[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54765-54766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18415]



[[Page 54765]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Fiscal Year 2006 Landowner Incentive Program (Non-Tribal Portion) 
for States, Territories, and the District of Columbia

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Service is requesting comments on the Landowner Incentive 
Program (LIP) criteria for awarding conservation grants to States, the 
District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern 
Mariana Islands, and the Territories of Guam, the United States Virgin 
Islands, and American Samoa (all hereafter referred to collectively as 
States). Comments are requested on a change in the funding cap for 
States and a revision of the national Review Team Ranking Criteria 
Guidance.

DATES: The Service must receive your comments no later than October 31, 
2005.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are required to submit their comments in 
two formats: Electronic (e.g., Word, or PDF files) and hard copy. 
Electronic files must be sent to [email protected]. In 
addition, hard copy of comments must be hand-delivered, couriered; or 
mailed to the Service's Division of Federal Assistance at 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive--Mailstop MBSP 4020, Arlington, VA 22203-1610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve Pullis LaRouche, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Assistance, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive--Mailstop MBSP 4020, Arlington, VA 22203-1610; telephone, 
703-358-1854; e-mail, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service is soliciting comments from 
individuals, government agencies, environmental groups, or any other 
interested parties concerning the proposed revisions to the LIP Tier 2 
ranking criteria.

Background

    In 2004 we invited comments from the State Fish and Wildlife 
agencies regarding proposal ranking criteria the Service uses in 
evaluating Tier-2 grants for LIP. Based on those comments, some 
revisions to the ranking criteria were made prior to issuance of the 
request for proposals (RFP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Tier 2 grants (70 
FR 7959, February 16, 2005). Following review of the FY 2005 Tier 2 
proposals, we made further changes to the Grant Proposal National 
Review Team Ranking Criteria Guidance. These changes were based upon 
the 2004 comments received from the States, further comment regarding 
experience using the FY 2005 criteria revisions, and our experience 
operating this program for 4 years. In the latest revisions to the 
criteria, we revised the criteria format to be consistent with the 
standard grant proposal format (522 FW 1.3C), added a new criterion 
regarding expenditure of previously awarded funds, clarified existing 
criteria, and revised the maximum funding a State may receive to 3 
percent. We hope that these changes will provide greater clarity to the 
selection criteria and improve the overall fairness of the approval 
process.
    Comments are requested on the following proposed changes-
    A. We propose to revise the maximum funding a single State may 
receive from 5 percent to 3 percent of the total awarded to the States 
in a fiscal year.
    B. We propose the following revisions to the National Review Team 
Ranking Criteria Gudiance for LIP Tier 2 Grant Proposals:

Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) National Review Team Ranking Criteria 
Guidance for Tier 2 Grant Proposals

State: ------------

1. OVERALL--Proposal provides clear and sufficient detail to 
describe the State's use of awarded funds from the LIP, and the 
State's program has high likelihood for success. (5 points total)
    a. Proposal is easy to understand and contains all elements 
described in 522 FW 1.3C: Need; Objective; Expected Results and 
Benefits; Approach; and Budget. (0-2 pts)
    b. Proposal, taken as a whole, demonstrates that the State can 
implement a Landowner Incentive Program that has a high likelihood 
for success in conserving at-risk species on private lands (e.g., 
the program has agency support and staff commitment; administrative 
processes are already established including the ability and 
authority to enter into financial agreements with private 
landowners; the program has had past successes, etc). (0-3 pts)
2. NEED--Proposal describes the urgency for implementing a LIP. 
States should describe how their LIP is a part of a broader scale 
conservation effort at the State or regional level. (6 points total)
    a. Proposal clearly describes the urgency of need for a LIP to 
benefit at-risk species in the State. (0-2 pts)
    b. Proposal clearly describes conservation needs for targeted 
at-risk species that relate directly to objectives and conservation 
actions described in other sections of the proposal. (0-2 pts)
    c. Proposal provides specific examples of how the State's LIP 
program will address conservation needs for at-risk species 
identified at the national, State, and regional level [e.g., 
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), recovery plans, 
etc.]. (0-2 pts)
3. OBJECTIVES--Proposal provides clear objectives that specify fully 
what is to be accomplished (5 points total)
    The objectives of the proposal describe discrete, obtainable, 
and quantifiable outcomes to be accomplished (e.g., the number of 
acres of wetlands, or other types of habitat, and stream miles to be 
restored, and/or the number of at-risk species whose status within 
the State will be improved). (0-5 pts)
4. EXPECTED RESULTS AND BENEFITS--Proposal clearly describes how the 
activities will benefit targeted at-risk species. (14 points total)
    a. Proposal describes by name the species-at-risk to benefit 
from the proposal. (0-1 pt)
    b. Proposal identifies habitat requirements for these targeted 
at-risk species. (0-2 pts)
    c. Proposal describes conservation actions to be undertaken that 
will address current threats to the at-risk species and their 
habitats. (0-3 pts)
    d. Proposal explains how conservation actions will result in 
benefits. (0-3 pts)
    e. Proposal describes the short-term benefits for at-risk 
species to be achieved within a 5- to 10-year period. (0-2 pts)
    f. Proposal describes the long-term benefits for at-risk species 
to be achieved beyond 10 years. (0-3 pts)
5. APPROACH--Proposal clearly describes how program objectives, 
contractual and fiscal management, and fund distribution will be 
accomplished and monitored. (24 points total)
    Program Implementation
    a. Proposal describes the types of conservation projects and/or 
activities eligible for funding. (0-2 pts)
    b. Proposal describes how conservation projects and/or 
activities will implement portions of conservation plans at a local, 
State, regional, or national scale, including the CWCS. (0-2 pts)
    Fiscal Administrative Procedures--Proposal describes adequate 
management systems for fiscal and contractual accountability.
    c. Processes to ensure fiscal accountability between the State 
and participating landowners are clearly described. (0-2 pts)
    d. Standards and processes to ensure contractual accountability 
between the State and the participating landowner are clearly 
described. (0-2 pts)
    e. Proposal indicates that the State has an approved legal 
instrument to enter into agreements with landowners. (0-1 pt)
    System for Fund Distribution--Proposal describes the State's 
fair and equitable system for fund distribution.
    f. System described is inherently fair and free from bias. (0-2 
pts)
    g. Proposal describes State's ranking criteria and process to 
select projects and

[[Page 54766]]

includes a ranking form with criteria and assigned points. (0-3 pts)
    h. States' ranking criteria are adequate to prioritize projects 
based on conservation priorities identified in proposal. (0-2 pts)
    i. Project proposals will be (or were) subject to an objective 
ranking procedure (e.g., internal ranking panel, diverse ranking 
panel comprising external agency members and/or members of the 
public, computerized ranking model). (0-2 pts)
    Monitoring--Proposal describes State's biological and compliance 
monitoring plan for LIP including annual monitoring and evaluation 
of progress toward desired program objectives, results, and 
benefits.
    j. Proposal describes compliance monitoring that will ensure 
accurate and timely evaluation to determine that landowners have 
completed agreed-upon practices in accordance with landowner 
agreement, and that includes the process for addressing landowners 
who fail to comply with agreements. (0-3 pts)
    k. Proposal describes biological monitoring that will ensure 
species and habitats are monitored and evaluated adequately to 
determine the effectiveness of LIP-sponsored activities (Items to 
address in monitoring may include establishing baselines, monitoring 
standards, establishing timeframes for conducting monitoring 
activities, and setting expectations for monitoring.) (0-3 pts)
6. BUDGET--Proposal clearly identifies funds for use on private 
lands, identifies percentage of cost match, and identifies past 
funding awards. (14 points total)
    a. Proposal describes the percentage of the State's total LIP 
Tier-2 program fund identified for use on private lands as opposed 
to staff and related administrative support (admin). (4 points 
total)
    0 points if this is not addressed or admin is >35%
    1 point if admin is >25 to 35%
    2 points if admin is >15 to 25%
    3 points if admin is >5 to 15%
    4 points if admin is 0 to 5%
    Use on private lands includes all costs directly related to 
implementing on-the-ground projects with LIP funds. Activities 
considered project use include: Technical guidance to landowner 
applicants; habitat restoration, enhancement, or management; 
purchase of conservation easements (including costs for appraisals, 
land survey, legal review, etc); biological monitoring of Tier 2 
project sites; and performance monitoring of Tier 2 projects. 
Staffing costs should only be included in this category when the 
staff-time will directly relate to implementation of a Tier 2 
project. Standard Indirect rates negotiated between the State and 
Federal government should also be included under Project Use.
    Staff and related administrative support include outreach 
(presentations, development or printing of brochures, etc.); 
planning; research; administrative staff support; staff supervision; 
and overhead charged by subgrantees unless the rate is no approved 
negotiated rate for Federal grants.
    b. Proposal identifies the percentage of nonfederal cost 
sharing. (3 points total).
    (Note: I.T.=Insular Territories)
    0 points if nonfederal cost share is 25%
    1 point if nonfederal cost share is >25% to 30% (>0 to 25% I.T.)
    2 points if nonfederal cost share is > 30% to 35% (>25 to 30% 
I.T.)
    3 points if nonfederal cost share is >35% (>30% I.T.)
    c. Has applicant received Tier 2 grant funds previously? (2 
points total)
    0 points if State has received Tier 2 funds previously or has 
not applied for Tier-2 funds previously
    1 point if State has applied 2 of 3 previous years and no funds 
were awarded
    2 points if State has applied 3 previous years and no funds were 
awarded
    d. Proposal identifies percentage of previously awarded funds 
(exclude last fiscal year's awarded funds) that have been expended 
or encumbered (landowners that are under signed contract to conduct 
on-the-ground projects) (5 points total)
    0 points if less than 50% of the funds are expended for on-the-
ground project
    1 point if >50% of the funds are expended for on-the-ground 
project
    2 points if >60% of the funds are expended for on-the-ground 
project
    3 points if >70% of the funds are expended for on-the-ground 
project
    4 points if >80% of the funds are expended for on-the-ground 
project
    5 points if >90% of the funds are expended for on-the-ground 
project
Total Score Possible=68 points
Total Score----

    Dated: August 5, 2005
Mitch King,
Assistant Director--Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs.
[FR Doc. 05-18415 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M