Opportunity Information: Apply for F14AS00041
Apply for F14AS00041
- The Fish and Wildlife Service in the environment information and statistics natural resources regional development science and technology and other research and development sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "Review and Revision of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co Management Council Subsistence Harvest Survey" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 15.643 Alaska Migratory Bird Co Management Council.
- This funding opportunity was created on Dec 11, 2013 and posted on Dec 11, 2013.
- Applicants must submit their applications by Feb 7, 2014. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The funding agency has allocated a total of $675,000.00 to eligible and selected applicants.
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $175,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 1 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: Others (see text field entitled Additional Information on Eligibility for clarification).
- All qualified members of a Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (http://www.cesu.psu.edu/) are eligible to apply The successful applicant is expected to have (i) demonstrated professional experience, expertise, and education in human dimensions and social sciences related to the design and implementation of scientific surveys to assess natural resource questions in Alaska or a similar geographic region (ii) education and demonstrated ability in analyzing scientific survey data including statistical expertise (iii) knowledge and understanding of subsistence hunting, sport hunting, and wildlife management in Alaska or a similar geographic region (iv) knowledge and/or experience working in rural Alaska and with its Native peoples or comparable experience from a similar geographic region and (v) demonstrated professional experience, expertise, and education in decision analysis and facilitation.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offered this discretionary cooperative agreement (Funding Opportunity Number F14AS00041) to improve how Alaska tracks subsistence harvests of migratory birds through the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC). The core purpose of the award was not to fund harvest monitoring itself, but to take a hard, systematic look at the existing subsistence harvest survey and then redesign it as needed so the final approach is scientifically defensible, realistic to run in Alaska, and culturally acceptable to the rural and Alaska Native communities most affected by the survey. In practical terms, the project was meant to strengthen the survey instrument, the overall process for collecting information, the analytical methods used to interpret the data, and the reporting format used to share results with managers and communities.
The work described in the announcement breaks into three major tasks. First, the recipient would review the current survey design and document what is working and what is not, focusing on factors like cost, bias, accuracy, and precision. That includes examining how the survey is implemented on the ground (for example, logistics in remote communities, seasonal timing, interviewer effects, response rates, and data quality controls) and how the results are ultimately used for wildlife management and co-management decisions. Second, the recipient would develop and evaluate alternative survey approaches. That could involve testing different sampling designs, different modes of data collection, different questionnaires or recall periods, and different ways of handling sensitive topics in a subsistence context, with the explicit expectation that alternatives would be piloted or otherwise tested rather than proposed only on paper. Third, after comparing options, the recipient would recommend a preferred alternative that best meets the survey objectives, balancing statistical rigor with feasibility and community acceptability.
A key theme of the opportunity is the need to make the survey credible and useful from multiple perspectives at once. "Scientifically defensible" signals an expectation that the chosen method can withstand scrutiny around statistical validity (bias, variance, inference to the target population, and transparent assumptions). "Practicable" acknowledges Alaska-specific realities like travel costs, weather, remoteness, limited staffing, and the challenge of consistent implementation across a very large geography. "Culturally acceptable" makes clear that the approach must fit the social context of subsistence harvest reporting, including respectful engagement, trust, confidentiality concerns, and the importance of collaborating effectively with Alaska Native communities. The announcement also highlights that the final package should cover not just the questionnaire, but the full chain from design to analysis to reporting.
The total estimated funding for the opportunity was $675,000, with the agency expecting to make one award. The award ceiling and floor were both listed as $175,000, indicating a fixed-size award per project period or per award action as posted in the notice, even though the broader total estimate suggests the agency anticipated additional funding across time or related efforts. There was no cost sharing or matching requirement, which reduces barriers for eligible applicants and keeps the focus on technical capability and partnership readiness rather than applicant financial contributions. The closing date for applications was February 7, 2014, and the opportunity was later archived on June 6, 2014.
Eligibility was limited to qualified members of a Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU), a network used by federal agencies to partner with universities, tribes, and other organizations for research and technical assistance. Beyond formal eligibility, the announcement described the kind of team the agency expected to be successful: strong human dimensions and social science experience in designing and running surveys for natural resource questions in Alaska or similar regions; statistical expertise in analyzing survey data; a working understanding of subsistence and sport hunting and wildlife management in Alaska; experience working in rural Alaska and with Alaska Native peoples (or closely comparable experience); and demonstrated capability in decision analysis and facilitation, reflecting that the project is partly technical and partly about structured collaboration among partners with different priorities and knowledge systems.
Administratively, the award instrument was a cooperative agreement, which typically means the Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated substantial involvement during the project (for example, coordinating with the AMBCC, guiding deliverables, reviewing pilot results, and aligning the final recommendation with management needs). The activity categories listed in the notice place the project at the intersection of environment, information and statistics, natural resources, regional development, and research and development, which fits a survey redesign effort that must serve both scientific and applied management functions. For more context about the council and its role, the notice pointed to the AMBCC website, and it provided a contracting officer contact (Katherine Smiley, 907-786-3412, KatherineSmiley@fws.gov) for applicants who could not access the full announcement electronically.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is this funding opportunity?
This was a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discretionary cooperative agreement funding opportunity (Funding Opportunity Number F14AS00041) focused on improving how Alaska tracks subsistence harvests of migratory birds through work connected to the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC).
What is the main purpose of the award?
The core purpose was to take a systematic, critical look at the existing subsistence harvest survey and redesign it as needed. The goal was to produce a final survey approach that is scientifically defensible, realistic to implement in Alaska, and culturally acceptable to the rural and Alaska Native communities most affected by subsistence harvest reporting.
Is this grant meant to pay for ongoing harvest monitoring?
No. The opportunity emphasizes that it was not primarily intended to fund harvest monitoring itself. Instead, it was intended to evaluate and improve (and potentially redesign) the survey system used to track subsistence harvests of migratory birds.
What parts of the survey system were expected to be improved?
The announcement describes strengthening the full chain of the survey effort, including the survey instrument (questionnaire), field data collection process, analytical methods used to interpret results, and reporting formats used to share results with managers and communities.
What were the major tasks described for the project?
The work was organized into three major tasks: (1) review and document strengths/weaknesses of the current survey design and implementation, (2) develop and evaluate alternative survey approaches (with expectations for piloting or testing), and (3) recommend a preferred alternative that best balances survey objectives, feasibility, and community acceptability.
What did the first task (review of the current survey) involve?
The review focused on documenting what is working and what is not, including cost, bias, accuracy, and precision. It also included examining real-world implementation issues such as logistics in remote communities, seasonal timing, interviewer effects, response rates, and data quality controls, as well as how results are used in wildlife management and co-management decisions.
What did the second task (develop and evaluate alternatives) involve?
It involved developing and evaluating alternative survey approaches, potentially including different sampling designs, different modes of data collection, different questionnaires or recall periods, and different ways of handling sensitive topics in a subsistence context. The announcement expected that alternatives would be piloted or otherwise tested, not only proposed in theory.
What did the third task (recommendation) require?
After comparing options, the recipient was expected to recommend a preferred alternative that best meets the survey objectives while balancing statistical rigor with Alaska-specific feasibility and community acceptability.
What does "scientifically defensible" mean in this context?
It signals that the chosen approach should hold up under scrutiny for statistical validity, including clear treatment of bias, variance, inference to the target population, and transparent assumptions.
What does "practicable" mean for a statewide Alaska survey?
It acknowledges Alaska-specific realities such as travel costs, weather constraints, remoteness, limited staffing, and the challenge of consistent implementation across a very large geography.
What does "culturally acceptable" mean for subsistence harvest reporting?
It means the approach must fit the social context of subsistence harvest reporting, including respectful engagement, trust, confidentiality concerns, and effective collaboration with Alaska Native communities and rural residents.
Was the award focused only on the questionnaire?
No. The announcement highlights that the final package should cover more than just the questionnaire, addressing design, field implementation, analysis, and reporting.
Who was expected to be involved in the project?
The work was tied to the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC), and the cooperative agreement structure indicates coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and alignment with co-management and management needs.
What type of award instrument was used?
The instrument was a cooperative agreement, which typically indicates substantial federal involvement during the project, such as coordination with AMBCC, input on deliverables, review of pilot results, and alignment of the final recommended approach with management needs.
How much funding was available?
The total estimated funding was $675,000, and the agency expected to make one award.
What were the award ceiling and floor?
Both the award ceiling and the award floor were listed as $175,000, indicating a fixed-size award as posted in the notice (even though the overall estimated total suggests expectations of additional funding across time or related efforts).
How many awards were expected?
The agency expected to make one award.
Was cost sharing or matching required?
No. The notice stated there was no cost sharing or matching requirement.
Who was eligible to apply?
Eligibility was limited to qualified members of a Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU).
What kinds of expertise did the agency expect from an applicant team?
Beyond formal CESU eligibility, the announcement described expectations for a team with strong human dimensions and social science survey experience relevant to Alaska or similar regions; statistical expertise in survey analysis; working understanding of subsistence and sport hunting and wildlife management in Alaska; experience working in rural Alaska and with Alaska Native peoples (or closely comparable experience); and demonstrated capability in decision analysis and facilitation.
Why were decision analysis and facilitation mentioned?
The announcement framed the project as partly technical and partly about structured collaboration among partners with different priorities and knowledge systems, which is where decision analysis and facilitation capabilities become important.
What activity areas did the notice associate with this work?
The activity categories placed the project at the intersection of environment, information and statistics, natural resources, regional development, and research and development.
When was the application deadline?
The closing date for applications was February 7, 2014.
When was the opportunity archived?
The opportunity was later archived on June 6, 2014.
Where could applicants find more context about AMBCC?
The notice pointed to the AMBCC website for additional context about the council and its role.
Who was the contact if an applicant could not access the full announcement electronically?
The notice provided a contracting officer contact: Katherine Smiley, 907-786-3412, KatherineSmiley@fws.gov.
What kinds of implementation challenges was the project expected to consider?
The announcement specifically mentions challenges and factors such as logistics in remote communities, seasonal timing, interviewer effects, response rates, data quality controls, and the costs and constraints associated with weather, travel, staffing, and geography.
How were sensitive topics expected to be handled in the survey redesign?
The notice explicitly anticipates that alternatives may include different ways of handling sensitive topics in a subsistence context, with an emphasis on cultural acceptability, trust, and confidentiality concerns.
What was the intended end product of the project?
The intended end product was a recommended, tested (through pilots or other evaluation) survey approach and supporting end-to-end framework that improves credibility and usefulness for managers and communities while meeting scientific, practical, and cultural requirements.
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Environment Information and Statistics Natural Resources Regional Development Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Next opportunity: Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grants Program
Previous opportunity: Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPOREs) in Human Cancer for Years 2013 and 2014 (P50)
USGrants.org Applicant Portal:
Are you interested in learning about about how to apply for this government funding opportunity? You can create a free applicant account and receive instant access to our applicant portal that many business owners like you have benefited from.
Apply for F14AS00041
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Grant application guides and resources
It is always free to apply for government grants. However the process may be very complex depending on the funding opportunity you are applying for. Let us help you!
Apply for Grants
Premium leads for funding administrators, grant writers, and loan issuers
Thousands of people visit our website for their funding needs every day. When a user creates a grant proposal and files for submission, we pass the information on to funding administrators, grant writers, and government loan issuers.
If you manage government grant programs, provide grant writing services, or issue personal or government loans, we can help you reach your audience.
Subscribe to Leads
Request more information:
Would you like to learn more about this funding opportunity, similar opportunities to "F14AS00041", eligibility, application service, and/or application tips? Submit an inquiry below:
Don't forget to subscribe to our grant alerts mailing list to receive weekly alerts on new and updated grant funding opportunities like this one in your email.