NAWCA Standard Grants - applications - Canada and Mexico (govt)

OMB Control No.1018-0100
Expires: XX/XX/2018

CALL FOR CANADIAN
NAWCA and MBTA PROPOSALS
FUNDING WINDOW 2015-2

For funding consideration through the
North American Wetlands Conservation Council
under authority of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
of the United States of America
Wetlands Office
Environment Canada
15th Floor, Place Vincent
Massey 351 St. Joseph
Boulevard Gatineau, Québec
K1A 0H3
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT: This information collection is authorized by the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) of 1989, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.). Your response is
required to obtain or retain a benefit in the form of a grant. We estimate that it will take approximately 80 hours to
prepare an application, including time to review instructions, gather and maintain data, and complete and review
the proposal. 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 Office of Management and Budget control number. OMB has
reviewed and approved this information collection and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0100. You may
submit comments on any aspect of this information collection, including the accuracy of the estimated burden
hours and suggestions to reduce this burden. Send your comments to: Information Collection Officer, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop BPHC, Washington, D.C. 20240.

Table of Contents
Introduction
Figure 1

1
3

Key Documents and Reference Materials

4

Purpose of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
Box 1 – NAWCA Funding Structure
Figure 2

5
7
7

Definition of a Wetlands Conservation Project

8

NABCI, NAWMP and NAWCA

10

Schedule and Timelines for Submission
Table 1

11
12

NAWCA Proposal
Box 2: Terminology
NAWCA Funding – Important Notes
Proposal Format
Proposal Activities
Submission of Proposals
Match Letters
SF 424 and SF 424d Forms (Application for Federal Assistance)
Exceptions to NAWCA & Match Eligibility Rules

13
13
13
14
15
15
16
16
17

Proposal Components

18

Proposal Completion Instructions
1. Proposal Application Cover Page
2. Executive Summary
3. Proposal Body
4. Maps and Photos
5. Appendices

19
19
20
23
31
32

Determining Eligibility and Accounting for Expenditures for Activities in NAWCA
Proposals
33
Table 2 Activities & Eligible Expenditures
37
Table 3 Ineligible Expenditures
41
NAWCA Funding Program Contacts

42

Appendix 1 – Migratory Bird Treaty Act Gulf Spill Funding
43
Eligibility Requirements for funding proposals with Migratory Bird Treaty Act Gulf
Spill funding
43
Table 4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Gulf Spill Funding Timeline
45
Table 5. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Gulf Spill Affected Species List
46
Figure 3. Gulf Spill Zone Map
47
Figure 4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Spill Fund Affected Species Richness Map 48

1

Introduction
This document, Call for Canadian NAWCA Proposals: Funding Window 2015-2, describes
in detail the preparation and submission of Canadian applications for funding consideration
through the 1989 United States Congress North American Wetlands Conservation Act
(NAWCA), as amended in 1994, 2002 and 2010. It provides guidelines to assist in
developing a proposal for wetlands conservation partnerships in which U.S. federal
NAWCA grant monies and other U.S. and Canadian funds are used to secure, enhance or
manage wetlands in Canada. Legal obligations pertaining to the fulfilment of objectives in
the NAWCA proposals and grant agreements exist only between the successful Grantee and
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The objective of the NAWCA is to encourage partnerships to protect North America’s
wetlands as habitat for waterfowl and other wetland-associated migratory birds, fish and
wildlife. It should be noted that the statutory criteria encourage proposals with multiple
partnerships, projects supporting the purposes of the Act, and projects that have multiple
benefits in addition to those for wetland-associated migratory birds.
The key players in the Canadian NAWCA proposal process and their roles are described in
Figure 1. The North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), or the NAWCC
(Canada), is the body responsible for reviewing and endorsing Canadian NAWCA
proposals. Canadian proposals must be submitted to the Wetlands Office at Environment
Canada through the Joint Venture Provincial Steering Committees and applicable Habitat
Joint Venture Management Boards. Proposals are then forwarded to the NAWCC (Canada)
for review and endorsement before being recommended to its U.S. counterparts, the
NAWCC (U.S.), for consideration.
This document includes an explanation of the wetlands conservation project grant
application process, definitions, timeline for proposals, description of information required
in the proposal, and the format for proposals. In addition, reference materials (e.g., North
American Waterfowl Management Plan 2012 Revision) are available online or from the
Wetlands Office to assist proposal Grantees (see the Key Documents and Reference
Materials section on page 4).
Grantees are strongly encouraged to use the instructions found in this document and the
attached Proposal Template to develop proposals in order to avoid delays in submitting
materials to NAWCC (Canada) and NAWCC (U.S.). When the application is complete and
has been vetted by the applicable Habitat Joint Venture Management Board in Canada, it
should be forwarded to the Wetlands Office, Canadian Wildlife Service.
If you are a new NAWCA grantee you must first determine whether or not your
organization qualifies for Canadian NAWCA funding by contacting your regional Habitat
Joint Venture. Furthermore, you must ensure your application meets the definition of a
wetlands conservation project, see pages 8-9.
A list of Canadian Joint Ventures is found on page 42.

1

►Please read these instructions thoroughly before developing your proposals, as
incomplete or inappropriate proposals will be returned to proposal writers for
corrections and formatting. See page 12 for submission and timeline details.
Any questions regarding the development of the Canadian NAWCA 2015-2 Proposals
can be directed to the Wetlands Office (for contact information see page 42).

2

Figure 1 The Canadian NAWCA proposal process within Canada and the United States. The Wetlands
Office, Environment Canada facilitates this process in Canada and the Division of Bird Habitat
Conservation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) (USFWS) administers the process in the U.S.

3

Key Documents and Reference Materials
Key Documents available online where indicated and/or from the Wetlands Office:
•
•
•
•
•

•

Final Report on NAWCA Funding Allocations: NAWCA Funding Task Force Report
2004
Example of completed Form SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance (U.S.)
Form SF-425, Federal Financial Report (U.S.) www.grants.gov
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (amended 2010)
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title16/chapter64&edition=prelim
2 CFR Part 230, formerly called “OMB Circular A122” (Cost Principles for Non-Profit
Organizations):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2012-title2-vol1/CFR-2012-title2-vol1part230/content-detail.html
Central Contractor Registration
https://www.uscontractorregistration.com/

Reference Materials for Proposal Development available online where indicated
and/or from the Wetlands Office:
•
•

•
•
•
•

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2012 Revision:
http://www.nawmprevision.org/
The shorebird, waterbird and landbird conservation plans:
http://www.nabci-us.org/plans.htm
Threatened and endangered species in the United States:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
Species Assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada:
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/index_e.cfm#sar
U.S. Standard grant proposal instructions:
http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/index.shtm
Connectivity to the Gulf of Mexico for Canadian BP Priority Species: Band Returns,
EBird Maps and References

4

Purpose of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
(NAWCA)
The 101st Congress of the United States enacted the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA) "to conserve North American wetland ecosystems and
waterfowl and the other migratory birds and fish and wildlife that depend upon such
habitats." Senator George Mitchell championed passage of this legislation, cited as the
Public Law 101-233, with the support and encouragement of U.S. President George Bush
who signed it on December 13, 1989. The NAWCA is United States law and final decisionmaking rests with U.S. administrative bodies (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission).
Canada is a major beneficiary of NAWCA funding, but its powers are limited to
recommending projects and programs to the NAWCC (U.S.).
In recognition of the many public values that wetland ecosystems across North America
provide, the purposes of the Act are to:
... encourage partnership among public agencies and other interests -(1)

to protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate distribution and
diversity of wetland ecosystems and habitats associated with wetland
ecosystems and other fish and wildlife in North America;

(2)

to maintain current or improved distributions of wetland associated
migratory bird populations; and,

(3)

to sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other wetland associated migratory
birds consistent with the goals of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan, the Partners in Flight Landbird
Conservation Plan and the international obligations contained in the
migratory bird treaties and conventions and other agreements with Canada,
Mexico, and other countries.

The NAWCA further establishes the North American Wetlands Conservation Council in the
United States, or the NAWCC (U.S.), and instructs the Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service to appoint an individual to serve as Council Coordinator. Both Canada
and Mexico sit as ex-officio (non-voting) members on the NAWCC (U.S.). The fourteen
member federal-state-private Council recommends wetlands conservation projects to the
United States Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). The MBCC, composed
of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator, two Congressmen, and two Senators, approves funding for the
wetlands conservation projects.
In Canada, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and actions by the
Minister of the Environment under the Canada Wildlife Act established a structure similar to
that in the United States, which brings forward proposals to the U.S. Migratory Bird
5

Conservation Commission (MBCC).. A series of mechanisms including the Joint Venture
Provincial Steering Committees and Habitat Joint Venture Management Boards (with
federal-provincial and non-government representation) evaluate and recommend proposals
to the NAWCC (Canada).
NAWCC (Canada) is responsible for the delivery of long term strategies and ongoing
actions that connects the NAWCC’s (Canada) mission (purpose) to its vision that
“Canada has abundant and resilient wetlands, waterfowl and other wetland dependent
species that are sustained and valued’’ (NAWCC (Canada) Strategic Plan 2010-2020).
NAWCC (Canada) members originate from federal, provincial and/or territorial
governments and non-government organizations. The partnership includes 19 members
and is co-chaired by the Executive Director of the Canadian Wildlife Service at
Environment Canada. The NAWCC (Canada) includes the chairpersons of the four Habitat
Joint Ventures, the three Species Joint Ventures, representatives of Ducks Unlimited
Canada, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Wildlife Habitat Canada, Bird Studies Canada,
Nature Canada (formerly the Canadian Nature Federation) and 4 provincial/territorial
representatives. The NAWCC (Canada) reviews and approves Canadian NAWCA proposals
to ensure they align with Canadian programming and recommends them for funding to the
NAWCC (U.S.).

6

Box 1 – NAWCA Funding Structure
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides U.S. federal funding
grants for North American wetlands conservation projects. This grant funding shall be
referred to as NAWCA Funds or NAWCA Funding throughout this document.
The NAWCA provides a mechanism to leverage NAWCA Funds with other funding and to
provide this combined funding to Canada and Mexico in support of wetland projects that
benefit the bird conservation plans noted in the Act’s purpose (see (3) above, page 5). At
least 30% and not more than 60% of the NAWCA Funds are available each year to be spent
on proposals submitted from Canada and Mexico. NAWCA proposals from Canada must
have at least a one-to-one ratio of matching funds to the NAWCA Funds requested through
the Act. Match Funds or Match Funding can include U.S. non-federal funding and/or
Canadian federal or non-federal funding. It is important to note that the Canadian portion
may comprise up to 50% of the total Match Funds. The NAWCC (U.S.) will not consider a
project which does not have the necessary Match Funds therefore confirming such Match
Funds should be initiated early in the project development process.
In addition to the NAWCA Funds and the Match Funds, contributions from Canadian or
other international partners related to the project that is above and beyond the required
Match Funding, and any funding that will be used for project activities that are not eligible
for NAWCA Funding or Match Funding are hereafter referred to as Other Contributions
or Other Contributors, are not legally required under NAWCA, but they do however
increase investment in Canadian NAWCA projects, allow for expanded programs, and
indicate the level of support for the project to the NAWCC (U.S.).

Figure 2 NAWCA funding structure, in terms of percent of total project funding, allowed
according to the 2010 Amendment. Several possible funding scenarios within the NAWCA
framework are shown. The Canadian portion of the Match Funds can be up to 50% of the
Match Funds. Note that Other Contributions (not shown) are funds above and beyond the
NAWCA and Match Funding (U.S. and Canada) sources shown here.

7

Definition of a Wetlands Conservation Project
Section 4402(9) of the Act (amended in March 2010) states that the term "wetlands
conservation project" means:
(A) the obtaining of a real property interest in lands or waters, including water rights of a
wetland ecosystem and associated habitat, if the obtaining of such interest is subject
to the terms and conditions that will ensure that the real property will be
administered for the long-term conservation of such lands and waters and the
migratory birds and other fish and wildlife dependent thereon; and
(B) the restoration, management, or enhancement of wetland ecosystems and associated
habitat for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife species if such restoration,
management, or enhancement is conducted on lands and waters that are
administered for the long-term conservation of such lands and waters and the
migratory birds and other fish and wildlife dependent thereon.
In Canada, wetland conservation projects should also:
1.

Contain specific objectives with measurable outputs (e.g., milestones, products,
accomplishments) on at least an annual basis.

2.

Have specific geographic and temporal bounds (i.e., define the area affected and the
time period required to develop the project/program).

3.

State whether they are single or multi-year efforts. Submissions to the NAWCC
(Canada) must be accompanied by information as to whether the effort will be
completed over one year or contribute to a multi-year initiative. Funding of a single
year portion of a multi–year proposal will assist in securing, but does not guarantee
future funding in subsequent funding windows. Each portion should be submitted
annually and will be reviewed with other proposals for that funding window.
NAWCC (Canada) recommendations for funding subsequent years of multi-year
wetlands conservation proposals will be partially based on satisfactory completion of
the earlier funded submissions related to the initiative within specified time frames.

4.

Conserve wetland values in the long term. Easements or other land agreements for
any tenure less than perpetuity may qualify as long term project elements if:
a. they are likely to result in the landowner agreeing to a longer term conservation
agreement at the end of the initial easement or land agreement;
b. it is likely the landowner will continue the practice encouraged by the
agreement; or,

8

c. it is the maximum length of time that provincial, territorial or federal law will
allow or the area is highly valued and present landowner will not support long
term agreements.
The longest possible length of agreement should be pursued that is appropriate for
the intended land management practice; however, agreements less than 10 years
must be classed as one-time demonstration projects and included under stewardship
activities (see Eligible and Ineligible Expenditures for Activities in NAWCA
Proposals pages 33-41).
5.

Consider public access in the proposal. When it is appropriate and compatible with
the purposes for which the land was secured, public access should be allowed and
should not be discriminatory (e.g., based on membership to a club). Limitations on
the number of people permitted access or the time at which access is permitted may
be appropriate and should be adequate to protect the conservation purposes of the
project. Also note that those lands secured under Conservation Easements through
the Canadian NAWMP process remain as private property, thus while access
provisions are included in conservation easement Agreements, discretionary
access remains the purview of the landowner.
Generally, non-commercial pedestrian access (walking, snowshoeing, crosscountry skiing) is permitted on all Canadian NAWMP partner-owned lands.
Hunting is usually permitted on all properties unless Federal, Provincial, or
Municipal restrictions indicate otherwise. When decisions to restrict access or to
permit or restrict activities are made the properties will be clearly and accordingly
signed and the decision will generally be based on the following criteria:
•
•
•

The ecological values of the property identified as critical for conservation
could be negatively impacted by public access.
There is a public safety or community concern or a government authority
prohibits the activity.
Access is against the wishes of a donor who solely enabled the acquisition of
the property or donated land.

6. Identify the needs for adequate Match Funds. A minimum of a 1:1 Match Funds
from U.S. (non-federal) and/or Canadian (federal or non-federal) sources is required
by the NAWCA. Up to 50% of the Match Funds may be from Canadian sources.
The NAWCC (U.S.) will not consider a project which does not have the necessary
Match Funds therefore confirming such Match Funds should be initiated early in the
project development process.
7. Identify Other Contributions, which are those not included in the NAWCA and
Match Funding components.

9

NABCI, NAWMP and NAWCA
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) was initiated in 1999 to
facilitate coordination and communications among public and private organizations,
initiatives, and individuals across the continent involved in conserving North American
birds and their habitats (all birds, all habitats). The need for the NABCI stems from
growing conservation needs for many of North America’s more than 1,100 bird species.
Many of their populations are in decline, some moderately, some precipitously; and their
habitats continue to be degraded or lost.
A key focus of the NABCI is to deliver comprehensive “all bird” conservation through
regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. National
coordination occurs through the NABCI (Canada) Council comprised of federal,
provincial and territorial governments, environmental non-government organizations, and
industry associations. Similar Councils exist in Mexico and United States.
The pillars of the NABCI are the four bird conservation plans – the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), the Shorebird Conservation Plan, the
Waterbird Conservation Plan and the Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan. The
NAWMP is the oldest and most established Plan, having been signed in 1986 by the
United States and Canada, and by Mexico in 1994.
In 1989, the NAWCA was enacted to protect, enhance, restore and manage wetland
ecosystems and sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds consistent
with the goals of the NAWMP.
Following subsequent amendments to the Act, the purpose of the Act is to protect,
enhance, restore and manage wetland ecosystems; to maintain and improve distributions
of wetland-associated migratory birds; and to sustain an abundance of waterfowl and
other wetland-associated migratory birds consistent with the goals of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, the Shorebird Conservation Plan, the Waterbird
Conservation Plan and the Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan.
NAWMP relation to NAWCA proposals
In October 2004, the NAWCC (Canada) agreed that in Canada “future NAWCA funding
will be used with a primary focus on implementing the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, and with consideration to implementation of the other bird plans
where NAWCA rules permit and respecting the availability of U.S. and/or Canadian
Match Funds”.
NAWCA funding cannot be used to fund “all bird, all habitat” conservation projects.
NAWCA funding must be used for wetland conservation projects that benefit waterfowl
and wetland-associated migratory birds, with an emphasis on priority species.

10

Schedule and Timelines for Submission
The 2015-2 schedule and timelines are outlined in Table 1. Project proposals must be vetted
and evaluated by the Joint Venture Provincial Steering Committees, and applicable Habitat
Joint Ventures in Canada, reviewed by the Wetlands Office, and then submitted to the
NAWCC (Canada).
Joint Venture vetted proposals must be submitted to the Wetlands Office by the dates
outlined in Table 1. The Wetlands Office reviews each proposal over the next week and
works with proposal writers to make any necessary revisions and ensure consistency with
NAWCC (Canada) direction and priorities. The purpose of this review is to ensure national
consistency according to the template, and ensuring compliance with NAWCA eligibility
and U.S. MBCC. Once finalized, the proposals are submitted to the NAWCC (Canada) for
review and endorsement. If any revisions are requested or if any issues are raised by
NAWCC (Canada), these must be resolved to the satisfaction of the NAWCC (Canada)
Executive Secretary before the proposals are submitted to the NAWCC (U.S.) Council
Coordinator.
Each proposal endorsed by the NAWCC (Canada) will be submitted for consideration to the
NAWCC (U.S.) Staff, NAWCC (U.S.), and the MBCC. At any point prior to
recommendation by NAWCC (U.S.), USFWS Staff may contact a Canadian Project Officer
directly to request changes or clarifications to a proposal. The project is only approved once
the MBCC has ruled on it. All Grantees will be notified directly by the USFWS of NAWCC
(U.S.) and MBCC decisions concerning recommendations, approval, and funding of project
proposals. Proposals rejected may be restructured, updated and resubmitted through the
previously described process in a subsequent funding window.
After the MBCC approves a project for funding, a USFWS Program Officer prepares the
grant agreement, working directly with the Canadian Project Officer from the Grantee
organization identified in each approved proposal. Normally, grant agreements are
completed within 60-90 days following MBCC approval of the proposal. Issuance of grant
agreements is contingent upon available funding. If actual funding is below estimates,
USFWS will work with the Wetlands Office and the Grantees to modify funding amounts
accordingly.

11

Table 1 Schedule & Timelines for Canadian NAWCA Proposals: 2015-2
Funding
Window

Time Frame
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
Second Window

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
August 5, 2014
September 24-25, 2014
December 9-10, 2014
March 11, 2015

Activities
Call for Proposals sent by Joint Ventures to Canadian
Grantees with estimated U.S. NAWCA funding.
The Wetlands Office, JV Coordinators, and Grantees
to discuss the allocation of 2015-2 NAWCA funding
(based on estimates, or actuals if available) among
Grantees. As soon as possible following the Call for
Proposals.
Proposal/project planning with provincial steering
committees, proposal writing, and Habitat Joint
Venture review and approval of proposals1.
Deadline for Canadian NAWCA proposal
submissions to Wetlands Office.
Wetlands Office reviews proposals and works with
Grantees on revisions2.
NAWCC (Canada) review and endorsement of
proposals.
Original Match Funding letters due to Wetlands
Office by mail.
NAWCC (Canada) comments and changes integrated
into proposals, and proposals prepared by Wetlands
Office for submission to the USFWS.
Deadline for the official submission of the Canadian
2015-2 NAWCA proposals and all associated
materials to the USFWS for consideration.
NAWCC (U.S.) Staff meeting to recommend
proposals for approval.
NAWCC (U.S.) meeting to recommend proposals for
approval.
MBCC meeting to approve proposals.

1

Joint Venture Coordinators are responsible for ensuring proposals meet the goals and objectives of the
Implementation Plans and activities are eligible under NAWCA.
2
The Wetlands Office is responsible for ensuring national consistency according to the template, ensuring
consistency with NAWCC (Canada) direction, and ensuring compliance with NAWCA eligibility and U.S.
MBCC.

12

NAWCA Proposal
Box 2: Terminology
Project Officer: The individual who is responsible for overseeing the project
implementation (may be the same person who writes the proposal) and prepares the
agreement; identified on the cover page of the proposal.
Proposal Writer: The individual who writes the proposal; identified on the cover page of
the proposal.
Grantee, aka Applicant: The organization (1) to which the USFWS would award the
grant, (2) that will be accountable for reporting on and managing the grant and, (3) that will
be responsible for compliance with regulatory requirements. Note that the Grantee
organization is an “Applicant” during the application process and prior to NAWCA grant
approval. However for simplicity the term “Grantee” is used in this document.
Partner: Agency or organization working with and providing funds and/or support to the
Grantee for the purposes of the NAWCA proposal.
Wetlands Office: Team in the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada that is
responsible for administering the Canadian NAWCA proposal process.
Program vs. Project: In the context of Canadian NAWCA proposals, "project" refers to
individual work within a proposal, and "program" refers to a larger, multi-year initiative.
“Project" is used when specifically referring to a proposal or its content, and "program" is
used when referring to how the proposal fits in with other work, Implementation Plans,
previous NAWCA endeavours, etc. A more complete definition for “project” is provided
on pages 8-9.

NAWCA Funding – Important Notes
•

Application is for one year of NAWCA Funding only. Subsequent funding for
continuation of the same project requires a separate application.

•

NAWCA Funding must be matched 1:1 with Match Funding, of which up to 50% can be
from federal or non-federal Canadian sources.

•

NAWCA Funds and Match Funds allocated to Canada must be expended in Canada
within the appropriate Habitat Joint Venture(s). The location where all activities will be
undertaken must be clearly indicated in the proposal and executive summary (i.e.,
provinces within the Joint Venture).

13

•

The total NAWCA Funding outlined in all of the 2015-2 proposals must be equal to
the 2015-2 NAWCA funding estimates provided by the USFWS.

•

Funding from Other Contributors, referred to as Other Contributions, (cash and/or inkind) is not a part of the core NAWCA proposal, instead if a Grantee wishes to list its
Other Contributions this can be done in appendix A.
►To ensure consistency across tables, do not round figures in the Partners and
Funding Table, the Workplan Budget and Acres Table or the Budget Table 3. As
per direction from the USFWS: “Budgets should match [NAWCA Funding]
requests, and [Match Funds] reported by the Grantee on the front page of the
proposal".

Proposal Format
A Proposal Template for NAWCA 2015-2 proposals has been created to facilitate
proposal writing.
► Proposal writers must use this template to ensure compliance with U.S. content
and formatting requirements, and to ensure a national consistency across all
Canadian proposals.
► All proposals must be submitted in MS Word format and use 11 pt Calibri font,
with one inch margins.
► All documentation must refer to areas in acres, be written in English, and show
proposed contributions and expenditures in U.S. dollars. Do not convert any U.S.
dollars in the proposal to Canadian dollars.
•

Limit the amount of narrative information in the proposal to a minimum to adequately
convey the required information.
► The proposal body (section beginning after the executive summary) cannot
exceed 12 pages, single-sided, of text using 11 pt Calibri font. This page limit
excludes appendices, maps and photos.

•

Use unique language to describe the proposed work rather than language used in
previous NAWCA proposals.

•

The proposal will be incorporated as part of the legal grant agreement with the USFWS;
therefore information provided in the proposal must be accurate. Double check to
ensure acreage and dollar figures add correctly and are consistent between text and
tables.

3

Note that the Wetlands Office will provide estimates for NAWCA funding in round numbers (to the
nearest $100). Proposal writers must not round numbers any further (e.g., to the nearest $1,000); the same
numbers should be used in all tables, such that the financial numbers in the Partners and Funding,
Workplan Budget and Acres, and Budget Tables match exactly.

14

•

The proposal must state in the executive summary and budget that any currency
exchange gains will be directed back into NAWCA projects within the same Joint
Venture, as previously allocated.

•

In developing proposals, remember that this project will be reviewed by U.S. decisionmakers who may not be familiar with Canadian needs, landscapes, partners and projects.
It is incumbent on the grantee to ensure that proposals are complete, clear and succinctly
written. Each proposal should be able to stand on its own, as should each executive
summary.

•

Ensure that guidelines relating to the use of acronyms and abbreviations are respected.
All acronyms and abbreviations must be spelled out in full when they first appear in the
proposal, including the executive summary.

•

Ensure that guidelines relating to the use of common names of waterfowl species are
respected. In general, two proper names are capitalized (i.e. Redhead Duck); names
following a hyphen are not capitalized (but the second part of the name is, i.e. Longtailed Duck); when speaking of eiders, geese, ducks generically, names are not
capitalized. Please refer to the following website for the correct format for specific
species names: http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/full.php

Proposal Activities
•

Project Officers must review all types of activities permitted by the NAWCA, as well as
eligible and ineligible expenditures before addressing the activities in the proposal (see
Eligible and Ineligible Expenditures for Activities in NAWCA Proposals pages 33-41).

•

All activities funded by U.S. grants must be in compliance with the guidelines set out in
U.S. 2 CFR part 230 (formerly OMB Circular A-122), Cost Principles for Non-Profit
Organizations. Please see the “Key Documents and Reference Materials” section, on
page 4.

•

Please ensure that proposal activities comply with the requirements of federal, provincial
and territorial legislation, as well as municipal by-laws. Ensure that requirements are
verified and that any permits and/or approvals from other federal, provincial/territorial
and/or municipal governments are obtained prior to the commencement of activities.

Submission of Proposals
Once approved by the Habitat Joint Venture Management Board, the proposal must be emailed (including maps/photos) to the Wetlands Office for review. Please also copy the
appropriate Habitat Joint Venture Coordinator when submitting the proposal. During this
review period, the NAWCA Program Coordinator will work with the proposal writer and
project officer (if different) to finalize the proposal and may request clarification and/or
revisions to the proposal.

15

►It is the Grantee’s responsibility to ensure that the Project Officer or their
delegate can be reached during the review period (up to four weeks after the
proposals are due at the Wetlands Office) to finalize the proposal.

Match Letters
The total amount of NAWCA Funding in each proposal must be matched 1:1 by a matching
source (U.S. non-federal and/or Canadian federal or non-federal) and original letters of
confirmation from each source (listed in the Partners and Funding Table of the executive
summary) must be submitted to the Wetlands Office. These “match letters” are letters from
the U.S. and/or Canadian agencies/corporations confirming their contribution of required
Match Funds for the total amount shown in the proposal.
Please note that all references to Match Funds in these letters must be in $U.S.
►Original letters identifying the source (s) and amount(s) of each of the U.S. and/or
Canadian Match Funds:
Must be addressed to:
Ms. Cynthia Perry
Chief, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation and
NAWCC Coordinator
North American Wetland Conservation Council
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
And must be sent to:

Neill Gilbride
Wetlands Office, Environment Canada
351 Blvd St. Joseph, 15th floor
Gatineau, QC, K1A 0H3

The Wetlands Office will receive these letters and forward them on to the NAWCC
(U.S.) Coordinator

SF 424 and SF 424d Forms (Application for Federal Assistance)
All Grantees must complete SF424 and SF 424d forms electronically for each proposal.
These forms provide proposal information in an application for U.S. Federal Assistance. To
access these forms:
• To www.grants.gov and search for “NAWCA Canada”.
• Click on “application”
• Use the link for SF 424 and SF 424d to complete the forms.
• Submit forms
Note that in previous years grantees were required to submit hard copies of the SF 424 and
SF 424d forms with their proposal package to the Wetlands Office. This is no longer
required. Once submitted online, these forms will be accessible by the USFWS.
16

When completing the forms, please note the following:
Section 8.b: Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): is always 444444444 for Canadian Grantees.
Section 11: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (will remain the same for
all submissions): 15.623
CFDA Title: North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
Section 12: Funding Opportunity number: will be provided by the Wetlands Office
early each funding window.
Section 18: Estimated Funding ($U.S.):
a. Federal: Include NAWCA request
b. Grantee: Include Match Funding (both U.S. Non-Federal match and Canadian
match, both expressed as $U.S.)
c. Total: Include the sum of a + b
•

SF-424D: Assurances. It provides certain assurances that the project will be
administered and the work done as required by U.S. laws and regulations. Of all
assurances listed, the following apply to grants awarded to Canadians: numbers 1, 2,
5, 6, and 7 in whole, and the first sentence of #3.
Examples of completed SF-424 forms are available from the Wetlands Office.

Exceptions to NAWCA & Match Eligibility Rules
There are several grant administration changes that have been negotiated by Grantees
directly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While it is desirable for Canadian
partners to continue negotiating exceptions, as this allows flexibility in the program,
some of these have led to confusion and misunderstanding because they are not well
known by all Canadian or U.S. partners. Therefore, any future exceptions to NAWCA
and Match rules (i.e., exceptions that affect the Canadian NAWCA program as a whole)
must be reviewed and endorsed by the appropriate Habitat Joint Ventures and NAWCC
(Canada) prior to being negotiated by a Grantee with the USFWS. This will ensure the
transparency of activities and ensure that the exception is beneficial to the entire
NAWCA program in Canada.

17

Proposal Components
In order to facilitate consistency among NAWCA proposals, a formatted Proposal Template
(attached) has been developed for use by proposal writers. Writers must use this template in
order to ensure that the proposal meets the U.S. content and formatting requirements, and to
expedite the review and administration process. Certain instructions are provided in the
Proposal Template, which appear as [italics text in square brackets]. Please ensure that
these instructions are deleted and replaced with the requested information in normal font.
Please note that all proposals must be submitted in MS Word format.
Each NAWCA proposal submission must include the following:
1. Proposal Application Cover Page (1 page maximum)
2. Executive Summary (2 pages maximum)
3. Proposal Body (12 pages maximum). The proposal body includes the following
sections:
A. Project Description
B. Expected Benefits
C. Other Considerations
D. Detailed Workplan
E. Budget
4. Maps and Photos
5. Appendices
In addition, please remember that in order to complete the proposal submission:


Original, signed Match Letters from each Match Funds source must be forwarded to
the Wetlands Office for verification and compilation. These are described on page 16.

18

Proposal Completion Instructions
These instructions are designed to facilitate the completion of necessary forms and to guide
proposal writers through the use of the Proposal Template. Please follow these instructions
carefully.

1. Proposal Application Cover Page
(maximum 1 page)
A cover page, as per the Proposal Template, must accompany each proposal. It has no page
number and must include the following information:
Canada Proposal Number: Leave blank. Wetlands Office to complete upon submission.
DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) Number:.
CCR Identifier: Identifier under the Central Contractor Registration.
Proposal or Project Title:
Develop a succinct, descriptive, and unique title restricted to the space provided (2 lines).
Grantee Information:
This is the organization (1) to which the USFWS would award the grant, (2) that will be
accountable for reporting on and managing the grant and (3) that will be responsible for
compliance with regulatory requirements. A contact person must be provided including
their address, email, telephone and fax number.
Project Officer:
This is the agency, organization, group or individual that will be implementing the proposal
and has complete knowledge of the proposal details. A contact person must be provided
including their address, email, telephone and fax number. This role may belong to the
proposal writer.
Proposal Writer:
This is the agency, organization, group or individual that will be writing the proposal. A
contact person must be provided including their address, email, telephone and fax number.
This role may belong to the proposal officer.
Date Submitted:
Leave blank (for use by the Wetlands Office).

19

2. Executive Summary
(maximum 2 pages)
The executive summary is a brief synopsis of the work to be accomplished with NAWCA
and Match Funds in the location prescribed in the proposal. It is best to complete this section
last, since it is a synopsis of information provided in the proposal – it should not contain new
information that is not in the proposal. It must also contain sufficient information to “stand
alone” as the NAWCC (Canada), the NAWCC (U.S.) and the MBCC review only the
executive summary for funding approval.
The format for the executive summary was approved by NAWCC (U.S.) Staff in 2010 and
is provided in the Proposal Template. It must be no more than 2 pages in length and be in 11
pt Calibri font with 1 inch margins. The executive summary is provided to the MBCC for
final approvals, and will not be accepted if it does not follow formatting guidelines.
Instructions for Executive Summary:
Location:
Identify the provinces and Habitat Joint Venture(s) where any activities funded by
NAWCA and/or Match Funds will be undertaken in the proposal - include Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs).
Grantee Organization:
Name of Grantee only (no address required here).
Partners and Funding table:
This table is a key section of the proposal and outlines the funding provided by various
partners for the project. It was updated in 2011-3 to accommodate the 2010 NAWCA
Amendment.
Indicate only the U.S. Federal NAWCA Funds and the corresponding Match Funds
(specifying all U.S. non-federal and Canadian funding partners) here. Other Contributing
partners, including names and funding amounts, are to be listed in Appendix A. Please
note that if Canadian federal government contributions are included in this table,
“Environment Canada” contributes to NAWCA projects, not the “Canadian Wildlife
Service”. U.S. Federal (NAWCA) and Match Funding must be indicated in $U.S. and
should not be rounded. Ensure that all totals are accurate and that numbers presented here
match those presented in the proposal. Include all footnotes as indicated in the Proposal
Template, and adjust them to correspond to each proposal.
Expected Benefits:
Indicate what the benefits of the proposed project are to the production, moulting, staging
and wintering of waterfowl and other wetland-associated migratory birds; other wetlandassociated birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, plants, etc; species at risk; wetlands (by type)
and associated upland habitats; conservation of biodiversity; water quality (if it relates
directly to the project); other social and ecological aspects of significance.
Context of this Proposal:
20

This section may include a description of how the project fits into a larger multi-year
program, if applicable, and how it fits into the Habitat Joint Venture five-year
implementation plan. It should also describe the science/planning that underpins the
proposal. In addition, indicate how this proposal relates to NAWCA accomplishments to
date; new activities and/or partnerships; previous proposals; other Joint Ventures (other
Canadian or U.S. habitat and species JVs); NAWMP and/or other bird initiatives.
Example: The 2007-3 NAWCA Proposal joins DUC professionals from across the
Canadian Prairie/Parkland and Western Boreal Forest eco-regions in the single
task of achieving regional NAWMP waterfowl goals. Coordination with the Prairie
Pothole Joint Venture is regularly maintained. This proposal will contribute 52,061
secured acres and enhance 44,483 acres of wetland and associated upland habitat
to DUC’s current PWBR Business Plan and the PHJV Implementation Plan. This
is a multi-year program that builds on a 17-year commitment by DUC to delivery of
wetland conservation programs in Canada’s Prairie and Parklands, and more
recently, the Western Boreal Forest.
New in this proposal is the introduction of a redesigned DUC internal tracking and
reporting system. This system will add to the accountability gains provided by
productivity models, permitting clearer and timelier budgeting, tracking and
reporting of deficit reduction progress as well as establish the role and contribution
of stewardship (extension) and policy influence activities. Also new in this proposal
is the elimination of contributions to the Continuing Habitat Project Operation fund.
Workplan Budget ($U.S.) and Acres:
Fill in the table with the total cost and cost per acre for securement activities,
enhancement, management and stewardship. Be sure to break out each securement
activity type. Please include the total cost for each activity eligible for NAWCA and/or
Match Funds listed under Other Functions in this table, as well as the approved indirect
cost rate and total indirect cost amount if applicable. Please add further rows as required.
The information in this table must match Section D (Detailed Workplan) of the proposals
exactly; do not round figures.
►The following footnote must appear below the table: “Acres are not additive as
enhancement and management acres have been secured in this and/or previous
proposals”.
Workplan Details:
Do not repeat the acres in this section. Detail the types of securement, enhancement,
management and stewardship activities that will be undertaken and the types of other
functions (communications, coordination, evaluation, and/or reconnaissance and design)
that will be undertaken using NAWCA and/or Match Funds. All activities funded by
Other Contributions for both eligible and non-eligible activities under NAWCA rules are
to be listed in Appendix A.

21

Securement: list the type of acquisition activities to be used (fee simple acquisition, land
title donation, conservation agreements, conservation easements, covenants, etc.) to be
used.
Enhancement: list the types of enhancement activities that will be undertaken.
Management: list the types of management activities that will be undertaken.
Stewardship: list the types of stewardship activities that will be undertaken.
Other Functions: List all other functions and activities eligible for NAWCA and/or Match
funds here. Do not identify those activities that cannot use NAWCA and/or Match funds
(see Table 2: Eligible Expenditures for Activities, pages 33-41).
Public Access:
If specific public access information is available, include a brief overview/statement. If
public access information is not available at the time of proposal writing, include the
following statement: “Lands purchased with NAWCA or Match Funds are open to the
public, subject to regulations to protect the ecological integrity of the site”.

22

3. Proposal Body
(maximum 12 pages)
The body of the proposal must be succinct and cannot exceed twelve pages of text (singlesided) using Calibri 11 point font (not including appendices, maps and photos).
►NAWCC (U.S.) specifies that the text may not be a direct copy from previous
proposals. Even if similar landscapes and activities are being described, text must
be revised and updated to reflect current activities.
►During the course of proposal development, proposal writers may make
reference to other Canadian and/or North American programs such as the North
American Landbird Conservation Plan, the Canadian Shorebird Conservation
Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Bird Conservation
Regions, and/or Canada’s Waterbird Conservation Plan, or provincial plans where
they apply. In addition proposals may mentioned how proposed activities may
contribute to the conservation of habitat for federally-listed (COSEWIC) or
proposed species at risk, provincially listed/proposed species, and/or other
wetland-dependent fish and wildlife.
The body of the proposal must describe how the activities in the proposal fit into a long-term
wetlands conservation plan (such as the existing five-year Joint Venture implementation
plans) and/or programs in the province.
In addition, the proposal sections (outlined below) must describe the project objectives,
stressing biological and ecological considerations. These sections must include a project
description, outline expected benefits, examine special considerations, and include a
workplan as discussed below.
A. Project Description
(recommend 2.5 pages)
This section is an introduction to the proposal. It must include the location of the work to be
undertaken, a brief description of the work to be undertaken (a detailed description will be
included in Section D: Workplan Details), a general description of project delivery areas,
and a short description of the involvement of agencies participating in the project. All of
these, with the exception of the location, will be more fully described in other sections of the
proposal.
The program area where all NAWCA and Match Funds will be spent must be clearly
identified under location in this section (be sure to list all provinces within the appropriate
Joint Venture(s) where work will be conducted). The program areas where Other
Contributions will be spent may be described in Appendix A.
►Any NAWCA and Match Funds allocated to Canada MUST be expended in
Canada within the appropriate Habitat Joint Venture(s).

23

Do not discuss in great detail information that will be covered below in Section (B) and (D).
B. Expected Benefits
(recommend 1 page)
i. Description of Benefits
Describe and quantify how the project will benefit the breeding, moulting, wintering and
staging of waterfowl and other wetland-associated migratory birds. If possible, describe and
quantify the benefits to other wildlife, fish or plant species, and to the conservation of
biological diversity. In particular, describe the benefits of your proposal to rare, threatened
or endangered species (species assessed as at risk by the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) or provincially-listed species) in Canada and
migratory species that are threatened or endangered in the U.S. You may wish to include
other project benefits such as social benefits (water quality, water quantity, etc.),
archaeological, historical, or ecological aspects of significance, especially if directly related
to your project.
ii. Duration of Benefits:
Explain how the proposed combination of any securement, enhancement, or management
techniques will conserve habitat values in the long term. Will any benefits accrue beyond
the term of the NAWCA grant agreement? Ensure you discuss duration in terms of both
tenure of the agreement and life of the technique to be used.
Example: The project objective is to create long-term changes in land use and
permanent wetland protection and conservation. Terms of legal securement vary
depending on specific objectives and techniques. Conservation agreements will
provide security that ranges from 20-30 years on private lands and up to 99 years
on provincial Crown land. Lands designated under the Provincial Parks Act,
conservation reserves, fee simple acquisition and conservation easements will
provide protection in perpetuity.
C. Other Considerations
(recommend 2.5 pages)
i. Project Time Frame:
Is the current proposal stand-alone or is it one portion of a multi-year program that has been
or may be proposed for funding in successive years through NAWCA? If the latter, please
indicate what year this funding window represents and how results from previous years lead
into this proposal. If the current proposal is one phase of a multi-year program such as a
Joint Venture five-year implementation plan, indicate how this proposal contributes to the
multi-year program objectives.
ii. Relationship to Joint Ventures, the NAWMP and the other Bird Conservation Plans:
Show the linkages of this project to provincial plans/programs, habitat and/or species Joint
Venture plans/programs and the relevant bird conservation plans (i.e. North American
Landbird Conservation Plan, the Canadian Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North

24

American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Bird Conservation Regions, and/or Canada’s
Waterbird Conservation Plan).
Example: This project is focused on the top priority areas of the approved Ontario
Implementation Plan that guides EHJV partners in Ontario. Linkages with the BDJV
have been established to integrate recovery efforts for this species. Protection and
enhancement of staging habitats benefit numerous species associated with the PHJV
and SDJV. Canada goose populations associated with the AGJV will also benefit
from staging habitat initiatives. This project also provides benefits to species
associated with U.S.-based initiatives such as the ACJV and PPJV and especially to
the Lake St. Clair/Western Lake Erie watershed proposal in the State of Michigan.
Through DUC’s participation in both the Canadian and Ontario Shorebird Plans,
priority actions for shorebird conservation will be integrated where appropriate.
iii. Land Title and Easement Holder:
Specifically describe the proposed title holder and term of land securement in the following
table format. Include the easement holder where applicable. Title holder should be certain by
the time of the proposal submission. Activity types listed below are shown as examples
only. Refer to the activities listed in your workplan, in the executive summary and section D
of the proposal body below. The activities listed in these three areas of the proposals should
all be consistent.
Activities

Title Holder

Purchase
Conservation Easement
Management Agreement

DUC/NCC
Private Landowner
Private Landowner

Easement
Holder
n/a
DUC
n/a

Conservation Agreement

Alberta Government

n/a

Total Acres
314
200
100
100

Term
Perpetuity
Perpetuity
10 - 30+
years
50+ years

D. Detailed Workplan
(recommend 5 pages)
This section of the proposal should describe what will be done with the funds shown in
the Budget (Section E). Since funding of projects is approved by the MBCC on a yearly
basis, the workplan should be self-contained and describe, in detail, the work to be
completed (e.g., securement of land, enhancement or management work to be conducted)
during the funding year. The workplan consists of the following four main sections:
i. Project Activities:
Describe, in detail, the specific methods that will be used to undertake the projected
activities. Be sure to break out securement activities (i.e. fee simple acquisition and
conservation agreements). Include target wetland acres and target upland acres in each of
the categories except activities that fall under other functions. Wherever possible, identify
the types of wetlands that will be impacted by project activities. Identify the amount of
funding allocated to securement, enhancement, management and stewardship activities as
well as those other functions eligible for NAWCA and/or Match Funds by each funding
25

source category (NAWCA and Match) (see examples below). In addition please identify
indirect costs being charged under a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA).
This portion of the table is not required to be filled in unless indirect costs are being used
and have been negotiated with the U.S. government.
For all activities funded by Other Contributions, for both eligible and non-eligible
activities under NAWCA rules, project activities are to be described in Appendix A of the
proposal with only the overall cost identified (see examples of Appendix A page 32, and
refer to the Eligible and Ineligible Expenditures for Activities in NAWCA Proposals
pages 33-40).
The tabular format provided in the Proposal Template must be used for this section and must
detail the methods or types of activities that will be undertaken (as outlined in the executive
summary workplan details), effects on the landscape, terms of the agreements, total cost,
sources of funding and, where applicable - acres. Be sure to include sub-activities where
applicable. Examples of information to be supplied in the Project Activities tables are
provided below. Feel free to add further rows as required.
►This is a key section reviewed by NAWCC (U.S.) Staff. Ensure that all funding
and acres noted are consistent with previous tables. Ensure also that activities
respect eligibility rules, are directly related to this NAWCA project within this
funding window, and apply to wetlands and waterfowl species. Ensure that
securement activities are specified.
Fictitious examples of the detailed workplan tables:
SECUREMENT
Description: The majority of securement funds will be used for fee simple acquisition.

METHODS/TYPES OF
ACTIVITIES

Fee Simple Acquisition
214 ac wetland
100 ac upland

EFFECTS
•
•

Conservation Easement
100ac wetland
100ac upland

•
•

Conservation Agreement
150 ac wetland
50 ac upland

•
•

Protects key waterfowl habitat based on a stringent
set of criteria.
Demonstrates the importance of the area to the BC
government through the contribution of financial
resources by conservation agencies and facilitates
Crown land designations.
Protects important breeding habitat
Land remains in private ownership whilst
conservation values are protected.

Protects waterfowl habitat.
Enhances habitat for waterfowl and provides more
effective water management for landowner.
• Improves stream flow management.
NAWCA-funded costs: $12,000 U.S.
Match-funded costs: $10,000 U.S.

•
•
•
•
•
•

AGREEMENT
CONDITIONS

Perpetuity
Purchase at a maximum of
fair market value
Wetlands acres
Upland acres
Perpetuity
No development, no
draining, no tilling

30 year agreement with
landowner
• Wetland acres
• Upland acres
714 acres to be secured
(464 wetland and 250 upland)
•

26

STEWARDSHIP
Description: Stewardship activities are actions from landowners, land managers, or conservation agencies that result in
applied land use changes during the project period without long-term legal or binding agreements. Extension (stewardship)
programs are designed to demonstrate sustainable land management on private and Crown land that benefit wetlands and
wetland-dependent birds. The extension process is considered the most likely method to achieve broad scale desired land
use change on farming operations. Note that if acres are privately owned or managed and each owner is not part of the Joint
Venture, then acres can be claimed as influenced.

METHODS/TYPES OF
ACTIVITIES
Winter Cereals - Core
Growers Program: with
producer group partners, DUC
selects and trains leading
producers (core growers) as
advocates for winter wheat as
a viable cropping option.
Conservation program pilot
project (Alternative Land Use
Services)

EFFECTS
•

Large scale, permanent adoption by producers to
include winter wheat in their cropping rotation
through information and demonstration.

Demonstrate the concept of Ecological Goods and
Services.
• Improves stewardship of wetland and associated
upland habitats.
• Creates local champions for new habitat
conservation initiatives and expansion of EGS
programming.
NAWCA-funded costs: $19,200 U.S.
Match-funded costs: $8,800 U.S.
•

AGREEMENT
CONDITIONS

•

[If applicable, fill in as
format of above
securement example]

•

[If applicable, fill in as
format of above
securement example]

800,000 acres undergoing
stewardship activities
(500,000 wetland and 300,000
upland)

OTHER FUNCTIONS Eligible for NAWCA and/or Match Funds Only
METHODS/TYPES OF ACTIVITIES
EFFECTS
Evaluation:
Description: Project-directed studies to evaluate the results/effectiveness of DUC’s NAWMP Program activities on the
landscape and fine-tune future land treatments within existing NAWCA priority project areas (NAWCA-eligible).
CIJV Ground surveys
Assess waterfowl populations on conservation lands to determine
effectiveness of NAWCA-funded project activities.
NAWCA-funded costs: $10,600 U.S.
Match-funded costs: $6,200 U.S.
Coordination 4:
Description: Coordination activities are only NAWCA and/or Match Funds eligible when activities are associated with
NAWCA-related habitat program delivery or are directly linked to program activities. These may include staff
coordination, budgeting, tracking and reporting to program partners when specifically related to obligations to the program.
Administration of NAWCA projects to minimize
Ensures partners integrate programs and combine resources toward
redundancy and maximize effectiveness and
common interests.
efficiency.
Head office accounting, conservation staff and
Ensures financial administration of project delivery.
human resource costs where work/use relates to
specific NAWCA projects.
NAWCA-funded costs: $12,400 U.S.
Match-funded costs: $4,400 U.S.
Communication 5:
4

Reporting to provincial, joint venture, national and international partners may not be eligible unless it is
directly linked to program activities versus just information dissemination.

27

Description: Communication costs associated with NAWCA activities in the proposal.
Project-specific communications such as fact sheets Engage targeted landowners; support NAWCA-funded securement,
and project signage.
restoration and stewardship initiatives.
Positively influence and promote sustainable land use practices.
NAWCA-funded costs: $16,700 U.S.
Match-funded costs: $16,900 U.S.
Reconnaissance and Design:
Description: In order to be NAWCA/Match Funds eligible, project specific biological, agrological and engineering
planning and targeting activities must occur during the project period or during the 2 year “old” match eligibility window
prior to proposal submission. Broad remote sensing, spatial analysis, etc. are not necessarily eligible.
Specific planning and GIS mapping, spatial
Focuses project activities into target natural areas and identifies
analysis, preliminary investigations, site
individual properties with critical habitat.
inventories, baseline studies, and landowner contact Provides preliminary field and office investigations for securement
that are directly related to project activities.
with landowners.
NAWCA-funded costs: $2,200 U.S.
Match-funded costs: $2,000 U.S.
Indirect Costs 6: (only complete if applicable)
Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement for period 7/30/2012-7/30/2013. 11.3% of approved base costs. NICRA
attached as Appendix C.
Base Costs (reflected under other activity categories): $200,000 U.S.
NAWCA-funded indirect costs: $10,000 U.S.
Match-funded indirect costs: $12,600 U.S.

ii. Project Schedule:
Provide a schedule describing the project's main objectives (i.e. securement, enhancement,
management activities…) and roughly the periods in which these objectives are to be
accomplished. Make this calendar relative to the project's start-up time, not a specific date,
since it is unknown when the grant agreement will be consummated. For example, do you
expect to have all securement activities completed within 6 months of receiving the grant?
When will the communications activities be completed?
iii. Project Monitoring:
Describe the plan for ensuring that activities identified in the project will be implemented.
Indicate here that you will provide annual reports to the USFWS that outline progress in
achieving proposal acreage, goals and expenditures.
iv. Project Partners and Partner Responsibilities:
This section must contain a list of all the contributing match partners specifically
contributing to this NAWCA project and must also include a description of partner
5

Landowner recognition and promotional events are not eligible NAWCA/Match costs because they go
beyond what is required for communicating to the public activities in the project. They fall more under
promotion and hospitality events. Similarly, salaries of staff engaged in planning and executing these types
of events are also not allowable.
6
Head office accounting (as listed above under coordination) for example are only eligible as indirect costs.
Indirect costs are only eligible with a NICRA that is updated annually and submitted with proposals.
Currently, no Canadian NAWCA grantee may charge indirect costs because no approved NICRA has been
submitted to USFWS for active projects. Eligible indirect costs, if used, must be explicitly identified in a
proposal. For further explanation of allocation, determination and approval of indirect cost rates please see
2 CFR Part 230 sections D and E and page 33-36 for cost definitions.

28

responsibilities (i.e., those partners that will carry out the activities identified in the project
workplan).
E. Budget
(recommend 1 page)
The budget table must be completed in U.S. dollars and contain, at a minimum, the
information outlined in the Proposal Template. Extra budgetary information is discouraged
in this section. The information in the Proposal Template is the information required by the
U.S., and additional data is likely to become confusing, and raise further questions.
The budget tables shown below are fictitious examples of a completed budget. Be sure to
identify Match sources in the Funding Sources and Amounts table and list all funding
partners. Other Contributing partners including names and funding amounts are to be
listed in Appendix A. Ensure that the information in this table matches the information in
the executive summary.
►Be sure to include the clause “Any currency exchange gains will be directed
back into the NAWCA projects in the __JV”, as indicated in the example budget
table below.
In the Expenditures Eligible for NAWCA and/or Match Funds ($U.S.) table, the activities
listed under “Other Functions” are examples; list activities from your proposal and identify
only those activities that use NAWCA and/or Match funding. Be sure to identify indirect
costs if applicable. Those activities that are not eligible for NAWCA and/or Match Funds
(Other Contributions only), or are eligible but are being funded by Other Contributions are
to be listed in Appendix A.
Please note that any currency exchange losses would be absorbed by the Canadian
program. No footnote is required for this point.
i. Funding Sources & Amounts ($U.S.)*
Partners
U.S. Federal (NAWCA):
North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant Funds

Funding
217,000

Match Funding:
U.S. Ducks Unlimited Inc.
Canadian Ducks Unlimited Canada

212,000
5,000
Match Funding Sub-total
217,000
TOTAL NAWCA & MATCH FUNDING
434,000
*
Any currency exchange gains will be directed back into the NAWCA projects in the EHJV.

29

ii. Expenditures Eligible for NAWCA and/or Match Funds ($U.S.)
Securement
Habitat
Activities
Wetlands
Uplands
Sub-Total

Expenditures
$11,000
$11,000
$22,000

Enhancement

Acres
20
25
45

Expenditures
$103,000
$ 36,000
$139,000

Acres
162
187
349

Other
Functions

7
8

Management
Expenditures
$ 17,400
$121,000
$138,400

Stewardship

Acres

Expenditures

32
117
149

$18,000
$10,000
$28,000

Acres
500
300
800

Expenditures
using NAWCA
and/or Match
Funds only
($U.S.)

Endowment Fund 7
Coordination
Reconnaissance and Design
Evaluation
Communications
Indirect Costs 8
Sub-Total

12,600
16,800
4,200
16,800
33,600
22,600
106,600

TOTAL NAWCA &
MATCH FUNDING

434,000

This activity does not use NAWCA Funds but may use Match Funds.
Indirect costs have been approved using a NICRA attached as Appendix C.

30

4. Maps and Photos
Proposal writers must provide a map(s) of the general area (e.g., rural municipalities/landscapes)
where work will be concentrated. If appropriate, maps should be at the landscape level. It is
recognized that, in some cases, only a general regional scale map will be appropriate for projects
that involve a range of small sites in a large geographic area. If it is possible, identify specific
areas and locations where activities in the proposal will be undertaken.
The map(s) must be of readable quality on letter size paper (8½ x 11 inch), with an inch margin
on the left, showing general project boundaries and be printed in colour. Each map must have
the name of the province(s), proposal title, Grantee name and funding window included on it.
All maps and photos must be placed at the end of the proposal (after the budget page and before
the appendices).
It is highly advisable to include photos in addition to the required map(s), particularly of sample
projects or landscapes relating to the work in this project. Please include a detailed caption for
each photo. If photos are of a plant or animal species be sure to identify the species with its
common name.
►All maps/photos submitted with the proposal will be reviewed by NAWCC (U.S.)
Staff, but a maximum of 2 pages of maps only will be forwarded with the executive
summary to the NAWCC (U.S.) and the MBCC for review. Therefore please ensure
that the first 2 maps are representative of the project as a whole, and show the project
area clearly.
For Joint Venture-level proposals, contact the appropriate Habitat Joint Venture Coordinator
to ensure that the format and scope of the maps are suitable.

31

5. Appendices

(recommend maximum 5 pages)
Insert all appendices at this point in the proposal. Ensure that every appendix is referenced in
the text and number them according to their order of appearance in the text.
Appendix A – Other Contributions
Appendix A of the proposals must identify the following: Other contributing partners including
names and funding amounts; and the workplan details for all activities (both eligible and noneligible for grant/match funds) being funded by Other Contributions.
i.

Other Contributing Partners:

The following is a fictitious example table:
Other Contributing Partners

Funding ($U.S.)

Other Contributors:
Government of Canada - Environment Canada
Government of Nova Scotia
Canadian Nature Federation
Town of Clarks Harbour
Livestock Producers

200,000
120,000
75,000
10,000
15,000

TOTAL

420,000

ii.
Workplan Details
Detail the types of other functions and activities funded by Other Contributions for both
eligible and non-eligible activities under NAWCA rules.
Appendix B - [Title] (if required)
Examples of other appendices that may be relevant to proposals are:
•
detailed lists of funding partners for this project,
•
implementation plan summaries,
•
other planned NAWMP activities directly connected to this project,
•
list of migratory birds and waterfowl species that will benefit from this project, including
identified hunted species.
•
other pertinent information that was not included elsewhere in the proposal.
►Do not include lists of other NAWMP partners that did not directly contribute to
this project in this funding window. Please ensure that all information included in the
appendices is directly related to this project in this funding window.

32

Determining Eligibility and Accounting for Expenditures for
Activities in NAWCA Proposals
Table 2 provides a list of major activities included in NAWCA proposals and their eligibility
with respect to NAWCA Funds, Match Funds and Other Contributions. As of 2005, Match
Funds (U.S. and Canadian since 2010) eligibility is now considered the same as NAWCA
eligibility – if an activity cannot be supported by NAWCA grant funds then it cannot usually be
supported by Match Funds either, with the exception of the use of Match Funds for Endowment
Funds.

Cost Definitions
Direct costs:
Costs that are used towards NAWCA projects and can be easily and logically identifiable
with a particular final objective.
Eg. Salaries of technical staff, project supplies/materials, project publication, computer costs,
travel and vehicle costs for staff executing project activities, equipment or services that are all
purchased or contracted in order to secure, enhance, and/or manage habitat including land
purchases and/or lease and management agreement payments.
Day Rate: (direct cost)
The day rate is the costs associated with employing a staff person to work for one day. The
day rate includes the person's salary for a day, allowable fringe benefits and overhead costs
directly attributable to that person.
To calculate a day rate, take a person's salary, add their annual share of operational costs
(portion of office space, utilities, etc. that are directly attributable to that person, not
regional or national costs) and any allowable fringe costs (allowable training, etc.) and divide
it by the number of days that person should work in a year (subtract allowable vacation and
sick days. If vacation and sick days are included in fringe, you should reduce salary
accordingly and divide by the full number of days in a year).
If a person is a regional biologist, his/her day rate should not include any expenditures
associated with engineering unless the entire engineering staff are included in the overhead
pool. Usually, the engineer would have a separate day rate and his/her time charged
separately.
Note: There should be different day rates for different salary or work classes of employees.
Direct overhead costs (overhead costs): (direct cost)
The proportion of office operational expenditures directly attributable to a staff person.
Eg. Overhead costs may include proportional fringe benefits and office operations costs such
as share of rent, utilities, administrative assistance, etc. in a person's office that can be
assigned to him/her for staff undertaking site securement, habitat enhancement and
management relative to their participation in project activities. Similar expenses outside of
33

that person's office (regional, national) are not direct costs and are not allowable
charges without an indirect cost rate agreement.
Day rate = Salary + overhead costs
Note: The day rate must be negotiated between the Grantee agency and the USFWS and is
separate from the NICRA.
Daily Staff Rate: Same as day rate.
Indirect costs:
Costs that are used towards NAWCA projects but cannot be easily or obviously identifiable
with a particular objective. Indirect costs are those remaining to be allocated to benefitting
cost objectives after direct costs have been determined and assigned directly to awards or
other work.
Eg. General administration including pooled clerical staff, salaries and wages of executive
staff, general expenses, utilities, rent, operating facilities, building and equipment
allowances, audit and legal, accounting.
Note: If receiving more than $10 million in Federal funding of direct costs in a fiscal year, a
breakdown of indirect costs into ‘facilities’ (building and equipment maintenance, etc.) and
‘administration’ (director’s office, accounting, library expenses, etc.) is required.
Eligibility of Indirect Costs:
Unless your organization’s approved negotiated indirect cost rate agreement specifically
allows it, indirect costs calculated on a base that include the following are ineligible:
1. subgrants (subawards), the portion of contracts and subcontracts above $25,000, any
in-kind match provided by a party other than the applicant;
2. 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;
3. the purchase price of interests in real property and the cost to put it into place,
including legal and administrative fees associated directly with the transfer of the
property;
4. 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);
Shared Expenses:
Shared expenses that cannot be directly attributed to a person working on a project should be
in the indirect cost pool and not included in the day rate, i.e. treated as an indirect cost.

34

Indirect cost rate:
An indirect cost rate shall be determined for each separate indirect cost pool developed. The
rate is stated as the percentage which the amount of the particular indirect cost pool is applied
to the distribution base (base costs) identified with that pool.
The indirect cost rate is applicable to a specified current or future period as reflected in the
signed agreement. The rate is based on an estimate of the costs to be incurred during the
period. Any costs that are included in an indirect cost rate pool may never be charged as a
direct cost during the effective period of that indirect cost rate. An organization that does not
have an active indirect cost rate with a Federal agency but wishes to charge indirect costs
shall submit its initial cost proposal immediately after the organization is advised that an
award will be made and no later than three months after the effective date of the award.
Indirect costs may not be charged retroactively unless it is explicitly allowed in the
agreement.
Base Costs (distribution base, allocation base):
The base cost is the class of direct costs upon which indirect costs may be charged. The base
costs are described in the indirect cost rate agreement. The essential consideration in
selecting a base is that it is the one best suited for assigning the pool of costs to cost
objectives in accordance with benefits derived; a traceable cause and effect relationship; or
logic and reason, where neither the cause nor the effect of the relationship is determinable.
When an allocation can be made by assignment of a cost grouping directly to the function
benefited, the allocation shall be made in that manner. When the expenses in a cost grouping
are more general in nature, the allocation shall be made through the use of a selected base
which produces results that are equitable to both the U.S. Federal Government and the
organization. The proposed base costs must be shown in the proposal. Its components may
include enhancement personnel time, seed, equipment rental, etc. (whatever is allowable
under the specific agreement).
Eg. If you have $481,000 in total grant/match funds being distributed to eligible NAWCA
activities such as enhancement, management, etc., $200,000 of which fall under allowable
base costs under the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, and the indirect costs rate is
negotiated at 11.3% of approved base costs, then you would show NAWCA-funded indirect
costs as $22,600. You may charge indirect costs to grant funds or use them as match, but
you must show the breakdown in the proposal.
Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA):
Each NICRA shall include development of the rate for each indirect cost pool and the overall
indirect cost rate. The results of each negotiation shall be formalized in a written agreement
between the U.S. Department of Interior and the non-profit organization. The organization to
which the NICRA applies is responsible for sharing it with other U.S. Federal agencies.
Additional Notes
When to use indirect costs, indirect cost rate and obtain a NICRA:
Generally for ‘local level’ expenses use direct costs. For ‘national/general level’ expenses use
indirect costs through a NICRA, or Other Contributions.
35

Expiry of indirect cost rates:
Note that indirect cost rates expire and are renegotiated every year. While there is no explicit
cap on coordination activities, U.S. Council does not like to see much grant/match funding
going towards coordination activities.
Indirect cost rate and coordination:
There seems to be a strong association between the day rate, indirect costs, the indirect cost
rate and coordination activities. Though some indirect costs and the day rate costs may fall
under coordination activities, they are not solely part of coordination activities. The day rate
for example usually falls under restoration/enhancement activities but may show up wherever
appropriate staff costs are charged.
Please do not assume these terms are connected to coordination activities alone and label
coordination activities as “Coordination” and not as “Indirect Cost Rate”.
Note: Not all of the above terms are listed in the 2 CFR Part 230 document. For further,
more detailed explanations on some of the above terms, please see this document.
Please note that the guidance provided for the activities is based on previous experience,
Canadian policy as well as official U.S. guidelines. It is meant as a guide, and not as a set of
legal definitions. Please refer to the 2 CFR Part 230 Cost Principles for Non-Profit
Organizations document, formerly called “OMB Circular A122”, to ensure that activities are
eligible for NAWCA funding.

36

MBTA
Gulf Spill

Other
Contributions

Match
Funds*

Activity

NAWCA
Funds

Table 2 Activities & Eligible Expenditures
Funding Source

Major Activities
Securement























Enhancement

Management

Guidance for Canadian Proposals

The protection of wetland and/or upland habitat through land title transfer
or binding long-term conservation agreements with a landowner. Activities
that acquire land through title transfer include crown land transfers, fee
simple acquisition, and land donation. Other land securement methods
allow partners to get permission to occupy or carry out specific activities on
land that is owned by someone else. In these cases, title or ownership of the
land does not change hands. These activities include Conservation
Agreements, Conservation Easements, Crown Designations, Lease
Agreements, and Cooperative Land Use Agreement. For land to be
considered as secured, signed agreements with landowner must be a
minimum of 10 years duration.
Actions carried out on NAWCA-secured wetland and/or upland habitats to
increase their carrying capacity for wetland-associated migratory birds and
other wildlife. Examples of enhancement activities include wetland
restoration, installation of nesting structures, installation of water control
structures, seeding cropland to perennial cover, and installation of fencing.
Activities conducted on wetland and/or upland habitats secured by through
the NAWCA to manage and maintain their carrying capacity for wetlandassociated migratory birds and other wildlife. Examples of wetland
management activities include water-level manipulation (water drawdowns, back-floods, control operations and pumping), mechanical and
chemical vegetation control, managed burns, operation and maintenance of
nesting structures (e.g., nest tunnels and boxes) and project inspections,
repairs and maintenance. Examples of upland habitat management activities
include managed burns, fertilizer application, maintenance of fencing and
signage, and payment of land taxes.
37

Major Activities continued
Stewardship
(extension or
influenced)



Other Functions
Reconnaissance &
Design





‡

‡



‡

‡



Coordination

MBTA
Gulf Spill

Other
Contributions

Match
Funds*

Activity

NAWCA
Funds

Funding Source
Guidance for Canadian Proposals

Activities (with committed tenures of less than 10 years) that promote or
directly result in the sustainable use of land for the purpose of conserving
wetland-dependent birds and the habitats they depend on. Extension
activities demonstrate the benefits of environmentally sustainable land use
practices by landowners, land managers, and conservation organization.
Influenced activities are direct actions taken by landowners, land managers,
or conservation agencies that protect or enhance wetland or associated
upland habitats without long-term legal or binding agreements. These direct
actions result in applied land use changes. Promotion of government actions
that benefit land use generally, but do not have a specific, identifiable
benefit for NAWCA priorities or do not have a targeted on-the-ground
component is considered policy and is not NAWCA eligible.
Project specific biological, agrological and engineering planning and
targeting activities that occur prior to actual program delivery. In order to
be NAWCA eligible, activities must occur during the project period or
during the 2 year “old” match eligibility window prior to proposal
submission.
Includes costs that are associated with NAWCA-associated habitat program
delivery and staff coordination at project levels. Provincial, joint venture,
regional, national, or other coordination costs are only eligible as captured
in an indirect cost rate agreement (see below) or as “Other Contributions”.
General NAWMP or JV coordination activities or other non-project specific
coordination and reporting activities are not NAWCA eligible.

38

MBTA
Gulf Spill

Other
Contributions

Match
Funds*

Activity

NAWCA
Funds

Funding Source

Other Functions continued
Indirect Costs

‡

‡



‡

‡



Communications

Government
Relations or Policy



‡

Guidance for Canadian Proposals

In order for indirect costs to be NAWCA eligible, the Grantee must have an
approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) with the U.S. federal
government that covers the period under which the indirect costs are charged. The
NICRA is negotiated annually with the cognizant federal agency. Grantees
wishing to charge indirect costs (as match or grant funded) must submit a copy of
their most recent approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement with their
proposal, and the proposal must explicitly identify the grant or match amounts that
will be charged as indirect costs, as well as the categories of base costs to which
the indirect cost rate will be applied.
NAWCA and Match Funds eligible only if the communications are specific to
activities in the proposal (e.g., signs to identify partners involved in the securement
of a parcel of land). General communications (about the Joint Venture, NAWMP,
NABCI or to broaden partnerships) and promotional events (even if project
related) are not NAWCA eligible and only Other Contributions can be used
The NAWCC (U.S.) does not allow NAWCA or Match Funds to be used to
influence government policy (similarly, the 2 CFR Part 230 does not allow U.S.
federal funds to be used to lobby for changes in federal or state legislation). Note,
if a pilot or demonstration project may ultimately lead to a change in government
policy but the project is currently only demonstrating a new application to improve
wetland conservation or habitat conditions, it should be listed as a stewardship
(extension) activity that may be eligible to be funded by NAWCA, Match Funds
and/or Other Contribution dollars. It should describe what the activity currently
does and not what it can potentially do. If the demonstration activity does not
involve on-the-ground land use practices but rather is focused efficacy of
government policy or incentives on conservation, it is not NAWCA eligible and
may only be funded through Other Contributions.
39

Other Functions continued
Endowment Fund





‡



Evaluation
(Assessment)

‡

MBTA
Gulf Spill

Other
Contributions

Match
Funds*

Activity

NAWCA
Funds

Funding Source
Guidance for Canadian Proposals

Funds used for the management of secured lands in the future. These funds must be
placed in a dedicated account to be used for management/maintenance of a NAWCA
secured property. Endowment funds can be in a pooled endowment account with other
properties but the funds cannot be placed into general coffers, etc. In order to be match
eligible, endowment accounts must be available for review by USFWS if requested.
Endowment funds are shown as “Other Functions” in both the executive summary and
the full proposal. Base funds placed into an endowment/management account and
claimed as match for a given project may not be claimed as match for future projects
(i.e., when they are withdrawn and expended for actual management costs).
For evaluation activities to be Match Funds and NAWCA Funds eligible, they must
support the review of progress toward NAWCA project objectives and NAWMP
goals. These activities must evaluate the effects of the NAWCA program and have
application throughout the Joint Venture for improving future NAWCA efforts. A
description of how this proposed component fits into both the Joint Venture approved
evaluation/assessment plan and the NAWCA project must also be included. Specific
expenses associated with large-scale assessments /evaluation activities that do not
directly contribute to NAWCA program objectives are only Other Contributions
eligible. Project-directed studies related to habitat or migratory birds are also
evaluation activities eligible for NAWCA Funds/ Match Funds/ Other Contributions
as long as they are assessing the results of activities done under a NAWCA project
and included as part of the NAWCA proposal. They may have broader implications
for other NAWCA projects but not on the program scale of a JV assessment. All
evaluation/ assessment activities must be an integral part of the NAWCA project, not
stand-alone assessments or evaluation efforts. Evaluation or assessment activities that
do not meaningfully contribute to the targeting of habitat conservation for wetlanddependent migratory birds are never NAWCA eligible.
40

Other Functions continued
Monitoring

‡
*

MBTA
Gulf Spill

Other
Contributions

Match
Funds*

Activity

NAWCA
Funds

Funding Source
Guidance for Canadian Proposals

Monitoring and research activities such as the Canadian Wildlife Service breeding and
staging surveys are ONLY Other Contributions eligible and while they can be
included as an Other Contribution to the proposal it must be clearly indicated that only
Other Contribution funds are being used for this activity.

Conditional
Includes U.S. (non-federal) funding and Canadian (both federal and non-federal) funding.

Table 3 Ineligible Expenditures
The activities listed below cannot use NAWCA, Match or Other Contribution Funds.
Activity
Mitigation

Predator Management

Guidance for Canadian Proposals
Other Contributions, NAWCA funds and Match Funds cannot be
involved in any aspect of a wetland mitigation project. For
example, securement of wetlands in order to mitigate for wetland
loss elsewhere associated with the construction of a new highway
would be ineligible.
Other Contributions, NAWCA and Match Funds cannot be used for
predator management. For example, predator trapping to increase
nest survival is ineligible.

41

NAWCA Funding Program Contacts
Canadian NAWCA Proposals:
Wetlands Office
Environment Canada
15th Floor, Place Vincent Massey
351 St. Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Québec
K1A 0H3
(for couriered packages use postal code J8Y 3Z5)
Phone: 819-938-4030
Fax: 819-994-4445
Email: [email protected]
Canadian NAWCA Grant Agreements:
NAWCA Canadian Grants Coordinator
Division of Bird Habitat Conservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
MBSP 4075
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703-358-2463
Fax: 703-358-2282
Email: [email protected]
Canadian Habitat Joint Ventrures:
Pacific Coast Habitat Joint Venture
Tasha Sargent
Email: [email protected]
Canadian Intermountain Habitat Joint Venture
Tasha Sargent
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Prairie Habitat Joint Venture
Deanna Dixon
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Eastern Habitat Joint Venture
Patricia Edwards
Email: [email protected]
42

Appendix 1 – Migratory Bird Treaty Act Gulf Spill Funding
In April 2010, an explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to one
of the largest environmental disasters in U.S. history, now known as the Deepwater Horizon,
Macondo, or BP oil spill. In January 2013, $100 million in Migratory Bird Treaty Act fines
were directed to the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF) as part of the
settlement to address impacts under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
The money must be used “for the purpose of wetlands restoration and conservation projects
located in Gulf Coast States or otherwise designed to benefit migratory bird species and other
wildlife and habitat affected by the Macondo oil spill” (Jan. 2013. Judge Sarah Vance,
Document 65, Case 2:12-cr-00292-SSV-DEK).
Amount Available:
• In FY 2015, approximately $4.56 million will be available for projects in Canada that
benefit NAWCA priority species that were affected by the spill.
• Proposals from Canada must have at least a one-to-one ratio of matching funds to the
Gulf Spill money requested. Match funding may include U.S. non-federal funding and
Canadian federal or non-federal funding. Canadian funding may comprise up to 50%
of the total match funds.
Eligibility Requirements for funding proposals with Migratory Bird Treaty Act Gulf Spill
funding
Proposals requesting special funding from the MBTA Gulf Spill settlement must meet the
following criteria in order to be eligible for funding:
• Proposals should describe a discrete project that will deliver conservation benefits to
species affected by the BP Spill (see Table 5 for affected species). If identifiable,
projects should target populations of species that winter or stop over in the U.S. Gulf
of Mexico coastal zone impacted by the spill (Figure 3). Only species on the “affected
species” list (Table 5) provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Division of
Bird Habitat Conservation will be eligible. Proposals should list the target species and
explicitly identify how habitat conservation activities in the project will benefit those
affected species.
• Projects should address identified conservation needs of affected species for the
appropriate portion of their life cycle (primarily breeding in Canada). Population or
habitat needs of affected species should be referenced within such plans as a Canada
JV Implementation Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Partners in Flight North American Landbird
Conservation Plan, or other government supported species conservation plan. Projects
that provide some benefits but do not address identified conservation needs for
affected species may be deemed ineligible.
• Proposals which benefit multiple affected species, particularly those with population
and habitat targets within the above mentioned listed plans, will be given preference.
Those that are designed for other species or habitats and only provide ancillary or
secondary benefits to affected species may be declared ineligible.
43

•
•

•

•

•
•

MBTA proposals can have a landscape level approach (i.e., multiple sites across a
JV), however individual activity sites must have a strong nexus with affected species
breeding or migratory habitats.
Only Proposals where there will be demonstrable benefit to affected populations of
affected species will be funded. There must be strong justification for benefits to
affected species in any proposal. Projects benefitting any populations that do not
winter or stop over in the Gulf spill zone will be ineligible. For instance, projects
benefitting Pacific or western populations of species on the list will not be eligible for
funding. In addition there are some species whose subpopulations were impacted by
the spill, therefore only those subpopulations should be referenced in the proposal
(not the greater population).
Projects funded under the MBTA Gulf Spill RFP must have a long-term conservation
benefit for affected species. The tenure of benefit for a MBTA Gulf Spill funded
project should range from 10 years to perpetuity. Only activities that can be
maintained for this period of time will be considered eligible.
Only Securement and Enhancement activities are eligible for funding. Stewardship,
management, research and monitoring are not eligible activities and should not be
included in MBTA funding requests. These requirements apply to both match and
grant-funded activities.
Proposed projects activities should be completed within a two year timeframe.
Deliverables from Spill-related projects should not overlap with those associated with
other NAWCA funding. There must be a clear distinction between funds and acres
used to achieve Spill-related project objectives and those of other NAWCA projects.
Projects can be complementary but combining funding of separate NAWCA grants to
achieve overlapping acquisition or enhancement acres is not allowable.

Only high quality projects that are appropriate for the NAWCA program and meet the
additional MBTA Gulf Spill funding criteria should be forwarded for approval. U.S.
NAWCC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation
reserve the right to deem a project ineligible if specific MBTA funding criteria are not met.
Funds allocated to Canada will be preserved for future Canadian proposals. Any MBTA Spill
funds allocated to Canada that are not awarded in 2015 will be carried over to FY 2016.

44

Table 4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Gulf Spill Funding Timeline
Funding
Window

Time Frame
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Second Window

TBD
TBD
TBD
August 5, 2014
September 24-25, 2014
December 9-10, 2014
March 11, 2015

Activities
Call for Proposals sent by Joint Ventures to Canadian
Grantees with estimated U.S. MBTA Gulf Spill
funding.
Proposal/project planning with provincial steering
committees, proposal writing, and Habitat Joint
Venture review and approval of proposals9.
Deadline for Canadian MBTA proposal submissions
to Wetlands Office.
Wetlands Office reviews proposals and works with
Grantees on revisions10.
NAWCC (Canada) review and endorsement of
proposals.
NAWCC (Canada) review and endorsement of
proposals.
Original Match Funding letters due to Wetlands
Office by mail.
Proposals prepared by Wetlands Office for submission
to the USFWS.
Deadline for the official submission of the Canadian
2015-2 MBTA Gulf Spill proposals and all associated
materials to the USFWS for consideration.
NAWCC (U.S.) Staff meeting to recommend
proposals for approval.
NAWCC (U.S.) meeting to recommend proposals for
approval.
MBCC meeting to approve proposals.

9

Joint Venture Coordinators are responsible for ensuring proposals meet the goals and objectives of the
Implementation Plans and activities are eligible under NAWCA/MBTA.
10
The Wetlands Office is responsible for ensuring national consistency according to the template, ensuring
consistency with NAWCC (Canada) direction, and ensuring compliance with MBTA eligibility and U.S.
MBCC.

45

Table 5. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Gulf Spill Affected Species List
NAWCA Priority Bird List for MBTA Gulf Spill Settlement Projects
American Bittern (mid-Continent*)
American Black Duck
American Oystercatcher (FL & Gulf Coast)
American Wigeon
Audubon's Shearwater
Bachman's Sparrow (mid-Continent)
Bald Eagle (mid-Continent)
Black Rail (mid-Continent)
Black Skimmer (Gulf Coast only)
Black Tern (mid-Continent)
Black-crowned Night-Heron (Gulf Coast only)
Buff-breasted Sandpiper (mid-Continent)
Canvasback
Common Tern (Great Lakes population)
Greater Scaup
Gull-billed Tern (Great Lakes population)
Henslow's Sparrow (mid-Continent)
Horned Grebe (mid-Continent)
Hudsonian Godwit (mid-Continent)
Kentucky Warbler (mid-Continent)
King Rail (mid-Continent)
Least Bittern (mid-Continent)
Least Tern (mid-Continent)
Le Conte's Sparrow (mid-Continent)
Lesser Scaup
Lesser Yellowlegs (pops. East of Rockies)
Limpkin (Gulf Coast only)
Little Blue Heron (mid-Continent)
Long-billed Curlew (pops. East of Rockies)
Mallard (mid-Continent)
Mangrove Cuckoo (Gulf Coast only)
Marbled Godwit (pops. East of Rockies)
Marsh Wren (mid-Continent)
Mottled Duck

Nelson's Sparrow (mid-Continent)
Northern Pintail (pops. East of Rockies)
Painted Bunting (mid-Continent)
Pied-billed Grebe (mid-Continent)
Piping Plover (Great Lakes and Great Plains pops.)
Prothonotary Warbler (mid-Continent)
Red Knot (C.c. rufa and C.c. roselaari)
Reddish Egret (Gulf Coast only)
Redhead
Red-throated Loon (mid-Continent)
Ring-necked Duck (mid-Continent)
Roseate Spoonbill (Gulf Coast only)
Rusty Blackbird (mid-Continent)
Saltmarsh Sparrow (Gulf Coast only)
Sandwich Tern (Gulf Coast only)
Seaside Sparrow (Gulf Coast only)
Sedge Wren (mid-Continent)
Semipalmated Sandpiper (mid-Continent)
Short-billed Dowitcher (mid-Continent)
Snowy Egret (mid-Continent)
Snowy Plover (Interior U.S. and Gulf Coast populations)
Solitary Sandpiper (mid-Continent)
Swainson's Warbler (mid-Continent)
Swallow-tailed Kite (Gulf Coast only)
Whimbrel (mid-Continent)
Wilson's Plover (Gulf Coast and south)
Worm-eating Warbler (mid-Continent)
Yellow Rail (pops. East of Rockies)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (mid-Continent)
*mid-Continent=Central and Mississippi Flyways
Oiled

46

Figure 3. Gulf Spill Zone Map
Illustrates the exact geography impacted by the Gulf spill. Projects should provide benefit to species who utilize this exact zone

47

Figure 4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Spill Fund Affected Species Richness Map
Depicts general areas of higher and lower richness of affected species across the continent.

48