Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices 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 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) 

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 

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, 

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] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[MT–922–05–1310–FI–P; NDM 85983, NDM 

85987, NDM 85992, NDM 85998, and NDM 

92293] 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Leases 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

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 

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 

[WY–920–1310–01; WYW159200] 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: 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.