
Easements in Tracts K, Q X,
and Z were specifically
targeted for the benefit of this
species. Protection of riparian
habitat was identified as a
critical need by the State
wildlife plan and the Joint
Venture plan.

TAQ#4 EXAMPLE
STATUS, TYPES, AND ACRES OF WETLANDS

UPLANDS

TOTAL

45
56
90

211
241
337
90
668
668
668
175
25
12
42
30

Note: Types subsidiary to types listed below have the same
ACTIVITY AND TRACTS/GROUPS OF
TRACTS IN THE PROPOSAL

status.
DECREASING

STABLE

PEM PFO E2Veg E2AB,
E2US

Fee Acquired
Easement Acquired
ACQUIRED TOTAL
RESTORED
ENHANCED
TYPE TOTALS
STATUS TOTALS
GRAND TOTALS
Tract: Meyers
Tract: Fisherman Bay Road
Tract: Port Stanley Lagoon
Tract: Mosquito Pass
Tract: Odegard

100
100
205
85
390

25
25
10
35

INCREASING NO TREND
DATA
R
M2, PAB,
E1, PML,
PUB/POW,
PRB
PSS, PUS
19

12
12
437

0
0

41
60
20
5
85

85
25

0
85
522

146
146
146
90

12
21
30

Tract: Beaverton Valley/Al’s Marsh
Tract: Fisherman Bay Spit
Tract: Upper San Juan Valley
Tract: Cattle Point Road
Tract: Marine Riparian

150

50
9

100
5

35
5

230
9
100
40
5

TAQ#5 EXAMPLE

ACTIVITY

ACRES BY TENURE (years) OF BENEFITS CATEGORY
* Includes water control structures made of material other than
wood.
** Includes wood water control structures and pumps.

PERPETUITY
Fee Acquired
30
Easement Acquired
211
TOTAL ACQUIRED 241
RESTORED
ENHANCED
TOTAL 668 (150)
Tract: Meyers
175
Tract: Fisherman Bay Road
25
Tract: Port Stanley Lagoon
Tract: Mosquito Pass
42
Tract: Odegard
25
Tract: Beaverton Valley/Al’s Marsh
230 (150)
Tract: Fisherman Bay Spit
9
Tract: Upper San Juan Valley
100
Tract: Cattle Point Road
40
Tract: Marine Riparian
5
TOTAL
668 (150)

*26-99

**10-25

TOTAL
ACRES

< 10
30
211
241
337 (150)
90
668 (150)
175
25
12
42
25
230 (150)
9
100
40
5
668 (150)

337 (150)
90

OPTIONAL MATCHING CONTRIBUTION PLAN EXAMPLE
MATCH PLAN PARTNERS CURRENT PROPOSAL PROPOSAL II
PROPOSAL III
Match Plan Partner 1
$500,000
$300,000
$200,000
Match Plan Partner 2
$200,000
$150,000
$150,000
Matching Contributions Plan Totals
$450,000
$350,000

TOTAL $
$1,000,000
$ 500,000
$ 800,000

Attachment:
BIRD CONSERVATION REGIONS AND QUESTION 2 PRIORITY NAWCA SPECIES
BCR 1 ALEUTIAN/BERING SEA
ISLANDS

BCR 2 WESTERN ALASKA

BCR 3 ARCTIC PLAINS AND
MOUNTAINS

Red-faced Cormorant
Black-bellied Plover
Black Oystercatcher
Rock Sandpiper
Red-legged Kittiwake
Aleutian Tern
Kittlitz's Murrelet
Ancient Murrelet

Red-throated Loon
Yellow-billed Loon
Red-faced Cormorant
Sandhill Crane
Black-bellied Plover
Pacific Golden-Plover
American Golden-Plover
Whimbrel

Yellow-billed Loon
American Golden-Plover
Whimbrel
Bar-tailed Godwit
Dunlin
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Snowy Owl
Short-eared Owl

Whiskered Auklet

Bristle-thighed Curlew
Hudsonian Godwit
Bar-tailed Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Red Knot
Rock Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
Arctic Tern
Aleutian Tern
Marbled Murrelet
Kittlitz’s Murrelet
Ancient Murrelet
Short-eared Owl
Blackpoll Warbler
Rusty Blackbird

Smith’s Longspur

BCR 4 NORTHWESTERN
INTERIOR FOREST

BCR 5 NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAINFOREST

BCR 9 GREAT BASIN

American Golden-Plover
Whimbrel
Hudsonian Godwit
Rock Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
Short-eared Owl
Hammond’s Flycatcher
Blackpoll Warbler
Smith’s Longspur

Yellow-billed Loon
Ashy Storm-Petrel
Black Storm-Petrel
Least Storm-Petrel
Brandt's Cormorant
Red-faced Cormorant
Northern Harrier
Sandhill Crane
Black-bellied Plover
Black Oystercatcher
Whimbrel
Long-billed Curlew
Marbled Godwit
Black Turnstone
Surfbird
Red Knot
Rock Sandpiper
Dunlin
Short-billed Dowitcher
Arctic Tern
Aleutian Tern
Kittlitz's Murrelet
Cassin's Auklet
Short-eared Owl
Rufous Hummingbird
Allen's Hummingbird
Lewis's Woodpecker
Red-breasted Sapsucker
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
Pacific-slope Flycatcher
Northern Rough-winged Swallow
Marsh Wren
Black-throated Gray Warbler
Bullock’s Oriole
Tricolored Blackbird

American White Pelican
White-faced Ibis
Northern Harrier
Yellow Rail
Sandhill Crane
Black-bellied Plover
American Golden-Plover
Snowy Plover
American Avocet
Solitary Sandpiper
Whimbrel
Long-billed Curlew
Marbled Godwit
Sanderling
Wilson's Phalarope
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Short-eared Owl
Black Swift
Black-chinned Hummingbird
Calliope Hummingbird
Lewis's Woodpecker
Willow Flycatcher
Marsh Wren
MacGillivray's Warbler
Tricolored Blackbird

BCR 10 NORTHERN ROCKIES

BCR 11 PRAIRIE POTHOLES

BCR 12 BOREAL HARDWOOD
TRANSITION

Swainson’s Hawk
Yellow Rail
Sandhill Crane
American Golden-Plover
Snowy Plover
American Avocet
Whimbrel
Long-billed Curlew
Marbled Godwit
Sanderling
Wilson’s Phalarope

American Bittern
Northern Harrier
Swainson’s Hawk
Yellow Rail
Sandhill Crane
American Golden-Plover
Piping Plover
Solitary Sandpiper
Willet
Long-billed Curlew
Hudsonian Godwit

American Bittern
Northern Harrier
Yellow Rail
King Rail
Whimbrel
Marbled Godwit
Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
Wilson’s Phalarope
American Woodcock

Short-eared Owl
Black Swift
Vaux’s Swift
Calliope Hummingbird
Lewis's Woodpecker
Red-naped Sapsucker
Hammond’s Flycatcher
Northern Rough-winged Swallow
American Dipper
MacGillivray’s Warbler
Bobolink

Marbled Godwit
Sanderling
White-rumped Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Wilson's Phalarope
Black-billed Cuckoo
Short-eared Owl
Grasshopper Sparrow
Henslow’s Sparrow
Le Conte's Sparrow
Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow

Common Tern
Black Tern
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Sedge Wren
Marsh Wren
Golden-winged Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Connecticut Warbler
Canada Warbler
Henslow’s Sparrow
Le Conte's Sparrow

BCR 13 LOWER GREAT
LAKES/ST. LAWRENCE PLAIN

BCR 14 ATLANTIC NORTHERN
FORESTS

BCR 15 SIERRA NEVADA

American Bittern
Least Bittern
Northern Harrier
Virginia Rail
Lesser Yellowlegs
Whimbrel
Hudsonian Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Common Snipe
American Woodcock
Common Tern
Black Tern
Red-headed Woodpecker
Sedge Wren
Golden-winged Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Canada Warbler
Henslow’s Sparrow
Bobolink

Yellow Rail
Whimbrel
Willet
Hudsonian Godwit
Red Knot
Purple Sandpiper
American Woodcock
Common Tern
Razorbill
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Sedge Wren
Canada Warbler
Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow

Long-billed Curlew
Black Swift
Calliope Hummingbird
Rufous Hummingbird
Lewis's Woodpecker
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Western Wood-Pewee
Warbling Vireo
Yellow-billed Magpie
Marsh Wren
American Dipper
Nashville Warbler
MacGillivray's Warbler
Black-headed Grosbeak
Tricolored Blackbird

BCR 16 SOUTHERN
BCR 17 BADLANDS AND PRAIRIES BCR 18 SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE
ROCKIES/COLORADO PLATEAU
American White Pelican
White-faced Ibis
Northern Harrier
Swainson’s Hawk
Snowy Plover
Solitary Sandpiper
Marbled Godwit
Wilson’s Phalarope
Black Tern
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Short-eared Owl
Black Swift
Calliope Hummingbird
Lewis's Woodpecker
Red-naped Sapsucker
Western Wood-Pewee
Willow Flycatcher
Bell's Vireo
Marsh Wren
American Dipper
Veery
Wilson’s Warbler
Lazuli Bunting
Yellow-headed Blackbird

American Golden-Plover
Long-billed Curlew
Marbled Godwit
Sanderling
Wilson's Phalarope
Black-billed Cuckoo
Short-eared Owl
Calliope Hummingbird
Lewis's Woodpecker
Red-naped Sapsucker
Grasshopper Sparrow
Le Conte's Sparrow
Lazuli Bunting

BCR 19 CENTRAL MIXED GRASS BCR 20 EDWARDS PLATEAU
PRAIRIE

Western Grebe
American White Pelican
Northern Harrier
Mississippi Kite
Sandhill Crane
American Golden-Plover
Snowy Plover
American Avocet
Solitary Sandpiper
Long-billed Curlew
White-rumped Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Forster’s Tern
Lewis's Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Bell’s Vireo
Marsh Wren
Painted Bunting
Yellow-headed Blackbird

BCR 21 OAKS AND PRAIRIES

American White Pelican
American Bittern
Little Blue Heron
Mississippi Kite
Northern Harrier
Black Rail
Sandhill Crane
American Golden-Plover
Snowy Plover
American Avocet
Solitary Sandpiper
Long-billed Curlew
Hudsonian Godwit
Stilt Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Wilson’s Phalarope
American Woodcock
Forster’s Tern
Short-eared Owl
Bell's Vireo
Marsh Wren
LeConte’s Sparrow
Painted Bunting

Northern Harrier
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
American Woodcock
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Vermillion Flycatcher
Bell's Vireo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Sedge Wren
Prothonotary Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
LeConte's Sparrow
Painted Bunting
Orchard Oriole

Little Blue Heron
White Ibis
Northern Harrier
American Golden-Plover
American Avocet
Long-billed Curlew
Hudsonian Godwit
Stilt Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
American Woodcock
Red-headed Woodpecker
Bell’s Vireo
Sedge Wren
Prothonotary Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Henslow’s Sparrow
LeContes Sparrow
Painted Bunting
Rusty Blackbird

BCR 22 EASTERN TALLGRASS
PRAIRIE

BCR 23 PRAIRIE HARDWOOD
TRANSITION

BCR 24 CENTRAL HARDWOODS

American Bittern
Mississippi Kite
Northern Harrier
Black Rail
King Rail
Common Moorhen
Sandhill Crane
Greater Yellowlegs
Hudsonian Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Stilt Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
American Woodcock
Wilson's Phalarope
Common Tern
Forster’s Tern
Black-billed Cuckoo
Acadian Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
Sedge Wren
Marsh Wren
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Grasshopper Sparrow
Henslow’s Sparrow
LeConte’s Sparrow
Rusty Blackbird

American Bittern
Northern Harrier
Black Rail
King Rail
Common Moorhen
Greater Yellowlegs
Hudsonian Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Stilt Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
American Woodcock
Wilson's Phalarope
Black Tern
Common Tern
Forster’s Tern
Black-billed Cuckoo
Short-eared Owl
Acadian Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
Sedge Wren
Marsh Wren
Golden-winged Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Henslow’s Sparrow

King Rail
Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
American Woodcock
Short-eared Owl
Red-headed Woodpecker
Acadian Flycatcher
Bell’s Vireo
Sedge Wren
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
LeConte’s Sparrow
Rusty Blackbird

BCR 25 WEST GULF COASTAL
PLAIN/ OUACHITAS

BCR 26 MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL
VALLEY

BCR 27 SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL
PLAIN

Little Blue Heron
White Ibis
Swallow-tailed Kite
Northern Harrier
American Golden-Plover
Hudsonian Godwit
Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper

American White Pelican
Little Blue Heron
Swallow-tailed Kite
Mississippi Kite
Yellow Rail
Hudsonian Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Piping Plover

Little Blue Heron
Reddish Egret
Swallow-tailed Kite
Yellow Rail
Black Rail
Limpkin
Sandhill Crane
Snowy Plover

American Woodcock
Short-eared Owl
Red-headed Woodpecker
Acadian Flycatcher
Bell’s Vireo
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Henslow’s Sparrow
LeConte's Sparrow
Orchard Oriole

Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
American Woodcock
Short-eared Owl
Red-headed Woodpecker
Bell’s Vireo
Sedge Wren
Wood Thrush
Northern Parula
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Henslow’s Sparrow
LeConte's Sparrow
Rusty Blackbird
Orchard Oriole

Wilson's Plover
Piping Plover
American Oystercatcher
Whimbrel
Marbled Godwit
Red Knot
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
American Woodcock
Gull-billed Tern
Royal Tern
Common Tern
Black Tern
Black Skimmer
Wood Thrush
Northern Parula
Black-throated Green Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Henslow's Sparrow
LeConte's Sparrow
Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Nelson' Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Seaside Sparrow

BCR 28 APPALACHIAN
MOUNTAINS

BCR 29 PIEDMONT

BCR 30 NEW ENGLAND/MID-ATLANTIC
COAST

Buff-breasted Sandpiper
American Woodcock
Short-eared Owl
Acadian Flycatcher
Sedge Wren
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush

Black Rail
American Woodcock
Red-headed Woodpecker
Acadian Flycatcher
Sedge Wren
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Henslow’s Sparrow
Rusty Blackbird

Black Rail
Wilson's Plover
American Oystercatcher
Whimbrel
Hudsonian Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Red Knot
Purple Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
American Woodcock
Common Tern
Least Tern
Black Skimmer
Razorbill
Short-eared Owl
Sedge Wren
Marsh Wren
Cerulean Warbler
Henslow's Sparrow
Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Seaside Sparrow

BCR 31 PENINSULAR FLORIDA

BCR 32 COASTAL CALIFORNIA

BCR 33 SONORAN AND MOJAVE
DESERTS

American Bittern
Little Blue Heron
Reddish Egret
White Ibis
Swallow-tailed Kite
Yellow Rail
Black Rail
Limpkin
Sandhill Crane
Snowy Plover
Wilson's Plover
Piping Plover
American Oystercatcher

Northern Harrier
Cooper’s Hawk
Black Rail
Sandhill Crane
Black-bellied Plover
Black Oystercatcher
American Avocet
Willet
Whimbrel
Long-billed Curlew
Marbled Godwit
Black Turnstone
Red Knot

Northern Harrier
Common Black-Hawk
Black Rail
Snowy Plover
Black-necked Stilt
American Avocet
Long-billed Curlew
Marbled Godwit
Wilson’s Phalarope
Black Skimmer
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Short-eared Owl
Elf Owl

Whimbrel
Marbled Godwit
Red Knot
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
American Woodcock
Gull-billed Tern
Common Tern
Least Tern
Black Skimmer
White-crowned Pigeon
Mangrove Cuckoo
Black-whiskered Vireo
Prairie Warbler
Henslow’s Sparrow
Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Seaside Sparrow

Short-billed Dowitcher
Gull-billed Tern
Elegant Tern
Black Skimmer
Cassin's Auklet
Short-eared Owl
Black Swift
Black-chinned Hummingbird
Allen's Hummingbird
Lewis's Woodpecker
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Western Wood-Pewee
Yellow-billed Magpie
Violet-green Swallow
Marsh Wren
Warbling Vireo
Black-headed Grosbeak
Lazuli Bunting
Tricolored Blackbird
Bullock’s Oriole
Hooded Oriole

Gila Woodpecker
Northern Beardless-Tyrannulet
Bell’s Vireo
Yellow Warbler
Lucy's Warbler
Abert's Towhee
Hooded Oriole
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Tricolored Blackbird

BCR 34 SIERRA MADRE
OCCIDENTAL

BCR 35 CHIHUAHUAN DESERT

BCR 36 TAMAULIPAN BRUSHLANDS

Northern Harrier
Cooper’s Hawk
Gray Hawk
Common Black-Hawk
Sandhill Crane
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Western Screech-Owl
Elf Owl
Short-eared Owl
Broad-billed Hummingbird
Blue-throated Hummingbird
Black-chinned Hummingbird
Elegant Trogon
Northern Beardless-Tyrannulet
Cordilleran Flycatcher
Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher
Thick-billed Kingbird
Bell’s Vireo
Purple Martin
Lucy's Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Red-faced Warbler
Painted Redstart
Abert's Towhee
Black-headed Grosbeak
Varied Bunting
Hooded Oriole

Northern Harrier
Common Black-Hawk
Zone-tailed Hawk
Sandhill Crane
Snowy Plover
Long-billed Curlew
Wilson’s Phalarope
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Elf Owl
Black-chinned Hummingbird
Red-naped Sapsucker
Bell's Vireo
Marsh Wren
Lucy's Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Abert’s Towhee
Varied Bunting
Painted Bunting
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Hooded Oriole

Northern Harrier
Black Rail
Sandhill Crane
Snowy Plover
American Avocet
Long-billed Curlew
Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
American Woodcock
Gull-billed Tern
Elf Owl
Northern Beardless-Tyrannulet
Rose-throated Becard
Bell’s Vireo
Painted Bunting
Altamira Oriole
LeConte’s Sparrow

BCR 37 GULF COAST PRAIRIE

BCR 67 HAWAII

PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS

American Bittern
Tricolored Heron
Reddish Egret
White Ibis
Swallow-tailed Kite
Northern Harrier
Yellow Rail
Black Rail
Sandhill Crane
American Golden-Plover
Snowy Plover
Wilson's Plover
Piping Plover
American Oystercatcher
Whimbrel

Band-rumped Storm-Petrel
Brown Booby
Christmas Shearwater
Newell's Shearwater
Dark-rumped Petrel
Tristam's Storm-petrel
White-tailed Tropicbird
Great Frigatebird
Masked Booby
Red-footed Booby
Pacific Golden-Plover
Bristle-thighed Curlew
Wandering Tattler

West Indian Whistling-Duck

White-cheeked Pintail
Masked Duck
Ruddy Duck
Black Rail
Yellow-breasted Crake
Caribbean Coot
Limpkin
Snowy Plover
Wilson's Plover
American Oystercatcher
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Stilt Sandpiper

Long-billed Curlew
Hudsonian Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Red Knot
Stilt Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
American Woodcock
Gull-billed Tern
Least Tern
Black Tern
Black Skimmer
Red-headed Woodpecker
Acadian Flycatcher
Sedge Wren
Tropcial Parula
Prothonotary Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Henslow's Sparrow
LeConte's Sparrow
Seaside Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Seaside Sparrow

Least Tern
White-crowned Pigeon
Short-eared Owl
Black Swift
Lesser Antillean Pewee
Bicknell's Thrush
Yellow Warbler (resident cruciana ssp. only)
Northern Waterthrush
Louisiana Waterthrush

11/30/07

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	THIS IS THE 10/31 VERSION, NOT THE LATEST VERSION ON THE S: DRIVE
Author	battleb
File Modified	2008-01-24
File Created	2008-01-07