[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44434-44445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[RIN 1018-AI58]


Fiscal Year 2003 Tribal Wildlife Grants; Request for Grant 
Proposals and Final Policy and Implementation Guidelines

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of request for proposals; final policy, and 
implementation guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are soliciting 
project proposals for Federal assistance under the Tribal Wildlife 
Grants program (TWG). This document describes how you can apply for 
funding under the TWG and how we will determine which project proposals 
will be funded. The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 authorized an 
appropriation of $84,800,000 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 Service use $5 million of the funds to establish a competitive 
grant program available to federally recognized Indian

[[Page 44435]]

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 Grants 
program, or other requirements of the State Wildlife Grants portion of 
Pub. L. 107-63. In FY 2003, Congress appropriated $59,800,000 for 
wildlife conservation grants and specified that the Service use 
$4,967,500 for the TWG program as well, and we will be combine this 
latter amount with FY 2002 funds in a single grant cycle. The Service 
is providing implementation guidance for this combined $9,967,500 TWG 
program.

DATES: Project proposals must be received by the appropriate Regional 
Office (see Table 1 in ADDRESSES) no later than September 11, 2003.

ADDRESSES: For information regarding collection requirements, 
applicants should contact the Native American Liaison in the Service's 
Regional Office for the State in which the proposed project would 
occur. The contact information for each Regional Office is listed in 
Table 1 below. Information on the TWG is also available from the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Native American Liaison, 1849 
C Street, NW., Mail Stop 3251, Washington, DC 20240, and electronically 
at http://grants.fws.gov/tribal.html.
    Send your project proposal to the Service's Regional Office for the 
State in which the proposed project would occur (see Table 1 under 
ADDRESSES). You must submit one original and two copies of the complete 
proposal. We will not accept facsimile project proposals.

 Table 1.--Where To Send Project Proposals and List of Regional Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Regional Native
                         States where    Where to send       American
    Service region       the project      your project     liaison and
                          will occur        proposal        phone No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1.............  Hawaii, Idaho,   Regional         Scott L. Aikin
                        Oregon,          Director, U.S.   (503) 231-
                        Washington,      Fish and         6123.
                        Nevada, and      Wildlife
                        California.      Service,
                                         Eastside
                                         Federal
                                         Complex, 911
                                         N.E. 11th
                                         Avenue,
                                         Portland, OR
                                         97232-4181.
Region 2.............  Arizona, New     Regional         John Antonio
                        Mexico,          Director, U.S.   (505) 248-
                        Oklahoma, and    Fish and         6810.
                        Texas.           Wildlife
                                         Service, 500
                                         Gold Avenue,
                                         SW, P.O. Box
                                         1306,
                                         Albuquerque,
                                         NM 87103-1306.
Region 3.............  Illinois,        Regional         John Leonard
                        Indiana, Iowa,   Director, U.S.   (612) 713-
                        Michigan,        Fish and         5108.
                        Minnesota,       Wildlife
                        Missouri,        Service, 1
                        Ohio, and        Federal Drive,
                        Wisconsin.       Fort Snelling,
                                         MN 55111.
Region 4.............  Alabama,         Regional         James D. Brown
                        Arkansas,        Director, U.S.   (404) 679-
                        Florida,         Fish and         7125.
                        Georgia,         Wildlife
                        Kentucky,        Service, 1875
                        Louisiana,       Century
                        Mississippi,     Boulevard, Rm.
                        North            410, Atlanta,
                        Carolina,        GA 30345.
                        South
                        Carolina, and
                        Tennessee.
Region 5.............  Connecticut,     Regional         D.J. Monette
                        Delaware,        Director, U.S.   (413) 253-
                        District of      Fish and         8662.
                        Columbia,        Wildlife
                        Maine,           Service, 300
                        Maryland,        Westgate
                        Massachusetts,   Center Drive,
                        New Hampshire,   Hadley, MA
                        New Jersey,      01035-9589.
                        New York,
                        Pennsylvania,
                        Rhode Island,
                        Vermont,
                        Virginia, and
                        West Virginia.
Region 6.............  Colorado,        Regional         David Redhorse
                        Kansas,          Director, U.S.   (303) 236-
                        Montana,         Fish and         7905.
                        Nebraska,        Wildlife
                        North Dakota,    Service, PO
                        South Dakota,    Box 25486,
                        Utah, and        Denver Federal
                        Wyoming.         Center,
                                         Denver, CO
                                         80225-0486.
Region 7.............  Alaska.........  Regional         Tony DeGange
                                         Director, U.S.   (907) 786-
                                         Fish and         3492.
                                         Wildlife
                                         Service, 1011
                                         East Tudor
                                         Road,
                                         Anchorage, AK
                                         99503-6199.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact the 
Native American Liaison in the appropriate Regional Office (see Table 1 
under ADDRESSES) or 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. Request For Proposals

    The Service invites submission of grant proposals from federally 
recognized Indian tribal governments (including Alaska Native Villages) 
for the development and implementation of programs for the benefit of 
wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or 
fished. This program supports the efforts of federally recognized 
tribal governments in projects that develop or augment the capacity to 
manage, conserve, or protect fish and wildlife resources through the 
provision of funding and technical support.

II. Definitions

    The following definitions apply:
    1. Conservation Recommendation--The Fish and Wildlife Service's 
non-binding suggestions resulting from formal or informal consultation, 
under the Endangered Species Act, that: (1) Identify discretionary 
measures a Federal agency can take to minimize or avoid the adverse 
effects of a proposed action on listed or candidate species, or 
designated critical habitat; (2) identify studies, monitoring, or 
research to develop new information on listed or candidate species, or 
designated critical habitat; and (3) include suggestions on how an 
agency can assist species conservation as part of their action and in 
furtherance of its authorities under section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered 
Species Act.
    2. Biological Opinion--Any document that includes: (1) The opinion 
of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries 
Service as to whether or not a Federal action is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of listed species, or result in the destruction 
or adverse modification of designated critical habitat; (2) a summary 
of the information on which the opinion is based; and (3) a detailed

[[Page 44436]]

discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or designated 
critical habitat under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
    3. Habitat--The area that provides direct support for a given 
species, population, or community. It includes all environmental 
features that comprise an area such as air quality, water quality, 
vegetation and soil characteristics, and water supply.
    4. Mitigation--Activities carried out under National Environmental 
Policy Act regulations, for the purpose of moderating, reducing, or 
alleviating the impacts of a proposed activity, including (a) avoiding 
the impact by not taking a certain action; (b) minimizing impacts by 
limiting the degree or magnitude of the action; (c) rectifying the 
impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 
environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by 
undertaking preservation and maintenance operations during the life of 
the action; and (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or 
providing substitute resources or environments.

III. Background

    The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 (Pub. L. 107-63) authorized an 
appropriation of $84,800,000 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 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 Pub. L. 107-63. In 
FY 2003, Congress appropriated $59,800,000 for wildlife conservation 
grants and specified that the Service use $4,967,500 for the TWG 
program. We will combine this latter amount with FY 2002 funds in a 
single grant cycle. The Service is providing guidance in the 
administration of this combined $9,967,500 Tribal Wildlife Grant 
program. The Service proposed guidance in a previous Federal Register 
notice (67 FR 79136; December 27, 2002), with the intent of gathering 
input from the affected communities. The public comments have been 
carefully considered and incorporated into the following guidelines 
where appropriate. A series of questions and answers follows and 
describes the guidelines.

IV. Implementation Guidelines

A. Eligibility

1. Who May Participate in the TWG Program?
    Federally recognized tribes in all parts of the United States, 
including federally recognized tribes, pueblos, rancherias, and Alaska 
native villages or traditional councils as defined by the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act.
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 (67 FR 46328; July 12, 2002).
3. Can Tribal Organizations or Other Entities (Including Individual 
Indian Allottees) Receive Grants Under This Program?
    No. However, organizations or entities may participate as 
subgrantees or contractors to federally recognized tribes.
4. What Process Will the Service Use To Solicit and Receive Proposals 
for Funding?
    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.
5. Who Will Coordinate the Scoring of Grant Application Submissions?
    The Regional Native American Liaisons of the Service will 
coordinate the process to screen proposals to ensure that they are 
complete and to score them according to nationally uniform criteria. 
Tribes are encouraged to contact the Native American Liaison in the 
appropriate Regional Office identified in Table 1 under ADDRESSES for 
additional assistance in submitting proposals.
6. How Will Grant Application Submissions Be Reviewed for Funding?
    A national panel will review regionally scored proposals for 
recommendations to the Director of the Service (Director).
7. Who Will Serve as the National Review Panel?
    The Regional Native American Liaisons 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.
9. Who Will Make the Final Determination for Grant Approval?
    The Director will make the final determination for grant award.
10. How Will the Tribes Be Notified Whether or Not They Have Been 
Awarded Grants.
    Applicants will be notified by the Director through the Regional 
Native American Liaison as to whether or not they have been awarded 
grants.

B. Application Requirements

1. Is the TWG Program Exempt From Federal Grant Program Compliance?
    No, the TWG program must comply with all Federal grant program 
compliance requirements as specified in 43 CFR part 12: OMB Circulars 
A-133, A-102, and A-87; and Service Manual Chapters 522 FW1 and 523 
FW1, except where specifically exempted. Tribal grantees are 
responsible for ensuring that subgrantees and contractors adhere to 
these requirements.
2. What Must Proposals for Participation in the TWG Program Include?
    Proposals must include a cover letter, program summary, program 
narrative, budget narrative, a completed Standard Form 424 Application 
for Federal Assistance (SF-424), and tribal resolution of support as 
described herein.

--A cover letter briefly states the main features of the proposed 
project.
--A program summary describes, in one-half page, the type of activity 
that would take place if the Service funds the proposal.
--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, timeline, methodology,

[[Page 44437]]

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 and tribal performance goals. The relevant Service 
goals are Goal 1, Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations, 
including Migratory Bird Conservation (Goal 1.1), Imperiled Species 
(Goal 1.2), Interjurisdictional Fish (Goal 1.3), Marine Mammal 
Management (Goal 1.4), Species of International Concern (Goal 1.5), and 
Invasive Species (Goal 1.6); Goal 2, Habitat Conservation; including 
Habitat Conservation off Service Lands (Goal 2.3); and Mission Goal 4, 
Partnerships in Natural Resources, including Tribal Governments (Goal 
4.1), all of 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/.
--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 program matching or cost sharing information. If 
some partners will provide in-kind matching, they must be listed in the 
grant proposal with a letter of commitment from each. Applicants may 
cover new project administrative costs and the Tribal Indirect Cost 
Rate, but they cannot include pre-existing administrative costs.
--An SF-424 form will be included with the Grant Application Package 
and is available on the internet at http://training.fws.gov/fedaid/toolkit/sf424-f.pdf.
--A resolution of support from the appropriate tribal governing body or 
from an individual with delegated tribal authority stating support for 
the proposal. If a resolution of support is not submitted with the 
proposal, one will be required prior to awarding the grant.
3. Where Can Applicants Obtain a Grant Proposal Package?
    Applicants can obtain a grant proposal package from the Native 
American Liaison in the appropriate Regional Office (see Table 1 under 
ADDRESSES) or at the Service's Grants Web site http://grants.fws.gov/tribal.html.
4. Are Matching Funds Required?
    No, Congress did not require matching funds for this appropriation. 
However, the Service 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 provided by the tribe or a third party 
may be used as a match to improve the potential ranking of a proposal. 
The Service has defined ``in-kind'' as noncash 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 12.64. Additional information can be found at 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, but multiple proposals are allowable.
7. What Maximum Level of Project Funding Will Be Considered Under the 
TWG Program?
    The Service will award grants up to a maximum of $250,000. If more 
than one proposal is submitted by any one tribe, no more than $250,000 
total can be awarded to that tribe. This amount is approximately 5 
percent of the annual appropriation, and it allows for grants that are 
large enough to make a significant impact and be widely distributed.
8. What Minimum Level of Project Funding That Will Be Considered Under 
the TWG Program?
    There is no proposal or grant award minimum, but the Service is 
concerned that an excess number of small grants could result in an 
undue administrative burden.

C. Ranking Criteria

What Ranking Criteria Will the Service Use?
    The Service will score proposals based on the following criteria: 
The Proposed Guidelines (FR 79136; December 27, 2002) assigned specific 
point values to these criteria for the purpose of gaining public 
comment. On the basis of public comments and our understanding of 
Congressional intent in creating this program, we assigned the 
following criteria relative values from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).
    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? The Service requires 
that the tribe articulate how the benefits of its proposal support the 
goals and objectives of the TWG and Service and tribal Performance 
Goals in their proposal narratives. Relative Value: 5.
    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 and clear, and should provide 
demonstrable benefits to the target species of the action. These 
actions must support the goals and objectives of the TWG, the Service 
and the tribe. Relative Value: 4.
    Work Plan: Are the program activities and objectives well-designed 
and achievable? Relative Value: 3.
    Budget: Are all major budget items justified in relation to the 
program objectives and clearly explained in the narrative description? 
Relative Value: 3.
    Capacity Building: To what extent does the program increase the 
grantee's capacity to provide for the benefit of wildlife and their 
habitat? Relative Value: 4.
    Contributions and Partnerships: To what extent does the applicant 
display commitment to the project proposal through in-kind contribution 
or matching funds and to what extent does it incorporate contributions 
from other non-Federal partners in the form of either cash or in-kind 
services? Relative Value: 2.

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 or 
Education?
    Yes, if the law enforcement or education component is a minor or 
incidental activity that is considered critical to the success of a 
project which directly contributes to the conservation of wildlife 
species and their habitats with the greatest conservation need and is 
consistent with the development or implementation of the tribe's 
proposal.

[[Page 44438]]

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. Priority for funding from 
the TWG Program shall be for those species with the greatest 
conservation need identified by the tribe.
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 under the Endangered Species Act or include 
activities required to comply with a permit (e.g., mitigation 
responsibilities). However, a proposal can include activities that 
implement conservation recommendations or to cover the costs of 
environmental review, habitat evaluation, permit review, and other 
environmental compliance activities that are required because of the 
TWG project, provided they are included in the budget and discussed in 
the Program and Budget Narratives. Research projects or archeological 
projects are not eligible.
5. Is the TWG Program a Continuous Revenue Source for Tribal Wildlife 
Programs?
    No, there is no authorization for appropriation of funds beyond FY 
2003. Funds appropriated in FY 2002 and FY 2003 are available until 
spent.
6. Can the Grantee Hold TWG Funds in an Interest-Bearing Account?
    Funds can be held in an interest-bearing account, although any 
interest earned in excess of $100 must be returned to the fiscally 
responsible Federal agency (43 CFR 12.64).

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 a grantee that their proposal was 
selected for funding, the recipient must submit 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 (see 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 as the lead contact person 
for all matters pertaining to the particular award. Financial matters 
will be delegated to the Division of Federal Aid through the Native 
American Liaison.
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 
provided through the Health and Human Services' SMARTLINK payment 
management system. Through this electronic funds transfer (EFT), 
grantees will be able to receive funds as needed. Some of the tribal 
grantees may not be EFT compliant. In order to ensure optimal service 
to potential grantees within the current Federal Aid process, grantees 
will need to obtain EFT capabilities compatible with the SMARTLINK 
payment management system. Grantees may request an advance of no more 
than 25 percent of the total grant if the advance is documented in the 
grant agreement.
5. What Reporting Requirements Must Tribes Meet Once Funds Are 
Obligated Under a TWG Grant Agreement?
    Quarterly Financial Status Reports (SF-272), which can be found at  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/sf272.pdf must be submitted 
electronically. A final Financial Status Report (SF-269), which can be 
found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/sf269.pdf, will be due to 
the Regional Office within 90 days of the grant agreement ending date. 
An annual performance report--including a list of project 
accomplishments relative to those which were planned in the grant 
agreement--will also be required within 90 days of the end of each 12 
month period. The effectiveness of each tribe's program, as reported in 
the annual performance reports, will be an important factor considered 
during the grant award selection process in subsequent years.
6. Is There a Limitation on the Amount of Funds That May Be Used for 
Administrative Costs?
    Yes, no more than 12 percent of program funds can be used for staff 
and related administrative costs. If more than 12 percent is necessary 
to properly and efficiently operate the program, a waiver of this 
limitation may be provided by the Regional Director based on a written 
justification explaining why such a waiver is necessary.

V. Procedural Requirements

A. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    This policy document identifies eligibility criteria and selection 
factors that may be used to award grants under the TWG program. The 
Service developed this policy to ensure consistent and adequate 
evaluation of grant proposals that are voluntarily submitted and to 
help prospective 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 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

[[Page 44439]]

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, authorized by Pub. L. 107-63, 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 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 in FY 2002 and $4,967,500 in FY 2003.
    This 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 
implementation guidance will distribute Federal funds to Indian tribal 
governments and tribal entities for purposes consistent with activities 
similar to programs under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
    This implementation guidance does not have significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This implementation guidance would not impose unfunded mandates as 
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 
March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This guidance 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 implementation guidance does not have significant ``takings'' 
implications. This implementation guidance does not pertain to 
``taking'' of private property interests, nor does it impact private 
property.

F. Executive Order 13211CEnergy Effects

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 1321,1 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 
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 13132CFederalism

    This 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 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 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 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 be responsible for ensuring 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 as a part of the 
policymaking process and beyond in furthering our mutual goals for the 
TWG program.

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 OMB approval for this information collection under Control 
Number 1018-1019. This approval applies to grants managed by the 
Division of Federal Aid, even if these grants are for other Divisions 
of the Service. We are collecting this information relevant to

[[Page 44440]]

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. 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.

VI. Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    On December 27, 2002, the Service published the proposed guidelines 
for the TWG with an open comment period of 1 month (67 FR 79136). On 
January 27, 2003, we had received a total of 48 comment submissions. 
Thirty five tribes, 4 tribal organizations, 2 private enterprises, 1 
organization, 5 Federal entities, and 1 unaffiliated individual 
provided suggestions for these proposed guidelines. These comments are 
addressed below.
    In part I., Background, we asked several questions of particular 
concern to the Service regarding a limit on the amount of funding to be 
made available to any one tribe, our adherence to Congressional intent 
in the proposed guidelines, and what type of entities were eligible to 
participate in the TWG. The responses for comments are summarized in 
the corresponding sections below.
    In part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section A., 
Eligibility (1-3), we proposed a competitive program in which only 
federally recognized tribes would be able to apply for funding but 
stipulated that tribal organizations and other non-Federal entities may 
enter into grant agreements as contractors or subgrantees to federally 
recognized tribes. It was also proposed that non-federally recognized 
tribes be excluded from submitting proposals.
    Eleven comments specifically stated that only federally recognized 
tribes should be eligible to enter into grant agreements, with one 
asking that the term ``federally recognized tribe'' be fully explained 
by including federally recognized tribes; pueblos; rancherias; Alaska 
Native villages or traditional councils as defined by the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act; and tribal governing bodies as recognized by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) such as Indian Reorganization Act 
councils or tribal entities that have received Self Governance status 
under the Self Governance Act. No comments advocated for the inclusion 
of tribes that are not recognized by the Federal Government, although 
ten noted their agreement with their exclusion from participating in 
TWG. Two comments advocated for the inclusion of individual Indian 
trust land allotment owners as eligible direct participants.
    Ten comments agreed that tribal organizations may participate as 
contractors or subgrantees but not as direct applicants to TWG. Four 
comments advocated for the inclusion of consortia of federally 
recognized tribes to be eligible participants in TWG as direct 
applicants. One final suggestion was to clarify the inclusion of Alaska 
Native Villages and to state that when there exists an agreement with 
Native corporation landowners to manage their properties, these lands 
should be eligible for TWG projects.
    Response: Congress specified the TWG program is only for federally 
recognized Indian tribes, which includes Alaskan Native Villages, but 
Congress did not include tribal organizations or consortia. Tribal 
organizations, consortia, commissions, or other nontribal entities are 
not directly eligible to receive grants, but may participate as 
subgrantees or contractors to federally recognized Indian tribes. When 
an agreement to manage Native corporation lands has been approved by 
the corporation, these lands will be eligible for TWG projects. 
Individual Indian allottees are not eligible grantees through TWG but 
are encouraged to work with States and tribes as subgrantees or 
contractors.
    In part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section A., 
Eligibility (4), it was proposed that the Service would request 
proposals through a Federal Register notice and other forms of outreach 
and that proposals be received by the respective Regional Directors. 
There were no comments suggesting an alternative process.
    In part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section A., 
Eligibility (5-9), we proposed that the Native American Liaisons in 
each Regional Office coordinate the screening and ranking of project 
proposals on the basis of nationally uniform criteria. A national panel 
would then review the regionally ranked proposals for recommendation to 
the Director for selection. The proposed panels would be made up of 
Service and other Federal personnel. The Director will make the final 
proposal selections on the basis of these recommendations.
    Six respondents noted their agreement with nationally uniform 
ranking criteria, and two favored regional ranking. Eleven advocated 
for a geographic, land, or population based component to the 
disbursement of funds or the selection of proposals.
    Response: The Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is a competitive 
program for federally recognized Indian tribes regardless of 
geographic, land, or population based components. All tribes are 
equally eligible to submit proposals. Therefore, the use of nationally 
uniform criteria is appropriate for ranking proposals at both the 
Regional and National levels.
    The Service will screen and score proposals in the Regional 
Offices. A national panel will then make recommendations to the 
Director based on these outcomes.
    The Service examined various possible formulas for selecting 
proposals based on land area and other factors but was unable to 
identify any formula that adequately considered the wide variability 
among tribes, including their land base, population, and distribution 
across the United States.
    Of the comments received on the proposed makeup of the panel, 18 
agreed and provided further suggestions as to what other Service or 
other Federal personnel should be involved. One respondent stated that 
the Regional Native American Liaisons should act in an advisory 
capacity to the ranking team, and another stated that Regional Liaisons 
should be excused from ranking Regional proposals. Eleven comments 
advocated the inclusion of tribal representation in the ranking 
process; of these, two specifically identified the Native American Fish 
and Wildlife Society as an appropriate resource to serve this purpose.
    Response: The Regional and National panels will consist of Service 
fish and wildlife professionals and other Federal agency personnel 
knowledgeable of Native American natural resource issues. The comments 
received will be considered in the selection of panel members. Regional 
Native American Liaisons will coordinate the screening and scoring of 
proposals and will act in an advisory capacity to the regional panels. 
They will not participate in the actual screening or scoring of 
proposals. The Regional Native American Liaisons will serve on the 
national review panel along with other Service personnel to make 
recommendations to the Director for selection.
    The Service has not developed a process for identifying 
participation of tribal representatives in the ranking process and did 
not receive specific comments on ways to involve tribal 
representatives. However, the Service will use the knowledge and 
experience gained in this initial year and public comments to consider 
changing the guidelines in future years to include

[[Page 44441]]

tribal representatives in the ranking process.
    TWG proposed guidelines state that ``the Director will make the 
final determination for grant approval.'' Six respondents stated their 
agreement with this language. One respondent disagreed. Three suggested 
that the national review team be capable of making the final decision 
on accepting proposals, and two others would like the Regional Native 
American Liaisons to rank and award proposals in their respective 
Regions. In addition to these comments, it was suggested that an appeal 
process should be included for proposals that are not selected.
    Response: Because this is a nationally competitive program, the 
Secretary's authority is delegated solely to the Director, who will 
review recommendations and make final selections. Submitters of 
proposals not selected will receive information to improve their 
chances of future selection.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section B., 
Application Requirements (1), states that TWG 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 
522 FW1 and 523 FW1. Two comments addressed this issue, both in 
agreement, but one called for the inclusion of language that identified 
the tribe's fiduciary responsibility over subgrantees and contractors.
    Response: The language in the proposed notice will be amended to 
indicate Tribal grantees' responsibility for ensuring that subgrantees 
and contractors adhere to these requirements.
    In part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section B., 
Application Requirements (2), general inclusions for proposals in the 
TWG program are addressed. They include a Cover Letter, Program 
Summary, Program Narrative, Budget Narrative, and Resolution of 
Support. Two general comments on this section were received: one stated 
approval of the proposed components of the grant proposal, and another 
noted the necessity of keeping the process as simple as possible to 
alleviate the administrative burden on the applicant.
    Response: Comments noted.
    No comments were received on the requirement of a Cover Letter or 
Program Summary.
    Sixteen respondents commented on the requirement of a Program 
Narrative. Eleven advocated for the inclusion and/or prioritization of 
tribal goals rather than ``relevant Service performance goals''; three 
asked that Service Goals, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and Mission Goal in 
Partnerships 4.1 be included; and one respondent would like the 
inclusion of fish to be clearly articulated.
    Response: The Service recognizes that the tribal grant funding is 
for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that 
are not hunted or fished. The care and maintenance of the nation's fish 
and wildlife resources is dependent on cooperative efforts of partners. 
The Service's performance goals articulate the importance of tribal 
partnerships in Mission Goal 4.1 and the broad range of mutually 
beneficial resource accomplishments that can result from partnership 
actions. The final advice is modified to include Mission Goal 4.1, 
Tribal Partnerships and resource-related goals, including 1.1; 1.2; 
1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 1.6, Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations 
(http://planning.fws.gov/tableofcon.html).
    Under the heading Budget Narrative, one respondent asked the 
Service to clarify the meaning of ``administrative costs'' to include 
or exclude indirect costs, and advocated excluding indirect costs. 
Another comment suggested a 15 percent maximum for Indirect Cost Rates.
    Response: The Service determined that administrative costs are 
those that can be directly related to allowable costs as defined in 43 
CFR 12.62, as well as in OMB Circular A-87 (Cost Principles for State, 
Local, and Indian Tribal Governments). Indirect costs are also 
explained in OMB Circular A-87; indirect costs are allowable as direct 
costs if the applicant has an approved indirect cost agreement with its 
cognizant agency. All costs, whether direct or indirect, must be 
included in the grant proposal and are subject to the grant award 
maximum of 25 percent.
    Nine comments were submitted regarding the requirement of a 
Resolution of Support from the appropriate tribal governing body that 
supports the proposed project. One expressly opposed this requirement. 
Nine said that often it is not reasonable to expect a tribal governing 
body to meet during the open period for submitting grant proposals. 
Several comments proposed remedies that would allow for a letter of 
support from the ``duly elected leader of the tribe'' or the ``Tribal 
Chair or Councilperson.'' Another suggested alternative was to allow 
for an extended open period to account for varying meeting schedules 
for tribal councils.
    Response: The requirement for a Resolution of Support is an 
assurance that the tribal governing body supports the proposed project 
and the actions necessary to realize the natural resource benefits 
identified in the proposal. The Service recognizes that there could be 
times when a tribal resolution of support for a proposal may not be 
logistically possible. The Service will amend the requirement to accept 
a letter or signed endorsement from an individual with delegated tribal 
authority. If a resolution of support is not submitted with the 
proposal, one will be required from the tribal governing body prior to 
the Service's awarding of the grant.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section B., 
Application Requirements (3), states that the proposal package will be 
made available through the Service's Regional Native American Liaisons. 
Two comments pointed out that they would like to be able to download 
the proposal package from the Internet.
    Response: The Service is required to provide access to application 
packages through as many sources as available. Therefore, application 
guidelines and packages for this grant program can be obtained through 
Regional Native American Liaisons as well as through the Service's Web 
site at http://grants.fws.gov/tribal.html.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section B., 
Application Requirements (4), states that matching funds are not 
required. However, they are encouraged and the proposed ranking 
criteria will consider them as an indication of commitment and to 
encourage partnerships. Two comments asked that the Service eliminate 
or decrease the value of this requirement.
    Response: These comments are addressed in part II., C., Ranking 
Criteria.
    In part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section B., 
Application Requirements (5), the Service outlines the proposed 
allowance for in-kind contributions as meeting a matching funds 
requirement and provides additional information as to how it defines 
in-kind contributions. One respondent agreed, and one disagreed, 
pointing out that this would add no value to a proposal. Another asked 
that the Service clarify whether or not funds may be expended in 
multiyear projects and, if so, for how many years. One comment 
indicated that if matching funds are not required, then it is not fair 
to use them in ranking proposals for selection.
    Response: The Service has identified those costs that are 
considered allowable as in-kind contributions or matching funds. These 
have been identified in Service Manual 522 FW 1

[[Page 44442]]

and in 43 CFR 12.64. A grantee can provide materials, equipment, or 
other services as a noncash match for portions of the grantee's 
matching share. Congress did not require matching funds for this 
appropriation. However, the Service will consider matching funds as an 
indication of tribal commitment to the program and to encourage 
partnerships.
    In part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section B., 
Application Requirements (6), the Service indicates that tribes are 
encouraged to submit a single proposal but may submit additional 
proposals if all of the funds are not expended. Three comments agreed 
that one proposal is sufficient as long as the tribe can bundle several 
projects, with the understanding that portions may be rejected. Two 
stated that a single proposal is a good target but that the Service 
should not exclude multiple proposals outright. Three advocated for 
multiple proposals, and one asked the Service to definitively state 
whether one or multiple proposals are allowable. One comment asks the 
Service to explain how excess funds will be handled.
    Response: Tribes are encouraged to submit one proposal, but 
multiple proposals are allowable. The Service does not anticipate that 
excess funds will be available.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section B., 
Application Requirements (7 and 8), recommends no minimum and that a 
maximum of approximately 5 percent of available funds ($250,000) be 
implemented. Depending upon the number of proposals submitted and the 
relative merit of each proposal, some applicants may receive greater 
amounts. One recommendation stated that a $5,000 minimum be placed on 
proposals to relieve administrative burden on the Service. Eighteen 
comments supported 5 percent as a non-binding target but not as a 
strict cap. Other comments recommended a $75,000 and $100,000 limit on 
proposals, and four advocated for no cap at all. Others suggested a 1, 
2, or 2.5 percent cap on proposals. One comment advocated for a cap 
based on the land base of projects but did not offer any further 
explanation. It was also suggested that the Service state clearly 
whether a suggested limit is an actual cap or simply a target.
    Response: The Service will award grants up to a maximum of $250,000 
per proposal with no more than $250,000 total awarded to any one tribe. 
There is no proposal or grant award minimum but the Service is 
concerned that an excess number of small grants could result in an 
undue administrative burden.
    Several other comments were received that offered additional 
feedback. One suggested allowance for partial funding of proposals. 
Another offered that the TWG could be divided into a large and small 
grants program to ensure greater participation.
    Response: Proposals will be scored and ranked on the relative merit 
of each proposal. The Service may need to partially fund one or more 
proposals to fully allocate the funds. Small-grant and large-grant 
programs may be considered in the future.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section C., Ranking 
Criteria, offers a proposed weighting system by which the Service can 
determine a relative score for proposals including Benefit, Performance 
Measures, Work Plan, Budget, Capacity Building, Commitment, 
Partnerships, and Administrative Costs. Two general comments on the 
Ranking Criteria advised the Service to make them as close as possible 
to those of the State Wildlife Grants program. One agreed with the 
proposed criteria but, encouraged consultation with tribes to ensure 
adequate knowledge of Service goals and strategies. An additional 
comment asked that the Service better define this program's priorities.
    Response: Ranking criteria will be clearly defined in the TWG 
guidance. The State Wildlife Grants Program is not a competitive grant 
program and has no ranking criteria.
    Regarding the Benefit of proposals, 12 comments advocate for adding 
emphasis to this criterion. Four agreed with this criterion if tribes 
set their own goals and priorities to determine which species are to 
benefit. Two respondents asked further that the Service define what is 
meant by the language ``including species that are not hunted or 
fished,'' and stated that tribal priorities should take precedence over 
the Service's. One comment favored increasing the emphasis on federally 
listed endangered species (Endangered Species Act), and another 
specifically suggested that no special preference be placed on them. A 
final comment stated that preference should be given to tribes with 
Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMPs) or Natural Resource 
Management Plans.
    Response: The cumulative maximum of 25 points for Benefit (0-25) 
and 20 points for Performance Measures (0-20) already places high value 
on the extent to which the project will benefit fish and wildlife 
resources. The Service agrees that benefits will be measured against 
Tribal fish and wildlife goals. The Service requires that tribes 
articulate how their proposals help support the goals and objectives of 
the TWG and Service and tribal Performance Goals in their proposal 
narratives.
    By including species that are not hunted or fished, the Service 
provides tribes with discretion to implement projects that benefit 
species of conservation concern and species of cultural importance. 
Special emphasis will not be placed on federally listed endangered 
species, as this is not the purpose of this grant program. These funds 
may be used to develop IRMPs (or equivalent); therefore, to give 
preference to those tribes that already have IRMPs is not appropriate.
    Under the heading Performance Measures, four comments call for an 
emphasis to this criterion. Two suggested that the Service de-emphasize 
or delete it, but suggested that if tribal goals rather than the 
Service's goals were prioritized, ``Performance Measures'' would be an 
acceptable criterion. Four additional comments suggested that tribal 
goals be included, and three others call for the inclusion of Service 
Goals, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and Mission Goal in Partnerships 4.1.
    Response: The Service believes that quantifiable performance 
measures are an important ranking criterion. This criterion is weighted 
adequately in the ranking process. Tribes are required to articulate 
how their proposals help support the goals and objectives of the TWG 
and Service and tribal Performance Goals in their proposal narratives 
in the Benefit criterion.
    Seven comments suggested an added emphasis to the Work Plan 
criterion, and one supported the proposed emphasis on the Budget 
criterion.
    Response: The Service believes these criteria are adequately 
emphasized in the ranking process.
    Six respondents felt that emphasis should be added to the Capacity 
Building criterion, and one stated further that such projects should be 
favored in future funding periods. Two asked that the Service remove or 
de-emphasize this criterion, and one agrees with it as proposed.
    Response: The Service believes that this criterion is adequately 
emphasized. Many tribes have limited capacity to develop and implement 
programs to benefit fish, wildlife, and their habitats, and the TWG 
program provides an excellent opportunity to increase their capacity. 
The Service believes that the TWG program can enhance the capacity for 
all tribes to implement programs for the benefit of fish and wildlife, 
even tribes with relatively sophisticated fish and wildlife 
departments.

[[Page 44443]]

    Under the heading Commitment, the Service asks to what extent the 
applicant displays commitment to the proposed project through in-kind 
or matching funds. Sixteen respondents asked that the Service remove or 
de-emphasize this criterion, and two agreed with it as proposed.
    Response: Although Congress did not include a matching requirement 
for the TWG program, the Service believes that tribes making a 
commitment in their proposals to provide a match should be rewarded in 
the competitive ranking process. In addition, the Service will accept 
other forms of support from the tribes to meet the match requirement 
including cash, in-kind support, equipment, and materials. Matching 
contributions are non-Federal (tribal or partner) cash or in-kind 
contributions. Funds derived from Pub. L. 93-638 contracts are 
allowable as matching funds.
    Eighteen comments on the Partnerships criterion asked that the 
Service remove or de-emphasize this criterion, and one agreed with it 
as proposed. One suggested that letters of support should be considered 
if funds for a match are not available, and one advocated for an 
allowance for ``partnerships'' that includes non-Federal partners.
    Response: Partnerships are an increasingly essential tool in the 
management of natural resources. The Service believes that tribes 
developing partnerships with other organizations to implement projects 
under TWG should be rewarded in the proposal ranking process. The 
Service agrees that this criterion should be de-emphasized and has 
reduced the relative value of this category. Tribes are especially 
encouraged to partner with non-Federal entities in order to better 
leverage Federal dollars and provide greater benefit to Federal 
taxpayers. In the final guidance, Partnerships and Commitment criteria 
have been combined into a new category, Contributions and Partnerships.
    Two comments asked that the Service remove, and six asked that the 
Service de-emphasize, the proposed Administrative Costs criterion. One 
agreed with it as proposed. Seven comments advocated not considering 
tribal indirect cost rate as administrative cost, with one seeking to 
place a 15 percent maximum allowable for indirect cost rates. One 
comment suggested a limit on allowable administrative costs. Eight 
comments advocated making an allowance for staff or seasonal employees 
by removing the word ``staff'' from the proposed language.
    Response: Administrative Costs is eliminated from the ranking 
criteria. We have, however, limited the total amount of the grant that 
can be used for administration costs to 12 percent unless a waiver is 
granted by the Regional Director.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section D., TWG 
Operations and Management (1), allows that TWG funds can be used to 
cover the costs of Conservation Law Enforcement. The Service received 
no comments.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section D., TWG 
Operations and Management (2), broadly outlines the activities that are 
eligible for funding under TWG. Three comments proposed language to 
better define wildlife, conservation, Tribal Fish and Game Department 
or Tribal Fish and Wildlife Department, and wildlife-restoration 
project. The respondent advocated for inserting the following: 
``Priority for funding from the TWG Program shall be for those species 
with the greatest conservation need identified by the tribe.'' Another 
comment suggested that the Service better define the purpose of the TWG 
program.
    Response: The Service appreciates these thorough and constructive 
comments, and has used them in revising the program guidance and in 
developing a Definitions section. The Service agrees with and has 
incorporated the proposed statement.
    As defined by Congress, the intent of the TWG program is ``for the 
development and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife 
and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished.''
    One comment suggested that the Service consider a cap on land 
purchase and that projects with land acquisitions in the match category 
should be encouraged. One comment proposed that research projects 
should receive equal consideration in the ranking process. One 
requested clarification on whether TWG funds can be used for conducting 
archeological surveys by Tribal Historic Preservation Officers to 
comply with the NHPA for a TWG project; one advocated for habitat 
improvement projects; and one advocated ``culturally acceptable 
projects.''
    Response: Land acquisition is an eligible activity under TWG. The 
Service has capped all projects under TWG, including lands acquired 
with TWG funds, at $250,000. The associated value of certain land 
acquisitions can be used as match to aid in the scoring of the 
proposal.
    Research, habitat improvement, and ``culturally acceptable'' 
projects are eligible for funding given their relative applicability to 
the guidelines established for TWG.
    Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 
projects must comply with the Act. If it is known before project 
implementation that an archaeological investigation is warranted, then 
the cost for such investigation or survey can be included in the 
overall project proposal when submitted to the Service.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section D., TWG 
Operations and Management (3), proposes that TWG funds can be used to 
cover the costs of environmental review, habitat evaluation, permit 
review, and other environmental compliance activities associated with a 
TWG project, provided they are included in the budget and discussed in 
the Program and Budget Narratives. One comment agreed with this 
proposed explanation, and two asked that the allowable activities 
further specify that TWG funds may be used to address the costs of 
adhering to tribal environmental compliance activities.
    Response: TWG funds can be used to cover the costs of environmental 
review, habitat evaluation, permit review, and other environmental 
compliance activities associated with a TWG project provided they are 
included in the budget and discussed in the Program and Budget 
Narratives of the project proposal.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section D., TWG 
Operations and Management (4), defines which activities are not 
allowable under TWG. It states that a proposal may not include 
activities required to comply with a Biological Opinion or activities 
required to comply with a permit (e.g., mitigation activities). 
However, a proposal can include activities that implement conservation 
recommendations. Several comments said that no TWG funds should be 
diverted to any nontribal mandates, court directives, or Federal 
activities required to uphold the trust responsibility and suggested 
that this section be strengthened by indicating so. Two comments agreed 
with this section, with the inclusion of ``court directive and Federal 
agency mandate or directive'' to those activities that cannot be 
included in a proposal. Some respondents agreed that mitigation under a 
Biological Opinion should not be funded through TWG. Recommended 
language from one comment: ``A proposal cannot include activities 
required to comply with a BO, court directive, Federal agency mandate 
or directive, or include activities required to comply with a permit 
(mitigation

[[Page 44444]]

responsibilities). However, a proposal can include activities to 
implement conservation recommendations.'' One comment asked that 
``Biological Opinion'' be further defined.
    Response: All TWG funds will be awarded to tribes and will not be 
diverted to any nontribal mandates, court directives, or Federal 
activities required to uphold the trust responsibility. The Service 
appreciates the proposed language but disagrees with the inclusion of 
``court directive and Federal agency mandate or directive'' as excluded 
activities in a grant project, because doing so would place additional 
restrictions on tribal proposals. ``Biological Opinion'' refers to 
Biological Opinions with regard to the Endangered Species Act and this 
is clarified in the ``Definitions'' section.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section D., TWG 
Operations and Management (5), states that TWG is not a continuous 
revenue source, and one comment advocated for making the TWG program a 
continuing source for funding.
    Response: Because TWG is an annual Congressional allocation, it is 
subject to further actions by Congress and cannot be considered a 
continuing source of funding.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section D., TWG 
Operations and Management (6), stated that TWG funds cannot be held in 
an interest-bearing account. Two comments suggested otherwise.
    Response: Federal law allows funds to be held in an interest-
bearing account although any interest earned on such funds in excess of 
$100 must be returned to the fiscally responsible Federal agency (43 
CFR 12.64).
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section E., Grant 
Award Procedures (1), defines which additional information must be 
included by the grantees once awards are announced. The Service 
received no comments.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section E., Grant 
Award Procedures (2), states that the lead contact after award 
announcements should be the Native American Liaison in the grantee's 
respective Region. One comment advocated for a contact in the Service's 
Division of Federal Aid to be identified as the initial contact.
    Response: The Native American Liaison will be the lead contact for 
technical implementation assistance, and the Division of Federal Aid 
will serve as the principle financial contact.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section E., Grant 
Award Procedures (3), stated that the Service will award grants within 
30 days of the recommendations provided by the national review panel. 
One comment suggested that a timeline be provided for acceptance and 
selection of awards, and one comment simply agreed with the stipulated 
language.
    Response: A timeline for acceptance and selection of awards is 
included in the Grant Application Package.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section E., Grant 
Award Procedures (4), states that funds will be disbursed, subsequent 
to funding approval, through the Department of Health and Human 
Services' SMARTLINK electronic funds transfer system (EFT). And, that 
in the instance of demonstrated hardship or need, grantees may request 
up to 25 percent of the grant award.
    Four comments stated that if the Service has the ability to advance 
25 percent of the project funds up front, given demonstrated hardship 
or need, then all grantees should be eligible without demonstrating 
hardship or need. Two comments advocated for increasing the initial 
draw down, one suggests 40 percent and the other is nonspecific.
    Response: The Service will advance up to 25 percent of the total 
award upon request by the tribe.
    Four disagreed with the proposed reimbursable mechanism, saying it 
presents an undue burden on tribes, and asked to have access to funds 
quarterly or as a lump sum transfer at the onset of a project. One 
comment asked if all tribes are electronic funds transfer (EFT) 
compliant.
    Response: Further clarification of the proposed EFT is necessary to 
explain that funds will be ``reimbursed'' as needed rather than upon 
receipt of proof of expenditure. We feel that this does not place a 
financial burden on the tribes. All tribes are capable of EFT. As a 
grantee incurs expenses, funds to pay these can be drawn down via 
SMARTLINK.
    Part II., Proposed Implementation Guidelines, section E., Grant 
Award Procedures (5), addresses the reporting requirements tribes must 
meet once funds are obligated under a TWG grant agreement. One comment 
suggested that language be included to indicate that tribes will be 
obligated to comply with NEPA, ESA, National Historic Preservation Act, 
and other relevant Acts. Another comment suggested that the benefits 
and outcomes of the TWG program be reported to Congress.
    Response: TWG projects are subject to legal requirements of Federal 
regulatory Acts in the context of established Federal/Tribal protocol.
    Response: A summary of benefits and outcomes of the TWG program 
will be made available to interested Congressional representatives.
    Part III., Procedural Requirements, sections A., Regulatory 
Planning and Review; B., Regulatory Flexibility Act; C., Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act; D., Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; 
E., Takings Implications Order; F., Energy Effects; G., Federalism; and 
H., Civil Justice Reform, received no comments, although two pertinent 
general comments suggested that a section be added to clarify how the 
Freedom of Information Act will apply to information submitted by the 
tribes.
    Response: The Service will work with the tribes to ensure that 
sensitive information is protected.
    Part III., Procedural Requirements, section I. National 
Environmental Policy Act, drew one comment asking that the Service 
better determine what is meant by the phrase ``Service will ensure 
(that grants funded through TWG are in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act)'' in the proposed guidelines.
    Response: A completed NEPA Checklist and appropriate environmental 
information will be required in the Grant Narrative from the grantee 
for review and concurrence by the Service.
    Part III., Procedural Requirements, section J., Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and K., Paperwork 
Reduction Act were not commented upon.
    Part IV., Native American Liaisons for the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, was not commented upon.
    General Comments: We received several comments that did not readily 
fit into the above categories. The Service has responded to these 
comments below.
    1. Three comments asked that the Service distinguish between treaty 
and nontreaty rights.
    Response: The Service recognizes that treaty rights involve unique 
responsibilities defining specific rights to treaty-recognized tribes 
and will work to address them where appropriate within the grant 
processes.
    2. One respondent advocated for the inclusion of nontrust tribal 
lands in TWG projects.
    Response: This is an allowable request under TWG.
    3. Four general comments stated that there should be no Service 
administrative cost associated with implementation of this program's $5 
million allocation.

[[Page 44445]]

    Response: Service administrative costs will not be charged against 
the $5 million allocation.
    4. One comment suggested that the funds for FY02 and FY03 be 
combined into one proposal period. This same comment recommended that 
the Service allow for multiple-year projects.
    Response: FY02 and FY03 funds will be combined and disbursed 
through one proposal period. A grant award can provide for multiple-
year projects. Multiple-year projects still require annual performance 
and financial reports. The performance reports should be submitted to 
the Native American Liaison and the financial reports to the Federal 
Aid Office.
    5. One respondent asked that the Service define the role of public 
opinion in ranking/selection of proposals.
    Response: The Service will work to address public comments with the 
intent of enhancing the administration of the Tribal Wildlife Grants as 
Congress intended for the benefit of federally recognized tribes.
    6. Two respondents suggested that the Service require postmarks on 
proposals showing the due date.
    Response: Proposals postmarked, hand-delivered, or otherwise sent 
in by the due date will be accepted for the grant review process.
    7. A comment suggested that the Service allow for proposals that 
combine TWG and the Tribal-Landowner Incentive Program (TLIP) and apply 
the same criteria to both TLIP and TWG.
    Response: The Service must administer each grant as directed by 
Congress, and each program differs to some degree, thus limiting our 
ability to establish identical criteria.
    8. Three comments advocated for future funding of the TWG program 
and one respondent advocated for increasing the amount of available 
funds in the TWG program.
    Response: The President's budget request to Congress for FY04 
includes $5 million for TWG.
    9. One respondent suggested that there should be no time limit on 
expenditure of funds, and a similar response advocated for allowance 
for rollover into the next fiscal year.
    Response: After appropriation, TWG funds are available until 
expended. However, grant agreements will be written to allow an 
appropriate amount of time to complete the project. Grant agreement 
periods are negotiable, and funds must be expended within 90 days 
following the end date of the grant agreement.
    10. One respondent asked that an 8 week response period be invoked 
for the open Request For Proposals period (RFP).
    Response: In order to address the need to expedite the selection 
and awarding of proposals, the Service has set the RFP period for the 
TWG program at 45 days. The Service feels that this period is 
sufficient for tribes to prepare proposals.
    11. One respondent asked that the Service allocate funds as quickly 
as possible after awards are made.
    Response: It is the Service's intent to accomplish this task, and a 
timeline will be provided in the Grant Application Kit.

    Dated: May 2, 2003.
H. Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-19121 Filed 7-25-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P