1. Budget changes: Consider the new language of 2 CFR 200.308(e) which provides the option of restricting “the transfer of funds among direct-cost categories or programs, functions, and activities for Federal awards in which the Federal share of the project exceeds [$150,000] and the cumulative amount of such transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed 10 percent of the total budget as last approved by the Federal awarding agency.” This new language requires a restatement of the policies in Service Manual chapter 522 FW 23 to achieve the same result as the chapter.  See the June 2013 Inspector General’s audit of the Coastal Impact Assessment program, recommendation #4 pp. 8 and 42. (75) Refer to the JTF-recommended chapter 522 FW 23, Budget Changes in FA Grants for more information.
  2. Effective dates  Incorporate into regulation the policies in the JTF-recommended Service Manual chapter 522 FW 25, Determining Approval and Effective Dates for FA Grants (80)
  3. Augmentation of appropriation: Clarify and provide examples in appendix (Appropriations Law, Vol. 2, Section 6. (75) Congress appropriates operating funds to Federal agencies and circumventing these financial limitations violates the prerogative of the legislature to set funding levels. 
  4. Program income: Clarify that program income must be used for the current costs of grant-funded project (see 2 CFR 200.305(b)(5)). If the amount of program income is more than can be used on the current grant, explain how these funds can be used based on the banked-income informal policy developed in October-December 2013 (75)
  5. Revolving Funds Clarify which funds qualify as revolving funds. Establish the policy that proceeds from the disposition of real property acquired with a revolving fund are returned to the Region. (75)
  6. Davis-Bacon Act: Address Davis-Bacon in the appendix (contacted DOL on 4/30 to discuss discrepancies between our guidance, 1992 SOL opinion, and what’s on the DOL web site. (75)
  7. Hunting on leased lands: Reexamine the TX parks and wildlife decision on the sale of permits to hunt on lands leased with WR funds.  If the decision is still appropriate, incorporate it into the regulations. See Joyce Johnson message from July, 2010.  Memorandum and background. (80)
  8. Volunteer instructors for hunter education:  A WSFR Regional Division recommended that we retain the following provision from the now-rescinded 522 FW 13, Hunter and Aquatic Education: – “The State may use volunteer services for meeting the State share of grant costs provided they require such services for completion of the project. (A)  You may use the value of volunteer instructors as an in-kind contribution to match only the costs of work on instructional objectives.  (B) To establish a value for volunteer instructors, you may use the hourly rate (including fringe benefits) for a State conservation officer, education officer, or similar position within the agency.” Clarify why it is necessary to: (a) be specific about matching only the costs of work on instructional objectives, (b) specify the positions, and (c) state the requirements on hourly rates and fringe benefits?  Does this add value to what’s in 2 CFR 200.434 and 2 CFR 200.306(e)?  If this policy is still appropriate after this reexamination, incorporate it into regulations. (80)
  9. Requirements for Replacement Lands:  If a loss of control occurs on land purchased with WSFR assistance, the State must either regain management control of it or replace lands with lands of equal value providing equal benefits. Is State land eligible for replacement if it is already protected?  Does this achieve the purposes of the acts and provide additional wildlife habitat?
  10. Contaminant survey: CERCLA, 42 U.S.C., 9601. Consult with Solicitor’s Office about the potential need for a contaminants survey if land is acquired under a cooperative agreement.  State that the recipient decides if a contaminants survey is needed for land acquired under a grant. (75)
  11. Access to boat ramps: Address the need for access to a boat ramp through by acquiring a right of way by easement or lease or in fee title.  See the Inspector General's management advisory of February 2012. (75)
  12. Capital improvements: Change capital improvement threshold from $10,000 to $25,000 and define the term adequately. This will increase the threshold for purposes of prior approvals and the requirements of 50 CFR 80, subpart J. (75)
  13. Coordination grants: Address issue of contact and location information for all coordinators in a coordination grant. (80)
  14. Eligibility of payments in lieu of taxes (PILT): Establish PILT as an eligible cost of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program, even for lands that were not acquired under the Wildlife Restoration program, the Sport Fish Restoration program, or any other Federal grant program. Emphasize that PILT is eligible only if the PILT requirements are applied uniformly across all State land management agencies, and only for that portion of PILT not paid by other sources of revenue. See Corrective Action Plan for the Inspector General’s audit report 2003-36, E-0007 2001-2003 for period July 99-Oct 01, and see the white paper on PILT revised in April 2015.  PILT info. (80)
  15. Administrative funds: Clarify, where necessary, 16 U.S.C. 669h(a) and 16 U.S.C. 777h(a), both of which are titled Authorized expenses for administration, especially outreach and the 20-hour minimum for students. The content on outreach will have to await the completion of an opinion from the General Law section of the Solicitor’s Office. (80)
  16. Reporting: Put the May 15, 2009, Interim Guidance for Financial and Performance Reporting into regulation. (75)
  17. Prizes, scholarships, and awards:  Should these be eligible for funding in the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs? (80)
  18. Catastrophic events/insurance: Can catastrophic events shorten the approved useful life? Review 2 CFR 200.447 on the allowability of insurance and indemnification. Determine if any clarifications are needed.  Consider discussing this item in the appendix as a potential cost to be included in a project budget if a structure is in a high-risk area for catastrophic damage and if the owner of the structure is not self-insured. (75)
  19. Real property: In 50 CFR 80.134, extend coverage to new developments, renovations, or maintenance projects on any real property controlled by the grant recipient during the life of the project.  (This deals with secondary uses not interfering with authorized purpose of the grant.)  Comment on the 50 CFR 80 proposed rule during the 2010-11 rulemaking.  This prevents some States from discounting or prorating grant percentages. (80)
  20. Proposed questions on audits:  The WSFR Branch of Audits recommends the following new regulatory sections:  (1) Will recipients participating in the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs be audited? (2) What programs will be audited? (3) What will be examined during an audit? (4) Who will choose the auditors and fund the audits? (50)
  21. Rent: When is rent program income and when is it payment for the purchase of real property in the form a lease? (75)
  22. Field trial policy:  See the July 31, 2001 briefing for the Director. Review this briefing and decide whether it has any implications for regulation or the appendix.“Lands purchased with Pittman-Robertson funds are used for many wildlife-dependent recreation activities; each parcel is supposed to support multiple uses. Concerns have been raised recently, however, that the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering prohibiting the use of Pittman-Robertson lands for field trials. Field trials are dog competitions in which tests and training or related activities are conducted to improve the hunting abilities of, and identify those superior representatives of, the hunting breeds, as well as the skills of hunters. Field trials are a legitimate use of Pittman Robertson funded lands, provided that the field trials are not inconsistent with the objectives and purposes of the Act. “ Improvement Act Report in Congress. (80)
  23. Conservation easements: A State fish and wildlife agency recommended that we require a legally binding agreement between a State holding an easement and another entity that receives a concurrent right.  The agreement should describe concurrent responsibilities and authorities of each entity. Require that the agreement be recorded. (80)
  24. Eligibility of alligators, bullfrogs, and turtles: Should we include these species in the definition of wildlife or sport fish or alternatively include eligible activities oriented to these species under the Wildlife Restoration or Sport Fish Restoration programs?  Three States requested this in their comments on the 2010 proposed rule.  We did not make changes at that time because the issue had not gone through public notice and comment as part of a proposed rule.  (80)
  25. Multiyear funding: Consider modifying 50 CFR 80.67 to state that multiyear funding may be used for any allowable, eligible, and substantial project, whether grant-by-grant or CMS.
  26. Hunter education fees: Consider adding hunter education course fees to examples of program income at 50 CFR 80.120(b). (80)
  27. SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. Provide more information on when the SF-LLL must be submitted. See 43 CFR 18, subpart A and Appendix A. (75)
  28. Cooperative agreements. Provide information on when to use a cooperative agreement and how it differs from a grant.  Provide examples of projects in the appendix that would qualify as cooperative agreements. (75)
  29. Monitoring: Incorporate monitoring procedures into the regulations, including site visits. See recommendations 1 and 3 in the 2013 CIAP audit on pp. 6 and 42. (75)
  30. Government revenue: Review the issue of the status of monthly service fees for new sewer lines to homes that were installed with Federal financial assistance. See the June 2013 Inspector General’s audit of the Coastal Impact Assessment program, page 39.  The Inspector General considered these fees to be program income instead of governmental revenue and the FWS concurred with the its finding. Develop regulatory language to clarify 2 CFR 200.307(c). (75)
  31. Match: Review 50 CFR 80.84 for consistency with 48 U.S.C. 1469a on match requirements in insular areas. (80, 75)
  32. Electronic signatures: The WSFR Audits Branch recommends that we clarify in regulation what constitutes an electronic signature. (75)
  33. Advance of funds: State how long you can keep an advance of funds before having to return it. Treasury set a 7-day limit for refunding drawdowns more than $10,000 in excess of immediate disbursement needs.  It also set a 30-day limit for refunding drawdowns less than $10,000 in excess of immediate disbursement needs (I TFRM 6-2010).  Determine if these time limits apply to WSFR grant programs.  If so, the Appendix may be the appropriate place to state these requirements? (75)
  34. License certification (80). The JTF is deliberating on this issue. We should consider the JTF’s recommendations before proposing any changes in 50 CFR 80.
  35. Segments:  Clarify what a grant segment is how WSFR uses them. (75)
  36. Endowment funds:  Any applications for endowments outside of real property? If not, the planned real property regulations are the appropriate location for this. Unless we can justify the use of endowment funds based on an implicit authorization in the establishing legislation of a grant program, several Comptroller General Opinions have determined that we cannot set one up with Federal or matching funds available under a financial assistance award. (75)
  37. Match: Can a recipient use excess match for a subsequent grant? See 522 FW 24.5 which applies to WR, SFR, and SWG, but the question goes beyond in-kind donations of real property. e.g. other in-kind donations, as well as excess cash match, if part of the proposed project cannot be completed. (75)
  38. Federal share and recipient share of proceeds from disposition of property: Clarify that the Federal share and recipient share are determined by the overall percentage of Federal and State funds in the financially assisted project, NOT the Federal and State share of the funds used to purchase a specific parcel.  This is based on informal advice from the Solicitor’s Office. (75)
  • No labels