# Presentation: 347928

## Updates on the Landowner Incentive Program in the Northeast

**Colleen Sculley**
**Division of Federal Assistance**

- Brief overview of LIP funding in region
- Review newly proposed LIP Tier 2 Ranking Criteria
- Overview of potential approach  to Section 106 compliance for LIP

## LIP in the Northeast Region

- All States (excluding DC) have applied and received Tier 1 funding
- 11 States have received at least one Tier 2  grant
- - CT (1)		- DE (2)            - PA (2)
- - ME (2)		- MD (1)            - VT (1)
- - MA (3)		- NH (1)            - VA (1)
- - NJ (2)		- NY (1)

## LIP in the Northeast Region

## LIP Staffing

## FY03 & FY04 Obligation Rates for Tier 2 LIP Funds

## LIP Funding History

- * $24 million proposed for Fy06 funding

- *

## Proposed Revised Tier 2 LIPRanking Criteria

- Why revise the criteria?
- Much more demand than funds available
- Old criteria did not adequately distinguishing quality of proposals
- Old criteria did not consider previous spending and accomplishments

## Proposed Revised Tier 2 LIPRanking Criteria

- Published in the FR on Sept. 16
- Comments due by Oct 31 to the W.O.
- Proposed changes recommended by:
- States
- Members of the LIP National Ranking Team

## Proposed Major Changes

- Reduce maximum funding that States can receive from 5% to 3% of total LIP funds
- Criteria now follow format of the proposal (Need, Objectives, etc)
- More emphasis on connection between proposed activities and benefits to SAR

## Proposed Major Changes

- More emphasis on fiscal and administrative processes between State and landowner
- More emphasis on biological and compliance monitoring
- New criterion (5 pt max) on success in spending previous Tier 2 funds

##  Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA for LIP grants

## Section 106 and LIP: a potential nightmare

- LIP Tier 2 funds intended to fund *programs*
- Many states will work on dozens if not hundreds of private parcels
- Most LIP-funded activities include some type of habitat management
- Absent a programmatic agreement, SHPO review on each project site before GA approval???

## Section 106 and LIP: a new approach

- Request SHPO concurrence that a suite of activities will have *no adverse affect *on historic resources regardless of where projects located
- Successful for CT LIP – ready to try this approach in other states!

## Section 106 and LIP: steps to this new approach

- Identify majority of potential LIP-funded activities
- Work with FA Staff and FWS historic preservation officer to determine potential affects of actions
- Develop comprehensive matrix of activities and potential affects
- Request SHPO concurrence

## Section 106 and LIP: when to consider this approach:

- No existing programmatic agreement
- Site by site review by SHPO will be burdensome
- Numerous habitat management activities
- Numerous private parcels
- Potential activities can be described
- Many activities are not likely to adversely affect historic resources
-  minimal ground disturbance
- Working in wetland soils or in previously plowed soils

## Section 106 and LIP: Benefits of this approach

- More streamlined than site by site review
- Less work than a formal programmatic agreement
- May allow for approval of grant agreement without providing documentation for every potential project site
- May be able to be applied to other habitat management grants