[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79136-79140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32700]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

RIN 1018-AI58


Tribal Wildlife Grants (TWG) Program Implementation Guidelines 
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 authorized an 
appropriation of $85 million for wildlife conservation grants to States 
and to the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and Tribes under 
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and implementation of 
programs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including 
species that are not hunted or fished. The Act further specified that 
the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) use $5 million of the funds to 
establish a competitive grant program available to federally-recognized 
Indian tribes. This language allows the Secretary, through the Director 
of the Service, to establish a separate tribal grant program that would 
not be subject to the provisions of the formula-based State Wildlife 
Grant program, or other requirements of the State Wildlife Grants 
portion of Public Law 107-63. The Service is providing draft 
implementation guidance for this $5 million Tribal Wildlife Grant 
program.

DATES: Interested parties should submit comments to the addresses under 
the heading ADDRESSES by January 27, 2003. Commentors regarding 
information collection requirements should note that the Office of 
Management and Budget has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove 
information collection submissions, but may respond after 30 days. 
Therefore, an early comment response would be advised.

ADDRESSES: Comments to this proposed implementation guidance should be 
sent to: Robyn Thorson, Assistant Director--External Affairs, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 3012 MIB, 
Washington, DC 20240. Comments may be telefaxed as well to: 202/501-
3524. For information collection requirements under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, send comments to: Interior Desk Officer, Attn: 1018-
0109, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20503, and send a copy of these paperwork burden comments to U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Information Collection Clearance Officer, 
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 224, Arlington, VA 22203.
    The Service will make all comments received in response to this 
Notice available for public review during regular business hours at the 
Office of the Native American Liaison. If a respondent wishes his or 
her name or address to be withheld from public view, we will honor 
these wishes to the extent allowable by law, if the respondent makes 
this request known at the time of comment submission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Durham, Office of the Native 
American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, Mail 
Stop 3012 MIB, Washington, DC 20240, 202/208-4133.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 (Public Law 107-63) authorized an 
appropriation of $85 million for wildlife conservation grants to States 
and to the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and Tribes under 
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and implementation of 
programs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including 
species that are not hunted or fished. The Act further specified that 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) use $5 million of the 
funds to establish a competitive grant program available to federally-
recognized tribes. This language allows the Secretary, through the 
Director of the Service, to establish a separate tribal grant program 
that would not be subject to the provisions of the formula-based State 
Wildlife Grant program, or other requirements of the State Wildlife 
Grants portion of Public Law 107-63. The Service is providing guidance 
to the public and, particularly, to federally-recognized tribes, in the 
administration of this $5 million Tribal Wildlife Grant (TWG) program. 
A series of questions and answers follow that describe the proposed 
guidelines in some detail.
    The Service is proposing this guidance with the intent of gathering 
input from the affected communities. Whereas the Service is seeking 
comments on all aspects of TWG, several items are of particular 
interest. The Service is soliciting comments on whether it should limit 
funding to any one tribe to 5 percent (%) or some other amount of the 
total available funding. The Service also wishes to determine whether 
the proposed ranking criteria appropriately addresses Congressional 
intent for the use of such funds. Public input will also be helpful in 
the appropriate participation level of tribal organizations in 
implementing TWG-funded activities.

II. Proposed Implementation Guidelines

A. Eligibility

1. Who May Participate in the TWG Program?
    The Service proposes a competitive process that affords federally-
recognized tribes in all parts of the United States an opportunity to 
participate in the grant program.
2. Are State-Recognized Tribes or Petitioning Tribes Eligible To 
Receive Grants Under This Program?
    No, only federally-recognized tribes are eligible to receive grants 
under this program. Federally-recognized tribes are listed in the 
Federal Register/Volume 67, Number 134/July 12, 2002/Notices.
3. Can Tribal Organizations or Other Non-Tribal Entities Receive Grants 
Under This Program?
    No, however, the Service proposes that tribal organizations or 
other non-tribal entities that could not enter into grant agreements 
may do so as subgrantees or contractors to federally-recognized tribes. 
The Service is aware of various types of tribal organizations and other 
non-tribal entities and seeks public comments regarding their 
participation in TWG.
4. What Process Does the Service Propose To Use To Distribute TWG 
Funds?
    The Service will request proposals through a Federal Register 
notice, direct contact, and other forms of outreach to eligible 
applicants. The Service's Regional Directors will receive all 
proposals.

[[Page 79137]]

5. Who Will Coordinate Regional Grant Application Submissions?
    The Regional Native American Liaisons of the Service will 
coordinate the process to screen these proposals and rank them 
according to nationally uniform criteria.
6. How Will the Various Regional Grant Application Submissions Be 
Reviewed for National Funding?
    A national panel will review Regionally-ranked proposals for 
recommendations to the Director of the Service (Director).
7. Who Will Be Empaneled To Serve as the National Review Panel?
    The Regional Native American Liaisons of the Service will serve on 
the panel in addition to other Service and other Federal agency 
personnel, as appropriate and as may be identified by the Director.
8. Will Tribal Representatives Be Involved in Reviewing or Ranking 
Proposals?
    No, only Federal employees will review and rank proposals in this 
initial year. However, we are interested in receiving comments from the 
public on ways to involve tribal representatives in this process in 
future years.
9. Who Will Make the Final Determination for Grant Approval?
    The Director will make the final determination for grant approval.

B. Application Requirements

1. Is the TWG Program Exempt From Federal Grant Program Compliance?
    No, the TWG program is not exempt from any of the Federal grant 
program compliance requirements as specified in 43 CFR part 12, OMB 
Circulars A-102 and A-87, and Service Manual Chapters 552 FW1 and 523 
FW1.
2. What Must Proposals for Participation in the TWG Program Include?
    Proposals must include a cover letter, program summary, program 
narrative, budget narrative, and tribal resolution of support as 
described herein.
    [sbull] A cover letter briefly states the main features of the 
proposed project.
    [sbull] A program summary describes, in one-half page, the type of 
activity that would take place if the service funds the program.
    [sbull] A program narrative clearly identifies the problems that 
the proposal will correct or help solve as they relate to the 
development and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife 
and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished, and 
the expected results or benefits. It must contain a needs assessment, 
objectives, time line, methodology, geographic location (with maps), 
monitoring plan, and identification of clear, obtainable, and 
quantifiable goals and performance measures that will help achieve the 
management goals and objectives of the TWG and relevant Service 
performance goals. The two relevant Service goals are the 
Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations (Goal 1.2) and Habitat 
Conservation (Goal 2.3), which can be found in the Service's Long Term 
Strategic Plan for 2000 to 2005 at http://planning.fws.gov/USFWStrategicPlanv3.pdf. Related Service planning and results can be 
found at http://planning.fws.gov/.
    [sbull] A budget narrative clearly justifies all proposed costs and 
indicates that the grantee will provide adequate management systems for 
fiscal and contractual accountability, including annual monitoring and 
evaluation of progress toward desired project objectives, goals, and 
performance measures. It should include discussion of direct cost items 
such as salaries, equipment, consultant services, subcontracts and 
travel, as well as project matching or cost sharing information. 
Applicants may cover new administrative costs, but they cannot include 
pre-existing administrative costs.
    [sbull] A resolution of support from the appropriate tribal 
governing body stating its support for the proposal.
3. Where Can Applicants Obtain a Grant Proposal Package?
    Applicants can obtain a grant proposal package from the appropriate 
Service Regional Native American Liaison, as listed in Subpart IV of 
this document.
4. Are Matching Funds Required?
    No, however, it is encouraged and the proposed ranking criteria 
will consider matching funds as an indication of tribal commitment to 
the program and to encourage partnerships.
5. Are In-Kind Contributions Eligible as Matching Funds?
    Yes, in-kind contributions may be used as a match to improve the 
potential ranking of a proposal. The Service has defined ``in-kind'' as 
non-cash contributions made by the tribe. In-kind contributions must be 
necessary and reasonable for carrying out the program, and must 
represent the same value that the Service would have paid for similar 
services or property if purchased on the open market. Allowable in-kind 
contributions are defined in 43 CFR part 12.64. The following website 
provides additional information: http://training.fws.gov/fedaid/toolkit/inkind.pdf.
6. Can a Tribe Submit More Than One Grant Proposal?
    Tribes are encouraged to submit a single comprehensive grant 
proposal. After all proposals have been ranked, the Service may allow 
tribes to submit additional proposals if the funding has not all been 
obligated.
7. Is There a Maximum Level of Funding That Will Be Considered Under 
the TWG Program?
    The Service wants to encourage the maximum amount of participants 
in the TWG program. Therefore, the Service recommends a maximum of no 
more than 5 percent (%) of the total available funds be awarded to any 
tribe. However, depending upon the number of proposals submitted and 
the relative merit of each proposal, some tribes may be awarded sums 
which would exceed this proposed 5 percent (%) funding level.
8. Is There a Minimum Level of Funding That Will Be Considered Under 
the TWG Program?
    No, the Service recommends no minimum level of funding.

C. Ranking Criteria

What ranking criteria is the Service proposing to use?
    The Service has developed the following potential ranking criteria 
and weight factors for review and comment. The Service will be using 
these criteria in evaluating each proposal on a scale of zero (0) 
through one hundred (100) points.
    Benefit: What are the expected benefits to fish and wildlife 
resources, including species that are not hunted or fished, and their 
habitat if this program is successfully completed? (0-15 points)
    Performance Measures: To what extent does the proposal provide 
obtainable and quantifiable performance measures and a means to 
monitor, evaluate, and report on these measures compared to an initial 
baseline? The measures should be specific, clear and provide 
demonstrable benefits to the target species of the action. These 
actions should support the goals of the TWG and relevant Service 
performance goals. The two relevant Service performance goals are 
Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations (Goal 1.2) and Habitat 
Conservation (Goal 2.3) which can be found at http://

[[Page 79138]]

planning.fws.gov/USFWStrategicPlanv3.pdf. (0-15 points)
    Work Plan: Are the program activities and objectives well-designed 
and achievable? (0-10 points)
    Budget: Are all major budget items justified in relation to the 
program objectives and clearly explained in the narrative description? 
(0-15 points)
    Capacity Building: To what extent does the program increase the 
grantee's capacity to provide for the benefit of wildlife and their 
habitat? (0-10 points)
    Commitment: To what extent does the applicant display commitment to 
the program through in-kind contribution or matching funds? (0-10 
points)
    Partnerships: To what extent does the program incorporate 
contributions from other non-Federal partners in the form of either 
cash or in-kind services? (0-15 points)
    Administrative Costs: What is the percentage (%) of program funds 
identified for use on actual projects as opposed to staff and related 
administrative costs? Ranking will be improved as the percentage of 
funds identified for staff and related administrative costs decrease. 
(0-10 points)

D. TWG Operations and Management

1. In the Course of Implementing a TWG Project or Program Can Grantees 
Use TWG Funds To Pay for Costs of Conservation Law Enforcement?
    Yes, however, such effort must be critical to the development and 
implementation of the TWG project or program and for the benefit of 
wildlife and their habitat.
2. What Activities Are Included in the ``Development and Implementation 
of Programs for the Benefit of Wildlife'' as Referenced in the 
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
FY 2002?
    Activities may include, but are not limited to, planning for 
wildlife and habitat conservation; ongoing and/or new fish and wildlife 
management actions; fish and wildlife related laboratory and field 
research; natural history studies; habitat mapping; field surveys and 
population monitoring; habitat preservation; land acquisition; 
conservation easements; and outreach efforts.
3. Can Grantees Use TWG Funds To Cover Costs of Environmental Review, 
Habitat Evaluation, Permit Review (e.g., Section 404), and Other 
Environmental Compliance Activities Associated With a TWG Project?
    Yes, they can fund these activities provided they are directly 
related to the TWG program or project being funded and are included in 
the budget and discussed in the program and budget narratives.
4. Are There Any Specific Activities That Are Not Allowable Under the 
Guidance of TWG?
    A proposal cannot include activities required to comply with a 
Biological Opinion or include activities required to comply with a 
permit (e.g., mitigation responsibilities). However, a proposal can 
include activities that implement conservation recommendations.
5. Is the TWG Program a Continuous Revenue Source for Tribal Wildlife 
Programs?
    No, there is no authorization for appropriation of funds beyond FY 
2002. Funds appropriated in FY 2002 are available until spent.
6. Can the Grantee Hold TWG Funds in an Interest-Bearing Account?
    No, TWG grant funds may not be held in interest-bearing accounts.

E. Grant Award Procedures

1. What Additional Information Must Be Provided to the Service by the 
Grantees Once Awards Are Announced?
    Once the Director notifies grantees that their proposal was 
selected for funding, the recipient must submit a Standard Form 424 
(Application for Federal Assistance) along with a grant agreement and 
attachments as required by Federal regulations. As with our other 
Federal programs, TWG agreements must comply with 43 CFR part 12, the 
National Environmental Policy Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species 
Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and all other applicable 
Federal laws and regulations. This grant program is also subject to 
provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circulars No. A-87, A-
102, and A-133 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars).
2. Once Grants Are Awarded, Who Should the Grantee Consider as the Lead 
Contact Person?
    Once grants have been awarded, the grantee should consider the 
appropriate Regional Native American Liaison of the Service as the lead 
contact person for all matters pertaining to the particular award.
3. When Will the Service Award TWG Grants?
    Once the Service has reviewed and ranked all eligible TWG grant 
proposals, the Director will make his final decision within 30 days of 
the recommendations of the national review panel.
4. How Will Funds Be Disbursed Once the Service Has Awarded TWG Grants?
    Subsequent to funding approval, grant funds are electronically 
delivered to the Health and Human Services' SMARTLINK payment system. 
Through this electronic funds transfer (EFT) grantees will be able to 
receive their funds on a reimbursement basis. Some of the tribal 
grantees may not be EFT compliant. In order to insure optimal service 
to potential grantees within the current Federal Aid process, grantees 
will need to obtain EFT capabilities. Grantees may request an advance 
of no more than 25 percent (%) of the total grant. Such requests will 
be individually reviewed by the Service and honored if sufficient 
hardship or need is demonstrated that would preclude the success of the 
proposal if advance funds are not made available.
5. What Reporting Requirements Must Tribes Meet Once Funds Are 
Obligated Under a TWG Grant Agreement?
    The Service requires an annual progress report and Financial Status 
Report (FSR) for grants longer than one year. A final performance 
report and FSR (SF-269) are due to the Regional Office within 90 days 
of the grant agreement ending date. In the annual progress report, the 
tribes must include a list of project accomplishments relative to those 
which were planned in the grant agreement. The effectiveness of each 
tribe's program, as reported in the annual progress reports, will be an 
important factor considered during the grant award selection process in 
subsequent years.

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    This policy document identifies proposed eligibility criteria and 
selection factors that may be used to award grants under the TWG 
program. The Service developed this draft policy to ensure consistent 
and adequate evaluation of grant proposals that are voluntarily 
submitted and to help perspective applicants understand how the Service 
will award grants. According to Executive Order 12866, this policy 
document is significant and has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the four criteria 
discussed below.
    1. The TWG will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect in a material

[[Page 79139]]

way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State or local communities. 
The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 allowed the Secretary to create the TWG 
program. In addition, grants that are funded will generate other, 
secondary benefits, including benefits to natural systems (e.g., air, 
water) and local economies. All of these benefits are widely 
distributed and are not likely to be significant in any single 
location. It is likely that some residents where projects are initiated 
will experience some level of benefit, but quantifying these effects at 
this time is not possible. We do not expect the sum of all the benefits 
from this program, however, to have an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more.
    2. We do not believe the TWG program would create inconsistencies 
with other agencies' actions. Congress has given the Service the 
responsibility to administer this program.
    3. As a new grant program, the TWG program would not materially 
alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, user fees, loan programs, 
or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This policy document 
establishes a new grant program that Public Law 107-63 authorizes, 
which should make greater resources available to applicants. The 
submission of grant proposals is completely voluntary, but necessary to 
receive benefits. When an applicant decides to submit a grant proposal, 
the proposed eligibility criteria and selection factors identified in 
this policy can be construed as requirements placed on the awarding of 
the grants. Additionally, we will place further requirements on 
grantees that are selected to receive funding under the TWG program in 
order to obtain and retain the benefit they are seeking. These 
requirements include specific Federal financial management and 
reporting requirements as well as specific habitat improvements or 
other management activities described in the applicant's grant 
proposal.
    4. OMB has determined that this policy raises novel legal or policy 
issues, and, as a result, this document has undergone OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended, whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (e.g., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
Indian tribes are not considered to be small entities for purposes of 
the Act and, consequently, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been 
done.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996

    This proposed implementation guidance is not considered a major 
rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) because it does not have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The yearly amount of TWG 
program funds is limited to $5 million.
    This proposed implementation guidance will not cause a major 
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, 
Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. 
Actions under this proposed implementation guidance will distribute 
Federal funds to Indian tribal governments and tribal entities for 
purposes consistent with activities akin to programs under the Fish and 
Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
    This proposed implementation guidance does not have significant 
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed implementation guidance would not impose unfunded 
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not 
result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).

E. Takings Implication Assessment (Executive Order 12630)

    This proposed implementation guidance does not have significant 
``takings'' implications. This proposed implementation guidance does 
not pertain to ``taking'' of private property interests, nor does it 
impact private property.

F. Executive Order 13211--Energy Effects

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which 
speaks to regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. The Executive Order requires agencies to prepare 
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This 
proposed implementation guidance is not expected to significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, no Statement 
of Energy Effects has been prepared.

G. Executive Order 12612--Federalism

    This proposed implementation guidance does not have significant 
Federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-tribal 
relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights, and 
responsibilities of States.

H. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This proposed implementation guidance does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order 12988.

I. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    This proposed implementation guidance does not constitute a Federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 
The Service has determined that the issuance of the proposed 
implementation guidance is categorically excluded under the Department 
of the Interior's NEPA procedures in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, 
Appendix 1. The Service will ensure that grants funded through the TWG 
program are in compliance with NEPA.

J. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 
(Executive Order 13175)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' we 
have committed to consulting with tribal representatives in the 
finalization of the implementation guidance for the TWG program. We 
have evaluated any potential effects on federally-recognized Indian 
tribes and have determined that there are no potential adverse effects. 
This guidance expands tribal participation in Service programs and 
allows for opportunities for tribal wildlife management and 
conservation initiatives across Indian Country. We will continue to 
consult with tribal governments and tribal entities throughout the 
comment period, as a part of the rulemaking process, and beyond in 
furthering our mutual goals for the TWG program.

[[Page 79140]]

K. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501)

    The information collection requirements of this program will be 
largely met through the Federal Aid Grants Application Booklet. Federal 
Aid has applied for OMB approval under Control Number 1018-1019. This 
approval applies to grants managed by the Division of Federal Aid, even 
if for other Divisions of the Service. We are collecting this 
information relevant to the eligibility, substantiality, relative 
value, and budget information from applicants in order to make awards 
of grants under these programs. We are collecting financial and 
performance information to track costs and accomplishments of these 
grant programs. Completion of these application and reporting 
requirements will involve a paperwork burden of approximately 80 hours 
per grant proposal. This does not include any burden hours previously 
approved by OMB for standard or Fish and Wildlife Service forms. Your 
response to this information collection is required to receive benefits 
in the form of a grant, and does not carry any premise of 
confidentiality. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. With respect to this 80 
hour per application increase in burden hours, interested parties 
should contact the Information Collection Clearance Officer listed in 
the ADDRESSES section of this document.

IV. Native American Liaisons for the Fish and Wildlife Service

    Regional correspondence and telephone contacts for the Service for 
this proposed implementation guidance and other appropriate purposes 
are as follows:

Region 1--Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and California

Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th 
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181, TWG Contact: Scott Aiken (503) 
231-6121.

Region 2--Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold 
Avenue, SW., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103, TWG Contact: John Antonio 
(505) 248-6810.

Region 3--Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 
and Wisconsin

Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, One Federal 
Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, TWG Contact: John Leonard (612) 713-
5108.

Region 4--Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee

Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century 
Boulevard, Suite 410, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, TWG Contact: Jim Brown 
(404) 679-7125.

Region 5--Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia

Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate 
Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589, TWG Contact: D.J. 
Monette (413) 253-8662 or (609) 646-9310.

Region 6--Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming

Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PO Box 25486--
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0486, TWG Contact: David 
Redhorse (303) 236-7905 x253.

Region 7--Alaska

Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East 
Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199, TWG Contact: Tony DeGange 
(907) 786-3492.

    Dated: October 1, 2002.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-32700 Filed 12-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P