[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58759-58766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24682]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-HQ-WSFR-2015-N190; FVWF941009000007B-XXX-FF09W11000;
FVWF51100900000-XXX-FF09W11000]
Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management
and Budget for Approval; Wildlife and Sport Fish Grants and Cooperative
Agreements
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature
of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information
collection is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2015. We may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond
[[Page 58760]]
to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to
conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at
OMB.
DATES: You must submit comments on or before October 30, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at
OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov
(email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
(mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov (email). Please include ``1018-0109'' in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information
about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at hope_grey@fws.gov (email) or 703-
358-2482 (telephone). You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the
Interior collections under review by OMB.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Collection Request
OMB Control Number: 1018-0109.
Title: Wildlife and Sport Fish Grants and Cooperative Agreements,
50 CFR parts 80, 81, 84, 85, and 86.
Service Form Number: None.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: States; the Commonwealths of Puerto
Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands; the District of Columbia; the
territories of Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa; federally
recognized tribal governments; institutions of higher education; and
nongovernmental organizations.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: Annually for applications for new grants;
on occasion for amendments; and annually and at the end of the project
for performance reports. We may require more frequent reports under the
conditions stated at 2 CFR 200.205 and 2 CFR 200.207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion
Activity Number of Number of time per Total annual
respondents responses response burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Application (project narrative)......... 200 2,500 37 92,500
Revision of Award Terms (Amendment)............. 150 1,500 3 4,500
Performance Reports............................. 200 3,500 8 28,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................................... 550 7,500 .............. 125,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.
Abstract: The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, administers financial assistance
programs in whole or in part (see 80 FR 31061, June 1, 2015). We award
most financial assistance as grants, but cooperative agreements are
possible if the Federal Government will be substantially involved in
carrying out the project. You can find a description of most programs
in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Some financial
assistance programs are directly funded through WSFR, others are funded
through non-WSFR Federal programs and WSFR administers various aspects
of the financial assistance. When WSFR administers a grant in part or
in whole, it follows the same processes for information collection to
ensure the recipient complies with Federal laws, regulations, and
policies applicable to financial assistance.
Authorities and implementing regulations establish the purposes of
the grant programs and the types of projects to be funded. Some list
eligibility criteria as well as activities ineligible for funding. The
authorities and implementing regulations for the competitive programs
establish preferences or ranking factors for the selection of projects
to be funded. These legal requirements make it essential for an
awarding agency to have certain information so that it funds only
eligible projects, and, in the case of competitive programs, to select
those projects that will result in the greatest return on the Federal
investment.
Some grants are mandatory and receive funds according to a formula
set by law or policy. Other grants are discretionary, and we award them
based on a competitive process. Mandatory grant recipients must give us
specific, detailed project information during the application process
so that we can ensure that projects are eligible for the mandatory
funding, are substantial in character and design, and comply with all
applicable Federal laws. All grantees must submit financial and
performance reports that contain information necessary for us to track
costs and accomplishments.
In February 2014, OMB approved our request to use a new electronic
system (Wildlife Tracking and Reporting Actions for the Conservation of
Species (Wildlife TRACS)) to collect application and performance
reporting information on our grant programs. OMB assigned OMB Control
No. 1018-0156, which expires February 28, 2017. Wildlife TRACS allows
us to take advantage of newer technology and gives applicants direct
access to enter project information that can be used to submit an
application through http://www.grants.gov (Grants.gov). Grantees can
also report performance accomplishments in Wildlife TRACS. We are
including the use of Wildlife TRACS and the collection of additional
information in this revision to OMB Control No. 1018-0109. If OMB
approves this revision, we will discontinue OMB Control No. 1018-0156.
We may require all States to directly enter project information and
performance reporting into Wildlife TRACS by October 1, 2016. We
continue to offer training and support to States on entering
information into the new system. When States fully engage in directly
entering all application and project performance reporting into
Wildlife TRACS, we expect there will be a reduction in the burden to
report the information. States will become more adept with experience,
and efficiencies of the electronic system will be realized starting in
the second full year of use. A majority of WSFR-administered projects
are continuations of similar actions and/or at the same locations.
Wildlife TRACS is designed to ease the administrative burden of
applying for and reporting on grants for projects that fall into these
parameters. The table above reflects the burden reduction that we
expect over the next 3 years. Not all grantees will directly enter
information into Wildlife TRACS. We will enter information when we
determine that it is not efficient or in the best interest of
[[Page 58761]]
the program to have grantees enter information.
To apply for financial assistance funds, you must submit an
application that describes in substantial detail project locations,
benefits, funding, and other characteristics. Materials to assist
applicants in formulating project proposals are available on
Grants.gov. We use the application to determine:
Eligibility.
Scale of resource values or relative worth of the project.
If associated costs are reasonable and allowable.
Potential effect of the project on environmental and
cultural resources.
How well the proposed project will meet the purposes of
the program's establishing legislation.
If the proposed project is substantial in character and
design.
For competitive programs, how the proposed project
addresses ranking criteria.
Persons or entities receiving grants must submit periodic
performance reports that contain information necessary for us to track
costs and accomplishments. Information for amendments to grants will be
collected as needed.
We will collect the following information under OMB Control No.
1018-0109:
Applications.
Summary and project narratives that describe the proposed
project;
Need for assistance;
Approach;
Timelines;
Budget information including a budget narrative;
Geospatial entry of project location;
Project status (active, completed, etc.);
Project leader contact information;
Partner information;
Objectives, including output measures and desired future
values;
Public description;
Action status (active, completed, etc.);
Summary trend information, as applicable;
Estimated costs, by action. (non-auditable);
Effectiveness measures (initially for State Wildlife
Grants);
Plan information (for projects connected to plans);
Information related to outcomes; and
Addressing ranking factors, as required by competitive
grant programs.
For research and demonstration assistance requests:
A biographical sketch of the program director with the
following information: Name, address, telephone number, background, and
other qualifying experience for the project; and
The name, training, and background for other key personnel
engaged in the project.
For real property acquisition projects:
Maps, images, and other data that reflect project location
and benefits;
Transactions, such as dates, method of transfer, title
holder, and seller;
Identifiers, such as State and Federal Record ID, parcel
number, and property name;
Values such as appraised value, purchase price and other
cost information, and acres or acre feet;
Encumbrances;
Partners;
Copies of any options, purchase agreements, mineral
assessment reports, and draft conservation easements; and
Information needed for legal compliance; and copies of
documents that demonstrate the grantee complied with 49 CFR 24, 2 CFR
200, program regulations, and other mandatory legal requirements.
Amendments. Most grantees must explain and justify requests for
amendments to terms of the grant. We use this information to determine
the eligibility and allowability of activities and to comply with the
requirements of 2 CFR 200.
Performance Reports. All grantees must submit performance reports
in the format requested by the Service. We use this information to
ensure that the grantee is accomplishing the work on schedule and to
identify any problems that the grantee may be experiencing in
accomplishing that work. Grantees submit annual reports; however,
reporting periods may be adjusted according to regulations at 2 CFR
200.328. Reports may include:
A comparison of actual accomplishments with the goals and
objectives established for the period, the findings of the
investigator, or both.
Reasons why established goals were not met, if
appropriate.
Other pertinent information including, when appropriate,
(1) analysis and explanation of cost overruns or high unit costs and
(2) for land acquisition projects, a copy of the deed or other
conveyance document and a copy of the Notice of Federal Participation.
Comments Received and Our Responses
On June 1, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 31061)
a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for this
information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60
days, ending on July 31, 2015. We received comments from eight States
and one individual.
Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
Comment: Two respondents agreed that the collection of information
is necessary and has always been a requirement of WSFR. However, they
expressed concerns with the format, saying that using Wildlife TRACS is
forcing States to change their established procedures.
Response: We agree that States have always had the responsibility
to develop and submit performance reports for projects/grants. Prior to
Wildlife TRACS, States submitted written reports to the Service.
Service staff then interpreted and entered the information into the
electronic system (Federal Aid Information Management System (FAIMS)).
The Department of the Interior decommissioned FAIMS on October 1, 2012.
We are required by law to collect performance information. Wildlife
TRACS gives us the opportunity to allow States to more accurately
report information by entering it directly. We agree that both Federal
and State procedures for information sharing/data entry are changing
following the decommissioning of FAIMS and the introduction of Wildlife
TRACS. We are working closely with States to improve information
collection and data entry so that the adjustment to using Wildlife
TRACS will lead to more efficient and effective reporting. We are open
to suggestions for further improvements.
Comment: One commenter stated that rather than thinking of Wildlife
TRACS as an ``increase in the amount of data'' that grantees will be
required to submit, using Wildlife TRACS should be thought of as a
``change in the format'' that the data is submitted. States are already
providing the information, just in a different format. This new format
will not constitute a significant increase in the time or resources
required to either create or report on a project.
Response: We agree and thank the respondent for recognizing that
using Wildlife TRACS is changing the format for collecting information
to a more efficient and effective electronic system.
Comment: Two respondents stated that the Wildlife TRACS structure
does not provide a clear benefit to either States or Regional FWS
Offices.
Response: We disagree. The Wildlife TRACS structure is intuitive
and helps users enter information in a logical progression. The fields
provided assist users to consider all needed
[[Page 58762]]
information, allowing the Service to more efficiently review and
approve projects. Once States become familiar with the Wildlife TRACS
format, it will allow users to better design Wildlife TRACS-ready
projects and provide the Service with adequate information to make
decisions. As more projects are entered into Wildlife TRACS, States and
the Service will be able to run more robust reports that will help
identify trends, determine best processes, quantify results, and inform
future actions. As additional system improvements are made, more
reporting and data analyses tools will be available to provide benefit
to the Service and users.
Comment: One respondent stated that Wildlife TRACS is forcing
States to alter the format of existing grants and performance reporting
to fit the Wildlife TRACS format, rather than a format that States feel
works best for their particular projects.
Response: We agree that Wildlife TRACS is a different format for
data collection, but disagree that the change in format affects the
ability of States to design and implement projects. Wildlife TRACS does
not represent a change in program requirements or substantiality in
character or design. We will not require users to retroactively enter
information into Wildlife TRACS. Wildlife TRACS data entry will only be
required going forward. We have imported information on past projects
from FAIMS into Wildlife TRACS as legacy data.
Comment: One respondent objected to using the tools in Wildlife
TRACS, such as targeted fields and drop down menus, and connecting them
back to SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound)
objectives that have significant limitations and questionable utility
for reporting.
Response: We disagree. The interface and tools in Wildlife TRACS
are designed to logically guide the user and allow less complicated and
varied data entry. The selections provided in drop down menus have been
vetted through Federal/State teams and it is believed that they cover
all possible choices for the information needed. Often, a single metric
may be characterized through many variations in language. Standardizing
certain entries by limiting selections allows us to generate reports
that include all projects that have similar components without having
to search for all the variations in language. Using SMART objectives is
integral to project management and helps users focus on the desired
outputs. Wildlife TRACS is designed to give users the flexibility to
use the SMART objective fields or to create SMART objectives in
narrative format.
Comment: One respondent stated that Wildlife TRACS is explained as
a way of collecting and reporting useful information for all grant-
funded actions. However, the type and purposes of grants is so varied,
with such wide-ranging objectives, that Wildlife TRACS information can
only be captured and reported effectively at a very high level.
Response: We agree that a large variety of projects will be
reported in Wildlife TRACS, but we disagree with the respondent's
statement that suggests reporting won't be relevant. Reporting is
required down to the ``Action level'' for most projects. This allows us
to produce reports that address both high-level and detailed
perspectives, depending on need. Wildlife TRACS offers both
standardized and customizable approaches for describing objectives in
an effort to encapsulate the varied grant types and purposes.
Comment: Two respondents stated that the grants submission and
reporting process, which has been successful for many years, provides
the Service with the necessary information to approve grants. Wildlife
TRACS is not a system that can readily be used to develop, edit, and
write a proposal. It is simply a repository of the information, so
there is duplication of workload from Wildlife TRACS data entry.
Response: We disagree. Paper submissions often lacked required
information and led to additional workload for both Federal and State
grant managers. Wildlife TRACS is designed to guide users to address
all pertinent project information. We offer training for project
leaders that will assist them in using Wildlife TRACS to help build
projects. Although Wildlife TRACS is not a grant application system,
users can produce reports from Wildlife TRACS that they can then use
when submitting grant applications through Grants.gov. Future
enhancements to Wildlife TRACS may include the ability to transmit a
proposal to Grants.gov for approval. Wildlife TRACS does not create a
duplication of effort as we do not require that the information entered
into Wildlife TRACS also be submitted on paper.
Comment: Two respondents expressed that the Service should retain
the responsibility to enter data into Wildlife TRACS. One stated that
the information collected has no practical utility for State programs,
which will be charged with managing data input. Their opinion is that
Wildlife TRACS is strictly a Service project that is geared for the
benefit of the Service. The States are well-served for State purposes
by the present grant reporting system, which allows States to submit
usable products as evidence of grant/project completion. The easing of
burdens is only realized by Service staff, not by States. The other
respondent stated the transfer of workload will greatly increase
administrative costs for States.
Response: We disagree. The information collection will give States
the ability to accurately reflect project objectives and
accomplishments, as well as providing information that will help States
to better assess conservation needs and accomplishments. Wildlife TRACS
will allow users to directly enter information, reducing errors from
misinterpretation by Service staff tasked with translating and
transmitting information from paper to an electronic system. Wildlife
TRACS will also help States address increased grant-recipient
responsibilities and provide for better reporting of State
accomplishments. The reporting mechanisms in Wildlife TRACS will help
States provide evidence of project/agency successes to their elected
representatives and the public. Planning and reporting on projects are
already being done, so it is a matter of adjusting resources to
accommodate Wildlife TRACS. We believe that any increase in
administrative costs to States will be temporary and may be addressed
through grant funding.
Comment: One respondent supported using an electronic system to
collect application and performance reporting information to
demonstrate program performance to interested stakeholders and the
general public. They also appreciate the efforts of the Service to
minimize the burden, including the October 1, 2016, date for State data
entry.
Response: We agree and thank the respondent for the support.
Accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of
information.
Comment: One respondent stated that many grants are ongoing and
have been in effect for more than 50 years. The need to alter the
structure of these grants is overly burdensome.
Response: We believe the respondent is referring to ongoing
projects and not ongoing grants. Grants have a period of performance
that is much less than 50 years. Based on this clarification, we agree
that using Wildlife TRACS is a change in the method of reporting
information that will require States to initially enter baseline
information for ongoing projects. However, once the baseline
information is entered, Wildlife TRACS will allow efficiencies for
[[Page 58763]]
ongoing similar projects. Users will be able to assign new grants to
existing projects or to copy projects forward through simple steps that
will reduce burden.
Comment: Three respondents commented on their concerns about
performance reports. These concerns addressed:
(1) The performance report that was previously one paragraph in
length must now be reported through multiple tabs within Wildlife TRACS
to produce a lengthy report;
(2) The ability to copy forward a project will not produce the
burden reduction the Service suggests;
(3) The reports contain redundant information; and
(4) Performance reports change from year to year, so significant
time must still be spent to update pertinent information.
Response: We disagree for the following reasons:
(1) Data entry fields in Wildlife TRACS are designed to guide the
user to make choices that will build the project information,
increasing accuracy and efficiency. This does not affect the length of
reports;
(2) Once the baseline information for an ongoing project is
entered, Wildlife TRACS allows the information to be copied forward.
This improves efficiency in that the user will not be required to
repeat entering all information for continued projects or new, similar
projects. Once a project is copied forward, adjustments can be made in
selected fields to reflect desired changes from the existing, copied
project. We remind users that the Wildlife TRACS function to copy
projects forward is an option for users as an efficiency, but doing so
is not a requirement. States may choose which method of input is most
efficient and effective for their needs;
(3) Reports are created from information in the fields, so if there
is redundant information it is because that is what the user entered;
and
(4) Users will not be required to pull out reports and make
changes; the adjustments will be made through logical changes in
applicable fields. In addition, when a project is copied forward, it
becomes a new project with new performance reporting. There is no
requirement under the current reporting system to revise performance
information on a completed project based on other projects, nor will it
be a requirement when using Wildlife TRACS.
Comment: One respondent stated that the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards at 2 CFR part 200 were designed to streamline the grant
application process, but they feel the requirements for Wildlife TRACS
go above and beyond this, placing an undue burden on States and
representing steps backwards.
Response: We disagree. The focus of 2 CFR part 200 is to streamline
guidance that was previously published as several regulations, into one
regulation at 2 CFR part 200. This regulatory update is part of an
overall effort to more effectively focus Federal resources on improving
performance and outcomes while ensuring the financial integrity of
taxpayer dollars in partnership with non-Federal stakeholders. The
guidance at 2 CFR part 200 provides a Governmentwide framework for
grants management that will be complemented by additional efforts to
strengthen program outcomes through innovative and effective use of
grant-making models, performance metrics, and evaluation. Wildlife
TRACS is the tool that WSFR is using to fulfill this directive.
Comment: Three respondents cited several concerns regarding the
role of Wildlife TRACS when States apply for grants and when the
Service awards grants. Their concerns include:
(1) States must complete Wildlife TRACS data entry before a grant
can be approved. The addition of Wildlife TRACS to the grant approval
process is excessive and not necessary for the review and approval of
grant applications;
(2) Using Wildlife TRACS for grant approval may put a State agency
at risk of reverting apportionments;
(3) The requirement to enter data into Wildlife TRACS prior to a
grant award results in a duplication of effort, having to submit the
grant proposal twice; and
(4) Wildlife TRACS was proposed as a reporting tool and never was
supposed to affect the application process.
Response: We disagree for the following reasons:
(1) Wildlife TRACS is not used to approve grants, but rather to
approve projects. Grantees are not required to enter data for projects
funded with one of WSFR's competitive grant programs until after we
award a grant. Grantees are required to enter project information and
receive approval prior to project start for projects funded under one
of WSFR's mandatory grant programs. However, the Service does not award
mandatory grants based on Wildlife TRACS data entry. Mandatory grants
are apportioned according to a formula set by law. Entering information
for mandatory grant projects allows Service staff the opportunity to
review projects to assure they meet program requirements and are
substantial in character and design. This process reduces risk and
helps States avoid unallowable, unnecessary, or undesirable
expenditures;
(2) It is the responsibility of the State to avoid reverting funds.
The time required to approve a grant is not related to Wildlife TRACS,
but to the availability of WSFR staff to review the proposal, and the
completeness of the State's submittal. When States fully engage in
Wildlife TRACS, they can use the workflow tool to help save time and
more efficiently commit funds;
(3) As stated above, Wildlife TRACS is not a grant-approval tool,
so there is no duplication of effort. However, Wildlife TRACS gives
users an option to enter information into Wildlife TRACS that can then
produce a report that may be used to supplement/support a grant
application; and
(4) Wildlife TRACS is a reporting tool. In order to report on
project performance, we must know what the project is and be able to
compare achievements against the proposal. Wildlife TRACS allows users
to enter project information so that the Service can easily see
objectives and compare them to achievements.
Comment: One respondent stated the requirement to use Wildlife
TRACS for project approval may be problematic and asks that the Service
retain some flexibility to accommodate urgent and/or unusual
situations.
Response: The project approval process for mandatory grants
requires States to enter information into Wildlife TRACS and route
appropriately through the workflow. We must maintain consistent
procedures to avoid confusion and assure appropriate project approval.
However, having Wildlife TRACS protocols in place does not eliminate
the ability of States to coordinate with the Service when special needs
or circumstances arise.
Comment: Three respondents suggested that Wildlife TRACS be linked
to Grants.gov, reducing a duplication of effort and increased workload
for applicants. One suggestion was that the Service use Grants.gov
instead of Wildlife TRACS to collect project data.
Response: We agree that Wildlife TRACS is not currently tied to
Grants.gov, but remind the respondents that Wildlife TRACS is not a
grant application system. Grants.gov provides a central portal for
applicants to find and apply for Federal financial assistance. We do
understand that often a single grant may fully fund a project and we
continue to develop options that
[[Page 58764]]
users may choose to employ to ease the burden of the application
process through Grants.gov. In the future, we plan to implement a
protocol where Wildlife TRACS will use web services published by
Grants.gov to reduce any potential duplication of effort. WSFR
anticipates that Wildlife TRACS will offer this capability by December
2017.
Comment: Two respondents stated that State agencies often submit
multiple grant applications and have a rigorous State review process
that includes coordination among multiple employees. A heavy workload
to enter information into Wildlife TRACS could fall onto one employee
because of the complicated process, or will require States to reassign
staff or hire Wildlife TRACS-specific personnel.
Response: We disagree, as Wildlife TRACS is not a system that the
Service uses to approve grants, but rather assists in efficient project
approval. We agree that States will have a transition period while
learning Wildlife TRACS, but we disagree that having several project
leads is more burdensome using Wildlife TRACS than when using the
current, paper-based process. A grant or a project that requires
coordination among multiple layers of project leaders and approvers
must be managed regardless of whether Wildlife TRACS is used or not.
The State processes for reviewing and approving grant applications and
project proposals is a State function, determined by the State and not
driven by Wildlife TRACS. However, Wildlife TRACS may be customized so
that when a State has large grants with multiple actions and several
project leads, they can manage workflow among those multiple users.
Wildlife TRACS offers a workflow option that can assist States to route
information among multiple staff and receive project approvals much
faster than would happen if paper copies were circulated. It is
ultimately up to States to determine the best approach for managing
reporting on all projects, including those that are larger and more
complicated. We encourage States to explore ways that Wildlife TRACS
can assist them to improve efficiencies during the State preparation,
review, and approval phases. The Service is open to suggestions for how
Wildlife TRACS might allow further efficiencies for States to use when
coordinating projects among multiple employees.
Comment: Three respondents stated concerns that the level of cost
accounting in Wildlife TRACS will create a need to alter their internal
controls and accounting systems. Wildlife TRACS defines a new focus
called the action level and requires associated accounting.
Historically, this level of reporting has not been required for WSFR
grants and creates an undue burden.
Response: We disagree that Wildlife TRACS is forcing States to
change internal controls and accounting systems. States must maintain
internal controls within their agencies and they should be designed to
respond to a variety of altering situations. Wildlife TRACS workflow
tools may be used to complement internal processes. Wildlife TRACS is
not an accounting system; however, the regulations at 2 CFR part
200.301 require ``recipients to provide cost information to demonstrate
cost effective practices'' as part of their performance measurement. To
reduce burden, it may be desirable for States to work with the Service
and determine how Wildlife TRACS can best interface with existing State
electronic systems. Although it may be advisable to determine how State
systems and using Wildlife TRACS can better work together, Wildlife
TRACS does not require States to change any of their existing systems
or internal controls. The level of reporting is not a new standard, but
is a level that should have been reported all along. By separating
projects into discrete actions, States and WSFR can each evaluate
project success more efficiently.
Comment: Three respondents objected to including effectiveness
measures in Wildlife TRACS beyond the State Wildlife Grant program. One
cited that performance reporting (2 CFR 200.328(b)(2)) does not require
effectiveness measures. Also stated was that measuring effectiveness on
1-year grants is not always possible. Reporting effectiveness creates
an undue burden on States.
Response: We disagree. Performance measurement at 2 CFR 200.301
directs that ``the recipient's performance should be measured in a way
that will help the Federal awarding agency and other non-Federal
entities to improve program outcomes, share lessons learned, and spread
the adoption of promising practices.'' The language at 2 CFR 328(b)(2)
does not include the term ``effectiveness measures,'' but does state at
paragraph (i), ``Where performance trend data and analysis would be
informative to the Federal awarding agency program, the Federal
awarding agency should include this as a performance reporting
requirement.'' Our approach is to demonstrate program needs and
accomplishments in a meaningful way by moving to strategies that will
gather appropriate information that can be used to adequately inform
the Service, States, elected officials, interest organizations, and the
public.
Comment: One respondent stated that using Wildlife TRACS is taking
staff time away from satisfying grants. Given the time constraints on
current staff, we are concerned we may have to hire new staff just to
address Wildlife TRACS.
Response: We agree that States will have a transition period when
moving from processing paper documents to embracing an electronic
format. However, Wildlife TRACS is not creating additional project
requirements, but rather is a platform to allow users to respond to
current requirements. Wildlife TRACS is designed to assist by allowing
States to create an electronic workflow that suits their current
structure and at the same time, will improve efficiency and document
access.
Comment: Two respondents commented on the accuracy of the estimated
burden. One respondent stated that they do not have sufficient
information on what type of projects, whether new entries, and what
iteration of Wildlife TRACS was used. They stated their opinion that
Wildlife TRACS becomes increasingly complex and time-consuming. Since
full grant documents must still be submitted, there is no doubt that
time invested in Wildlife TRACS data entry will be in addition to grant
applications and no savings will be realized by States. The other
respondent stated that the estimate of burden is too low. Wildlife
TRACS has the potential to reduce burden in the future, but the current
burden should be increased by 50 percent.
Response: We make no changes in our burden estimates based on these
comments. We are estimating the burden that will be realized over the
next 3 years. We expect the burden to be slightly higher when States
first transition to using Wildlife TRACS. However, once States fully
engage in Wildlife TRACS we expect the burden to significantly
decrease. We agree that our burden estimates are less comprehensive due
to the relatively limited number of States that have fully engaged in
Wildlife TRACS. We based burden estimates on information we received
from States that responded to our questions, feedback from Service
staff, and our planned improvements to Wildlife TRACS. Improvements
under development in Wildlife TRACS will make the system more user-
friendly and streamlined, while targeting ways to minimize burden.
Also, we are developing tools that States may choose to use when
applying for grants that will reduce overall workload. The Service
[[Page 58765]]
welcomes input and suggestions for continual ways to improve Wildlife
TRACS efficiency.
Comment: One respondent stated that Wildlife TRACS continues to
undergo changes and this makes it impossible to accurately estimate
burden.
Response: We agree that change is a natural component of modern web
application development and maintenance, particularly in response to
the rapid pace of technology and security advancements. We have made
changes to the user experience in Wildlife TRACS, based primarily on
recommendations from States and other partners for ways to improve
Wildlife TRACS and reduce burden. We will continue to work with our
partners to identify improvements and efficiencies in data collection.
Once States are fully engaged in Wildlife TRACS data entry, we will
have a greater response base for estimating burden.
Comment: One respondent stated that Wildlife TRACS does not
effectively accommodate Comprehensive Management System (CMS) reporting
and that the CMS enhancement will not be completed by October 1, 2016.
Requiring CMS States to enter data into the incomplete Wildlife TRACS
system by October 1, 2016, will be an undue burden on CMS States. This
deadline should be extended for CMS States until Wildlife TRACS is
ready to accept CMS data and the Service gives sufficient time for CMS
States to adjust internal processes and train staff.
Response: We agree that Wildlife TRACS does not fully accommodate
CMS reporting at this time. However, a process has been vetted by a
Federal/State team that will allow CMS States to begin to use Wildlife
TRACS to capture accomplishment data until the application can be
modified to more easily accommodate the CMS structure. The Service will
require CMS States to enter reporting information into Wildlife TRACS,
consistent with non-CMS States, and will adequately train staff in
using the approach identified.
Comment: One respondent supports Wildlife TRACS by stating that
States have no good mechanism for reporting project outcomes. An effort
led by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies developed
effectiveness measures for State Wildlife Grants, which are being
incorporated into Wildlife TRACS. Although entering more data will
constitute an additional reporting burden, this information will allow
us to provide Congress and the public with a much better understanding
of our accomplishments. We feel the expanded reporting opportunities
will outweigh the additional data entry burden.
Response: We agree that it is important to incorporate reporting
information into Wildlife TRACS that will fulfill legal requirements,
our responsibility to the public, and our desire to inform the course
of conservation for the future. We continue to consider approaches that
will give the greatest return for the least burden. We thank this
respondent for understanding our combined responsibilities and the
importance of measuring the effectiveness of our grant programs.
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected.
Comment: One respondent suggested that geospatial information
should only be entered as a component of accomplishments and not
required as part of the application process.
Response: We make no changes based on this comment. We remind
respondents that Wildlife TRACS is not an application system. However,
the project statement in a grant application requires location
information, so describing the location of a project when applying is
not a new requirement. Wildlife TRACS is a geospatial-based system and
entering location information is the first step in data entry. We have
learned that project location is integral to conservation efforts and
expect that reports resulting from Wildlife TRACS and overlapped with
other geospatial systems will greatly improve overall conservation.
Wildlife TRACS allows for States to initially enter general geospatial
information and to improve the information as the project evolves and
completes, so perfecting geospatial information comes in the
accomplishment phase, as suggested by the respondent.
Comment: Two respondents suggested that geospatial information
should only be collected at the project level and not at the action
level.
Response: We agree that there may be projects for which it will be
sufficient to report geospatial information on a project level, but
others will require more detail. There will also be projects for which
the location at the project level and the action level are exactly the
same. The project scope is a factor when determining the required level
of reporting. Wildlife TRACS enables users to choose the precision of
their geospatial data as appropriate for the project scope. The Service
has also been working with States to define needs of various programs
and the level of detail desired to produce the reports that will best
support each program.
Comment: One respondent recommended several considerations for
upgrading the system, including: Improving the mapping tool and GIS
detail, adding fields that allow States to enter all parts of the
project statement, resolving some problems that have been encountered
with converting data entries to pdf reports, addressing the need for
new/flexible standard indicators, and providing fields for additional
information related to real property purchases.
Response: We thank the respondent for these thoughtful comments for
improvements to Wildlife TRACS and will take all of these
recommendations under consideration.
Comment: One respondent submitted comments asking for increased
reporting opportunities that will allow a more complicated and robust
inquiry. The respondent gave the following examples of queries not
currently supported: Identify all projects within a State on behalf of
an individual species or group of species; projects within specific
ecoregions or Congressional districts; and collective impacts of
related projects over time. The comments recognize Wildlife TRACS'
ability to offer opportunities for addressing these reporting needs and
even though it may require additional effort at the beginning, the
value of the reporting options outweighs the data entry burden.
Response: We agree that robust reporting capabilities are vital to
our mission and Wildlife TRACS reporting will allow users to generate
this type of report. We expect Wildlife TRACS to be fully functional
for robust reporting by December 2016.
Comment: One respondent suggested that the Service should provide a
reporting module that State and Federal staff can use to determine if
project detail is sufficient to meet reporting needs. When a report
module is provided, we will be able to evaluate the situation and
better create best management practices for data entry.
Response: We agree that the ability to produce reports from data
entered into Wildlife TRACS will help users identify how to improve
data entry. New enhancements to the workflow manager will allow users
to more easily view validation and workflow status information. We
expect Wildlife TRACS to include these enhancements for workflow
management by November 2015. We look forward to working with States to
refine best practices for data entry.
Comment: Two respondents suggested that estimated costs by actions
should not be collected. Financial reporting
[[Page 58766]]
should be consistent with the Financial and Business Management System
(FBMS) and not extend past the subaccount level.
Response: We disagree and recognize that a major benefit of action-
level costs is to assist both the Service and States in assessing cost
effectiveness of projects. There will be an interface with FBMS that
gives users some information to assist with cost analysis, but the cost
information in Wildlife TRACS is not auditable. The estimated costs
States enter into Wildlife TRACS is for a different purpose than the
cost information in FBMS.
Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on
respondents.
Comment: One respondent stated that while it is preferred to
minimize the reporting burden, we also want to ensure that the
information we provide is sufficient to meet our responsibilities to
the Service, elected officials, and the public. When a reporting module
has been developed for Wildlife TRACS, we will be in a better position
to evaluate reporting burden. At that time, we will work with the
Service to find efficiencies that could minimize burden.
Response: We appreciate the commitment to robust reporting and will
continue to work with States and other partners to identify
efficiencies and to minimize burden.
Comment: Two respondents recommended we develop data communication
between Wildlife TRACS and Grants.gov to reduce the burden to States
for duplicate work.
Response: We addressed Wildlife TRACS and applications above. When
addressing ways to minimize burden, we agree that communication/
interfaces with other electronic systems can help to improve
efficiencies and reduce burden. Grants.gov is a grant application
system and Wildlife TRACS is a project tracking and reporting system,
so there will not always be a direct correlation from Wildlife TRACS to
Grants.gov. However, for those projects that fall into the category of
being funded through one grant, we will work to offer more options that
may improve processing and reduce burden. We currently interface with
several other electronic systems that serve to improve the user
experience and lessen burden, such as FBMS and databases for
identifying species, and we will continue to consider other
opportunities. We welcome continued suggestions.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Wildlife TRACS should either
be upgraded to a full grant-management system, or the Service should
retain full responsibility for entering data using State grant
applications as the source for obtaining grant data.
Response: We make no change based on this comment. The Department
of the Interior made the decision to transition from the various grant
and other fiscal management systems being used by programs in the
Department to a single fiscal management system, FBMS. Our former
system, Federal Aid Information Management System (FAIMS), was
decommissioned in October 2012. FAIMS was replaced for financial
reporting by the Financial and Business Management System (FBMS), which
encompasses all financial and business administrative functions, not
only grants programs. FBMS does not address project/grant performance
reporting, is not grant-centric, and the system is not accessible to
grantees. Wildlife TRACS is focused on filling the gap for performance
reporting. There is no change in the responsibility for the grantee to
report on project performance. Wildlife TRACS allows States to more
accurately report by entering information directly.
Comment: One respondent suggested that we should not implement
Wildlife TRACS until it is in its final form, ensuring a stable model,
reducing the need for retraining, and reducing the need for State staff
to adapt to shifting models and expectations.
Response: We make no changes based on this comment. The adjustments
to Wildlife TRACS are to improve the user experience, efficiency of
data collection, and response to information requirements. Many of the
improvements are a result of recommendations from States that have
engaged in Wildlife TRACS. None of the data entered into Wildlife TRACS
will be lost as improvements are made. Continued training opportunities
are available for users at: https://TRACS.fws.gov/learning.
Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should continue to
enter data into Wildlife TRACS, resulting in no impact on States to
implement this approach.
Response: We disagree. We refer to responses above for further
details. We will continue to assist States during the transition to
address the backlog of projects that need to be entered into Wildlife
TRACS. We will also work with States after October 1, 2016, to assess
needs and offer options.
Comment: One respondent asked us to continue to honor the Federal
requirements that grant recipients must only report for those
activities that have occurred during the period of performance. Any
additional requirements would be especially burdensome and draw
resources away from the programs needed to manage the resources.
Response: We agree and will only require reporting on projects
during the period of performance. We may ask States to voluntarily
assist with information beyond the period of performance, but it is
expected that much of the information shared will be from work that
States are already accomplishing for their internal needs. We hope to
continue to work in partnership with States and other interested
organizations to create vital and robust outcome information that will
engage and inspire the public; inform our elected officials; and help
Federal, State, and local agencies work together for continued
conservation successes.
Comment: The commenter objected to the use of taxpayer dollars for
these financial assistance programs.
Response: We note the commenter's objection to funding these grant
programs. The commenter did not address the information collection
requirements, and we did not make any changes to our requirements based
on this comment.
Request for Public Comments
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this
collection of information;
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your address, phone number, email
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask OMB or us to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be
done.
Dated: September 24, 2015.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24682 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P