Fiscal Year 2002 Private Stewardship Grants Program; Request for Grant Proposals and Final Policy and Implementation Guidelines
Federal RegisterOct 1, 2002
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
RIN 1018-AI56
Fiscal Year 2002 Private Stewardship Grants Program; Request for
Grant Proposals and Final Policy and Implementation Guidelines
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of request for proposals; announcement of final policy
and implementation guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
soliciting project proposals for Federal assistance under the Private
Stewardship Grants Program (PSGP). This document describes how you can
apply for funding under the PSGP and how we will determine which
project proposals will be funded. Congress appropriated $10 million
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in Fiscal Year 2002 for the
Service to establish the PSGP. The PSGP provides grants and other
assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in
private, voluntary conservation efforts that benefit species listed or
proposed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act), candidate species, or other at-risk species
on private lands within the United States.
DATES: Project proposals must be received by the appropriate Regional
Office (see Table 2 in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) no later than
December 2, 2002.
ADDRESSES: For additional information-contact the Service's Regional
Office that has the responsibility for the State or Territory in which
the proposed project would occur. The contact information for each
Regional Office is listed in Table 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
below. Information on the PSGP is also available from the Branch of
Recovery and State Grants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 or electronically at
http://endangered.fws.gov/grants/private--stewardship.html or e-mail:
[email protected].
To submit a project proposal--send your project proposals to the
Service's Regional Office that has the responsibility for the State or
Territory in which the proposed project would occur (see Table 2 under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). You must submit one original and two copies
of the complete proposal. We will not accept facsimile project
proposals.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Program Contact in the appropriate
Regional Office identified in Table 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
or Martin Miller, Chief, Branch of Recovery and State Grants (703/358-
2061).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The majority of endangered and threatened species depend, at least
in part, upon privately owned lands for their survival. The help of
landowners is essential for the conservation of these and other
imperiled species. Fortunately, many private landowners want to help.
Often, however, the costs associated with implementing conservation
actions are greater than a landowner could undertake without financial
assistance. The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 requested
funding to address this need and Congress responded by appropriating
$10 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Service
to establish the PSGP. The PSGP provides grants or other Federal
assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in
private, voluntary conservation efforts that benefit species listed or
proposed as endangered or threatened under the Act, candidate species,
or other at-risk species on private lands within the United States.
We are soliciting project proposals for Federal assistance under
the PSGP. This document describes how you can apply for funding under
the PSGP and how we will determine which project proposals will be
funded. On June 7, 2002, we published in the Federal Register (67 FR
39419) our plan to implement the PSGP and solicited comments. As a
result of the comments received, a number of changes have been made to
the implementation guidelines. The following sections explain the PSGP.
The first, Final Program Implementation Guidelines, includes the
project eligibility criteria, the project selection process, and the
instructions on how to apply for PSGP grants. The second, Summary of
Comments and Recommendations, responds to the comments we received on
the proposed implementation guidelines. The third, Required
Determinations, addresses the regulatory requirements associated with
issuing the final PSGP implementation guidelines.
I. Final Program Implementation Guidelines
As a result of comments received, we have made a number of changes
in the implementation guidelines. Therefore, we encourage you to read
the entire document before preparing a project proposal. We have
revised the scoring system used to evaluate projects, provided
substantially more guidance on submitting a project proposal, and
clarified the eligibility criteria.
What Types of Projects May Be Funded?
Eligible projects include those by landowners and their partners
who need technical and financial assistance to improve habitat or
implement other activities on private lands for the benefit of
endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, or other at-risk species
(plants and animals). Under the PSGP, privately owned means land that
is not owned by a governmental entity.
For information on which species are endangered, threatened,
proposed, or candidates, please visit the Service's Internet site at
http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html. For the purposes of the PSGP,
an ``at-risk species'' is any species formally recognized as a species
of conservation concern, such as species listed by a State or
Territory. We recommend that you contact your State natural resources
agency to determine which species are recognized as species of
conservation concern (e.g., State listed as endangered, threatened,
special concern, or other similar designations). If your State does not
identify species of conservation concern or in addition to those
species identified by the State, we will also consider any species or
subspecies listed by NatureServe as ``critically imperiled''
(designated by rank ``G1'' or ``T1''), ``imperiled'' (designated by
rank ``G2'' or ``T2''), or ``vulnerable'' (designated by rank ``G3'' or
``T3'') to be an at-risk species for the purposes of the PSGP. For
information on NatureServe rankings, please visit their Internet site
at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.
The PSGP supports on-the-ground conservation actions as opposed to
planning or research activities. Examples of the types of projects that
may be funded include managing nonnative competitors, reintroducing
imperiled species, implementing measures to minimize risk from disease,
restoring streams that support imperiled species, erecting fencing to
exclude animals from sensitive habitats, or planting native vegetation
to restore a rare plant community. This is not an exhaustive list of
the various projects that may be funded under the PSGP. We recognize
that there is a multitude of ways to benefit imperiled species
conservation on private lands. While we will not fund the acquisition
of real property either through fee title or easements, we are not
excluding any
[[Page 61650]]
other approach from consideration so long as it can demonstrate
tangible on-the-ground benefits to the imperiled species in question
and meets the other eligibility criteria established for the PSGP.
Who Can Apply for PSGP Grants?
Private landowners, individually or as a group, are encouraged to
submit project proposals for their properties. Additionally,
individuals or groups (for example land conservancies, community
organizations, or conservation organizations) working with private
landowners on conservation efforts are also encouraged to submit
project proposals provided they identify specific private landowners
who have confirmed their intent to participate on the project or
provide other evidence in the project proposal to demonstrate landowner
participation will occur. In order to receive funding, projects will
need to ensure that landowners are willing to allow the Service access
to the project area in order to check on its progress when necessary.
State government agencies are not eligible to receive PSGP funding
(including as a subrecipient). The Service has established a separate
program specifically designed to facilitate State government
partnerships with private landowners, the Landowner Incentive Program.
State agencies are encouraged to assist landowners in developing PSGP
project proposals, to provide cost share when feasible, or to
participate in other ways on project implementation. However, State
agencies are not eligible to apply for PSGP funding directly.
Other non-Federal governmental entities or affiliates, including
Counties or other local governments or State-supported universities,
are eligible to apply for PSGP funding in order to assist private
landowners in planning and implementing a project. As with other groups
that apply on behalf of the private landowners, they must identify
specific private landowners who have confirmed their intent to
participate on the project or provide other evidence in the project
proposal to demonstrate that landowner participation will occur.
Eligibility Criteria
The following criteria must be satisfied for a proposal to be
considered for funding:
(1) The project must involve voluntary conservation efforts on
behalf of private landowners within the United States (i.e., U.S.
States and Territories). As a voluntary program, we will not grant
funding for projects that serve to satisfy regulatory requirements of
the Act, including complying with a biological opinion under section 7
of the Act or fulfilling commitments of a Habitat Conservation Plan
under section 10 of the Act, or for projects that serve to satisfy
other local, State, or Federal regulatory requirements (e.g.,
mitigation for local, State, or Federal permits).
(2) The project must benefit species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act by the Service, species proposed or designated
as candidates for listing by the Service, or other at-risk species that
are native to the United States. We will not award grants to fund the
acquisition of real property either through fee title or easements.
However, habitat improvements over and above any existing requirements
for lands covered under current easements or other such conservation
tools would be considered eligible for funding.
(3) The proposal must include at least 10 percent cost sharing
(i.e., at least 10 percent of total project cost) on the part of the
landowner or other non-Federal partners involved in the project (the
cost-share may be an in-kind contribution, including equipment,
materials, operations, and maintenance costs). The cost share must come
from sources other than the PSGP or other Federal funds.
(4) The proposal must either identify at least some of the specific
landowners who have confirmed their intent to participate in the
private conservation efforts (not all participating landowners need to
be identified at the time of the proposal submission) or provide other
information to demonstrate that the project, if funded, would have full
landowner participation.
(5) The proposal must include a reasonably detailed budget
indicating how the funding will be used and how each partner is
contributing. A project begins on the effective date of an award
agreement between you and an authorized representative of the U.S.
Government and ends on the date specified in the award. Accordingly, we
cannot reimburse you for time that you expend or costs that you incur
in developing a project or preparing the application, or in any
discussions or negotiations you may have with us prior to the award. We
will not accept such expenditures as part of your cost share. We will
also not consider fees or profits as allowable costs in your
application. The total costs of a project consist of all allowable
costs you incur, including the value of in-kind contributions, in
accomplishing project objectives during the life of the project. The
costs proposed to be funded through the PSGP may not exceed 90 percent
of the total costs.
(6) The proposal must include quantifiable measures that can be
used to evaluate the project's success. These quantifiable measures
must be specific, clear, and provide demonstrable benefits to the
target species such as increased habitat quantity or quality. The
project proposal should specify in detail how the habitat quantity or
quality will be improved (e.g., acres, species, etc.) and the
anticipated use of that habitat by the target species (e.g., numbers,
duration, etc.). For example, a proposal might specify the number of
acres restored by planting specific native plants and the number of
breeding pairs of the target species that are anticipated to use the
restored habitat. Proposed methods of monitoring, evaluating, and
reporting these measures in comparison to an initial baseline should
also be included in the proposal.
How Does the PSGP Work?
Interested individuals and groups prepare proposals that describe
their project and its benefits for the target species. See ``Project
Proposals'' below for additional information. Proposals will compete at
a Regional level for funding. We have established targets for the
amount of funding that will be available for grants within each of the
Service's Regions. These targets are based 50 percent on the number of
acres of non-Federal land, as a representation of the amount of private
land within each Region, and 50 percent on the number of listed,
proposed, candidate, and a sample of the other at-risk species in each
Region (see Table 1 for regional funding targets).
[[Page 61651]]
Table 1.--Service Regions and Funding Target for Grants in each Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total funding
target for
Region States and territories grants within
region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1 (Pacific)............................ California, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, $2,821,859
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Region 2 (Southwest).......................... Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas........ 1,490,457
Region 3 (Great Lakes-Big Rivers)............. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 942,981
Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Region 4 (Southeast).......................... Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 1,723,690
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Region 5 (Northeast).......................... Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 634,151
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Region 6 (Mountain-Prairie)................... Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North 1,413,886
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Region 7 (Alaska)............................. Alaska.......................................... 472,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Service will award grants for actions and activities that
protect and restore habitats that benefit federally listed, proposed,
or candidate species, or other at-risk species on private lands.
Additionally, the Service, in cooperation with the grantees, must
address Federal compliance issues, such as the National Environmental
Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered
Species Act. For the projects that are selected to receive funding, we
will provide additional guidance on compliance with these requirements.
The final exact amount of funds, the scope of work, and terms and
conditions of a successful award will be determined in pre-award
negotiations between the prospective recipient and the Service's
representatives. The prospective recipient will be asked to sign an
agreement that specifies the project requirements, such as the cost
share, the project design, the time commitment for maintaining the
project's benefits, and the reporting requirements, and that provides
for Service access to the project area in order to check on its
progress. In order to receive funding, prospective recipient will also
need to provide assurances and certifications of compliance with other
Federal requirements (for example see Standard Form 424-B and
Department of the Interior form DI-2010 available at http://
www.nctc.fws.gov/fedaid/toolkit/formsfil.pdf). The recipient is
reimbursed based on the cost-sharing formula in the Agreement. You
should not initiate your project in expectation of PSGP funding until
you receive the final grant award document signed by an authorized
Service official.
How To Apply for a PSGP Grant
You must follow the instructions in this document in order to apply
for financial assistance under the PSGP. For a description of the
information that must be included in a project proposal, please see the
``The PSGP Project Proposal'' section below. Your project proposal
should not be bound in any manner and must be printed on one side only.
You must submit one signed original and two signed copies of your
project proposal (including supporting information). Your unbound (a
binder clip is allowed) project proposal must be received by the
appropriate Regional Office listed in Table 2 by December 2, 2002. We
encourage you to contact the Regional contact person listed in Table 2
prior to submitting a project proposal should you have questions
regarding what information must be submitted with the project proposal.
An incomplete proposal will not be considered for funding.
Table 2.--Where To Send Project Proposals and List of Regional Contacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States or territory where the Where to send your PSGP
Service region project will occur project proposal Regional PSGP contact and phone No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1.............................. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Regional Director, U.S. Fish Heather Hollis (503/231-6241).
Washington, American Samoa, and Wildlife Service,
Guam, and Commonwealth of the Eastside Federal Complex,
Northern Mariana Islands. 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,
Portland, OR 97232-4181.
Region 1.............................. California and Nevada......... Office Manager, U.S. Fish and Miel Corbett (916/414-6464).
Wildlife Service, Federal
Building, 2800 Cottage Way,
Room W-2606 Sacramento, CA
95825-1846.
Region 2.............................. Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Regional Director, U.S. Fish Susan MacMullin (505/248-6671).
and Texas. and Wildlife Service, 500
Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012,
Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Region 3.............................. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Regional Director, U.S. Fish Peter Fasbender (612/713-5343).
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wildlife Service, Bishop
Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Henry Whipple Federal,
Building One, Federal Drive,
Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056.
[[Page 61652]]
Region 4.............................. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Regional Director, U.S. Fish Noreen Walsh (404/679-7085).
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Wildlife Service, 1875
Mississippi, North Carolina, Century Boulevard, Suite
South Carolina, Tennessee, 200, Atlanta, GA 30345.
Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Region 5.............................. Connecticut, Delaware, Regional Director, U.S. Fish Diane Lynch (413/253-8628).
District of Columbia, Maine, and Wildlife Service, 300
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Westgate Center Drive,
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Hadley, MA 01035-9589.
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia,
and West Virginia.
Region 6.............................. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Regional Director, U.S. Fish Patty Worthing (303/236-7400 ext. 251).
Nebraska, North Dakota, South and Wildlife Service, P.O.
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Box 25486, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO 80225-
0486.
Region 7.............................. Alaska........................ Regional Director, U.S. Fish Susan Detwiler (907/786-3868).
and Wildlife Service, 1011
East Tudor Road, Anchorage,
AK 99503-6199.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSGP Project Proposal
The project proposal is a narrative description of your project and
one required Federal form. The ultimate size of the proposal will
depend on its complexity, but we request that you attempt to minimize
the size of the narrative description of the proposal. Each page should
be no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches. You will need to submit an original
proposal and two copies; neither the original nor the copies should be
permanently bound. A complete application package with detailed
instructions and supplementary information can be found at our Internet
site: http://endangered.fws.gov/grants/private--stewardship.html.
The project proposal should also indicate whether partial funding
of the project is practicable, and, if so, what specific portion(s) of
the project could be implemented with what level of funding. A project
proposal that is a part of a longer-term initiative will be considered;
however, the proposed project's objectives, benefits, and tasks must
stand on their own, as there are no assurances that additional funding
would be awarded in subsequent years for associated or complementary
projects.
The Service, the Department of the Interior, and the Office of
Management and Budget have established requirements concerning Federal
financial assistance. This includes established principles for
determining which costs are allowable or eligible based on the type of
applicant (see ``Administrative Requirements'' below). Your project
proposal must comply with these requirements.
The narrative description of your project proposal should
specifically address each of the eligibility criteria and each of the
ranking factors. We recommend the following format for the project
narrative--
(1) Title Page. You should list on the Title Page a project title,
objectives, duration, summary of costs (amounts of PSGP funding needed
and cost sharing), and contact information (name, address and phone
number).
(2) Project Description. The project proposal must identify which
species will benefit, how they will benefit from the project, and
describe the project's significance to each target species (goals and
objectives for the project). We also encourage applicants to describe
how the location of the project and its role in the landscape affect
the conservation of the target species. The proposal must either
identify at least some of the specific landowners who have confirmed
their intent to participate in the private conservation efforts or
provide other information to demonstrate that the project, if funded,
would have full landowner participation. Explain why you need
government financial assistance for the proposed work. List all other
sources of funding you have or are seeking for the project. List any
existing Federal, State, Tribal, or local government programs or
activities that this project would affect.
(3) Project statement of work. The statement of work is an action
plan of activities you will conduct during the period of the project.
You must prepare a detailed narrative, fully describing the work you
will perform to achieve the project goals and objectives. The narrative
should respond to the following questions:
(a) What is the project design? What specific work, activities, and
procedures will you undertake?
(b) Who will be responsible for carrying out the various
activities? Describe how the project will be organized and managed.
Identify the person(s) responsible for the project and other project
participants.
(c) What are the project milestones? Each project should first
clearly describe the base-line conditions as they exist prior to
project implementation. List milestones, describing the specific
activities and associated time lines to conduct the scope of work.
Describe the time lines in increments (e.g., month 1, month 2), rather
than by specific dates.
(d) Specify the criteria and procedures that you will use to
evaluate the relative success or failure of a project in achieving its
objectives.
(e) For what amount of time will you commit to maintain the habitat
improvements or other benefits from the project? Describe the steps you
will take to ensure that the benefits of the project continue
throughout this time period.
(4) Project Budget. You must submit a reasonably detailed budget
for the project. The budget should indicate the breakdown of costs
proposed to be funded through the PSGP and other costs, through both
cash and in-kind contributions. To support your project's budget, also
describe briefly the basis for estimating the value of the cost sharing
derived from in-kind contributions.
(5) Supporting Documentation. You should include any relevant
documents and additional information (maps, background documents) that
will help
[[Page 61653]]
us to understand the project and the problem/opportunity you seek to
address.
One Federal form, Standard Form-424 ``Application for Federal
Assistance,'' must also be completed and submitted with your project
narrative description. Detailed instructions for filling out this form
are included in the application package available on our Internet site
at: http://endangered.fws.gov/grants/private--stewardship.html or see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. This form is also available on
the Internet at http://www.gsa.gov/forms/, at http://www.nctc.fws.gov/
fedaid/toolkit/toolkit.pdf, or from the Regional PSGP Contact Person.
Administrative Requirements
Listed in the table below are the administrative requirements that
will apply to your project if funded through the PSGP. The documents
listed below establish principles for determining which costs are
allowable or eligible (``cost principles'') and describe other
requirements that apply to receiving PSGP funding. These requirements
apply to recipients and subrecipients of PSGP funding. In some cases,
the requirements vary depending upon the type of organization receiving
the funding or that is a subrecipient of the funding. Each of these
documents can be found at our Internet site: http://endangered.fws.gov/
grants/private--stewardship.html. For projects that are selected for
funding, we will also offer additional technical assistance to
facilitate the prospective recipients' understanding of the financial
requirements.
Table 3.--Administrative Requirements for PSGP Funding Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Specific requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals, private firms, and * Federal Acquisition Regulation
other non-profits excluded from Subpart 31.2.
coverage under OMB Circular No. A- * 43 CFR 18 (New Restrictions on
122. Lobbying).
* 48 CFR 31 (Contracts with
Commercial Organizations).
Non-Profit Organizations covered * 43 CFR 12 (Administrative and
under OMB Circular No. A-122. Audit Requirements and Cost
Principles for Assistance
Programs).
* 43 CFR 18 (New Restrictions on
Lobbying).
* OMB Circular No. A-110
(Administrative Requirements for
Grants).
* OMB Circular No. A-122 (Cost
Principles).
* OMB Circular No. A-133 (Audits).
Educational Institutions (even if * 43 CFR 12 (Administrative and
part of a State or local Audit Requirements and Cost
government). Principles for Assistance
Programs).
* 43 CFR 18 (New Restrictions on
Lobbying).
* OMB Circular No. A-21 (Cost
Principles).
* OMB Circular No. A-110
(Administrative Requirements for
Grants).
* OMB Circular No. A-133 (Audits).
States, local governments, and * 43 CFR 12 (Administrative and
Indian Tribes. Audit Requirements and Cost
Principles for Assistance
Programs).
* 43 CFR 18 (New Restrictions on
Lobbying).
* OMB Circular No. A-87 (Cost
Principles).
* OMB Circular No. A-102 (Grants and
Cooperative Agreements).
* OMB Circular No. A-133 (Audits).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Can Help Plan and Implement a Project?
The Service may be able to assist landowners in planning or
implementing projects. Through multiple programs, we offer a variety of
expertise to assist landowners in planning and implementing projects on
private lands. Among others, the Service's Endangered Species program
and the Fish and Wildlife Management and Habitat Restoration program
have worked hand-in-hand with a variety of partners on private lands.
The Service's ability to assist landowners will depend upon the type of
project proposed and an assessment of how the project fits into our
existing workloads and priorities. Due to the limited time available
for such assistance, it may be necessary to submit the project proposal
for funding under a future PSGP Request for Proposals. For additional
information on how the Service may be able to assist you, contact the
Program Contact in the appropriate Regional Office identified in Table
2. Information is also available from the Service's Internet site at
www.fws.gov.
In addition, many other Federal, State, Territory, or Tribal
agencies, as well as conservation organizations, work closely with
landowners and may be able to assist with planning and implementing a
project. Local governments, such as your county or city, may also have
personnel that could assist you in developing a project proposal.
For general guidance on developing and writing grant proposals, see
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance's Internet site at http://
www.cfda.gov/public/cat-writing.htm.
How Will Proposals Be Selected?
Proposals will compete at a Regional level for funding. Within each
Region, a diverse panel of representatives from State and Federal
government, conservation organizations, agriculture and development
interests, and the science community will assess the applications and
make funding recommendations to the Service. The Service's Regional
Offices will invite and select the individuals to participate on the
panels. The purpose of using the diverse panels is to obtain individual
advice on project selection from an array of interests involved with
conservation efforts on private lands. The Service will use the
individual panel member recommendations in selecting projects, although
geographic distribution of projects, the amount of funding requested
for a project compared with the total amount of funding available, and
other such factors may also be considered. Partial funding of one or
more projects, when practicable, may be considered. After reviewing the
individual panel member recommendations and the other factors, the
Service's Director will make funding selections, subject only to the
final approval of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
Members of each diverse panel will individually score each proposal
based on a set of ranking factors, which include (1) the number of
endangered or threatened species, species proposed or
[[Page 61654]]
candidates for such listing, and at-risk species that will benefit from
the project; (2) the importance of the project to the conservation of
those species, including the duration of the benefits, the magnitude of
the benefits, and the urgency of the project; and (3) other proposal
merits, such as whether the project complements other conservation
projects in the area, the project's unique qualities, feasibility of
the project, or any other appropriate justifications, including
particular strengths in the above categories (e.g., extraordinary
benefits).
Due to the wide variety of project proposals that will likely be
submitted, the scoring system must provide a relatively high degree of
flexibility. Therefore, a scoring system that is relatively simple, but
allows project proposals to be evaluated qualitatively as well as
quantitatively is desired. The three ranking factors will be scored as
described in Table 4 below.
Table 4.--Project Proposal Scoring Guidelines
[10 points maximum]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project proposal Number of
Ranking factor assessment points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The number of federally 5 or fewer species........ 1
listed, proposed, candidate, 6 or more species......... 2
or at-risk species that will
directly benefit from the
project.
(2) The importance of the Qualitative............... 1-5
project to the conservation of
the target species, including
the duration of the benefits,
the magnitude of the benefits,
and the urgency of the project.
(3) Other Proposal Merits. Qualitative............... 0-3
Whether the project
complements other projects in
the area, the project's unique
qualities, feasibility of the
project, or any other
appropriate justifications,
including particular strengths
in the above categories (e.g.,
extraordinary benefits).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Does the PSGP Further the Mission of the Service?
President Bush has launched a new strategy for improving the
management and performance of the Federal Government. The PSGP will
reflect the President's strategy and embody the Secretary's commitment
to citizen-centered government around ``four Cs': Conservation through
Cooperation, Consultation, and Communication.
The quantifiable measures required of each proposal to be eligible
under the PSGP will help achieve the overall goal of the program to
conserve endangered, threatened, or other at risk species. Through this
program, private, voluntary conservation efforts will help the Service
meet its Long-Term and Annual Performance Goals as expressed in the
Service's Annual Performance Plan. In accordance with the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (31 U.S.C. 1115), the Service
prepares a Strategic Plan. This plan describes the Service's
performance goals and measures. The eligibility criteria, selection
factors, and reporting requirements in the PSGP ensures that the
projects funded maximize progress toward our goals and measures. Among
others, the PSGP furthers the Service's goals for conserving imperiled
species (Long-term Goal 1.2--Through 2005, 404 species listed under the
Act as endangered or threatened a decade of more are either stable or
improving, 15 species are delisted due to recovery, and listing of 12
species at risk is made unnecessary due to conservation agreements) and
habitat conservation (Long-term Goal 2.3-By 2005, improve fish and
wildlife populations focusing on trust resources, threatened and
endangered species, and species of special concern by enhancing and/or
restoring or creating 550,000 acres of wetlands habitat, restoring
1,000,000 acres of upland habitats, and enhancing and/or restoring
9,800 riparian or stream miles of habitat off-service lands through
partnerships and other identified conservation strategies) as described
in the Service's strategic plan. Information on the Service's strategic
plans and performance reports are available on the Service's Internet
site at http://planning.fws.gov/. These Service goals support the
Department of the Interior's Long-term goals as identified in the Draft
Strategic Plan. Specifically, Resource Protection Goals 1.1 (Improve
health of watersheds and landscapes) and 1.2 (Sustain biological
communities).
II. Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In response to our request for comments on the draft policy, we
received letters from 26 entities. All comments received have been
reviewed. Overall, almost all respondents expressed appreciation for
the PSGP. Many offered valuable suggestions for improving or clarifying
specific sections of the final implementation guidelines. Some minor
editorial and other changes in the text were suggested; these comments
are not included in the following analysis but all were considered, and
many of the minor changes were included in the final guidelines. The
comments and responses are presented below and are grouped topically.
Comments on General Program Implementation
Comment 1: Many commenters stated their support for the PSGP and
the use of incentive-based approaches for conserving imperiled species.
Response 1: We appreciate these comments and look forward to
working with interested parties in helping to notify landowners of the
opportunities available through the PSGP.
Comment 2: Several commenters stated that the $10 million for the
PSGP was not sufficient to meet the demand for project funding.
Response 2: We believe that this level of funding is appropriate to
initiate the PSGP, but agree that demand may exceed this funding level
in the future. As the PSGP develops, we will reevaluate our funding
level requests.
Comment 3: Several commenters recommended that we find ways to make
the PSGP process simple in order to encourage the voluntary
participation by landowners. Several commenters recommended that the
Service keep the program flexible and not restrict landowners beyond
that which is
[[Page 61655]]
necessary to successfully implement the project.
Response 3: We have attempted to make the PSGP as simple and as
flexible as possible, while meeting the established requirements for
awarding Federal financial assistance. As we gain experience
implementing the PSGP, we will continue to look for ways to make the
program more user friendly.
Comment 4: Three commenters recommended that projects be based on
the best available scientific and commercial information available.
Response 4: We agree that, to the extent practicable, projects
should incorporate the best available scientific and commercial
information. When assisting prospective applicants in developing
project proposals, we will assist them in making use of the best
information available. Additionally, the use of the best science will
be considered in the selection process. However, we do not believe it
is necessary to stipulate this as an eligibility requirement for a
proposal to be considered for funding. There may be project proposals
submitted that would provide substantial benefits, but that could be
improved with modifications to the project design or methods.
Therefore, for projects that are selected for funding the Service will
work with the prospective recipient to ensure the scope of work and the
terms and conditions for the project incorporate the best available
scientific information.
Comment 5: Several commenters suggested additions to the PSGP
implementation plan, including issuing multiple Requests for Proposals,
awarding grants quickly, developing application and reporting forms,
setting aside funding to allow for monitoring and evaluation,
establishing a tracking system for project implementation, and
expanding State, Tribal, and stakeholder participation in the program
development process.
Response 5: We appreciate these well-reasoned suggestions and have
incorporated them to the extent feasible for this first year of
implementing the program. As we gain additional experience, we will
consider ways to further incorporate these suggestions.
Comment 6: One commenter stated that it is important to document
success stories and report those successes to Congress and the media to
promote the cooperative conservation ethic.
Response 6: We agree that it is critically important that we share
the successes of the PSGP, and we will make every effort to do so.
Comment 7: One commenter stated that we should integrate PSGP into
the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) and have it administered by the
Service's Federal Aid program. Another commenter recommended that the
PSGP be implemented through the Service's Partners for Fish and
Wildlife program in cooperation with the States. Conversely, another
commenter stated support for private landowners being able to apply
directly to the Federal Government for a grant.
Response 7: Conserving species on private lands requires a multi-
faceted approach that is exemplified by the PSGP and the LIP. These
programs provide opportunities for landowners to work cooperatively
with the Service, the States and Territories, and the Tribes. Some
private landowners will want to work directly with the Service. For
others, working with the State, Territory, or Tribe will best meet
their needs. In all cases, these programs will enhance relationships
with our partners and offer a diversity of approaches for addressing
important habitat needs for imperiled species. The Service's Federal
Aid program works primarily with State agencies, rather than directly
with landowners. The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program
will be involved in implementing the PSGP. We will also continue to
look for ways to improve the coordination of the PSGP with other
Federal assistance programs.
Comment 8: One commenter stated that the Service should provide
assurances that information provided to the agency will not be
disseminated to others for use in ways unrelated to the project (by law
enforcement personnel or to the public under the Freedom of Information
Act). Other commenters stated that information generated by the PSGP
should be readily available to the public.
Response 8: The commenter's concern with the confidentiality of
information made available to the Service under the PSGP is
understandable. Private landowners are often apprehensive that
compliance with applicable Federal statutes may affect some land uses.
In deciding whether to participate in the PSGP, prospective applicants
should carefully consider the potential legal obligations that the
landowner may face by attracting or increasing listed species or
species that may become listed on their property. For those landowners
where such concerns would preclude your participation in the PSGP, we
encourage you to speak to the Service's PSGP contact person about the
potential for the development of a Safe Harbor Agreement or a Candidate
Conservation Agreement with Assurances for your project. Safe Harbor
Agreements encourage voluntary management for listed species to promote
recovery on non-Federal lands by giving assurances to the landowners
that no additional future regulatory restrictions will be imposed under
most circumstances. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances
provide incentives for non-Federal property owners to conserve
candidate species, thus potentially making listing unnecessary and
providing regulatory assurances in the event the species is listed. The
feasibility of including these types of agreements will depend upon the
proposed project and whether the landowner is willing to meet the
additional requirements for such agreements.
Project proposals under the PSGP are subject to Freedom of
Information Act requirements and will be reviewed by non-Service staff.
Applicants may request that we withhold specific information from
release outside the agency, which we will honor to the extent allowable
by law. If you wish us to withhold specific personal or proprietary
information, you must identify which information is to be withheld and
state this request prominently at the beginning of your proposal.
Comment 9: One commenter asked that we clarify how we determined
the number of at-risk species used to establish the Regional funding
targets.
Response 9: We used the number of species and subspecies within
each Region that were not listed, proposed, or candidates, but that
were ranked by NatureServe as ``critically imperiled,'' ``imperiled,''
or ``vulnerable.'' Additional discussion on ``at-risk'' species is
included in the ``What types of projects may be funded?'' section
above. The number of species or subspecies for each Region at the time
we prepared the Fiscal Year 2002 allocation targets is included below
in Table 5.
[[Page 61656]]
Table 5.--Number of Species or Subspecies by Service Region With No Federal Status and Ranked by NatureServe as
``Critically Imperiled, Imperiled, or Vulnerable'' as of September 30, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4,374 2,024 444 1,810 637 1,430 286
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Related to the Eligibility Criteria
Comment 10: Two commenters recommended that the program focus on
ecosystems or communities that consider an array of species, or
projects at the eco-regional scale as opposed to focusing on
individual, targeted species.
Response 10: In evaluating the merits of a project, we will
consider the larger conservation context in which the project would
occur. Thus projects that have greater benefits in the sense that they
address the needs of multiple species or that are part of a larger
conservation planning effort will in general score higher than projects
that do not provide such benefits. However, we do not believe it is
necessary to revise the eligibility criteria to exclude species-
specific projects or to make the required scale of a project beyond the
ability of willing private landowners. Some of the most important and
most cost-effective projects for conserving an imperiled species are
those done by a single landowner or a few landowners located in key
portions of a species' range. Additionally in some cases, efforts to
conserve a single or a small number of species can have significant
benefits for the entire natural community.
Comment 11: Many commenters recommended that we should better
define which species are considered at-risk and one commenter stated
that the State fish and wildlife agency should be consulted in
determining which species are at-risk.
Response 11: We have provided additional clarification on how to
determine which species are considered at-risk for the purposes of the
PSGP (see also ``What types of projects may be funded?'' above). We
encourage prospective applicants to contact their State fish and
wildlife agency to ascertain whether their State designates species
that are of conservation concern (e.g., State listed as endangered,
threatened, special concern, or other similar designations). If your
State does not identify species of conservation concern or in addition
to those species identified by the State, we will also consider any
species or subspecies listed by NatureServe as ``critically imperiled''
(designated by rank ``G1'' or ``T1''), ``imperiled'' (designated by
rank ``G2'' or ``T2''), or ``vulnerable'' (designated by rank ``G3'' or
``T3'') to be an at-risk species. For information on NatureServe
rankings, please visit their Internet site at http://
www.natureserve.org/explorer/.
Comment 12: One commenter suggested that, given the limited funding
available for projects, we not include at-risk species in the PSGP.
Other commenters encouraged the consideration of ``at-risk'' species.
Response 12: We understand the commenter's concern over the limited
funding for the PSGP and acknowledge that there are many listed species
for which projects on private lands are needed. However, we also
recognize that projects for at-risk species have the potential to
provide large benefits as well and not only for the at-risk species.
Early conservation efforts preserve management options, minimize the
cost of recovery, and reduce the potential for restrictive land use
policies in the future. Addressing the needs of species before the
regulatory restrictions associated with listed species come into play
often allows greater management flexibility to stabilize or restore
these species and their habitats. This cost-effective approach also
benefits species already listed by freeing up additional resources for
their recovery.
Comment 13: Three commenters recommended that we establish a cap on
the amount that could be funded in any single grant.
Response 13: We will consider establishing a cap on the amount of
the awards in future years. However, we would first like to see the
range of projects that are submitted in order to establish a context
for an appropriate cap size and to enable further consideration of how
a cap would affect the quality of the projects that are ultimately
funded.
Comment 14: One commenter stated that partial funding often creates
more problems than it solves.
Response 14: We recognize that partial funding can complicate the
awards process and that for some projects partial funding is not
appropriate. However, when fully funding the project is not currently
practicable, we will consider providing partial funding. For example,
the scale of some projects may be reduced in order to allow the
efficacy of the efforts to be more fully evaluated prior to fully
funding the project. In other cases, project components may have
discrete benefits that would warrant individual funding. As described
above in ``The PSGP Project Proposal,'' we request that applicants
indicate in the project proposal whether partial funding of the project
is practicable, and, if so, what specific portion(s) of the project
could be implemented with what level of funding. We will award partial
funding only where we believe it is clearly beneficial to do so. We
will work with the recipient of the funding to clearly delineate what
portion of the project is being funded and ensure the terms and
conditions of the award are appropriate for the funding provided.
Comment 15: Two commenters indicated that a 10 percent cost share
was reasonable. Two other commenters stated that the level of cost
share should not be included in the project ranking system or should be
deleted as an eligibility requirement. One commenter recommended that
the State should provide the 10 percent match.
Response 15: We believe the 10 percent cost share is reasonable,
and given that it may be met with an in-kind contribution to the
project, is unlikely to inhibit the participation of interested
landowners. While some States may choose to assist landowners with the
cost share, we believe that the PSGP should be flexible and not specify
only one source for the cost share. After additional consideration, we
agree that cost share should not be included in the scoring system. We
recognize that some of the most beneficial projects may involve a
single landowner with limited cost share ability. Therefore, we have
deleted the cost share from the project proposal scoring guidelines.
However, to be considered for funding, a project proposal must
demonstrate that at least 10 percent of the total costs will be
provided from sources other than the PSGP or other Federal funds.
Comment 16: One commenter stated that accounting requirements for
in-kind and matching contributions are too cumbersome and may cause
some individuals to decline to participate.
Response 16: We do not want potential applicants to decline to
participate because of the perceived burden of accounting requirements
for
[[Page 61657]]
Federal financial assistance. In these final implementation guidelines,
we have provided prospective applicants with additional information
resources to document these requirements. For projects that are
selected for funding, we will also offer additional technical
assistance to facilitate the prospective recipient's understanding of
the financial requirements. However, we are not in a position to modify
the requirements for Federal financial assistance in order to simplify
the PSGP process. Therefore, it is important that recipients of PSGP
funding clearly understand and comply with the Federal financial
assistance requirements.
Comment 17: Several commenters stated their support for the
exclusion of PSGP funding for compliance with a Habitat Conservation
Plan under section 10 of the Act (HCP) or other regulatory
requirements. One commenter stated that the language excluding HCPs was
too limited in scope and that fulfilling the commitments of an HCP
should be allowed under the PSGP.
Response 17: The PSGP was specifically designed to support
voluntary efforts by private landowners. As a voluntary program, we
will not grant funding for projects that serve to satisfy regulatory
requirements of the Act, including complying with a biological opinion
under section 7 of the Act or fulfilling commitments of an HCP under
section 10 of the Act. The PSGP was designed to fill a different need
than assisting with HCP or other compliance efforts.
Comment 18: Two commenters suggested that it was unreasonable to
require applicants to identify the private landowners that would
participate at the time of project submission.
Response 18: We have revised this requirement to allow a project
proposal to either identify some of the specific landowners who have
confirmed their intent to participate in the private conservation
efforts (not all participating landowners need to be identified at the
time of the proposal submission) or to provide other information to
demonstrate that the project, if funded, would have full landowner
participation. In the cases where the project proposal is not submitted
directly by the landowner(s), we need to know that the proposed project
is highly likely to result in on-the-ground conservation actions. For
example, if the project proposal does not identify which landowners
will participate, then it must explain how the project will obtain
landowner participation and ensure the landowner's commitment to carry-
through on the conservation actions proposed.
Comment 19: One commenter requested that we require the projects to
be community-based and supported by multiple entities.
Response 19: We encourage community-based projects and those that
are supported by multiple partners. We believe that such projects are
likely to provide the greatest benefits. However, we do not want to
revise the eligibility criteria to exclude individual landowner
projects. As noted above, some of the most important and most cost-
effective projects for conserving an imperiled species are those done
by a single or a few landowners located in key portions of a species'
range.
Comment 20: Several commenters requested that we clarify who is
eligible to apply for PSGP grants, specifically addressing States and
Counties. In addition, others recommended we further limit eligibility,
such as only funding projects that are in States not participating in
the Service's Landowner Incentive Program.
Response 20: We have revised the eligibility criteria to clarify
this issue. The focus of the PSGP is to provide assistance to private
landowners; however, we recognize that many projects benefit from
partnerships between landowners and other interested participants. Thus
the PSGP allows ``groups'' to submit project proposals. As the Service
has another program specifically designed to facilitate State
partnerships with private landowners, the Landowner Incentive Program,
we believe it is appropriate to exclude State government agencies from
the eligible ``groups'' under the PSGP. State agencies are encouraged
to assist landowners in developing PSGP project proposals, to provide
cost share when feasible, or to participate in other ways on project
implementation. However, State agencies are not eligible to submit PSGP
project proposals directly. We will consider other entities, such as
Counties, other local governments, or State-funded universities, to be
eligible groups that may apply directly for a PSGP funding to assist
private landowners. Such proposals must identify at least some of the
specific private landowners who have confirmed their intent to
participate with them in the conservation efforts or other evidence in
the project proposal to demonstrate full participation will occur.
Comment 21: Two commenters recommended that we not fund projects
intended to restore or offset habitat lost as result of incidental take
permit (or other similar permit), unless it is to restore habitat above
and beyond what is pre-permit (above baseline).
Response 21: We do not see a conservation benefit in categorically
excluding or further defining the eligibility of lands that may have at
one time been covered under an incidental take permit. As discussed
above, we will not award funds for projects that serve to satisfy
regulatory requirements.
Comment 22: Two commenters recommended that projects should have
high probability of providing specific, demonstrable benefits to the
target species, habitats, and ecosystem.
Response 22: Proposals that articulate clearly and specifically the
project benefits for the species, natural communities, and ecosystems
and that explain why those benefits are likely to result from the
project will be more competitive and more likely to receive PSGP
funding. We will fund those projects that we believe provide the
greatest benefits to the target species, habitats, and ecosystems.
Comment 23: One commenter recommended that conservation easements
be eligible for funding; another commenter recommended that land
acquisitions or easements not be eligible.
Response 23: We recognize that easements are very important tools
for conservation. However, we also know there is an equally important
need to fund on-the-ground management efforts. For the PSGP, we have
chosen to focus on assisting with management rather than funding land
acquisition through fee-title or easements. Although, we will not fund
the purchase of easements under the PSGP, habitat improvements over and
above any existing requirements for lands covered under current
easements or other such conservation tools would be considered eligible
for funding. The Service has other programs that specifically fund the
acquisition of property.
Comment 24: Many commenters made recommendations for the types of
projects that should be funded through the PSGP, such as allowing
flexibility in project type, suggesting specific types of projects,
providing economic incentives for landowners to conserve species,
including projects other than habitat management (reintroductions), or
emphasizing habitat-focused projects.
Response 24: We did not intend to provide an exhaustive description
of the various projects that may be funded under the PSGP. We have
expanded the list of examples. However, we recognize that there is a
multitude of ways to benefit imperiled species conservation on private
lands. Therefore, while we will not fund the acquisition of real
[[Page 61658]]
property either through fee title or easements, we are not excluding
any other approach from consideration so long as it can demonstrate
meaningful benefits to the imperiled species in question and meets the
other eligibility criteria established for the PSGP.
Comments on Program Management
Comment 25: Several commenters stated their support for the use of
the diverse panels to assist with project selection. One commenter
expressed concern that a diverse panel would lack focus and questioned
the ability of panel members to be impartial and knowledgeable of local
projects. The commenter suggested that local Service offices should
decide on the prioritization of projects.
Response 25: We believe that the diverse panels will aid in the
selection of projects and also help build and maintain relationships
between the Service and the diverse interest groups. We believe that
the diverse panel members will offer perspective on project selection
from an array of interests involved with conservation efforts on
private lands. We will select panel members that are willing to fairly
evaluate project proposals. As our experience in implementing the PSGP
increases, we will consider how the diverse panels may be better used
to improve the project selection process.
Comment 26: Several commenters made specific recommendations for
managing the diverse panels, including that the scientific community,
agricultural interests, private landowners, and individuals with local
knowledge should each play important roles on the panel. It was further
recommended that the process used by panels should be systematic and
objective, follow Federal requirements for public participation, ensure
confidentiality and fairness, include a diversity of stakeholders on
the panel, and be balanced with respect to the number of participants
from various groups.
Response 26: We will seek to implement the program using the
concepts described in the President's Budget request and to ensure
compliance with applicable Federal requirements. The size of each
diverse panel will be largely at the discretion of the individual
Service Regions. If more than one representative from each group is
invited to participate on a panel, the Service will also seek a balance
among the various interest groups on the panel. In order to minimize
administrative costs associated with the panel and to keep the panel to
a manageable size, the number of participants may need to be limited.
For additional information on the use of the diverse panels, see the
``How will proposals be selected?'' section above.
Comments on the Eligibility Criteria
Comment 27: Several commenters made recommendations concerning the
performance measures used to evaluate the success of the projects and
requested that we provide greater specificity as to what should be
included in a project proposal and what is required to obtain funding.
One commenter recommended that we fully articulate all of the program
requirements for prospective applicants.
Response 27: We have revised and significantly expanded upon the
project performance measures that must be included with each project
proposal (see ``Project Proposals'' above). We have provided examples
of measures as well as identified the specific Long-term and Annual
Service goals that these measures will help the Service achieve. We
have also provided expanded information on the requirements for
obtaining Federal financial assistance (see ``Administrative
Requirements'' above).
Comment 28: Several commenters recommended that projects be
required to include habitat baseline information, as well as monitoring
and adaptive management protocols.
Response 28: We agree with the commenters that this information
would facilitate an evaluation of the project. However, this
information is not always readily available to landowners. We encourage
incorporation of this information when feasible. We have revised the
proposal requirements (see ``Project Proposal'' above) to reflect this
suggestion. Performance measures should be related to baselines when
possible.
Comment 29: One commenter stated that collecting information on
effectiveness would have limited value since individuals collecting the
data would not have necessary expertise, ability, and time, and the
wide variety of projects would make comparisons of the project data
impracticable. In addition, the commenter recommended that activity
reporting should be limited to progress on time-lines or specific goals
reached.
Response 29: We agree that there are practicable limits to what
information landowners may be able to collect. However, we also
recognize that landowners often have an excellent understanding of the
natural systems on their property and can provide significant
information that will assist the Service in evaluating the
effectiveness of the projects that are funded. We will work with
funding recipients in the pre-award negotiations to identify what
information is practicable and useful to collect to enable meaningful
project evaluation. We agree that activity reporting should include
progress on meeting time-lines or specific goals reached.
Comment 30: One commenter recommended that performance measures
should be based on objectives that will promote recovery and delisting
of the target species.
Response 30: We encourage project proposals to identify how the
project will further the recovery goals for listed species or further
the goals of other applicable conservation strategies. We believe that
describing the performance measures in terms of the recovery needs of
the species will strengthen the project proposal. The context for
evaluating how the PSGP functions will be based on how the projects
funded have contributed to the conservation of the target species.
Comment 31: One commenter stated that in cases where the PSGP funds
habitat restoration or management on lands currently under an easement,
easement compliance should be one of the measures used to evaluate the
project.
Response 31: We agree with the commenter that a project proposal to
enhance an existing easement should identify how easement compliance
will be incorporated into the project's performance measures. The terms
and conditions of funding will incorporate this information.
Comment 32: One commenter stated that performance measures should
be consistent with any applicable performance measures developed by the
State, Federal, and Tribal managers. In addition, the Service should
consult with Tribal, State, and Federal managers on the measures to
ensure they do not conflict or undermine other programs.
Response 32: We encourage applicants to develop project proposals
that are consistent with existing conservation programs. We will
consult with others on project selection through the participation of
the diverse panels. In addition, the Service will notify the States and
Territories of project selections and share with the Tribes any
information concerning projects that may affect Tribal trust resources.
Comments on the Selection Factors and Scoring System
Comment 33: One commenter stated that we should give priority to
longer-term commitments, though exceptions may be warranted in some
[[Page 61659]]
circumstances, and suggested that the relevant minimum timeframe might
be the time required to recover the species. Another commenter stated
that projects under a Safe Harbor Agreement should be given a lower
priority, unless commitment to maintain improvement is for a
substantial time period. One commenter stated that, in order to
strengthen the duration of the benefits, the Service should establish a
minimum time commitment.
Response 33: Each project proposal should indicate the amount of
time the habitat improvements or other project benefits will be
maintained. In evaluating project proposals, we will consider the
duration of the benefits (commitment for maintaining the project). When
the Service makes the funding award, we will specify the terms and
conditions of the award, including the time commitment for maintaining
the project. We may consider establishing a minimum time commitment in
the future as we gain experience implementing this program.
Comment 34: Two commenters recommended that we consider the
project's landscape context. It was also recommended that we give
priority to projects in locations that are most beneficial to the
conservation and recovery of the target species and include mechanisms
to avoid enhancing ``habitat sinks.''
Response 34: We agree with the comments that the landscape context
of the project is critically important. We encourage applicants to
describe in the proposal how the location of the project and its role
in the landscape contribute to conservation of the species. For
example, where is the project located in relation to other existing
habitat? Does it promote connectivity between habitats? What is the
size of the project area in relation to the habitat needs of the target
species? We believe that proposals that include this type of
information will better describe the project's benefits. ``Sinks'' are
generally considered marginal habitat areas where the mortality in a
population exceeds production. We disagree with the commenters that the
PSGP should always avoid enhancing ``habitat sinks.'' Improving habitat
conditions in ``sinks'' may provide substantial benefits to a
population by reducing mortality rates. We agree project designers
should carefully plan their projects to reduce the chances of
unintended negative effects on local populations. As we consider
projects for funding, we will be mindful of the important role
landscape context plays in species conservation.
Comment 35: One commenter recommended that in order to demonstrate
results quickly the program should be tiered to separately consider
projects underway and new programs.
Response 35: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion, as it is
important to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program. However,
given the diversity of projects that are likely to be funded through
the PSGP, we do not believe it is necessary to tier the program. Some
projects will build upon existing efforts and show results more
quickly, while others may require additional time.
Comment 36: Several commenters recommended that we develop a
selection factor that provides a higher priority to maintaining at-risk
unique habitats or for projects that are part of large-scale planning
efforts. Two commenters recommended that projects at an eco-regional
scale, or that have benefits for habitats/natural communities of high
conservation concern, should receive a higher ranking than more
localized projects.
Response 36: As previously discussed, the proposal evaluation will
consider the benefits of the project. This will include a consideration
of the larger conservation context in which the project would occur.
Comment 37: Several commenters recommended changes to the project
ranking factors and scoring system. These recommendations included
expanding the point range, dividing or combining the ranking factors,
adding considerations to the project assessment for each scoring
factor, decreasing the subjectivity, and increasing the flexibility of
the scoring system.
Response 37: We do not believe simply expanding the point range
would necessarily result in a better prioritization of projects. We
believe it is important to maintain a simple scoring system in order to
facilitate the review by the diverse panel members. Maintaining the 10-
point scoring system and relatively broad ranking factors will allow
the diverse panel to quickly assess all the project proposals. They
will then be able to focus further consideration on the higher ranking
projects, from which to make their individual recommendations.
Furthermore, as a new program, we would like to see the range of
proposals that are submitted before increasing the complexity of the
ranking factors or scoring system. As we gain experience working with
the diverse panels and evaluating project proposals, we will consider
revising the scoring system. We believe that the scoring system is
sufficiently flexible to allow proposals of a variety of merits to
stand out.
Comment 38: Several commenters recommended that the number of
species should not be used in the scoring system. Other commenters
suggested it should be modified to include greater numbers of species,
to weigh the benefits for each species, or to be combined with the
importance of the project to better represent the overall contributions
of the project.
Response 38: We agree with the commenters that simply counting the
number of species is of limited value when evaluating a project
proposal. However, we believe it does serve an important function,
which is to emphasize the requirement that projects must address the
needs of listed, proposed, candidate, and other at-risk species.
Therefore, we have maintained the number of species as part of the
scoring system with a slight modification to more realistically reflect
the number of species that are likely to be included in project
proposals. We encourage applicants to include in their project proposal
a discussion of the benefits for each species. The better a proposal
articulates the benefits of the project, the more likely it will be
selected for funding.
Comments Related To Awarding Funding
Comment 39: Two commenters stated that ``No Surprises'' assurances
should not be issued to landowners in association with PSGP funding.
One recommended that if landowners desire regulatory assurances for
their project they should seek Safe Harbor Agreements.
Response 39: No Surprises assurances are related to fulfilling
commitments of a Habitat Conservation Plan under section 10 of the Act.
We will not be using the PSGP to fund activities related to fulfilling
commitments of a Habitat Conservation Plan under section 10 of the Act.
We agree with the commenter that Safe Harbor Agreements and Candidate
Conservation Agreements with Assurances may be appropriate for some
landowners that are concerned about potential land-use restrictions and
would like regulatory assurances in connection with their project.
Comment 40: One commenter stated a concern that large conservation
groups will receive the bulk of the funding at the expense of local
community groups; alternatively, another commenter stated that the
Service should reach out to national conservation organizations that
can leverage public funds before they are put into local projects.
Response 40: While we strongly encourage project proposals that are
based on cooperative efforts, we will
[[Page 61660]]
focus the PSGP on selecting projects that provide the greatest
benefits. In our experience, some of the best conservation projects,
both those by local groups and larger organizations, are those that
effectively engage local communities. Therefore, we believe the PSGP
will reach local community levels, whether through individuals, local
groups, or larger organizations. As we gain experience implementing the
PSGP, we will continue to look for ways to encourage all types of
project proposals.
Comment 41: One commenter recommended that the format for
agreements with landowners be flexible or appropriate for specific
circumstances for which the grant has been awarded.
Response 41: We will seek to have the terms and conditions of an
award, and if appropriate for the project, any landowner agreements
address the specific circumstances of the funded project.
Comment 42: Two commenters stated that all projects should comply
with the requirements of the Act and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). One commenter indicated that NEPA compliance would be
beyond the ability of private landowners.
Response 42: The Service, in cooperation with the grantees, must
address Federal compliance issues, such as the NEPA, the National
Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act. For the
projects that are selected to receive funding, we will work with the
recipient to ensure compliance with these requirements.
Comment 43: Several commenters expressed their support for time
commitments, and one commenter recommended that recipients sign
agreements that stipulate (1) activities to be carried out, (2) time
commitment, and (3) return of pro-rated funding for default of
commitment.
Response 43: The scope of work, as well as the terms and conditions
for an award, will specify the activities to be carried out and time
commitments for the project, and require compliance with applicable
rules for receiving Federal financial assistance.
III. Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
This policy document identifies the eligibility criteria and
selection factors that will be used to award grants under the PSGP. The
Service developed this policy to ensure consistent and adequate
evaluation of project proposals that are voluntarily submitted and to
help perspective applicants understand how grants will be awarded. In
accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 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.
(a) The PSGP 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, local or tribal communities. A total of
$9,500,000 will be awarded in grants to private landowners or their
partners to implement voluntary conservation actions. These funds will
be used to pay for actions such as restoring natural hydrology to
streams or wetlands that support imperiled species, fencing to exclude
animals from sensitive habitats, or planting native vegetation to
restore degraded habitat. In addition, the projects 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 distributed widely and are not likely to be significant in any one
location. It is likely that local residents near projects where grants
are awarded will experience some level of benefit, but it is not
possible to quantify these effects at this time. However, the sum total
of all the benefits from this program is not expected to have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) We do not believe the PSGP would create inconsistencies with
other agencies' actions. Congress has given the Service responsibility
to administer the program.
(c) As a new grant program, the PSGP would not materially not
affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights
and obligations of their recipients. The submission of project
proposals is completely voluntary. However, when an applicant decides
to submit a project 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 proponents of projects that are
selected to receive funding under the PSGP. These requirements include
specific Federal financial management requirements and time commitments
for maintaining habitat improvements or other activities described in
the applicant's project proposal in order to obtain and retain the
benefit they are seeking.
(d) OMB has determined that this policy raises novel legal or
policy issues and, as a result, this document has undergone OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), 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 (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification
statement. In this notice, we are certifying that the PSGP will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the reasons described below.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
non-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer
than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger impacts as a result of this program.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
The types of effects this program could have on small entities
include economic benefits resulting from the purchasing of supplies or
labor to implement the project proposals. However, since this program
will be
[[Page 61661]]
awarding a total of only $9,500,000 for projects throughout the United
States, a substantial number of small entities are unlikely to be
affected. The benefits from this program will be spread over such a
large area that it is unlikely that any significant benefits will
accrue to a significant number of entities in any area. In total, the
distribution of $9,500,000 will not create a significant economic
benefit for small entities, but clearly a number of entities will
receive some benefit.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
August 25, 2000 et seq.):
(a) We believe this rule will not ``significantly or uniquely''
affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. This program provides benefits to private landowners.
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The PSGP imposes no
obligations on State or local governments.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), the PSGP does not have significant takings implications.
While private landowners may choose to directly or indirectly implement
actions that may have property implications, they would do so as a
result of their own decisions, not as result of the PSGP. The PSGP has
no provisions that would take private property rights.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
Although this rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, it is not expected to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. Congress has directed that we administer grants under the
PSGP directly to private landowners.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the PSGP does not unduly
burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. With the guidance provided in this
policy document, the requirements of the PSGP will be clarified to
applicants that voluntarily submit project proposals.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501),
the Office of Management and Budget has approved, and assigned
clearance number 1018-0118, to this information collection authorized
by the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2002, H.R. 2217/Public Law 107-63 and subsequent Appropriations
Acts. The reporting burden is estimated to average 8 hours per
respondent for the project proposal and 4 hours per respondent for
reporting activities. The total annual burden is 4,000 hours for the
project proposals and 200 hours for reporting activities; the number of
respondents is estimated to average 500 respondents for submitting
project proposals and 50 respondents for the reporting requirements.
The information collected does not carry a premise of confidentiality.
Your response is voluntary. 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. The public is
invited to submit comments on the accuracy of the estimated average
burden hours for application preparation and to suggest ways in which
the burden may be reduced. Comments may be submitted to: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 222 ARLSQ, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240 and/or Desk Officer for Interior
Department (1018-0118), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this policy in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Department of the
Interior Manual (516 DM 2 and 6). This draft policy does not constitute
a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. The Service has determined that the issuance of the policy
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 projects that are funded through the PSGP are
in compliance with NEPA.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. The effect of this policy
document on Native American Tribes would be determined on a case-by-
case basis with the individual evaluation of project proposals. Under
Secretarial Order 3206, the Service will, at a minimum, share with the
tribes any information concerning project proposals that may affect
Tribal trust resources. After consultation with the Tribes and the
project proponent, and after careful consideration of the Tribe's
concerns, the Service must clearly state the rationale for the
recommended final decision and explain how the decision relates to the
Service's trust responsibility. Accordingly:
a. We have not yet consulted with the affected Tribe(s). This
requirement will be addressed with individual evaluations of project
proposals.
b. We have not yet treated Tribes on a government-to-government
basis. This requirement will be addressed with individual evaluations
of project proposals.
c. We will consider Tribal views in individual evaluations of
project proposals.
d. We have not yet consulted with the appropriate bureaus and
offices of the Department about the identified effects of this draft
policy on Tribes. This requirement will be addressed with individual
evaluations of project proposals.
Authority
This notice is published under the authority of the Department of
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, H.R. 2217/
Public Law 107-63.
[[Page 61662]]
Dated: August 15, 2002.
David P. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-24860 Filed 9-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.