[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1720-1739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-783]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 011102267-1267-01; I.D. No. 102301B]


Financial Assistance for Marine Mammal Stranding Networks Through 
the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation for applications.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (hereinafter 
``we'' or ``us'') issues this document to solicit applications for 
Federal assistance under the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue 
Assistance Grant Program (Prescott Stranding Grant Program). This 
document describes how you can apply for funding under the Program, and 
how we will determine which applications will be funded.
    Under the Prescott Stranding Grant Program, we will provide 
financial assistance (up to $100,000 in Federal funds, with a 25 
percent non-federal cost-sharing requirement) to eligible marine mammal 
stranding network participants for (1) the recovery or treatment of 
stranded marine mammals and (2) the collection of data from living or 
dead stranded marine mammals for scientific research regarding marine 
mammal health. Financial assistance will also be given for facility 
operation costs that are directly related to (1) and (2), above. 
Proposals will be reviewed, ranked within Regional or National priority 
pools based on technical merit, and final selections will take into 
account other policy factors including level of priority, stranding 
needs, and equitable distribution of funds nationally.

DATES: We must receive your application by 5 p.m. (local time) March 
15, 2002 in one of the offices listed in section I.I. (Applications 
Addresses) of this document. You must submit one signed original and 
two copies of the completed application (including supporting 
information). We will not accept facsimile or electronic applications.

ADDRESSES: You can obtain an application package from, and send your 
completed application(s) to, the NMFS Regional Administrator or the 
Protected Resources Office Director located at any of the offices 
listed in section I.I. Application Addresses of this document. You may 
also obtain the application package from the NMFS Protected Resources 
Home Page (see Section I.J. Electronic Access Addresses). However, we 
cannot accept completed applications electronically at this time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Colleen Coogan or Dr. Teri Rowles, 
Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program 301-713-2322 ext 
144, or 178 or via e-mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

I. Introduction

    We are soliciting applications for Federal assistance pursuant to 
The Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act of 2000 which amended the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to establish the John H. Prescott 
Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program (16 U.S.C. 1421f-1) 
(hereafter referred to as the Prescott Stranding Grant Program). This 
document describes how you can apply for funding appropriated in fiscal 
years (FY) 2001 and 2002 under the Prescott Stranding Grant Program and 
how we will determine which applications will be funded.

A. Background

    The Prescott Stranding Grant Program is conducted by the Secretary 
of Commerce to provide grants or cooperative agreements for eligible 
stranding network participants (see section I.E. of this document) for 
(1) recovery or treatment of marine mammals, (2) collection of data 
from living or dead stranded marine

[[Page 1721]]

mammals \1\ for scientific research regarding marine mammal health and 
(3) for facilities operations costs that are directly related to these 
purposes. The Prescott Stranding Grant Program will be administered 
through the NMFS Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of this document, a stranded marine mammal is a 
marine mammal in the wild that is (1) dead and on a beach, shore, or 
in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States or (2) is live 
and on a beach or shore of the United States and unable to return to 
the water, is in apparent need of medical attention, or is in waters 
under the jurisdiction of the United States but is unable to return 
to its natural habitat under its own power or without assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) 
was formalized in 1992 to fulfill the mandates of the Marine Mammal 
Health and Stranding Response Act, which amended the MMPA in 1992 (16 
U.S.C. 1421). The MMHSRP was established to facilitate the collection 
and dissemination of reference data on marine mammals and health trends 
of marine mammal populations in the wild; correlate the health of 
marine mammals and marine mammal populations in the wild with available 
data on physical, chemical, and biological environmental parameters; 
and to coordinate effective responses to unusual mortality events. 
Steps to achieve these goals, as well as the goals of the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program, include the enhancement of rescue, care and 
treatment of stranded marine mammals; collection of life history data 
and other biomedical data that would allow comparison of the causes of 
illness or deaths in stranded marine mammals with physical, chemical, 
and biological environmental parameters; development of baselines of 
``normal'' stranding causes and rates for rapid detection of unusual 
mortality events; collection of samples for archival for future 
retrospective studies on causes of mortality or illness; collection of 
tissues for archival in the National Marine Mammal Tissue (and Serum) 
Bank; and guidance for rescuing and rehabilitation of stranded marine 
mammals, collection of specimens, quality assurance, and analysis of 
tissue samples. Grant proposals based on the priorities specified in 
Section II of this document, will facilitate achievement of MMHSRP 
goals while fulfilling the purposes and requirements of the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program.
    It is NMFS's intent to also reserve a portion of funds to make 
emergency assistance available for catastrophic stranding events 
throughout the year on an as-needed basis. Responders to such stranding 
events should immediately contact their Regional Office (see section 
I.I. Application Addresses). Proposals will be required to follow the 
same application, merit review and selection process established under 
this notice.

B. Objectives

    For the 2001/2002 Prescott Stranding Grant Program announced in 
this document, we have focused on the most important needs of the 
Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program and the stranding 
network. These needs are reflected in the funding priorities listed in 
section II of this document. Successful applications will be those 
aimed at helping to support and increase the quality of care (recovery 
or treatment) for stranded marine mammals or to increase our 
understanding of the health of marine mammal populations in the wild, 
of trends in strandings, or of the causes of marine mammal mortalities, 
anomalies, and strandings in the wild. For data collection funding, 
efforts to increase our understanding of the correlation between 
physical, chemical, and environmental parameters and marine mammal 
health and strandings will be considered priorities.

C. Changes in the Implementation of the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program Since the Posting of the Draft Implementation Plan

    On June 7, 2001, a draft of our plan to implement the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program was posted on our website, and comments were 
solicited from stranding network participants. As a result of comments 
received, a number of changes have been made that are reflected in this 
document. Therefore, we encourage you to read the entire document 
before preparing your application.
    We have changed the maximum size of the Federal share of the grant 
to $100,000. We have clarified the eligibility criteria, and expanded 
the list of eligible applicants to include qualified Federal employees 
that work for agencies other than the Departments of Commerce or 
Interior, if those agencies have the authority to accept Federal 
assistance. We have reformatted the priority lists, and edited and 
added some priorities in response to public comments.

D. Funding

    We expect to have approximately $7.1 million available for grant 
awards for grants under this solicitation. These funds include 
approximately $3.7 million appropriated for the 2001 fiscal year, and 
approximately $4 million appropriated for FY 2002 (Pub. L. 107-77). We 
will withhold $600,000 to make available for catastrophic stranding 
events that occur before the next grant cycle. The maximum Federal 
award for each project will be $100,000. For this solicitation, 
stranding network members may receive (as Principal Investigators) up 
to two grants for clearly separate projects. Researchers associated 
with the Network that are not authorized network participants (through 
a Letter of Agreement (LOA), MMPA section 109(h), or Northwest 
Contingency Plan designation) may receive only one grant (as Principal 
Investigator) under this solicitation if a network participant is a co-
Investigator. However, we cannot guarantee that sufficient funds will 
be available to make awards for all proposals deserving funding.
    Publication of this document does not obligate Commerce/NOAA to any 
specific award or to obligate any part of the entire amount of funds 
available. If an application for a financial assistance award is 
selected for funding, NOAA/NMFS has no obligation to provide any 
additional prospective funding in connection with that award in 
subsequent years.

E. Eligibility

    For this solicitation, you are eligible to apply for a grant or a 
cooperative agreement under the Prescott Stranding Grant Program if you 
are a U.S. ``stranding network participant'' that is not a Department 
of Commerce or Department of Interior employee. Specifically, you are 
eligible if:
    1. You are an eligible stranding network participant that has been 
active over the past 3 years and are in good standing.\2\ A network 
participant in

[[Page 1722]]

good standing is an organization that has a current Letter of Agreement 
(LOA) for stranding response (either live or dead animal response) from 
a NMFS Regional Administrator; that has a current letter of designation 
from a NMFS LOA holder (designee); or you are a researcher 
collaborating with a network participant that is listed as a co-
investigator on your application, you have remained active in network 
projects during the past 3 years, and you are holding a current letter 
from a Regional Administrator or the NMFS Office of Protected Resources 
authorizing you pursuant to 50 CFR 216.22 to collect materials from 
stranded marine mammals for research purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In good standing status will be determined by the Regional 
Stranding Coordinators during the initial screening for applicants' 
eligibility, and means:
    a. All the Principal Investigators who hold or have held permits 
for scientific research, enhancement, or public display under the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act or Endangered Species Act must have 
fulfilled all permit requirements, including but not limited to 
reports and publications and must have fulfilled the terms of any 
enforcement actions. Adverse permit actions will be considered on a 
case by case basis in terms of meeting this requirement.
    b. The stranding participant has complied with the terms and 
responsibilities of the Letter of Agreement listed below, or, for a 
participant authorized under MMPA section 109(h) or Northwest Region 
Contingency Plan participant, has met the following responsibilities 
consistently. These responsibilities include: timely response to 
reports of strandings, cooperation with state, local, and Federal 
officials, assisting local officials in the clean-up of beach areas 
resulting from collection or necropsy activities, collecting 
information or samples as requested by NMFS whenever possible, 
timely submission of reports to the Regional Coordinator (basic or 
Level A data reporting which includes investigator's name, species, 
stranding location, number of animals, date and time of stranding 
and recovery, length and condition, and sex; marine mammal parts 
retention or transfer; annual reports), cooperation with state and 
local officials in the disposition of stranded marine mammals, 
cooperation with other stranding network participants.
    c. The network participant cooperates with NMFS regarding the 
timely submission of Level B (supplementary information regarding 
sample collection related to life history and to the stranding 
event) and C (necropsy results) data and materials collected, when 
collected and requested.
    d. Is not under current enforcement investigation for activities 
involving the take of marine mammals contrary to the MMPA/ESA 
regulations and does not have a notice of violation by NMFS pending 
resolution with regards to policies governing the goals and 
operations of the Stranding Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. You are a state, local, or eligible federal government employee 
participating pursuant to MMPA section 109(h) (16 U.S.C. 1379(h)), and 
working in good standing \2\ with a Regional Administrator during the 
past 3 years in an area of geographic need (municipality or larger 
region with no existing responder).
    3. You are in the Northwest Region (Washington and Oregon), are an 
active stranding network participant in good standing \2\, and are (1) 
an individual or organization named in the National Contingency Plan 
for Response to Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events (Wilkinson, 
1996) that has been actively involved in stranding response, data 
collection and submission of data as directed by the NMFS Regional 
Stranding Coordinator during the past 3 years or (2) an individual or 
organization in the 2002 National Contingency Plan for Response to 
Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events.
    We support cultural and gender diversity in our programs and 
encourage eligible women and minority individuals and groups to submit 
applications. Furthermore, we recognize the interest of the Secretaries 
of Commerce and Interior in defining appropriate marine management 
policies and programs that meet the needs of the U.S. insular areas, so 
we also encourage applications from eligible individuals, government 
entities, and businesses in U.S. insular areas as defined by the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362, section 3(14)). This includes 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U. S. Virgin Islands, American 
Samoa, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands.
    We are strongly committed to broadening the participation of 
Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), which include Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal 
Colleges and Universities, in our programs. The DOC/NOAA/NMFS vision, 
mission, and goals are to achieve full participation by MSIs, to 
advance the development of human potential, strengthen the Nation's 
capacity to provide high-quality education, and increase opportunities 
for MSIs to participate in and benefit from Federal financial 
assistance programs. Therefore, we encourage all eligible applicants to 
include meaningful participation of MSIs whenever practicable.
    You are not eligible to submit an application under this program if 
you are an employee of NMFS or any other organizations within the 
Department of Commerce or the Department of Interior. NMFS employees 
(whether full-time, part-time, or intermittent) are not allowed to help 
you prepare your application, except that the Marine Mammal Health and 
Stranding Response Program staff (at the regional or national level) 
may provide you with information regarding statistics on strandings, 
MMHSRP program goals and needs, ongoing programs, funding priorities, 
and, along with Federal Program Officers, can provide information on 
application procedures, and completion of application forms. Since this 
is a competitive program, NMFS and NOAA employees will not provide 
assistance in conceptualizing, developing, or structuring proposals, or 
write letters of support for any proposal. For activities that involve 
participation of NOAA employees, for example in the National Marine 
Mammal Tissue Bank (NMMTB) or analyses of tissues for contaminants, 
employees of NOAA or the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
may write a letter stating that they are collaborating with the 
project, or that the person or organization is trained to participate 
in the NMMTB or is currently participating in the National Marine 
Analytical Quality Assurance Program.
    Unsatisfactory performance under prior or current Federal awards 
may result in your application not being considered for funding for 
this fiscal year in this program.
    Note for proposed work beyond the normal scope of stranding network 
activities, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all the Federal, 
state, and local government permits and approvals including scientific 
research permits under the Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal 
Protection Act if needed and permits or letters of agreement for work 
in National Marine Sanctuaries, National Parks, or National Seashores 
for activities that would be conducted on such sites. For information 
on permit requirements and applications procedures, contact the NMFS 
Office of Protected Resources (see CONTACTS) or see the following Web 
site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot__res/PR1/Permits/
pr1permits__types.html.
    For research on live stranded marine mammals, if the applicant 
stranding network or research participant works for a facility 
(University, Aquarium, live animal research facility) with an 
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, that applicant must have 
approval prior to obligation of funds (as required by the regulations 
under the Animal Welfare Act, 9 CFR 2.30-2.31) and a Marine Mammal 
Protection Act/Endangered Species Act permit if the research is 
intrusive (50 CFR 216.27(c)(6)) or if animals must be held after 
rehabilitation has been completed.
    Intrusive research means a procedure conducted for bona fide 
scientific research involving: a break in or cutting of the skin or 
equivalent, insertion of an instrument or material into an orifice, 
introduction of a substance or object into the animals' immediate 
environment that is likely either to be ingested or to contact and 
directly affect animal tissues (i.e., chemical substances), or a 
stimulus directed at animals that may involve a risk to health or 
welfare or that may have an impact on normal function or behavior 
(i.e., audio broadcasts directed at animals that may affect behavior or 
brainstem auditory evoked responses). Activities directly related to 
the individual animal's health assessment, accepted diagnostics, 
treatment, or monitoring are authorized under the stranding 
authorization and do not require an additional research permit.

F. Duration and Terms of Funding

    We will award grants or cooperative agreements for a maximum award 
period of 3 years; however the total Federal share of each award is 
fixed at

[[Page 1723]]

a maximum of $100,000 regardless of the funding period requested. We 
will not accept proposals requesting incrementally funded projects 
under the Prescott Stranding Grant Program during this grant cycle. If 
you have received an award and have not expended all the awarded funds 
by the end of the grant period and wish to continue work on the project 
beyond the funding period with money already obligated, you may notify 
the grants officer 30 days prior to the end of the grant to determine 
if you are eligible for a no-cost extension. If, however, the money is 
expended and you want funds to continue the project, you must submit 
another proposal during the next grant cycle subject to the competitive 
process for consideration.
    If we select your application for funding, we have no obligation to 
provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. 
Renewal of an award to increase funding up to the maximum of $100,000 
in the Federal share, or extend the period of performance, is totally 
at our discretion.

G. Cost Sharing

    The Prescott Stranding Grant Program legislation requires cost 
sharing in order to leverage the limited funds available for this 
program and to encourage partnerships among government, private 
organizations, non-profit organizations, the stranding network, and 
academia to address the needs of marine mammal health and stranding 
response. You must provide a minimum cost share of 25 percent of total 
project costs (Federal share of project costs cannot exceed $100,000 
and 75 percent of the total). For example, if the total project costs 
were $133,334, then the federal cost share would be 75 percent of 
$133,334 or $100,000 and your cost share would be $33,334 (25 percent 
of $133,334); similarly if the proposed total budget for your project 
is $100,000, the government portion would be $75,000 and your 25 
percent contribution would be $25,000. If your application does not 
comply with these cost share requirements, we will return it to you and 
will not consider it for funding for this funding cycle. You may 
include cost share for more than 25 percent of the total costs, but 
this obligation will be binding.
    We will determine the appropriateness of all cost sharing 
proposals, including the valuation of in-kind contributions, according 
to the regulations codified at 15 CFR 14.23 and 24.41, posted on our 
webpage. An in-kind contribution is a non-cash contribution, donated or 
loaned, by a third party to the applicant. In general, the value of in-
kind services or property you use to fulfill your cost share will be 
the fair market value of the services or property. Thus, the value is 
equivalent to the cost for you to obtain such services or property if 
they had not been donated, or to obtain such services or property for 
the period of the loan. You must document the in-kind services or 
property you will use to fulfill your cost share. If we decide to fund 
your application, we will require you to account for the total amount 
of cost share included in the award document.

H. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Prescott Stranding Grant Program will be listed in the 
``Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance'' under number 11.439, 
entitled Marine Mammal Data Program. This information should be 
included on the Application Form, 424, space 10 (see How to Apply, 
Section III, below).

I. Application Addresses

    a. For proposals for activities that will take place in the NMFS 
Northeast Stranding Region (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, 
Virginia) contact: Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, Dana 
Hartley, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543, (508) 495-2090 or 
[email protected].
    b. For proposals for activities that will take place in the NMFS 
Southeast Stranding Region (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. 
Virgin Islands) contact: Southeast Region, NMFS, Kyle Baker, 9721 
Executive Center Drive, North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432, (727) 
570-5312 or [email protected].
    c. For proposals for activities that will take place in the NMFS 
Southwest Stranding Region (California, Hawaii, Guam, U.S. Somoa, 
Northern Mariana Islands) contact: Southwest Region, NMFS, Joe Cordaro, 
501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA: 90802-4213, (562) 
980-4017 or [email protected].
    d. For proposals for activities that will take place in the NMFS 
Northwest Stranding Region (Washington and Oregon) contact: Northwest 
Region, NMFS, Brent Norberg, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., Building 1, 
Seattle, WA 98115, (206) 526-6733 or [email protected].
    e. For proposals for activities that will take place in the NMFS 
Alaska stranding region (Alaska) contact: Alaska Region, NMFS, Kaja 
Brix, Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, 14th Floor, Juneau, AK 
99802-1668, (907) 586-7824 or [email protected].
    f. For proposals for activities that will take place in more than 
one region or are national in scope contact: Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, Teri Rowles, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, 
MD, 20910, 301-713-2322 ext 178 or [email protected].

J. Electronic Access Addresses

    This solicitation, the application package, and supplementary 
documents are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Home 
Page at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot__res/PR2/Health_and_Stranding_ 
Response_Program/Prescott.html. Title IV of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program 
is available at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/laws/MMPA/MMPA.html. 
Information on MMPA and ESA research and enhancement permits can be 
found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR1/Permits/pr1permits_types.html.

II. Funding Priorities

    Your proposal must address and identify one of the priorities 
listed here as it pertains to species that the MMPA provides under the 
authority of the Department of Commerce (cetaceans and pinnipeds, 
except walrus). If you identify more than one priority, you must list 
first on your application the priority that most closely reflects the 
objectives of your proposal.
    The priorities are not listed in any particular order and each is 
of equal importance. These priorities include projects that generally 
increase the quality of care (recovery or treatment) for stranded 
marine mammals or increase our understanding of the health of marine 
mammal populations in the wild, of trends in strandings, or of the 
causes of marine mammal mortalities, anomalies, and strandings in the 
wild. Also, efforts to increase our understanding of the correlation 
between physical, chemical, and environmental parameters and marine 
mammal health and strandings will be considered a priority for data 
collection funding. Projects involving any new construction will not be 
considered, however, projects that involve construction for build-outs, 
alterations, upgrades and renovations would address a number of the 
listed priorities.
    Note that the purpose of the priority lists is to guide applicants 
in proposal development by identifying those proposals that will best 
compete during this grant cycle for these limited funds, and to provide 
technical reviewers with guidance for their evaluations. To this

[[Page 1724]]

end, Regional and National priorities are identified here, and 
represent the projects that will best ensure that the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program is successfully implemented (by providing 
grants for the recovery or treatment of marine mammals, the collection 
of data from living or dead stranded marine mammals for scientific 
research regarding marine mammal health, and facility operation costs 
that are directly related to those purposes) in the manner that best 
helps the regions achieve the goals of the Marine Mammal Health and 
Stranding Response Program. To ensure that the goals of the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program are met, including equitable distribution of 
funds, proposals will be pooled by regional or national aspect 
according to the priority addressed by the applicant. If a proposal 
unclearly identifies a priority, or addresses a different priority than 
the one indicated by the applicant, NMFS may assign the most 
appropriate priority. Proposals will then compete for funds within the 
appropriate regional/national priority pool.
    Specifically the following items are the national or specific 
regional priorities for this solicitation:

A. Recovery or Treatment of Marine Mammals (and associated operational 
costs)

National
    1. Operational costs to enhance and support rehabilitation 
facilities.
    2. Operational costs to improve access to veterinary care, 
including on-site (lab or field) equipment or instruments for more 
rapid assessment of medical condition or monitoring of treatment 
response.
    3. Post release monitoring to monitor the success of animals 
released from rehabilitation or beach release from mass strandings.
    4. Equipment costs to increase the safety of transport for marine 
mammals, especially for cetaceans.
Northeast Region
    1. Enhanced preparedness for mass stranding events through, for 
example, establishment of reference baseline laboratories, through 
training, or improvement of equipment and resource availability.
    2. Enhanced preparedness for ``out of habitat'' (marine mammals 
observed outside of their range or normal environment and in apparent 
distress) rescues.
    3. Enhancing transport safety for live strandings, including, for 
example, contracts for air transport, rescue ambulances.
    4. Improvement of identification and tracking of offshore, 
floating, dead large whales or unusual species or numbers of dead 
marine mammals.
    5. Increased outreach efforts in areas of heavy human and protected 
species use, such as rookeries, to reduce harassment and injuries or 
illnesses caused by other human impacts (e.g. boat strikes on seals) to 
reduce the need for rehabilitation.
    6. Enhanced capability to respond to stranded marine mammals 
impacted by oil spills including treatment and investigations.
    7. Collaborative efforts to improve assessment of seal strandings, 
for example seal assessment training for collaborating network 
participants, equipment, and supplies.
    8. Outreach projects to educate the public about normal seal 
behavior vs stranded seal situation.
    9. Renovating rehabilitation space for marine mammals in 
anticipation of rehabilitation facility guidelines, including expansion 
of holding capabilities within existing facilities.
    10. Increase the number of needed personnel resources at certain 
facilities, including veterinary care. Note, salaries must be for work 
specific to the project.
Northwest Region
    1. Upgrading and enhancing network operations and facilities to 
handle and treat stranded sick or injured marine mammals including 
threatened, endangered and depleted pinnipeds and small cetaceans 
(porpoises, dolphins, killer whales).
    2. Enhancing facilities for handling, stabilization and/or 
treatment of stranded odontocetes (killer whales, dolphins, porpoises).
    3. Enhancement of operations and facilities in anticipation of NMFS 
Rehabilitation Facilities Guidelines.
Southeast Region
    1. Enhanced preparedness for live and mass stranded cetacean 
response, including training, response planning, outreach, and 
equipment.
    2. Enhanced capability to respond to stranded marine mammals 
impacted by oil spills including response planning, training, and 
equipment.
    3. Enhancing live marine mammal transport safety e.g., contract for 
air transport, rescue ambulances.
    4. Upgrading current rehabilitation facilities. Putting priority on 
facilities that frequently receive animals (based on historic 
statistics) and for upgrades in anticipation of rehabilitation 
guidelines.
Southwest Region
    1. Operational costs for stranding response and live animal 
treatment. For this Region, priority will be given to smaller 
facilities.
    2. Enhancing response capabilities (including operational costs) 
during El Nino years.
    3. Enhanced capability to respond to stranded marine mammals 
impacted by oil spills including response planning, training, and 
equipment.
    4. Enhancing the response to live stranded cetaceans and pinnipeds 
in Hawaii.
    5. Operations costs for increasing quality of care during normal 
live stranding events throughout the region.
    6. Upgrading facilities in anticipation of rehabilitation facility 
guidelines.
    7. In Hawaii, conduct outreach projects to educate the public about 
normal seal behavior vs stranded seal situation.
    8. Enhancing live cetacean response and transport safety through 
operational or equipment costs.
Alaska Region
    1. Enhanced stranding response throughout the state. Particular 
need for improved stranding response coverage in remote or rural areas.
    2. Enhanced capability for care and treatment of live animals.
    3. Enhancing disentanglement response capabilities, particularly 
with Northern fur seals on the Pribilofs.
    4. Enhancing the assessment of rehabilitation and release success.

B. Collection of Data From Living or Dead Stranded Marine Mammals 
(including operational costs)

National
    1. Enhancing consistent response to large whale strandings (except 
North Atlantic right whales, which have separate funding source) on the 
East Coast.
    2. Enhancing post ``unusual mortality event'' stranding response 
for 1-2 years after an event is over.
    3. Operational costs to improve in-house sample tracking and 
archiving and for participation in the National Marine Mammal Tissue 
Bank.
    4. Collecting specimens and data to assess the overall health 
trends in wild marine mammal populations including the frequency or 
incidence of diseases and anomalies, the cause and effects of abnormal 
lesions, and baselines on health. Species of concern for 2001-2002 
include bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, California sea lion, 
Steller sea lion, Hawaiian monk seal, ice seals in the Northeast, pygmy 
sperm whale,

[[Page 1725]]

beaked whale, humpback whale, and harbor seal.
    5. Collection of health reference data on species that have been 
subject to unusual mortality events (bottlenose dolphins, California 
sea lions, harbor seals, gray whales) in the last 5 years.
    6. Collection of health reference data on species that are subject 
to mass strandings (white sided dolphins, beaked whales, pilot whales, 
common dolphins, rough tooth dolphins).
    7. Collection of health data to examine successful rehabilitation 
including, for example, shifts in microbial flora during 
rehabilitation.
    8. Collection of data on the incidence, pathogenesis, and impacts 
of marine mammal diseases and conditions that affect survival and 
releasability. The diseases of particular interest for 2001-2002 are: 
Brucella, morbillivirus (particularly on West Coast pinnipeds and in 
bottlenose dolphins of the mid-Atlantic), herpes virus in monk seals 
and steller sea lions, arborviruses in cetaceans and pinnipeds. However 
other disease studies will be considered.
    9. Enhancement and consistency of data collection and collaborative 
efforts through the use of protocols and training manuals, in either 
electronic format or in book format. Electronic formats can include 
video, imagery, and search capabilities.
    10. Enhancing the ability to assess health in stranded marine 
mammals through the development of new assessment tools and techniques.
    11. Enhancing the assessment of the causes of single and mass 
stranded marine mammals through biological, physiological, or medical 
diagnostic studies. Animals of particular interest include beaked 
whales.
    12. Necropsy equipment and carcass transport equipment especially 
for large cetaceans.
    13. Upgrading information management systems and capabilities to 
improve or allow access to National databases.
    14. Enhance efforts to achieve consistent Level A data collection 
and encourage Level B and Level C data collection for dead strandings 
whenever possible along all U.S. coasts.
Northeast Region
    1. Cooperative projects, through partnerships with a variety of 
marine mammal experts, to conduct studies supporting Marine Mammal 
Health and Stranding Response Program objectives.
    2. Monitoring of survival of beach released, and rehabilitated and 
released cetaceans (satellite tags and ARGOS support).
    3. Support for stranding network staff and capabilities to provide 
near real time strandings data and information management.
    4. Collection of samples for genetic analyses and archival of 
samples for future retrospective studies.
    5. Serological and histopathological analyses of samples collected 
from stranded marine mammals, using NMFS recognized laboratories.
    6. Characterization of ice seal movements from stocks in Canada and 
relationship to strandings on the U.S. East Coast.
    7. Performing quality assurance review and editing of historical 
stranding data for regional strandings. Particular emphasis to ensure 
data consistency with existing databases through collaboration with 
letterholders in the region, and with the Cetacean Distribution 
Database, compiled by the Marine Mammal Program, National Museum of 
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
    8. Enhanced evaluation and collection of human interaction evidence 
from stranded marine mammals, including costs for training 
collaborating Network Members to detect and document this evidence.
    9. Enhance necropsy facilities and other improvements to achieve 
consistent Level A data collection and encourage Level B and Level C 
data collection for dead strandings whenever possible.
Northwest Region
    1. Investigations of (a) the incidence of human interactions; (b) 
diseases affecting; and (c) comparative studies of contaminant loading 
on marine mammals.
    2. Investigations of health factors of stranded marine mammals with 
emphasis on southern resident killer whales.
    3. Improve stranded marine mammal data collection and management.
    4. Post unusual mortality event monitoring to enhance data 
collection after an event has ended.
Southeast Region
    1. Enhanced collection and evaluation of human interaction evidence 
from stranded marine mammals.
    2. Cooperative investigations using in-depth sample collection for 
marine mammal health research projects.
    3. Serological and histopathologic analyses of samples collected 
from stranded marine mammals, using quality control techniques.
    4. Developing the baselines and health reference data for 
comparisons with mortalities and disease observed during die-offs.
    5. Equipment and facility enhancements for scientific health 
research e.g., necropsy facilities.
    6. Enhance efforts to achieve accurate, consistent Level A data 
collection and encourage Level B and Level C data collection for dead 
strandings whenever possible throughout the Region.
Southwest Region
    1. Gray whale stranding investigations.
    2. Cooperative projects in Hawaii through partnerships with a 
variety of marine mammal experts, to respond to and conduct studies 
supporting Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program 
objectives.
    3. Investigations of the prevalence of such diseases as 
morbillivirus in live stranded odontocetes.
    4. Enhancing the ability to detect gun shot wounds and injuries in 
stranded California sea lions, for example, through conduct of thorough 
necropsies.
Alaska Region
    1. Achieve consistent Level A data collection throughout the state, 
including remote areas.
    2. Collect Level B and Level C data collection for dead strandings 
whenever possible.
    3. Tissue sampling for genetic analyses.
    4. Gray whale stranding response for post unusual mortality event.

III. How To Apply

    You must follow the instructions in this document in order to apply 
for a grant or cooperative agreement under the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program. Your application must be complete and must follow the format 
described here. Your application should not be bound in any manner and 
must be printed on one side only. You must submit one signed original 
and two signed copies of your application. These unbound applications 
must be sent to the Application Addresses listed in Section I.I. of 
this document by the application deadline (see DATES). We strongly 
recommend early submission of applications to allow some time for 
review and resubmission with corrections for minor omissions, if 
necessary. However, time and resource constraints may limit our ability 
to conduct early reviews, and we are not required to screen 
applications before the submission deadline, nor do we have to give you 
an opportunity to correct any deficiencies that cause your application 
to be rejected.
    A complete application package with detailed instructions and 
supplementary information can be found at our Web

[[Page 1726]]

site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Health_and_Stranding_ 
Response_Program/Prescott.html. Essentially, the complete application 
must include a number of completed forms described in this section: SF-
424 ``Application for Federal Assistance'', SF-424B ``Assurances--Non-
Construction Programs'', and SF 424A ``Budget Information--Non-
Construction Programs'' (with separate sheet for details). 
Additionally, the application must include a Title Page, Project 
Narrative, and supporting documentation, as described in this section. 
Lastly, applicants must submit a completed Form CD-511, ``Certification 
Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-
Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying.'' In addition, any applicant 
that has paid or will pay for lobbying using any funds must submit an 
SF-LLL, ``Disclosure of Lobbying Activities'', as required under 15 CFR 
part 28.

A. Cover Sheet

    You must use Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Forms 
424 and 424B (4-92) as the cover sheets for each project. You will need 
the ``Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance'' number and Title to 
complete item 10 of Standard Form 424 (see section I in this document 
above, the number is 11.439, and the title is ``Marine Mammal Data 
Program''). In order to complete item 16 of Standard Form 424 (may be 
required for state applicants), see directions in section V.A.5. of 
this document.

B. Title Page

    You must complete a Title Page for each project. You should list on 
the Title Page the project title, duration, name, affiliation, address 
and phone number of the Principal Investigator, the project objective, 
the specific priority to which the application responds (see section 
II. of this document), and a statement regarding the Federal, non-
Federal, and total costs of the project.

C. Project Budget

    You must submit a budget for each project, using OMB standard form 
424A, Budget Information--Non Construction Programs and associated 
instructions. On a separate sheet if necessary, you must provide 
detailed cost estimates showing total project costs. Indicate the 
breakdown of costs between Federal and non-Federal shares, divided into 
cash and in-kind contributions. To support the budget, also describe 
briefly the basis for estimating the value of the cost sharing derived 
from in-kind contributions.
    You may also include in the budget an amount for indirect costs if 
you have an established indirect cost rate with the Federal government. 
Indirect costs are essentially overhead costs for basic operational 
functions (e.g., lights, rent, water, insurance) that are incurred for 
common or joint objectives and therefore cannot be identified 
specifically within a particular project. For this solicitation, the 
Federal share of the indirect costs may not exceed 25 percent of the 
total proposed direct costs. If you have an approved indirect cost rate 
above 25 percent of the total proposed direct cost, you may use the 
amount above the 25-percent level up to the negotiated rate as part of 
the non-Federal share. You must include a copy of the current, 
approved, negotiated indirect cost agreement with the Federal 
government with your application.
    We will not consider fees or profits as allowable costs in your 
application. The total costs of a project consist of all allowable 
costs you incur, including the value of in-kind contributions, in 
accomplishing project objectives during the life of the project. A 
project begins on the effective date of an award agreement between you 
and an authorized representative of the U.S. Government and ends on the 
date specified in the award. Accordingly, we cannot reimburse you for 
time that you expend or costs that you incur in developing a project or 
preparing the application, or in any discussions or negotiations you 
may have with us prior to the award. We will not accept such 
expenditures as part of your cost share.

D. Narrative Project Description

    You must provide a narrative description of your project that may 
be up to 10 pages long. You should use Courier size 12 font, and can 
single space the narrative. The narrative should demonstrate your 
knowledge of the need for the project, and show how your proposal 
builds upon any past and current work in the subject area, as well as 
relevant work in related fields. You should not assume that we already 
know the relative merits of the project you describe. You must describe 
your project as follows:
    1. Project goals and objectives. Identify the specific priority, 
listed earlier in this document, to which the proposed project 
responds. Identify the problem/opportunity you intend to address and 
describe its significance to the marine mammal health and stranding 
response community. State what you expect the project to accomplish.
    2. Project impacts. Describe the anticipated impacts of the project 
on the recovery or treatment of stranded marine mammals or assessment 
of marine mammal health. Describe how you will make the results of the 
project available to the marine mammal health and stranding community.
    3. Evaluation of project. Specify the criteria and procedures that 
you will use to evaluate the relative success or failure of a project 
in achieving its objectives.
    4. Need for government financial assistance. Explain why you need 
government financial assistance for the proposed work. List all other 
sources of funding you have or are seeking for the project.
    5. Federal, state, and local government activities and permits. 
List any existing Federal, state, or local government programs or 
activities that this project would affect.
    6. Project statement of work. The statement of work is an action 
plan of activities you will conduct during the period of the project. 
You must prepare a detailed narrative, fully describing the work you 
will perform to achieve the project goals and objectives. The narrative 
should respond to the following questions:
    (a) What is the project design? What specific work, activities, 
procedures, statistical design, or analytical methods will you 
undertake?
    (b) Who will be responsible for carrying out the various 
activities? Highlight work that will be conducted by co-Investigators. 
Also, highlight work that will be subcontracted and provisions for 
competitive subcontracting. The lead organization and person listed as 
the technical contact, responsible for all technical oversight and 
implementation of the approved work plan as delineated in the Statement 
of Work, should be identified as the Principal Investigator. One 
Principal Investigator must be listed on each project. Project 
participants or organizations that will have a significant role in 
conducting the project should be listed as Co-investigators. 
Organizations or individuals that support the project, for example, 
network members contributing data or materials, should be referred to 
as Cooperators or Collaborators.
    (c) What are the major products and how will project results be 
disseminated? Describe products of the project, such as anticipated 
number of live animals that will be treated, preparation of a manual, 
video, technique, or piece of equipment. Indicate how project results 
will be disseminated to potential users.

[[Page 1727]]

    (d) What are the project milestones? List milestones, describing 
the specific activities and associated time lines to conduct the scope 
of work. Describe the time lines in increments (e.g., month 1, month 
2), rather than by specific dates. Identify the individual(s) 
responsible for the various specific activities. Although actual 
stranding events cannot be predicted, historic stranding data can be 
used to assess season, species, and likelihood of strandings. This 
information is critical for us to conduct a thorough review of your 
application, so we encourage you to provide sufficient detail.
    7. Participation by persons or groups other than the applicant. 
Describe how government and non-government entities, particularly other 
members of the marine mammal health and stranding response community, 
will participate in the project, and the nature of their participation. 
We will consider the degree of participation by members of the marine 
mammal health and stranding response community in determining which 
applications to fund.
    8. Project management. Describe how the project will be organized 
and managed. Identify the Principal Investigator and other participants 
in the project. If you do not identify the Principal Investigator, we 
will return your application without further consideration. Include a 
description and copies of Principle Investigator's current LOAs, letter 
of designation, or letter of research authorization, and any necessary 
scientific research permits. List the Principle Investigator's and 
participant's prior or current Federal awards and describe resultant 
products. Include copies of any agreements between you and the 
participants describing the specific tasks to be performed. Include 
copies of any endorsements that you have received from other marine 
mammal health and stranding response participants related to this 
project. Provide a statement no more than two pages long of the 
qualifications and experience (e.g., resume or curriculum vitae) for 
the Principal Investigator, co-investigators, and any Collaborators, 
Cooperators, or Consultants and/or subcontractors, and indicate their 
level of involvement in the project. If any portion of the project will 
be conducted through Consultants and/or subcontracts, you must follow 
procurement guidance in 15 CFR part 24, ``Grants and Cooperative 
Agreements to State and Local Governments,'' and 15 CFR part 14, 
``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with 
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and 
Commercial Organizations.''

E. Supporting Documentation

    You should include any relevant documents and additional 
information (i.e., maps, background documents, historic stranding 
statistics) that will help us to understand the project and the 
problem/opportunity you seek to address. This will not count as a part 
of the 10 page limit.

IV. Screening, Evaluation, and Selection Procedures

    Screening, Evaluation, and Selection Procedures will take place in 
4 steps, described in detail in this section: initial screening, 
technical panel review, merit review, and the final selection by the 
Selecting Official. The initial review will compile all complete 
applications submitted by eligible network participants. These 
applications will be divided for consideration by two technical review 
panels; one panel to review all west coast applications, one to review 
all east coast applications. Applications for national priorities will 
be forwarded to the panel with fewer applications. The technical review 
panel results will be used to rank the applications within regional 
(Alaska, Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, Southeast, and National) 
pools. The merit review will consider the panel comments for the 6 
pools of ranked applications and will make recommendations regarding 
equitable distribution of funds. The Selecting Official will receive 
the recommendations of the reviewers and will make the final decision 
regarding which applications will be funded.

A. Initial Screening of Applications

    Applications received at any of the NMFS Regional Offices or the 
Headquarter's Office of Protected Resources, will be screened to ensure 
that they: were received by the deadline date (see DATES); include OMB 
form 424, 424 A., and 424 B. signed and dated by an authorized 
representative (see section III of this document); were submitted by an 
eligible applicant; provide for at least a 25-percent cost share (see 
section I.G. of this document); involve an eligible activity; address 
one of the funding priorities for species under Federal jurisdiction 
(see section II.A.-B. of this document); and include a budget and a 
statement of work including milestones (see sections III.C. and III.D.6 
of this document); and identify the Principal Investigator (see section 
III.D.8. of this document). If your application does not conform to 
these requirements and the deadline for submission has passed, we will 
return it to you without further consideration. If possible, 
applications should be submitted as early as possible prior to the end 
of the application period to provide time for us to return incomplete 
applications to you for correction or completion prior to the deadline. 
However, we do not have to screen applications before the submission 
deadline and may not be able to depending upon time and available 
resources, nor do we have to give you an opportunity to correct any 
deficiencies that cause your application to be rejected. Only those 
proposals satisfying all of the basic requirements above will enter the 
full evaluation phase of the review process, described in here in 
Section B.

B. Technical Evaluation of Proposed Projects

    After the initial screening, we will convene a panel of appropriate 
private and public sector marine mammal health and stranding response 
experts to determine the technical merit of each proposal. Proposals 
submitted to headquarters and regional offices will be evaluated using 
the same criteria, as defined here in this section. The panel will 
provide individual evaluations of each proposal, and no consensus 
scores will be made. Each proposal will be reviewed by at least three 
technical reviewers. These reviewers will be required to certify that 
they do not have a conflict of interest concerning the application(s) 
they are reviewing and will present their reviews to the panel. They 
will assign scores to applications based on the criteria below, with 
weights shown in parentheses. Resultant scores will be used to rank 
proposals in regional (and national) pools.
    a. Soundness of project design/conceptual approach/response 
capabilities. Applications will be evaluated on the conceptual 
approach; enhancement of stranding response or treatment; the need for 
such efforts; the applicability of the project to the objectives of the 
Prescott Stranding Grant Program in implementing the goals of the 
MMHSRP and addressing one of the listed priorities; the scientific 
merit of the data collection to enhance the understanding of the health 
of marine mammal populations in the wild; the likelihood of project 
results in the time frame specified in the application; whether there 
is sufficient information to evaluate the project technically; and, if 
so, the strengths and/or weaknesses of the technical design relative to 
securing productive results; whether proposed analyses

[[Page 1728]]

include quality assurance considerations. (50 percent)
    b. Project management and experience and qualifications of 
personnel. The organization and management of the project will be 
evaluated. The project's Principal Investigator and other personnel, 
including Co-investigators, Consultants and Contractors participating 
in the project, will be evaluated in terms of related experience and 
qualifications. The amount of collaboration with other network 
participants reflected by the proposal will be considered. Applications 
that include Consultants and Contractors will be reviewed to determine 
if your involvement, as the primary applicant, is necessary to the 
conduct of the project and the accomplishment of its objectives. 
Applications from Principal Investigators that are researchers that do 
not hold LOAs, are not MMPA Section 109(h) participants, and are not on 
the Northwest Region's contingency plan list must include copies of the 
applicant's letter of designation, researcher letter of authorization, 
research permit and any Co-investigator's letters of authorization. (50 
percent)
    c. Project evaluation. The effectiveness of your proposed methods 
to monitor and evaluate the success or failure of the project in terms 
of meeting its original objectives will be examined. (10 percent)
    d. Project costs. The justification and allocation of the budget in 
terms of the work to be performed will be evaluated. Unreasonably high 
or low project costs will be examined closely and scores may be marked 
down accordingly. Budget questions will be flagged by reviewers and may 
become points of negotiation if the proposal is recommended for funding 
based on technical merit. The appropriateness of the matching funds to 
the project will be evaluated and the overall use of the facilities 
operations costs in support of data collection or response and 
treatment of marine mammals. (15 percent)
    Following the technical review, we will determine the score for 
each individual review and average the individual technical review 
scores to determine the final technical score for each application. 
Then, we will list the applications by region or national pool, rank 
the lists according to the final technical score, and eliminate from 
further consideration those applications that do not meet the minimum 
``passing'' score of 60 points.

C. Selection Procedures and Project Funding

    After projects have been evaluated and ranked, the Marine Mammal 
Health and Stranding Response Program staff, the NMFS Regional 
Administrators (RAs) and Office Directors (ODs) will conduct a merit 
review in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, to consider the results of the scientific 
technical panel review and develop recommendations for program funding 
including recommendations for equitable distribution among the NMFS 
stranding regions. This merit review team may consider any episodic 
stranding, any anomalous mortality event, or unusual mortality event 
that occurred in any region in the preceding year; data regarding 
average annual strandings and mortality events per year per region; and 
the size of the marine mammal populations inhabiting a geographic area 
within such a region. They will also consider the actual stranding 
statistics per region for the previous 5 non-El Nino years and for the 
last El Nino year. The review team will prepare a written justification 
for any recommendations for funding that fall outside the ranking or 
equitable distribution order, or for any cost adjustments.
    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) is the Selecting 
Official, and will review the funding recommendations and comments of 
the review team and determine the projects to be funded. In making the 
final selections, the AA may consider costs, geographical distribution, 
financial need, duplication with other federally funded projects, and 
equitable distribution of funds among the designated stranding regions. 
As a result, awards are not necessarily made to the highest technically 
ranked applications.
    The final, exact amount of funds, the scope of work, and terms and 
conditions of a successful award will be determined in pre-award 
negotiations between you and NOAA/NMFS representatives. The funding 
instrument (grant or cooperative agreement) will be determined by NOAA 
Grants Management Division. If the proposed work entails substantial 
involvement between the applicant and NMFS, a cooperative agreement 
will be utilized. You should not initiate your project in expectation 
of Federal funding until you receive a grant award document signed by 
an authorized NOAA official.

V. Administrative Requirements

    The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for 
Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register 
notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), are applicable to this 
solicitation. The notice advises you of your responsibilities as an 
applicant for Federal assistance. Contact the Office of Protected 
Resources for a copy of this notice, or obtain it from the Government 
Printing Office Web site: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html or the Prescott Stranding Grants Program Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Health_and_Stranding_ Response_Program/
Prescott.html.
    If you incur any costs prior to receiving an award agreement signed 
by an authorized NOAA official, you do so solely at your own risk of 
not being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal or 
written assurance that you may have received, the Department of 
Commerce has no obligation to cover pre-award costs.

A. Your Obligations as a Recipient (Successful Applicant)

    If you are awarded a grant or cooperative agreement for a project, 
you must:
    1. Manage the day-to-day operations of the project, be responsible 
for the performance of all activities for which funds are granted, and 
be responsible for the satisfaction of all administrative and 
managerial conditions imposed by the award.
    2. Keep records sufficient to document any costs incurred under the 
award, and allow access to these records for audit and examination by 
the Secretary of Commerce, the Comptroller General of the United 
States, or their authorized representatives; and, submit financial 
status reports (SF 269) to NOAA's Grants Management Division in 
accordance with the award conditions.
    3. Submit annual reports, and for projects extending beyond a year, 
final reports within 90 days after completion of each project, to the 
individual identified as the NMFS Program Officer in the funding 
agreement. The final report must describe the project and include an 
evaluation of the work you performed and the results and benefits in 
sufficient detail to enable us to assess the success of the completed 
project.
    We are committed to using available technology to achieve the 
timely and wide distribution of final reports to those who would 
benefit from this information. Therefore, we request that you submit 
final reports in electronic

[[Page 1729]]

format, in accordance with the award terms and conditions, for 
publication on the NMFS Protected Resources homepage. You may charge 
the costs associated with preparing and transmitting your final reports 
in electronic format to the grant award. We will consider requests for 
exemption from electronic submission of final reports on a case-by-case 
basis.
    4. In addition to the final report in section V.A.4. of this 
document, we request that you submit any publications printed with 
grant funds (such as manuals, surveys, etc.) to the NMFS Program 
Officer for dissemination to the public. Submit either three hard 
copies or an electronic version of any such publications.

VI. Comments and Responses

    The Draft Implementation Plan for the John H. Prescott Marine 
Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program (Draft Implementation Plan) was 
posted on our website. Stranding network participants were contacted 
and asked to review the Draft Implementation Plan and provide comment 
directly to NMFS prior to publication of the Solicitation for 
Applications in the Federal Register. Specifically, we requested 
comments on several areas of the plan including: eligibility criteria 
for grant applicants, the grant review and selection process, and 
priorities for funding.
    We received 20 separate comment letters from 12 stranding network 
participants, the Marine Mammal Commission, three organizations 
representing constituents that include stranding network participants, 
two new network members, one advocacy organization, and one researcher 
interested in network activities. Combining similar comments, we 
received 78 comments in total. The comments and responses are presented 
below and are grouped topically. Some purely editorial comments have 
been incorporated into this document and are not listed here.

General Comments

    Comment 1: A number of commenters asked whether multiple 
applications could be submitted by, or multiple grants awarded to, the 
same network member. Particularly, commenters asked whether multiple 
grants could be awarded for clearly separate projects, whether a 
Principal Investigator on a grant could also apply for funding on 
another grant (as co-PI), and whether a network member that had already 
received a grant could apply during the year for funds for a 
catastrophic strandings.
    Response: To clarify the terminology used in this document: A 
Principal Investigator is the lead organization and person listed as 
the technical contact, responsible for all technical oversight and 
implementation of the approved work plan as delineated in the Statement 
of Work. One Principal Investigator must be listed on each project. 
Project participants or organizations that will have a significant role 
in conducting the project should be listed as Co-investigators. 
Organizations or individuals that support the project, for example, 
network members contributing data or materials, should be referred to 
as Cooperators or Collaborators.
    There is no limit on the number of applications that can be 
submitted by the same network member. However, there are insufficient 
funds to award a grant to every member of the network, and we cannot 
estimate how many qualified applicants will apply for funds. In an 
attempt to ensure that the greatest number of network participants 
receive assistance this year, during this funding cycle we intend to 
award no more than two grants responding to this solicitation to any 
network member and their organization as a Principal Investigator. 
Researchers associated with the network that are not independently 
authorized (through an LOA, 109(h), or identified in the Northwest 
Contingency Plan) will only be eligible for one grant under this 
solicitation. Multiple proposals submitted by any individual or 
organization must identify clearly different projects; (e.g. one for 
facility operations to support rehabilitation efforts, one for data 
collection), and must be successful in the competitive process. Network 
members and researchers may also be identified as Co-investigators or 
Cooperators on additional proposals, and may receive reimbursement from 
other successful applicants for activities such as the conduct of 
analyses for the project, or the collection of samples. Reimbursement 
to a cooperating lab or researcher that does work for multiple network 
members may be identified on multiple proposals.
    We intend to withhold up to $600,000 of the 2001/2002 Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program funds from this grant cycle for use for 
unexpected events such as mass strandings or oil spill events, that may 
occur throughout the year. In areas where mass strandings occur 
frequently, or where events such as El Nino can be anticipated, an 
application in advance of the event can be submitted to cover known 
costs involved in preparing for a response if consistent with our 
listed priorities. Network members that have received 2 grants under 
the competitive process described in this document will also be 
eligible for these in-year funds for a catastrophic event.
    Note that, as described in 15 CFR 24.24(a)(3), contributions from 
the applicant counted towards the 25 percent matching requirement must 
be different for each grant application submitted by an applicant; and 
funds from one Federal grant cannot be offered as matching funds for 
another Federal grant.
    Comment 2: Grants should be made available for catastrophic events 
as they occur, or before or after they occur. Since they cannot be 
predicted, this situation should be explicitly addressed within the 
Grants Program to maximize the opportunities for funding or 
reimbursement
    Response: We will accept applications for unexpected, large, 
stranding events, including mass strandings or strandings caused by 
catastrophic events such as oil spills, throughout the year and will 
fund successful unsolicited applications from retained FY 2002 funds, 
if appropriated. Upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event, network 
participants should immediately contact their NMFS Regional Coordinator 
regarding their intent to submit an unsolicited application. The same 
application materials listed in this document (see Section III) must be 
submitted. The application can be considered outside the competitive 
process if it meets the MMHSRP objectives, outside of the goals listed 
in the priorities identified in this document (Section II), if 
justification for a non-competitive (sole-source) award is established.
    Comment 3: One network participant asked whether cooperative 
applications with a federal agency could be submitted.
    Response: Federal agencies are generally barred from accepting 
funds from another source to pay transportation, travel, or other 
expenses for any Federal employee unless specifically authorized by 
law. The Prescott Stranding Grant Program does not specifically 
authorize the transfer of funds to other Federal agencies for grant 
projects. The statute also requires a non-Federal matching requirement 
of 25 percent of the grant. Thus, for this first funding cycle, we have 
made an administrative decision based on guidance from the statute and 
associated legislative history regarding the intended purpose of these 
funds that the agencies and employees within the Department of Commerce 
(DOC) and the Department of Interior (DOI) are not

[[Page 1730]]

eligible to apply as Principal or Co Investigators and cannot receive 
compensation from this program beyond costs for analyses conducted as a 
Cooperator on a project. Eligible network members employed by other 
Federal agencies (with the appropriate authority to receive Federal 
Assistance) outside of DOI and DOC will need prior approval from their 
agency to receive compensation and/or expenses from a Federal grant. 
Additionally, network participants can submit applications with federal 
agencies listed as Cooperators on the project, and applications can 
include reimbursement to federal laboratories conducting analyses for 
the proposed project.
    Comment 4: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the apparent 
non-cooperative, competitive nature of the Implementation Plan for the 
Prescott Stranding Grant Program. Requiring that individual researchers 
apply for funds with a stranding organization as a sponsoring 
organization was recommended to encourage cooperation. Additionally, 
one commenter suggests giving extra weighting to proposals from 
multiple LOA holders.
    Response: Because funds are limited and the needs of the program 
are not, the Prescott Grant Program is competitive. However, although 
we have limited the number of awards that can be granted to particular 
applicants as Principal Investigators during this grant cycle, network 
members and collaborating scientists can participate on additional 
projects as Co-investigators or Cooperators, and can receive 
reimbursement from other successful grant applicants. Additionally, 
Principal Investigators that are not traditional network participants 
are required to include network members as Co-investigators on their 
projects. All applicants are encouraged to reimburse LOA holders and 
other qualified Network participants for tissue collection, data 
collection, or any other efforts that will be required for the success 
of the project.
    Comment 5: One commenter stated that a mechanism should be 
developed to ensure accountability for funded projects through review 
of completed projects or consideration of past performance for 
applicants awarded previous funding.
    Response: All NMFS grant programs must be administered according to 
procedures identified through a Departmental Administrative Order (DAO 
203-26, see http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/daos/203-26.htm). Final reports 
are required, and internal checklists and procedures for monitoring 
grants including site visits, will be followed. Although audits are 
only required if an applicant gets more than $300,000 in Federal funds 
per year, all grant recipients must make records available for review 
or audit if requested. Additionally, unsatisfactory performance in 
prior or current Federal awards will be considered in determining 
whether or not an application is eligible for funding this year under 
the Prescott Stranding Grant Program.
    Comment 6: A number of individuals and groups that commented 
indicated that the constituent groups including the organizations 
involved in existing stranding programs should have been afforded a 
greater consultative role in the development of the Prescott Stranding 
Grant Program. They were concerned that there would be no formal public 
review and comment period for the Draft Implementation Plan.
    Response: The statute directed NMFS to consult with the Marine 
Mammal Commission, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and ``a 
representative from each of the designated stranding regions, and other 
individuals who represent public and private organizations that are 
actively involved in rescue, rehabilitation, release, scientific 
research, marine conservation, and forensic science regarding stranded 
marine mammals'; which includes primarily stranding network 
participants. Given the broad characteristics of the marine mammal 
stranding network and further directives to administer this program in 
a timely manner, the selection of a small group of participants to 
adequately represent the entire network and associated community was 
deemed insufficient. The Draft Implementation Plan was, therefore, 
posted on our website, and Network participants were asked for their 
input. Over 20 commenters responded with extensive comments; including 
the Marine Mammal Commission, Network members, interested constituents, 
and constituent groups. All comments were considered, resulting in many 
revisions to the Program. Experience and feedback resulting from this 
solicitation may further modify this program in future years.
    Comment 7: Two constituent groups commented that constituents 
should be consulted, per Congressional intent, regarding the 
development of criteria for and award of grant money.
    Response: The criteria for awarding grant money were included in 
the Draft Implementation Plan section on Screening, Evaluation and 
Selection Procedures; therefore, constituents have had an opportunity 
to comment on these criteria and some modifications have been made. 
Further, technical reviews will be conducted on all complete and 
qualified applications. Reviewers will include network participants and 
other constituents. Network participants and constituent groups will 
therefore have an active role in the award process under the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program.
    Comment 8: One commenter asked for clarification regarding whether 
oceanaria that do not have an Institutional Animal Care and Use 
Committee (IACUC) need to form one if they are going to conduct live 
animal research. References on the formation of IACUCs were requested.
    Response: Facilities and Universities involved in live animal 
research are required to have an IACUC, per Animal Plant and Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) IACUC requirements. Institutions that do not 
have an IACUC do not have to form one for this grant cycle. However, 
those institutions or researchers affiliated with Universities that 
have a standing Committee have to have their Committee's approval 
before funds will be obligated for projects that require research on 
live stranded marine mammals. The language relative to this issue has 
been clarified in this document.
    Note that, within the next few years, NMFS intends to require IACUC 
reviews for live research conducted on stranded marine mammals. 
Guidance will be developed at that time for the formation of IACUCs for 
this specific purpose on an institutional or regional level. For 
general information on IACUCs, see 9 CFR 2.31 for the APHIS IACUC 
requirements, as well as The IACUC Handbook edited by Jerald Sivlerman, 
Mark A. Suckow, and Sreekant Murthy and published by CRC Press in 2000, 
or The Care and Feeding of an IACUC edited by M. Lawrence Podolsky and 
Victor S. Lukas and published by CRC Press in 1999.
    Any study that requires collection of animals from the wild, 
invasive procedures beyond those generally used to rehabilitate and 
release marine mammals, or retention of marine mammals after 
rehabilitation is complete, may require research or enhancement 
permits. Funds obligated prior to permit issuance may not be 
distributed until proper permits have been obtained. For information on 
permit requirements and applications procedures, contact the NMFS 
Office of Protected Resources (see CONTACTS) or see the following Web 
site: http://

[[Page 1731]]

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR1/Permits/pr1permits_types.html.
    Comment 9: One commenter requested a listing of the MMHSRP goals to 
provide guidance to prospective applicants.
    Response: These statutory goals are listed in the description of 
the Prescott Stranding Grant Program (Section I.A. of this document), 
and are repeated here: to facilitate collection and dissemination of 
data, to assess health trends in marine mammals, to correlate health 
with available data on physical, chemical, environmental, and 
biological parameters, and to coordinate effective responses to unusual 
mortality event. Further information regarding the MMHSRP can be found 
on our Web page, at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Health_and_Stranding_ Response_Program/mmhsrp.html.
    Comment 10: A commenter suggested that special terms of reference 
used throughout the Draft Implementation Plan (out of habitat, level A 
data) should be defined.
    Response: We have included in this Notice clarification of such 
terms when those terms first appear in context within the document.
    Comment 11: Two commenters noted that the plan does not provide 
funds for species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS, such as sea 
otters, walrus, polar bears, and manatees, and suggested that there 
should be increased coordination of the stranding programs under the 
two agencies' jurisdictions.
    Response: NMFS and USFWS were given separate authorizing language 
in the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act of 2000 (Act) which 
established the Prescott Stranding Grant Program. NMFS received no 
comments from the USFWS during the comment period, however, NMFS 
consulted with USFWS on the implementation of this program prior to 
finalizing this Federal Register notice.
    The MMHSRP has been a collaborative effort between USFWS and NMFS, 
and we will continue that collaboration with the implementation of the 
Prescott Stranding Grant Program.
    Comment 12: One commenter was concerned that the short time 
allotted for review and incorporation of comments in our initial 
timeline precluded meaningful revisions based on comments received from 
stranding network organizations.
    Response: This document reflects many changes resulting from the 
large number of comments received. Indeed review of the comments, 
revisions, and preparation of responses were partially responsible for 
the delay in publication of this document. All comments were considered 
and we made revisions that we determined were appropriate based on 
consideration of the comments.

Eligibility

    Comment 13: A number of commenters indicated that the listed 
eligibility criteria are too broad and will invite applications from 
people only remotely associated with the Stranding Network, diluting 
the intention of the Grant Program to assist or reimburse the active 
network participants that have been volunteering without Federal 
support. Some suggested limiting eligibility to Letter of Agreement 
(LOA) holders, to LOA holders with established records in the recovery 
and rehabilitation of marine mammals, or to independent researchers 
sponsored by LOA holders.
    Response: Limiting the Prescott Stranding Grant Program only to 
organizations and individuals holding Letters of Agreement will exclude 
a large number of active Network participants. In the Northwest Region 
particularly, there are numerous participants that conduct significant 
stranding response activities for state or local authorities, or as 
requested by the NMFS Regional Administrator. Some of these 
participants are authorized through section 109(h) of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act. Additionally, the Network in most regions includes 
participants designated by LOA holders to respond to strandings and in 
some cases assist in rehabilitation. These participants include 
cooperating scientific investigators, institutions, and volunteer 
organizations. In some areas, designated participants may play a more 
active role in day-to-day response to strandings than the LOA holders.
    LOA holders retain the ultimate responsibility for activities 
conducted under their authority. Therefore, generally, they restrict 
designation to individuals that meet appropriate qualifications. 
Additionally, a list of these designees must be submitted to NMFS. By 
granting designation, the LOA holders are responsible for ensuring that 
volunteers and cooperating investigators under their authority are 
Network participants in good standing. However, we recognize that the 
list may include new volunteers that require training, or participants 
that are restricted in response capabilities and authority.
    The eligibility criteria have been amended to some extent; however, 
to include the ``in good standing'' criteria for network participants 
operating under MMPA section 109(h) (109(h) responders) or other 
authority, as well as to LOA holders. Additionally, 109(h) participants 
must be active participants, that have been involved in network 
activities over the past 3 years.
    Another amendment to the eligibility criteria adds a requirement 
for applicant scientists holding letters from Regional Administrators 
to collect specimens from stranded animals to conduct research. These 
scientists may not be LOA holders, 109(h) responders, or on the 
Northwest Region's contingency list. These applicants must be able to 
demonstrate participation in network activities during the past 3 
years, and must include a network member as a Co-investigator on the 
project.
    Generally, the NMFS Regional Coordinators are familiar with the 
active network participants within their region, and their screening 
will provide some assurance that only applications from active and 
qualified network participants and Collaborators compete for these 
limited grants.
    Comment 14: Allowances should be made for applications from 
inexperienced applicants if they seek and receive the appropriate 
permits or letters of authorization before receiving grant awards.
    Response: Applications from new network members, such as 
individuals or groups that have gotten authorization recently, will 
likely not qualify for eligibility during this first funding cycle 
unless those applicants have experience as an active Network 
participant (for example as a designee or 109(h) responder) in good 
standing for the past 3 years. During the development of the Act, the 
intent to provide financial assistance to the active volunteer 
stranding network was clear. The Act's stated intent is to ``provide 
grants to eligible stranding network participants for the recovery or 
treatment of marine mammals, the collection of data from living or dead 
stranded marine mammals for scientific research regarding marine mammal 
health, and facility operation costs that are directly related to those 
purposes * * *'', and further notes that preference should be given to 
``* * * those facilities that have established records for rescuing or 
rehabilitating sick and stranded marine mammals''. However, newcomers 
that become active participants in the Network will have opportunities 
to apply for funds in future years if funds are appropriated.
    Comment 15: One commenter suggested that the explanation of ``in 
good standing'' referring to permit holders was redundant, since permit 
holders should be authorized under LOAs or other listed mechanisms for 
Network involvement.

[[Page 1732]]

    Response: There are long term, active Network members that receive 
verbal requests from their Regional Office to respond to strandings and 
may hold research permits but do not hold LOAs (although NMFS is 
developing procedures to issue standardized written LOAs nationally). 
Additionally, this footnote applies to researchers or Principal 
Investigators that are authorized network participants but also hold 
research or public display permits. These applicants may not be 
eligible if they are not in compliance with their permit conditions 
since lack of compliance implies a potential inability to responsibly 
fulfill grant requirements.
    Comment 16: Two commenters expressed concerns about criteria listed 
for ``in good standing''. Since LOAs have not yet been standardized, 
all participants may not be complying with the specific 
responsibilities listed. That commenter also felt that the phrase ``in 
a timely manner'' in the first sentence is subjective. Another 
commenter took special exception to the criteria for timely reporting 
of Level B and C data upon request by NMFS. Such reporting is not a 
requirement of most LOAs, and in some cases cannot be done due to 
conflicting priorities.
    Response: The LOAs are currently being redrafted and standardized, 
in part because many of the existing agreements were prepared before 
the passage of the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Act. 
Many of the new reporting and cooperation standards associated with 
implementation of the MMHSRP have been passed on to Network members as 
written requests, but as the commenters have noted, may not be 
reflected in all existing LOAs. We have modified these requirements to 
note that, while collection of Levels B and C data are not mandatory, 
timely reporting of these data when they are collected is considered to 
be an important indicator of cooperation with NMFS and the Network. We 
believe that network participants that are unresponsive or habitually 
do not cooperate with NMFS or other network members are not operating 
``in good standing'', therefore these criteria remain in the modified 
description.
    Comment 17: Two commenters asked why the Northwest Region appeared 
to apply more restrictive criteria for eligibility than other regions.
    Response: The Northwest Region Stranding Network is composed of 
cooperating scientific investigators and institutions, volunteer 
individuals and organizations, wildlife and fisheries agencies, and 
enforcement agencies. The documentation of their participation as 
members of the Network was initially provided in the Northwest Region 
Marine Mammal Stranding Network Handbook in the early 1980s. After 
approximately 15 years of cooperative effort, the participants that 
remained active were included in the National Contingency Plan for 
Response to Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events in 1996. To date, no 
LOAs have been issued in the Northwest Region for Network participants 
that are not otherwise authorized directly, pursuant to Section 109(h) 
of the MMPA (Federal, state, and local authorities), and the most 
recent formal documentation of participation, as a cooperating 
organization, is the 1996 Contingency Plan. However, since 1996, 
several organizations named in the contingency plan have resigned or 
otherwise become inactive. Therefore, to identify those participants 
that are continuing to provide response and data collection services 
for the Network, it became necessary to include recent participation as 
performance criterion. The 2001/2002 Contingency Plan is under review 
internally and will be available shortly. The new Plan identifies 
participants active since 1996, while removing participants that are no 
longer active. Once completed and available, the updated Contingency 
Plan will be used to identify the Northwest Region's active Network 
participants.
    Comment 18: One commenter asked whether all applicants have to be 
participants in the MMHSRP to be eligible for the Prescott Stranding 
Grant Program.
    Response: Yes, LOA holders and other Network participants described 
as ``in good standing'' and, therefore, qualified as applicants for the 
Stranding Grant Program are participating in the MMHSRP. The Marine 
Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, described in the 
Background section of this document, was established under the 1992 
Amendments to the MMPA. The legislative history of the MMHSRP indicates 
it was developed to direct and supplement the existing stranding 
network to improve the Network's ability to determine the reasons for 
marine mammal stranding events, particularly unusual events. Although 
prior to the 1992 Amendment, the Secretary of Commerce was responsible 
for authorizing people to respond to marine mammal strandings, the 
MMHSRP provided the Secretary with more explicit guidance on 
administration of the Stranding Network.
    Comment 19: Two commenters questioned the restriction of the 
eligibility criteria relating to state and local government response to 
cetacean strandings without justification for excluding pinnipeds.
    Response: This restriction was originally intended to reduce the 
potential for local governments that rarely or inconsistently 
participate in the stranding network from applying for funds under the 
Prescott Stranding Grant Program, while allowing those local agencies 
that are vital network members to participate. The criteria has now 
been modified to require MMPA 109(h) applicants to be ``in good 
standing'' and active in recent years, allowing pinniped response 
groups to participate, if they qualify.
    Comment 20: One commenter asked whether researchers and 
organizations outside of the US would be eligible for Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program funds, particularly for response to mortality 
events that may have been caused by US activities.
    Response: No. The Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act and its 
legislative history clearly indicate that the purpose of this program 
is to provide some financial relief to active, volunteer, US stranding 
network participants that have been absorbing the costs of response to 
marine mammal strandings. There is no provision in the Act nor 
intention apparent in the legislative history, to provide funds to 
individuals or organizations that are not part of the U.S. stranding 
network.
    Comment 21: One commenter suggested that, while there is some merit 
to discouraging the development of new facilities that may be 
capitalizing on this new granting opportunity, the Prescott Stranding 
Grant Program may discourage the construction of new facilities where 
they are needed.
    Response: Explicit authorization would be required in the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program to fund major new construction projects. 
Additionally, Congressional intent expressed in the Act, its 
legislative history, and subsequent clarification from authors of the 
statute, indicate that the funds are not for new construction or new 
participation. The purpose of the Prescott Stranding Grant Program is 
to provide funds for existing facilities and active stranding network 
participants. A new member of the Network, therefore, may not be 
eligible to apply for these funds during this grant cycle. However, 
once they have become active network participants, they may become 
eligible in future grant cycles.
    Comment 22: One commenter indicated that the Alaska Native 
exemptions under the MMPA allowed marine mammal takes for subsistence 
and for creating and selling authentic

[[Page 1733]]

handicrafts or clothing, and allowed the Secretary of Commerce to enter 
into a cooperative agreement with Alaska Native organizations to 
conserve marine mammals and to provide co-management of subsistence use 
by Alaska Natives. Therefore, the commenter suggested that there might 
be active, trained Alaskan Native participants of the marine mammal 
stranding program that do not work under an LOA. If an LOA will be 
necessary to qualify for funding opportunities under the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program, applicants should be allowed to obtain 
authority after the award is granted.
    Response: The Alaskan Native exemptions do not include 
authorization to respond to and collect materials from stranded animals 
as part of a specific stranding response; e.g. to fulfill Level B and C 
data collection protocols. Rather, under this exemption they can take 
marine mammals for subsistence or handicrafts. Currently, all Alaskan 
Natives that are responding to strandings and providing reports to the 
Regional Administrator are authorized under an LOA and are eligible for 
funding under this Program. The intent of the Program is to provide 
funds to the existing volunteer network. Therefore, individuals or 
organizations cannot apply for the funds before they are participating 
in the stranding network.

Priorities

    Many comments were received that suggested concerns regarding the 
intent of the priority lists. To clarify: the purpose of the priority 
list is to guide applicants in proposal development by identifying 
those proposals that will best compete during this grant cycle for 
these limited funds, and to provide technical reviewers with guidance 
for their evaluations. To this end, each region identified those 
priorities that will best ensure that the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program is successfully implemented (by providing grants for the 
recovery or treatment of marine mammals, the collection of data from 
living or dead stranded marine mammals for scientific research 
regarding marine mammal health, and facility operation costs that are 
directly related to those purposes) in the manner that best helps the 
regions achieve the goals of the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding 
Response Program. To ensure that the goals of the Prescott Stranding 
Grant Program are met, including equitable distribution of funds, 
proposals will be pooled by regional or national aspect according to 
which priorities are addressed by the applicant. Proposals will then 
compete for funds within these pools. Technical reviewers that are 
applicants in one pool may be among the reviewers for applications from 
another pool.
    Comment 23: Commenters indicated that the most critical funding 
areas are for equipment, supplies, and travel. They suggested that the 
agency appeared to be supplanting these critical needs with agency 
policy preferences, and indicated that each of these sets of interests 
should be addressed within this program.
    Response: The priorities identified in the Draft Implementation 
Plan were developed under the categories designated in the Act 
establishing the Prescott Stranding Grant Program. We agree that they 
were selected to successfully implement the Program through the MMHSRP, 
which was established by Congress in the 1992 Amendments to the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, in part, to guide the Agency on administration 
of the stranding network. The priorities have been reordered in this 
document to incorporate the operational cost projects into the two 
project categories identified in the Act: rescue and rehabilitation, 
and data collection. This reordering may reduce concerns expressed by 
the commenters that applicants for a grant for operational costs will 
receive low ranking. Actually, in this first funding cycle, we 
anticipate that 60 to 70 percent of the funds (depending on the number 
of eligible and complete applications and their federal costs) may be 
awarded for proposals for operational costs. Operational costs can 
include, for example; salaries, equipment for rehabilitation efforts, 
food for rehabilitating animals, water testing, water filtration 
upgrades, necropsy equipment, gasoline, computer equipment to track 
materials collected from stranded marine mammals, etc.
    Comment 24: Three commenters indicated that the priorities appear 
to be geared more towards live marine mammal strandings, however the 
majority of stranding activities relate to dead marine mammals. One of 
the commenters specifically expressed concern about this apparent bias 
in the National and Southeast data collection priorities, and pointed 
out that since fewer than 15 percent of all Southeast marine mammal 
strandings are live, improved data collection efforts on all dead 
stranded marine mammals would be more cost effective than increasing 
efforts on the live strandings.
    Response: Priorities are listed for both live and dead marine 
mammal strandings. No indication of an Agency preference exists or was 
intended. For the Southeast Region in particular, most of the data 
collection priorities listed apply to improved data collection from 
dead stranded marine mammals.
    Comment 25: One commenter suggested that the funding priority list 
provided in the Draft Implementation Plan should be narrowed 
considerably to allow applicants to compete successfully for funds for 
ongoing activities to help defray the enormous cost of recovery and 
rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals rather than focus on the new 
or unmet research needs of NMFS.
    Response: The priority list was developed to provide guidance to 
applicants on priorities that would successfully compete for funds by 
achieving the stated objectives of the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program: ``the recovery or treatment of marine mammals, the collection 
of data from living or dead stranded marine mammals for scientific 
research regarding marine mammal health, and facility operation costs 
that are directly related to those purposes.'' We have revised the 
priority lists to fold the priorities related to operational costs into 
the two categories of recovery or treatment, and data collection, to 
illustrate the integral need for funds for operational costs that 
support these two objectives.
    Comment 26: One commenter suggested that priorities should include 
the recovery and collection of tissues (including equipment costs) from 
individual stranding events to establish a database of baseline 
information to compare against anomalous events.
    Response: This recommendation is consistent with listed National 
Priorities, including participation in the National Marine Mammal 
Tissue/Serum Bank and establishing health reference data on species 
subject to unusual and mass strandings.
    Comment 27: One commenter suggested that long-term (5-15 years) 
archival of tissues already takes place in a few stranding 
organizations and those should receive priority for data analyses.
    Response: A proposal to conduct a collaborative, retrospective 
effort to analyze archived samples held by network participants would 
be consistent with a number of the listed priorities. Anyone interested 
in using tissues archived in the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank 
should follow the tissue access policy published in the 1994 Marine 
Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program: Program Development Plan. 
This report can be found on NMFS Office of Protected Resources Reading 
Room Web page, at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/

[[Page 1734]]

readingrm/MMHealth/mmhealth.pdf, and the access policy can be found on 
pages 33 to 35. Alternatively, please contact the Office of Protected 
Resources (see CONTACT information) for a hard copy. Note that a new 
access policy is currently under review in NOAA and is anticipated some 
time in the next year, after grants have been awarded in this grant 
cycle.
    Comment 28: In addition to the several health-related priorities 
outlined in the Draft Implementation Plan, one commenter believes it 
would be appropriate to also consider research projects dealing with 
basic aspects of life history (e.g., age, growth and reproduction) and 
ecology (e.g., feeding) of marine mammals, particularly those of the 
special concern (listed in B.2).
    Response: Both the Act establishing the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program, and the MMHSRP, prioritize research related to the health of 
marine mammal populations. Projects that collect life history 
information could be consistent with these statutory priorities if they 
are conducted to identify health trends or establish and interpret 
health reference data.
    Comment 29: For species of concern, pooling of samples and research 
efforts should be encouraged to enable investigators to properly 
address ecological questions and health issues with an appropriate 
number of samples. Data and samples from Kogia, for example, exist in 
various locations which, if properly analyzed could provide information 
on diet, reproductive biology, and aging that would be crucial for 
successful rehabilitation and release of live-stranded animals.
    Response: A collaborative project such as the one proposed could be 
competitive, and addresses the national priorities to identify health 
trends and establish health reference data.
    Comment 30: Priority should be given also to rescue and 
rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species.
    Response: Although strandings of listed species are relatively 
rare, these strandings usually do receive elevated response efforts. 
Because it is impractical to plan and maintain preparedness for rare 
events, we believe that establishment of a Network that effectively 
responds to all events may be the best way to ensure adequate response 
to a listed species stranding.
    Comment 31: NOAA fisheries is already preparing a web-based 
national stranding database, and already has funding for right whale 
response, and the Unusual Mortalities Working Group, therefore these 
should not be listed as priorities for a grant.
    Response: The right whale and Unusual Mortalities efforts are 
existing funded programs, and related priorities have been removed from 
the priority list. However, the priority related to a national 
stranding database has been modified to reflect its intent to encourage 
proposals to improve network members' data collection and input 
capabilities--for example to fund salary for a data management person 
for data entry for a network member, to upgrade computers, etc. The 
priority has been reworded to better identify this intent.
    Comment 32: A commenter suggested that the National priority 
related to ``upgrading equipment for electronic access to the national 
stranding database * * *'' should be repeated as a Southwest Regional 
priority.
    Response: This is not a regional priority for the funding year. 
However, an applicant from the Southwest can submit a proposal to 
upgrade equipment for this reason under the National Priority. That 
application would then compete for funds within the National pool 
rather than the Regional pool.
    Comment 33: Priorities that are listed in multiple regions might be 
combined as national priorities, i.e., public education and the 
development of oil-spill responses.
    Response: Because proposals will compete within regional or 
national ``pools'', depending on the priorities addressed, we have 
elected to keep overlapping priorities separated. The scope of the 
project, along with the applicant's statement regarding the priority 
addressed, will then determine which pool a proposal will compete 
within.
    Comment 34: The impetus for the Program was to provide funds to 
those facilities that for years have been absorbing the rising costs of 
stranding response and rehabilitation. This should be listed in the 
National Priority sections, as the number one priority.
    Response: We agree that recognition of the volunteer stranding 
network was the impetus for the development of the Prescott Stranding 
Grant Program. However, the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act's 
objectives do not include awards for historical participation, nor are 
federal grants the appropriate mechanism for reimbursement of funds for 
prior year efforts. While reimbursing Network participants for past 
efforts is not listed as a priority for implementation of this Program, 
eligibility to compete for funds under this Program is based in large 
measure on past and continuing participation as an active Network 
member.
    Comment 35: Priorities seem to impose the specter of additional 
work (research proposal to obtain grant funds) on long-time volunteer 
stranding network participants struggling to fund current operations 
related to their already significant responsibilities.
    Response: The Prescott Stranding Grant Program is obviously not 
mandatory and is not intended to place additional requirements on 
network participants. The competitive application process is required 
by the Department of Commerce Federal Assistance funding policies. 
Note, though, that operations costs will be funded with a successful 
grant application, therefore network participants can receive funds for 
operational costs for the upcoming year.
    Comment 36: There are no regional priorities to fund people and 
equipment to help network participants. The 1-year term precludes 
continued help in offsetting additional staff costs. Applicants and 
reviewers should have broader discretion and more flexibility regarding 
how to apply the priorities.
    Response: Operational costs are a national priority and all of the 
regions list priorities that encompass equipment and salaries, though 
these may be identified by phrases such as ``enhance operations''. The 
Prescott Stranding Grant Program relies on annual appropriations, 
therefore we cannot provide assurances during this first funding cycle 
regarding the availability of funds in the future. We have revised and 
reordered these priorities to provide applicants with specific 
guidance, while allowing reviewers some discretion in assessing 
competitive applications.
    Comment 37: A commenter suggested that priorities for methods or 
equipment should identify the conservation or management purpose.
    Response: In this Request For Proposals, we have folded operational 
cost priorities into the two categories of ``Recovery, Treatment and 
Release'', and ``Data Collection''. Applicants for operational costs 
are directed to identify how those costs meet the needs identified 
under these priorities. For example, a proposal for funds to cover 
veterinary costs, animal food, pool filtration devices, and water 
quality tests should be justified by identifying how these costs relate 
to needs for treatment and recovery of the types and numbers of 
strandings anticipated for a particular facility. Alternatively, a 
proposal for necropsy equipment, vehicle costs, salary for a stranding 
technician, costs of serological analyses, and equipment upgrades to 
allow access and data entry capabilities for the national stranding 
database would be

[[Page 1735]]

justified under the Data Collection objective.
    Comment 38: A commenter suggested that, in addition to the basic 
needs that should be funded by the Prescott Stranding Grant Program, 
substantial funds should also be provided to study the survival rates 
and ecological role of rehabilitated individuals once they are 
released.
    Response: Monitoring the survival of released animals is listed as 
a National, Northeast (under their data collection priorities in the 
Draft Implementation Plan) and Alaska Region priority. While important, 
this is not considered a high priority for the upcoming year by the 
other regions.
    Comment 39: One commenter asked for clarification regarding the 
lack of Northwest Regional priorities for recovery and treatment of 
marine mammals.
    Response: Although the Northwest Region did not list priorities 
under the ``Recovery and Treatment'' category in the Draft 
Implementation Plan, their ``Facility Operations Costs'' priority list 
included enhancement of facilities and network operations related to 
handling and treating sick and injured marine mammals. In this document 
these priorities have now been folded into the ``Recovery, and 
Treatment'' category.
    Comment 40: Under the ``recovery and treatment'' priorities list, 
one commenter suggests that the Northeast Region should add the 
formation of a committee or working group to review and recommend 
response to out of habitat situations.
    Response: Currently, the NMFS National Coordinator consults with 
existing working groups, such as the Unusual Mortalities Working Group, 
the Pinniped or Cetacean Release Criteria consultants, or ad hoc groups 
that include experts on the species of concern, to develop proper 
response to out-of-habitat events. Funds for response, when necessary, 
have generally come from existing sources of money. Rather than 
requesting a proposal through the Prescott Stranding Grant Program for 
the formation of a regional committee, the National Coordinator will 
take the lead in formalizing this process if it becomes necessary.
    Comment 41: A commenter suggested that the NMFS Northeast Regional 
priority related to outreach efforts in areas where humans and 
protected species overlap should not identify specific areas since 
there are many areas of concern, and should focus primarily on reducing 
effects on the population, versus reducing the subsequent need for 
rehabilitation.
    Response: The Region intended that this priority invite proposals 
to reduce injuries currently caused by the effects of human 
interactions with marine mammals on or near breeding grounds, and 
particularly at rookeries. Reducing the need for rehabilitation is an 
appropriate primary goal under the priority category of ``Recovery, 
Treatment or Release'', but since the priority is not intended to be 
site-specific, rookery names are no longer listed. We agree that the 
overall goal should include reduction of the effects of human 
interactions on the health of marine mammal populations due to, for 
example, habitat loss or transmission of disease and nuisance behaviors 
from facilities to the wild.
    Comment 42: One commenter suggested that we add Erysipelothrix 
rhusiopathiae to the list of priority diseases to be investigated in 
2001-2002.
    Response: The FY 2002 Conference Report (House Report 107-278) 
provides $150,000 for Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae this fiscal year. 
Due to this special appropriation, we believe E. rhusiopathiae does not 
have to be included in the priorities for the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program this year.
    Comment 43: One commenter asked that priority be given to 
applications for data collection grants from smaller facilities in all 
regions, and another one asked that priority be given to smaller 
facilities for stranding response and live animal treatment.
    Response: There is no indication of Congressional intent to 
constrict the ability for all network participants to compete equally 
for these funds, nor was it identified as a priority by all regions. 
However, the Southwest Region has determined that for their Region, 
applicants from smaller facilities will receive priority for stranding 
response and live animal treatment.
    Comment 44: A commenter suggested that the Southwest Region's 
priority identified as ``conducting complete necropsies on dead 
California sea lions to determine the incidence of human interactions 
such as gunshot'' be changed to ``conducting complete necropsies, 
including histopathology on all marine mammals that die or are 
euthanized in marine mammal rehabilitation centers to determine cause 
of death or euthanasia'.
    Response: The suggested modification is actually quite different 
from the stated priority. During this funding cycle, providing funds 
for necropsies on animals that die during rehabilitation efforts is not 
a regional priority; therefore, this priority has not been added to the 
Southwest Region's list. However, a request for funds to conduct 
ongoing procedures such as this one could be included in a proposal for 
operational costs under the Southwest's rescue and rehabilitation 
priority to enhance stranding response and live animal treatment in 
smaller facilities, if necropsies are conducted to provide information 
necessary to monitor and improve the effectiveness of treatment 
practices.
    Comment 45: One commenter suggested that network participants that 
collect tissues and data be compensated for their efforts, rather than 
restricting compensation to those that are conducting analyses or 
research with the data or tissues.
    Response: Applicants for projects that require input from other 
network participants are asked to include reimbursement costs to the 
LOA holder or Network member collecting materials from stranded marine 
mammals, and to include those network participants as Cooperators on 
their proposal.
    Comment 46: A number of commenters stated that this program should 
not fund a national stranding workshop.
    Response: This priority has been removed from the list because it 
was too similar to a procurement, which is an inappropriate application 
of this grant program.
    Comment 47: A commenter suggested that protocol for response to 
individual live strandings and criteria for rehabilitation candidates 
should be developed to provide facilities with guidance regarding basic 
indicators of animals that can be successfully rehabilitated.
    Response: Rehabilitation and release criteria, currently under 
development by the MMHSRP National Program staff, will address this 
need to some extent. In the interim, the NMFS National and Regional 
coordinators often call on an ad-hoc group of experts for advice on 
live stranding response. If further guidance is deemed necessary after 
release criteria are finalized, NMFS will establish another group of 
consultants to further develop a beach-triage protocol, such as that 
identified by the commenter. Funds from the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program will not be needed to support this effort.
    Comment 48: One commenter suggested that a priority to ``achieve 
consistent Level A data collection and encourage Level B and Level C 
data collection for dead strandings whenever possible along all U.S. 
coasts'' be added to the list of priorities in each region.
    Response: This priority was added to the National Data Collection 
priorities,

[[Page 1736]]

and related regional priorities have been amended, to reflect this goal 
of the MMHSRP.
    Comment 49: The Northeast Region priorities should include one 
similar to the first priority on the Southeast Regional list regarding 
enhanced collection and evaluation of human interaction evidence from 
stranded marine mammals.
    Response: This priority has been added to the list of the 
priorities for the Northeast Region. Costs for training network members 
to detect and document human interaction evidence are requested for 
inclusion in the proposed budget.
    Comment 50: One commenter suggested that expansion of this grant 
program to include sea turtles would be useful.
    Response: The Prescott Stranding Grant Program was instituted as an 
amendment to the MMPA, and does not cover sea turtle stranding 
response.
    Comment 51: One commenter asked for an explanation of ``cooperative 
projects * * * to achieve Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response 
objectives'' as listed in the Northeast Regional priority 1.
    Response: Marine mammal strandings are a valuable source of 
information and material for studies that support the MMHSRP goals, 
particularly when response includes in-depth necropsies and data or 
tissue collection. The value of each stranding event, particularly of 
fresh dead animals, can be maximized by reaching out to experts from a 
variety of backgrounds. With this priority, the Northeast Region is 
encouraging network members to submit proposals to conduct studies 
supporting MMHSRP goals through partnerships with a variety of experts, 
including some that may not be within the current network.
    Comment 52: One commenter asked that we mention something directly 
related to necropsy sample archive/storage in the priority regarding 
archival of samples.
    Response: Numerous published protocols exist regarding appropriate 
sampling methods for real-time analyses or for archival of samples for 
specific research purposes (genetic studies, development of health 
reference data, health trend monitoring, etc.). For example, sampling 
protocols are included in two publications posted on the NMFS Protected 
Resources Web site, at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot__res/readingrm/
Protocols/pinnipednecro.pdf and, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot__res/
readingrm/NIST4529.pdf.
    Comment 53: One commenter suggested that the development of greater 
capacity in existing rehabilitation facilities should be added to the 
priority for facility renovations in the Northeast Region.
    Response: The priority for the Northeast Region has been broadened 
to ``Renovating rehabilitation space for marine mammals, to include 
expansion of holding capabilities within existing facilities.'' This 
priority includes facility improvements, as well as renovations that 
result in greater capacity, such as the addition, repair, or 
replacement of pools. The intent of the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program, however, is not to fund the construction of entirely new 
facilities.
    Comment 54: One commenter identified a study of the pox virus in 
seals and its effect on both survivability and releasability of these 
animals as a priority for the Northeast Region.
    Response: Seal pox is an emerging problem in the Northeast Region, 
particularly with the recent increase in ice seal strandings. Although 
this is not one of the priority diseases for this funding cycle, a 
proposal to study this problem could be submitted under the national 
priority to evaluate the incidence and impacts of marine mammals 
diseases, which has been expanded to include diseases that effect 
survival of marine mammals. Note that a study that requires collection 
of animals from the wild or invasive procedures beyond those generally 
used to rehabilitate and release marine mammals may require research or 
enhancement permits. Funds obligated prior to permit issuance may not 
be distributed until proper permits are in place. Information on permit 
requirements and applications procedures can be found at: http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot__res/PR1/Permits/pr1permits__types.html. 
    Comment 55: One commenter indicated that priorities in the 
Northeast Region, and perhaps nationally, should include a study on the 
survivability of marine mammals that have been released after treatment 
for severe lung worm infections.
    Response: Monitoring of released animals to evaluate success is a 
National, Northeast, and Alaska priority. Additionally, although a 
study of the effects of lungworm infections on survival of released 
marine mammals has not been listed as a specific priority disease for 
this funding cycle, a proposal to study this problem could be submitted 
under the expanded National priority to evaluate the incidence and 
impacts of diseases and conditions that affect survival of marine 
mammals. Note that a study that requires procedures beyond those 
generally used to rehabilitate and release marine mammals, such as 
measurements of dive profiles of recovering or rehabilitated animals, 
may require research or enhancement permits. Funds obligated prior to 
permit issuance may not be distributed until proper permits are in 
place. For information on permit requirements and applications 
procedures, call the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (see CONTACTS) 
or view the following Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/__res/PR1/
Permits/pr1permits__types.html.
    Comment 56: One commenter suggested that establishing a native 
liaison in Alaska should be a priority to effectively bridge and 
conduct outreach between the stranding network and the many different 
cultures found along coastal Alaska, and to conduct outreach and 
increase awareness of and response to strandings.
    Response: A proposal from a network member, or a group of network 
members, to establish this type of position could address the Alaska 
Region's priority to enhance stranding response throughout the state.
    Comment 57: One commenter suggested that funds are needed to 
facilitate response to strandings in remote areas in Alaska due to the 
high cost for gasoline and other commodities in these areas.
    Response: The priorities have been revised and re-grouped in this 
Request For Proposals. Under these revisions, a successful proposal for 
these funds could be submitted as operational costs under Alaska's 
priority to enhance stranding response in rural areas.
    Comment 58: One commenter suggested that, if possible, samples 
should be collected from stranded marine mammals along the Alaska 
coastline for potential genetic analysis, contaminant analysis, 
parasite, pathology, and other studies.
    Response: The Alaska Region's priority to improve level A data 
collection has been amended to encourage Level B and C data collection. 
A successful proposal that would result in increased sample collection 
following appropriate protocols would address this priority.
    Comment 59: One commenter strongly supported the need to expand and 
support an ``infrastructure'' for a better stranding response in 
Hawaii, and suggested that this should be among the highest priorities 
for the Region.
    Response: The priorities are not ranked, rather all of those listed 
for this grant cycle are high priority for each of the Regions. Note 
that this priority has been revised to reflect the need to promote 
collaboration among network members in Hawaii.

[[Page 1737]]

    Comment 60: Two commenters supported an addition to the Northeast 
Region's priority to enhance necropsy facilities, as well as other 
equipment and enhancements to improve level B and C data collection and 
scientific research.
    Response: A priority has been added to the Northeast Region's list 
to ``Enhance necropsy facilities and other improvements to achieve 
consistent Level A data collection and encourage Level B and Level C 
data collection for dead strandings whenever possible.''
    Comment 61: One commenter suggested that it was very important to 
improve the necropsy techniques of the stranding program in the 
Northeast Region.
    Response: An application to develop training materials, acquire, or 
conduct necropsy training throughout the Northeast Region could be 
successfully submitted under the priority to encourage level B and C 
data collection. Travel funds for network participants should be 
included in the application, if possible.
    Comment 62: One commenter indicated that the Southwest Region's 
priorities did not include facility operations costs, which should be 
explained.
    Response: The Southwest and Southeast Regional operational 
priorities were mistakenly combined in the Draft Implementation Plan. 
The Southwest included 5 operational priorities, now folded into their 
Rescue and Rehabilitate priority list in this document.

Funding

    Comment 63: One commenter asked whether NOAA/NMFS will consider 
partial funding for acceptable projects if more proposals meet funding 
criteria than money is available.
    Response: Following the NOAA Grants process, after a project has 
successfully competed and been selected for funding, pre-award 
negotiations occur between the applicant and NOAA/NMFS representatives. 
This process can include agreements to partially fund projects that 
otherwise fall below the available funding level.
    Comment 64: A number of commenters indicated that the Federal share 
of the grant is supposed to be $100,000, with an additional 25 percent 
for non-federal matching funds.
    Response: We originally interpreted the Marine Mammal Rescue 
Assistance Act's language limiting the grant to $100,000 to be 
consistent with general grant principles that define a grant as 
including both the Federal and non-Federal share. However, after 
soliciting further clarification and reviewing the legislative history 
of the Act, we have determined that there is sufficient information to 
reveal Congressional intent to limit the Federal portion of the award, 
not the amount of the grant itself, to $100,000. We have changed the 
guidance in this document to reflect this new interpretation; the 
Federal (75 percent) portion of the grant will be up to $100,000 and 
the non-Federal match will be a minimum of 25 percent of the total 
grant amount. For a project for which 75 percent of the grant is the 
maximum $100,000 in Federal funds, a minimum of $33,334 in matching 
funds (25 percent of $133,334) would be required. Note that proposals 
can be submitted for projects costing more than $133,334, however the 
Federal share can be no more than $100,000.
    Comment 65: One commenter asked that NMFS clarify that the non-
Federal match can consist of in-kind services.
    Response: The cost sharing discussion in the Draft Implementation 
Plan specifically stated that cost share requirements could be met with 
in-kind contributions and included a long discussion regarding in-kind 
contributions. This discussion has been repeated in this document, and 
it cites the Federal regulations regarding cost sharing requirements.
    Comment 66: One commenter asked that NMFS explain the phrase `` * * 
* not required to award any specific grant or cooperative agreement, 
nor are we required to obligate the entire amount of funds provided.''
    Response: This language is standard for Notices soliciting 
applications for discretionary Federal assistance funds. The language 
makes clear that the Notice does not infer entitlement rights to the 
funds to any applicant. The final selection decisions, funding amounts 
and project descriptions will be decided by NOAA.
    Comment 67: Three commenters requested clarification or 
justification for the agency's decision not to fund any multi-year 
projects this year, despite the fact that many scientific research 
projects, particularly those relating to trends in marine mammal 
health, yield more beneficial results over time.
    Response: Based on the guidance we have received regarding 
Congressional intent, we have decided to implement the Prescott 
Stranding Grant Program during this first funding cycle in a manner 
that broadly distributes the funds and that does not foreclose future 
options by obligating future funds that may be appropriated. 
Additionally, there is no guarantee that future funds will be 
available, since they depend upon annual appropriations from Congress. 
Therefore, for this grant cycle, we have decided not to fund projects 
that require funding obligations in future years. As noted in the Draft 
Implementation Plan and in this document, we will fund a project for up 
to 3 years if the Federal share of the project does not exceed $100,000 
for the entire duration of the project. Additionally, if work will 
continue for some period after the money is obligated, the grantee may 
notify the grants manager and request a no-cost extension for the 
grant. We will revisit this policy for upcoming grant cycles, and 
foresee the possibility that multi-year proposals may be accepted in 
the future.
    Comment 68: Two commenters suggested that recognition should be 
afforded for the applicant's efforts to value cost sharing portion of 
items, including in kind contributions.
    Response: NMFS will follow the Federal guidelines regarding 
consideration of the valuation of cost sharing proposals, including in-
kind contributions. These guidelines are summarized in the Draft 
Implementation Plan and in this Notice, and are detailed in the 
regulations found at 15 CFR 14.23 and 24.24. For successful 
applications, lingering questions regarding cost sharing can be 
resolved during the negotiations that follow selection of applications.
Selection/Review Process
    Comment 69: A number of commenters asked how the funds will be 
equitably distributed among the Regions.
    Response: Applications will compete regionally; that is, they will 
be reviewed, evaluated, and ranked on a regional or national basis 
depending on the priority addressed by the applicant. As discussed in 
the implementation plan, once an evaluation has been conducted, MMHSRP 
staff, with input from the NMFS Regional Administrators and Office 
Directors, the Marine Mammal Commission, and the USFWS, will develop 
recommendations for equitable distribution of the Prescott Stranding 
Grant Program funds among the NMFS stranding regions. Justification for 
distribution will consider recent strandings statistics, including the 
occurrence of episodic events such as El Nino, as well as anomalous 
stranding events and recent unusual mortality events. The Assistant 
Administrator for Fisheries will review the recommendations and 
comments of the review team and ultimately determine the projects to be 
funded.

[[Page 1738]]

    The distribution formula chosen this year may be revised in future 
funding cycles. Qualified applications during the year to address 
unanticipated catastrophic events, such as mass strandings, will be 
funded non-competitively, likely on a first-come first-serve basis.
    Comment 70: One commenter indicated that the success of the 
proposal at addressing listed priorities did not appear to be 
considered in the ranking and scoring criteria.
    Response: The initial screening process will ensure that only 
applications that are qualified, which include those that address the 
listed priorities, receive further review by technical reviewers. 
Additionally, the guidance to technical reviewers includes 
consideration of soundness of project design, which as described 
include consideration of how the project achieves the goals of the 
MMHSRP and the Prescott Stranding Grant Program.
    Comment 71: One commenter suggested that a 10 percent criteria be 
added to consider how well the proposed study builds collaboration and/
or extends the capabilities of the program or project.
    Response: We recognize and encourage collaborative efforts, 
particularly for data collection projects, and have included 
collaboration as a factor to be considered by technical reviewers when 
weighting experience and qualifications of personnel. In future years, 
we will consider adding a weighting criteria for collaboration such as 
the one suggested
    Comment 72: One commenter requested clarification regarding two 
aspects of scoring, ranking, and selection guidance in the draft 
implementation plan; noting that the ``acceptable technical score'' 
appeared to be arbitrary and unspecified; and questioning the meaning 
of the statement that awards may not be made to all of the highest 
technically ranked applications. The commenter suggested that the 
applications should be ranked, redundant applications with lower scores 
should be removed from the list, and then all funds should be 
distributed down the ranks until funds are depleted.
    Response: To ensure that Federal funds administered through grants 
programs are distributed responsibly, we have established a minimum 
standard that must be met for an application to be considered for 
funding. Commonly, only applications for Federal funds that receive 
excellent or very good scores from peer reviewers are further 
considered for funding, or alternatively, numerical standards are 
established based upon the historical scores and rankings of 
applications received during previous grant cycles for a particular 
program. Because the Prescott Stranding Grant Program has no previous 
grant cycle to draw upon, we have selected a minimum standard of 60 
percent, similar to that used academically to denote a failing grade. 
This 60 percent cut-off is identified in the first paragraph of the 
Technical Evaluation section in the Draft Implementation Plan. 
Applications that cannot achieve a minimum score of 60 percent will not 
be considered for funding during this funding cycle, and applicants 
will receive a summary of comments from the panel and review teams.
    The statement that not all of the highest technically ranked 
applications may be awarded grants reflects standard NMFS grants 
language when a selecting official reserves the discretion to use 
policy factors to make final agency funding decisions. The Assistant 
Administrator is the Selecting Official for the Prescott Stranding 
Grant Program, and final selections are essentially at his discretion, 
within the constraints identified in this document. In this case, the 
Selecting Official can deviate from panel ranking recommendations, even 
if an application has received a high ranking, if he has policy 
concerns about costs, need, geographical distribution of projects, 
duplication with other federally funded projects, or equitable 
distribution of funds among the regions. However, any deviations from 
panel recommendations must be justified in writing and based on the 
policy factors that are identified in the notice.
    Comment 73: One commenter suggested that we include a participant 
from the Working Group for Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events in 
the grant review and selection process to ensure the working group's 
concerns are represented.
    Response: Past and present members of the Working Group will be 
among those asked to participate on the technical review panel.
    Comment 74: One commenter suggested that at least one member of the 
panel should be an individual from a marine mammal rehabilitation 
center in a managerial position and intimately involved in the day-to-
day activities of animal care and treatment, and suggested this should 
be noted in our discussion of the review panel process.
    Response: We will be contacting dozens of individuals from varied 
organizations, including network participants, rehabilitation 
facilities, government managers and scientists, academics, and 
constituent groups, to ask them to volunteer to participate as 
technical reviewers of Prescott Grants proposals. The total number of 
reviewers that will be selected depends on the number of volunteers, 
the number of applications that come in, and the priorities addressed 
on those applications. At least two panels will be necessary, to divide 
west coast, east coast, and headquarters proposals into 2 review pools. 
Reviewers will be assigned to each panel in a manner that prevents 
conflict of interest (for example, applicants will not be able to 
review other applications within their competitive pool), and that 
applies reviewers' areas of expertise appropriately. Given these goals, 
while it is likely that panelists will include reviewers that are 
senior staff at rehabilitation facilities, we cannot require nor ensure 
that this will be the case.
    Comment 75: One commenter expressed concern that the initial 
``regional review of proposals'', rather than the simultaneous 
coordinated review indicated in the law, could unfairly or 
inconsistently preclude meritorious proposals from the review mandated 
by Congress.
    Response: NMFS grant procedures require an initial review of 
proposals for completeness of applications, and to determine whether 
the minimum program and eligibility requirements are met. The initial 
review will not include determinations regarding the merits of the 
proposals beyond whether or not the proposal addresses one of the 
priorities established for this grant cycle. Note that in this 
document, we have increased the period allowed for application 
preparation beyond that forecasted in our original timeline. We 
encourage applicants to apply early so that problems found during these 
initial reviews, such as incomplete forms, can be resolved prior to the 
end of the application period. Note that we are under no obligation to 
do these early reviews, however, and insufficient time and resources 
may preclude our ability to return early proposals for completion.
    Comment 76: One commenter indicated that the screening and 
evaluation process should closely track the three important activity 
areas identified by Congress so as not to discourage applications for 
less lofty but much needed existing stranding efforts.
    Response: In the Draft Implementation Plan, the priorities listed 
for the Prescott Stranding Grant Program were listed under the three 
categories identified by Congress. The priorities have been revised in 
this document by folding the operational

[[Page 1739]]

priorities into the rehabilitation and release, and data collection 
categories. This reordering, as well as many of the responses to 
comments in this section, should more explicitly illustrate our 
interest in receiving proposals for operational costs that support 
ongoing stranding network efforts. Our guidance to technical reviewers 
includes weighting factors that favor proposals that are consistent 
with these listed priorities.
    Comment 77: One commenter suggested that reviewers should be made 
familiar with the specific exemptions under the MMPA for coastal Alaska 
Natives.
    Response: We will ask all technical reviewers to read this document 
completely prior to reviewing applications. The discussion of the 
Alaska Native exemptions in the comments and responses will provide 
them with important background for reviewing Alaskan proposals.
Application
    Comment 78: One commenter indicated that the grant application 
forms are not well designed for this program, and included irrelevant 
fields and insufficient space to describe the proposed project. A 
template would be useful.
    Response: The Federal grants process requires submission of a 
number of forms, that are currently generic. Very few specialized forms 
exist for specific grants programs, however, one can be developed for 
the Prescott Stranding Grant Program. Once developed, the form must be 
reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget to be 
consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The development, public 
review, and approval of a specialized form may take up to 2 years. 
Depending on the administrative demands of implementation of the 
Prescott Stranding Grant Program, we will look into modifying these 
forms in the upcoming year.
    Section III D. of this document provides an outline for the project 
description, which can be up to 10 pages long and is an attachment to 
the application form, not a section of the form.
    Some assistance in filling out the required forms and in avoiding 
common problems can be found at the NOAA Grants homepage, specifically, 
at: http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/grants/index.html. We have also posted an 
application package, as well as a mock application, and questions and 
answers related to applications for the Prescott Stranding Grant 
Program on our Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot__ res/PR2/
Health__and__Stranding __Response__Program/Prescott.html.
Classification
    Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not 
required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this 
notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts.
    Furthermore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for 
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes 
of Executive Order 12866.
    Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 
12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure 
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements 
of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.
    This document contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 
424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the 
respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0348-
0046.

    Dated: January 4, 2002.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-783 Filed 1-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P