Fiscal Year 2006 Landowner Incentive Program (Non-Tribal Portion) for States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, 54765-54766 [05-18415]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
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.
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
Genevieve_LaRouche@fws.gov. 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,
Genevieve_LaRouche@fws.gov.
ADDRESSES:
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Sep 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 changesA. 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: llllll
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54765
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 speciesat-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
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
54766
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices
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 LIPsponsored 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-theground 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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Sep 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 Scorell
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]
NDM 85983, NDM 85987, NDM 85992,
NDM 85998, and NDM 92293, Billings
County, North Dakota. The lessees paid
the required rentals accruing from the
date of termination, February 1, 2005.
No leases were issued that affect these
lands. The lessees agree to new lease
terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per
acre and 162⁄3 percent or 4 percentages
above the existing competitive royalty
rate for each lease. The lessees paid the
$500 administration fee for the
reinstatement of each lease and $155
cost for publishing this Notice.
The lessees met the requirements for
reinstatement of the leases per Sec.
31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are
proposing to reinstate the leases,
effective the date of termination,
February 1, 2005, subject to:
• The original terms and conditions
of each lease;
• The increased rental of $10 per acre
for each lease;
• The increased royalty of 162⁄3
percent or 4 percentages above the
existing competitive royalty rate for
each lease; and
• The $155 cost of publishing this
Notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids
Adjudication Section, BLM Montana
State Office, PO Box 36800, Billings,
Montana 59107, 406–896–5098.
Karen L. Johnson,
Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.
[FR Doc. 05–18456 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
[WY–920–1310–01; WYW159200]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of
Terminated Oil and Gas Leases
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
Notice.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), the
lessees, Headington Oil, Limited
Partnership, Upton Resources U.S.A.,
Inc., Northern Energy Corporation, and
W.H. Champion, timely filed petitions
for reinstatement of oil and gas leases
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed
reinstatement of terminated oil and gas
lease.
AGENCY:
[MT–922–05–1310–FI–P; NDM 85983, NDM
85987, NDM 85992, NDM 85998, and NDM
92293]
AGENCY:
Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of
Terminated Oil and Gas Lease
SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30
U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR
3108.2–3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) received a
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas
lease WYW159200 from EOG Resources
Inc. for lands in Fremont County,
Wyoming. The petition was filed on
time and was accompanied by all the
rentals due since the date the lease
terminated under the law.
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54765-54766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 Genevieve--LaRouche@fws.gov. 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, Genevieve--LaRouche@fws.gov.
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
