Welcome to the Federal/State Task Force on Federal Assistance Policy (JTF) Issue Identification - Submission History space of the Office of Conservation Investment (OCI). This space is designed to provide a historical repository of the issues/topics submitted for JTF consideration and the resulting outcome as decided by the JTF.
If you would like more information about this space or additional details about a particular issue/topic, please contact Diana Swan-Pinion (diana_swan-pinion@fws.gov), Policy Lead, Office of Conservation Investment. For questions about the FA wiki, please contact Ryan Oster (ryan_oster@fws.gov), Supervisor Training Team, Office of Conservation Investment.
Background
The JTF Charter, signed September, 2002, established a joint state/federal task force in order to provide a process for the Service and State fish and wildlife agencies to cooperatively identify Program issues of national significance and to develop jointly recommendations concerning those issues. As stated in the charter, issues for JTF consideration could be submitted by the Service or any State and recommendations could include changes to existing law, regulation, or policy. The Charter nor the Amendment to the Charter provided a process for issue identification or decision making. At the November 2002 JTF meeting there was a discussion of the Joint Task Force Operations and Processes. This discussion resulted in a four-step process for the JTF issue identification, explanation of issues, development of draft recommendations and finalization of recommendations.
In December2018, the JTF Charter Amendment No. 4, describing a more formal process for issue identification and decision making was adopted. The scope of consideration for topics being submitted is financial assistance policy issues of national significance impacting Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, or State Wildlife Grant programs and subprograms. These topics should focus on issues causing adverse effects, such as:
- substantially increasing the probability for audit findings
- elevating the risk of negative financial implications
- inhibiting States’ ability to accomplish their conservation mission
A call for topic submissions is sent out in the fall, for the following year with a minimum of 30 days for the topic submission period. A summary of topics and potential actions addressing topics are presented at the spring meeting of the Office of Conservation Investment HQ and Regional Managers and the Federal Aid Coordinators Working Group (FACWG). Recommendations for JTF engagement on each topic are presented to the JTF ≤ 60 d. after the Spring OCI/FACWG meeting.
Summary of Annually Submitted JTF Issue Identification Topics
To download the entire spreadsheet of JFT issues/topics submitted, please click here.
| Category | Year | Issue | Summary | Outcome / Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance | 2021 | Tribal consultation notification | The issue is regarding a compliance process developed by a Region with State, Tribal, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, and Tribal liaison input, but the concern is that the delegation of compliance with First Nations to the States is something more appropriately done at the Federal level. | The JTF determined this specific situation is a State/WSFR Regional issue and not a topic for JTF consideration. The Region followed up with their States to determine if the current process should be revisited and formed a State/WSFR Tribal Notification Review Team to scope and assess the issue, and make any recommendations for changes. |
Compliance | 2023 | Additional BABA technical assistance. | This issue concerned a need to alleviate burdens associated with addressing BABA compliance, specific to a request for additional technical assistance for templates for procurement bids and the contractor attestation form for compliance, as well as assistance in expediting BABA waivers. | The JTF determined that this was not an issue for JTF engagement, but it was recommended for JTF awareness, and the JTF recognized that they would benefit from continued understanding on BABA compliance. For the first concern, CI is expanding BABA technical assistance to States by developing language for procurement bids, and a template or sample contractor attestation form for compliance, using a BABA best practices document from FEMA. However, the second concern is outside of CI’s purview; this is a DOI requirement that States must comply with, and CI is unable to expedite the BABA waiver process once submitted to DOI. Although CI cannot expedite BABA waivers, they will continue to provide technical assistance on getting waivers initiated by States through the DOI process. |
| Compliance | 2023 | BABA exemption for development projects | The issue was the burden of complying with the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA). The State felt that addressing BABA compliance limits results in delays to the timely expenditure of funds and requested that CI pursue a BABA exemption for development projects accomplished with CI funds, on behalf of the States. | The JTF determined this issue is not within the scope of the JTF to rectify and is not a topic for JTF engagement. Given the broad support the Administration and Congress have demonstrated for BABA they suggested using time and resources to pursue project exemptions where materials are not domestically available or instances where domestically sourcing the materials is cost prohibitive. CI can continue to provide guidance and technical assistance, but the requirements for BABA compliance (Pub. L. 117-58) are clear and not under the JTF’s or CI’s ability to change. |
| Compliance | 2023 | NHPA compliance duty | An issue was raised with the delegation of responsibility for Tribal consultation notification to the States; compliance with First Nations is more appropriately done at the Federal level. | The JTF determined that this was a Regional issue and not a topic for JTF engagement. This issue also was submitted in 2021; the JTF considered the issue then and agreed this specific situation was not a topic for the JTF. The delegation of responsibility was developed by the Region with State, Tribal, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, and Tribal liaison input. After the issue was raised in 2021 the Region worked with their States to determine if the process should be revisited by creating a State/WSFR team, which this State did not elect to serve on, to work in evaluating the Regional NHPA and Tribal notifications process. After completing its charge, the ‘Tribal Notification Review Team’ recommendations will be addressed and implemented by the WSFR Region, which will include continuing to offer individual States the ability to opt out of the Regional Tribal notification process and have WSFR assume that responsibility. |
| Compliance | 2024 | Administrative burden from BABA | The issue raised concerns regarding the potential for audit findings associated with Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) compliance, and the challenges faced with larger operation and maintenance grants. To alleviate the burden the request was advocating for a waiver covering operation and maintenance grants, which are often conducted in rural areas with reduced sourcing options and consist of routine work and aren’t currently covered by an approved BABA waiver. | The JTF determined this is not within the scope of the JTF to rectify or address with policy and not a topic for JTF engagement. The Administration and Congress have demonstrated continued support for BABA and the Office of Management and Budget has made it clear that general waivers are extremely unlikely to be approved, focusing instead on specific products with availability challenges. The FACWG offered to help communicate this message to States. The requirements for BABA compliance (Pub. L. 117-58) are not within CI’s authority to change, but they will continue to improve guidance and provide technical assistance and training to support States with facilitating waivers initiated by States through the DOI process. From an audit perspective, it is crucial that States have established and implemented procurement procedures for BABA compliance. The audit scope now includes awards issued after the implementation date of BABA. In discussions with the Office of Inspector General, they have acknowledged the challenges of complying with a new Federal mandate and stated that they would focus on ensuring States have established procedures and are compliant. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2020 | Audit findings on Program Income | The issue raised was concern about an audit finding for unreported program income for rental income on residences that are maintained separately from the WSFR grants. | After consultation with the OIG, WSFR was able to have the finding removed and the JTF determined this was not an issue for their engagement. To address the topic, at the JTF's request WSFR investigated messaging and training that addresses best practices for both States and the OIG. WSFR worked with the FACWG to develop the messaging, and included the topic in their future trainings with State, WSFR , and OIG staff. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2020 | State/ Federal accounting differences | The issue was the Federal regulations at 2 CFR 200 conflicting with State processes when it comes to subrecipient payments, and cash vs. accrual basis accounting. | After WSFR staff with expertise in accounting methods that manage audits explained the issue in greater detail and identified this as a Single Audit issue, the JTF determined that it was not an issue for their engagement. WSFR’s audit lead coordinated with the State with responding to state auditors and assisted with the response to the OIG. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2020 | Matching fund shortfalls | The issue was with States struggling to identify sources of non-federal match for SFR/WR projects; as angler/hunter numbers remain stagnant or decline nationwide, license sales have not kept pace with Federal funding. This problem will only increase as new or additional Federal monies become available. To help States maximize their scarce resources further, request the cost-share ratio be reduced to 90/10 instead of 75/25. | The JTF declined to engage on this issue. They appreciated the concerns of States in meeting match requirements, but as the cost share requirements in WSFR grant programs are defined in statute neither the JTF nor the Service can affect those requirements. It will require a legislative change by Congress to adjust cost share ratios. WSFR will continue to support States in determining eligible and allowable sources for match. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2021 | Too many sub- accounts | The issue was a concern that the additional subaccounts created under Public Law 116-17 has made it difficult for States to track funds, conduct cost-accounting at the subaccount level, and understand how funds can be spent or moved. | The JTF did not take this issue up for engagement but recognized a need for JTF awareness and the benefits from further understanding of requirements and uses of subaccounts, particularly regarding their interaction with safety margins, requested WSFR present on the topic at the next meeting. While the complexity of subaccounts can be challenging, WSFR assessed whether they could be simplified given the statutory constraints. Statutory components that create various funding sources and administrative options (e.g., 90/10/5) lead to the need for all existing subaccounts to ensure proper administration of funds and allow for WSFR to provide States maximum flexibility through safety margins. Any simplification of the cost codes for the subaccounts would reduce flexibility, but WSFR will share resources that can assist in understanding safety margins and how to apply subaccounts. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2021 | Costs of audits | The issue was a concern for costs associated with conducting or responding to audits, for WSFR and States. Request as to whether there are opportunities to improve the WSFR audit process to focus on program processes that WSFR sees as important and to decrease the financial and administrative burden to WSFR and States. | The JTF decided to engage on this issue with further scoping and gathering detailed information from States, for reporting and continued discussion at their Fall meeting. WSFR had taken a step in addressing this concern by phasing in a six-year audit cycle to replace the five-year cycle, to reduce cost and burden. WSFR also has a standing meeting with the OIG to deal with capacity and awareness and continually work toward increasing OIG awareness with training, monitoring, and engaging as needed. WSFR will engage with the FACWG to identify further concerns and suggestions (i.e., information related to costs, staff time in assisting and responding to auditors, length of audits). The audit trends analysis report was provided to the JTF at the Fall meeting, along with a debrief on the report. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2021 | Incorrect barter transaction designation | The issue was a concern over OIG audit finding that landowners benefits that States consider incentives (e.g., technical assistance for hunter access) are unreported barter transactions. Request that the JTF take a more detailed look at barters vs. incentives; specifically: 1. Evaluate the current treatment of barter in 50 CFR 80. (Is the regulation serving its original intent; is it necessary; is it supporting or impeding delivery WSFR grant objectives, should a de minimus value be reached for an activity to be considered barter, are revisions warranted) 2. Provide clarification in policy or regulation regarding the differences between incentives vs. barter and associated reporting requirements. 3. Develop guidance for States and WSFR on how to describe and report barters and incentives. 4. Ensure auditors receive training on #s 2 and 3. | The JTF agreed that this issue be taken up for JTF engagement. WSFR conducted more scoping, and worked with the FACWG who conducted a survey of States to further assess the issue, (i.e., determine extent of findings in the States, identify characteristics of barters vs. incentives, etc.) to develop white paper for the JTF to consider further engagement. The JTF determined that the white paper and continued training and TA for States, WSFR staff, and the OIG was sufficient, and further engagement by them was not warranted. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2021 | Matching funds shortfalls | The issue of State budget shortfalls limiting availability of match and the ability of States to spend Federal funds. Requested that match requirements be waived or modified. | The JTF declined to engage on this issue. They appreciated the concerns of States in meeting match requirements, but as the cost share requirements in WSFR grant programs are defined in statute neither the JTF nor the Service can affect those requirements as it would require a Congressional legislative change to adjust them. WSFR will continue to support States in determining eligible and allowable sources for match. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2023 | Audits’ administrative burden, (mis) purpose | The issue concerned problems associated with States’ audits, such as the current audit cycle and associated processes not adhering to the original purpose of periodic audits, protecting the integrity of the WSFR program and ensuring that WSFR funds are used for eligible purposes, increased administrative burdens with the audit process itself such as the amount of time and effort required to fulfill auditors’ requests for information already available in grant documents or received in the prior audit, and auditors interpreting regulations for WSFR different than other agencies (e.g., EPA) resulting in different compliance standards. | The JTF determined that this is not a topic for JTF engagement. All audits follow the standards established in the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-133 which was designed to ensure compliance with Federal and Program financial assistance requirements. In addition, while auditors can vary in their interpretation of the law, CI’s role in the audit process is to ensure that their interpretations are correct and appropriate. However, CI continues to provide technical assistance to States on audit requirements and explore efficiencies that are allowable and could be incorporated into the audit processes. A State/Federal technical team will assess burdens at the national level. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2023 | Leave accounting audit findings | The issue raised was in regard to recent OIG findings that certain State accounting systems improperly account for leave, where options to address the findings would result in negative financial impacts to those States. | The JTF determined that this was not an issue for engagement as it is not within their scope to rectify. States have various accounting systems and some of them do not accommodate the allowable standards for tracking leave, resulting in those States inability to comply with the requirements. Although the regulation is limiting there is room for clarification, and CI can provide training and technical assistance on charging leave under allowable accounting systems. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2023 | Unallowable costs of adminstrative leave | The issue was raised regarding a concern related to audit findings that administrative leave is not considered an allowable cost for WSFR funding | Although some categories of special leave should not be considered allowable direct costs on a WSFR award the JTF expressed concern about a State’s ability to comply with regulatory requirements and agreed that this was a topic for JTF involvement. A small team, made up of JTF and FACWG members, developed draft guidance on the topic. The guidance will be presented to the JTF for their consideration at their next meeting. The FACWG will develop a best management practices (BMP) document to accompany the guidance, and will issue both documents to States once the BMP is completed. |
| Fiscal / Budget | 2023 | Individual online HEd cost as match | The issue was not allowing individuals to contribute fees for online hunter education courses as part of a WSFR award’s cost-sharing requirement, impacting States financially and in meeting grant objectives of training hunters. Request review of match requirements for Hunter Education courses provided by individuals. | The JTF determined this was not a topic for engagement as it does not fall within the scope of the JTF to rectify. There is no legal basis for required funds for cost-sharing to be used as described in the request (when students directly pay the fee for a class). Individuals do not constitute “third-parties” because they are receiving a direct benefit for a fee-for-service, and therefore their course fees are not third-party contributions. However, there is one variation that could be allowable. If a valuation is coming from a procurement process bid selection, and the successful contractor then offered up a good-will discount on the accepted bid price, that would be allowable for cost-sharing funds. |
| Grant Management | 2020 | Grant Solutions & TRACS | The issue concerned the transition in grant systems from PRISM to GrantSolutions, related to timing, lack of information about the new system, potential burdens, and clarity on how GrantSolutions will align with TRACS. | The JTF determined this is not a topic that is within the scope of JTF engagement, as Grant Solutions is a product of the Department of the Interior and WSFR does not have direct control over the system. WSFR communicated information on GrantSolutions to States as soon as it was received from the Department, and Regional Offices worked with States to enter as many grants as possible into PRISM before the conversion. WSFR Program ensured that no States were left without grant funding at the start of their fiscal year. Regarding the relationship between GrantSolutions and TRACS, they are two separate systems that serve different purposes. TRACS functionality is focused on performance reporting, accomplishing tracking, and real property inventory management, which are not present in GrantSolutions. The overlaps between the systems are project statements and performance reports; both are developed in TRACS and can be uploaded as attachments to GrantSolutions. |
| Grant Management | 2020 | Final apportionment delays | The issue concerned cash flow and budget authority, etc. because apportionments are often delayed awaiting Department approvals and announcements. | The JTF acknowledged the concern but determined it was not within the scope of JTF engagement as they do not control when apportionments are issued. WSFR committed to identifying ways to streamline the process, although there is no guarantee that it will result in reduced delays as the announcement decisions are outside of WSFR control. WSFR was able to respond by becoming more active in working with the Department of the Interior in planning for apportionment announcements, which are often the reason for delays. WSFR established a Team to prepare a draft Apportionment Communication Protocol, working with the Service’s External Affairs Program and the Department to gain approval by December of each year for communicating apportionments, so that when final apportionments are ready to be disbursed the announcement is ready to go with minimal delays. |
| Grant Management | 2021 | Period of performance restrictions | The issue raised were concerns about limitations on period of performance for grants impacting the ability of a fish and wildlife agency to fulfill the objectives of a grant, given timeframes associated with implementing and executing administrative functions such as staffing and contracting. | The JTF determined this was not a topic for JTF engagement as there are no policy limitations on setting the period of performance. As this is a State/WSFR Regional issue to address, WSFR Regional Offices worked directly with the States by providing technical assistance for clarifying regulatory requirements and best practices in grant management. |
| Grant Management | 2021 | Rescinded Manual chapters | The issue concerned the recision of WSFR's USFWS Manual chapters without replacement, leaving gaps in the ability of States to have access to guidance to reference and help with standardization in administration of their WSFR grants. | The JTF determined that this was not a topic for their engagement. Although Service Manual chapters can be publicly accessed they are policies directing Service employees on requirements for the topic being addressed. States were advised and given opportunity for feedback in advance of the recissions, and pertinent parts of rescinded chapters were put into regulation or other policy and guidance documents. Any gaps in information resulting from chapter recissions can be shared with WSFR Policy staff to consider how they might be addressed in future policy work. WSFR will continue to provide States with training on Wiki use and other options for accessing policies. |
| Grant Management | 2021 | State/GS reporting periods | The issue concerned the Grant Solutions reporting being restricted to Federal fiscal year or calendar year reporting periods, which do not align with the majority of the State’s grants and is complicated for interim reporting on multiyear grants. | The JTF determined this is not a topic that is within the scope of JTF engagement, as Grant Solutions is a product of the Department of the Interior and WSFR does not have direct control over the system or decisions surrounding the effective dates, training, or other aspects of the system. WSFR had recently expanded the basis for reporting periods to include budget year and submitted a modification request to Grant Solutions to include our previous reporting-basis model. Regional Offices will continue to work with State staff to offer technical assistance and identify best practices. |
| Grant Management | 2021 | Procurement standards for subrecipients | The issue was with the OIG's identifying subaward administration regarding subrecipient procurement standards as an emerging issue, but the concern was that the subrecipient guidance developed by WSFR was lacking in this area. | The JTF determined this was not a topic for JTF engagement. WSFR’s assessment of the third-party determination guidance indicated that subrecipient procurement standards were addressed in the guidance, but committed to review the guidance to see if it can benefit from being updated or revised. Additional training and job aids being considered also will help address the issue. |
| Grant Management | 2021 | 2 CFR 200 compliance burdens for subrecipients | The issue was the difficulty for States to implement projects on the ground to fulfill their conservation missions with their partners, particularly for smaller partners that are not other agencies or non-governmental entities, because of the complexities of complying with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR 200). | The JTF appreciated the concerns of States having to require their subrecipients to comply with 2 CFR 200 but determined the issue was not for JTF engagement. Removing this condition would require an OMB regulatory change that is not within WSFR’s authority or control, and neither the JTF nor the Service can affect those changes. WSFR committed to reviewing its third-party determination guidance to see if it can benefit from being updated or revised, which may assist with subrecipient compliance with 2 CFR 200. Additional training and job aids also may help address the issue. |
| Grant Management | 2021 | Incorrect classification for agreements | The issue were OIG audit findings related to subawards vs contract determinations identifiying improperly classified service agreements in WSFR grants, where the agreements were for activities serving the public purpose of the WR Act, as opposed to services for the direct benefit of the agency. Request for JTF: 1) evaluate the current treatment of subaward & contract determinations under 2 CFR 200.22, 200.200-330, 200.92; 2) should determinations made by the agency take precedence over OIG in determining how States meet the public good under the Act; 3) develop additional guidance as to how determinations are made whether or not a project is a contract or subaward. | The JTF decided not to engage. The JTF has previously addressed this issue, resulting in the WSFR-issued third party determination guidance. WSFR continues to be committed to supporting States when making their subrecipient/contractor determinations including providing additional training and job aids to both WSFR and state staff, and supporting consistent communication between States, WSFR, and the OIG. |
| Grant Management | 2021 | GS processing times | The issue that grant and grant amendment applications have longer processing times in Grant Solutions, and that States are unable to fully view grant status or progress in the system. | The JTF determined this is not a topic that is within the scope of JTF engagement, as Grant Solutions is a product of the Department of the Interior and WSFR does not have direct control over the system. However, most delays associated with grant processing in the Grant Solutions system have been alleviated since implementation in May 2020 and will continue to be addressed going forward. WSFR continues to advise DOI on modifications and optimizations to improve the efficiency of Grant Solutions for processing grants and continues to work with State partners to address all concerns with Grant Solutions. WSFR will follow up on the status/progress viewing issue to determine how the various Service statuses in Grant Solutions align with what a recipient sees. |
| Grant Management | 2021 | TRACS reporting for multi- project awards | The issue concerned comprehensive grant entry into TRACS, where States with grants that have diverse objectives and scopes of work (e.g., comprehensive or statewide) will have major problems reporting on them through the TRACS system. | The JTF determined this is a State/WSFR Regional issue and is not a topic for JTF engagement. WSFR Headquarters staff will make sure this is addressed sufficiently in TRACS training, and Regional staff will contact State staff to clarify requirements, identify best practices, and offer technical assistance and training where needed to support the State's efforts on TRACS entry. |
| Grant Management | 2022 | SWAP revisions in TRACS | The issue was a concern regarding an inability to track State Wildlife Action Plan revisions in TRACS, because the TRACS Matrix did not currently have an explicit objective for tracking SWAP mandatory comprehensive reviews that are required at least every 10 years, or for tracking voluntary minor or major revisions that States may choose to conduct in the intervening years. Without this function in TRACS the system fails to recognize the significant level of effort and level of importance associated with SWAP planning efforts. | The JTF agreed that this was a deficiency in TRACS and supported the recommendation from the TRACS Working Group that the JTF endorse use of the WSFR Communications Protocol to seek additional input on the addition of SWAP Planning Activities in the TRACS Matrix. By working with the regional Fish and Wildlife Associations, State Wildlife Diversity Program Managers, and Federal Aid Coordinators for review and comment the Working Group crafted a specific proposal and measures to address SWAP planning. The proposed Matrix change was submitted to the JTF for consideration at their December 2022 meeting. |
| Grant Management | 2024 | Grant Solutions & TRACS | The issue was the redundancy between the grant processing functions required by Grant Solutions and Tracking and Reporting Actions for the Conservation of Species (TRACS) systems, whereby grant proposals and performance reports have to be inputted and submitted both in Grant Solutions and TRACS creating an administrative burden with staff duplicating similar efforts to submit these documents in both platforms. Request alleviating the burden by using a single platform. | The JTF determined that this is not a topic that is within the scope of the JTF to address or rectify with policy. Grant Solutions is a product of the Department of the Interior and the CI does not have direct control over the system or decisions regarding its required use. The CI communicates information on Grant Solutions to States as soon as it is received from the Department. Regarding TRACS, Grant Solutions and TRACS are two separate systems that serve different purposes but have some interactive capabilities. TRACS functionality is focused on performance reporting, accomplishing tracking, and real property inventory management, which is not present in Grant Solutions. Regarding the overlaps between the two systems specific to proposals and performance reports; both project statements and performance reports are developed in TRACS and can be uploaded as attachments to Grant Solutions. The CI continues to support States with technical assistance and training on both Grant Solutions and TRACS, and the TRACS Working Group team looks into solutions within the TRACS system to alleviate or reduce duplication of effort. |
| Program Implementation | 2019 | Eligible R3 activities funded under PR/DJ | The issue concerned when and how traditional PR and DJ funding is appropriate to be used to fund R3 efforts – as opposed to Hunter and Aquatic Education funds. | The JTF decided to engage on this issue. Use of the new SOP for the JTF Policy Development Process resulted in a joint State/Federal team that drafted guidance on the P-R Modernization Act and its effects on R3 and program eligibilities. |
| Program Implementation | 2019 | Definition of F&W agency, relation to super agency | The issue was related to uncertainty concerning the definition of fish and wildlife agency, and interference, related to real property, in 50 CFR 80. This stems from agency administration and responsibilities for compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations when a fish and wildlife agency is an internal unit within a larger or 'super' agency. | The JTF decided to engage on this issue. The JTF Counsels and Martha Williams drafted a white paper on the issue, with input from AFWA legal communities. The legal assessment determined that language in 50 CFR 80 doesn't align clearly with the assent language in the Act. With little opportunity for legislative fixes, the JTF felt there was little reason to consider a revision to 50 CFR 80.2. The issue was brought to the AFWA Executive Committee for their input, and with no direction from the Committee on pursuing the issue it was tabled until otherwise directed. |
| Program Implementation | 2020 | 365-day Licenses | At issue was the concern that the current regulations at 50 CFR 80, Subpart D created a disadvantage to the State fish and wildlife agency and it was losing money by only being able to count 365-day licenses in one certification period. | The JTF considered prior JTF engagement with the AFWA Task Force and collaboration with WSFR that led to the current rule. While they agreed that a license should only be counted for the number of years it is valid, and the rule must be applied consistently and fairly, the JTF determined that it will not reengage with this topic at this time. The JTF instructed WSFR to provide background and support for taking the topic back to the AFWA Executive Committee for consideration. WSFR prepared a document summarizing the 365-day license issue, submitted it for JTF Counsel review, and provided the final document to the State for discussion with the AFWA Executive Committee at their next meeting. |
| Program Implementation | 2021 | Inter-State collaboration challenges | The issue was related to States having administrative challenges collaborating across State lines, which impedes conservation work, and a need for an easier path forward. It can be difficult for multiple States to pool money for a single purpose even when the Service is actively encouraging it through criteria in a competitive program (SWG-C) or incentivizing with a 90/10 cost share (Section 6). | The JTF agreed that this was a topic for JTF consideration. There are likely multiple layers of complexity, from allocation of costs commensurate with benefits, to coordinating with multiple regional offices. Since an OIG Management Advisory was issued on the NBCI in July 2020 for violations of 2 CFR 200 that involve multiple States doing collaborative work, WSFR has been engaged in addressing concerns related to this issue. WSFR has continuously apprised the JTF of the status of their response to the Advisory during subsequent JTF meetings. When WSFR has completed a strategy and draft approach for effectively managing multi-state collaborations, the States will be involved with reviewing the proposed approach, to address the components and submission/review process. |
| Program Implementation | 2022 | Eligibility of general outdoor/ conservation education activities | The issue is that the Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow’s Needs Act did not expand the use of traditional Wildlife Restoration (WR) funds for general outdoor or conservation education activities, with the inability to use those funds on these activities leading to vital conservation and outdoor education programs and activities being unfunded under the Pittman-Robertson Act. | The JTF determined this issue does not fall within the scope of JTF engagement. Unless Congress changes the Act, education is currently not eligible for general outdoor or conservation education activities under the traditional WR program and requesting these changes should be more appropriately directed to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. While education is not explicitly authorized as an eligible activity using traditional Wildlife Restoration funds in the Act or in the implementing regulation at 50 CFR 80.50, it is eligible as it applies to hunter education. Various outdoor and conservation education activities or projects could be eligible using Basic or Enhanced Hunter Education funds if there was a direct tie to recruitment, retention, and reactivation of hunter and recreational shooter efforts. Specific to general outdoor or conservation education in the Project Wild curriculum, that is more conceptualized in its focus on outdoor education, and not specifically about education related to wildlife restoration and management. Depending on course curricula and content it is possible that new courses (or modules within a course) could be considered eligible if determined to be necessary, reasonable, and essential to directly supporting the eligible activity at 50 CFR 80.50(a)(1) “Restore and manage wildlife for the benefit of the public.” In this respect, they would be more appropriately serving the purpose for the eligible activity of providing ‘technical assistance’ instead of general outdoor education. |
| Program Implementation | 2023 | JTF communication protocol | The issue raised was delays in the process used by CI HQ for delivering communications to State Directors by disseminating them through the WSFR Regions | The JTF determined this was not a topic for engagement as it does not fall within the scope of the JTF to rectify. This issue concerns a communications process internal to CI and does not fall under the JTF TRACS Communications or JTF Issue Identification and Decision-Making protocols. However, CI Managers have implemented new strategies for internal communications with the States with an objective of reducing delays. |
| Program Implementation | 2023 | Expanding regulatory wildlife definition | The issue was a request for the JTF conduct a historical and legal review of the term “wildlife” as defined in 16 U.S.C. 669a(7) (i.e., the Wildlife Restoration Act) to determine if the definition under 50 CFR 80.2 can be expanded to include other classes of species besides wild birds and mammals. | The JTF had considered the expansion of the definition of the term “wildlife” in the Act’s implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 80) in prior rulemaking efforts (2011, 2019). The JTF appreciates the opportunity to revisit that decision as presented by this issue; however, they believe the time is not appropriate for considering it in the current rulemaking effort. In addition, the JTF feels that the legal justification and historical evidence as presented in the issue do not support an expansion of the definition. WSFR conducted a preliminary historical analysis of the issue. WSFR, in conjunction with the DOI Solicitor, had previously analyzed the legal definition of the term “wildlife”, and found that when the Act was amended in 2000 by Pub.L. 106-553, a provision of the law (Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title IX, §902(f)] was inserted not as section text but as part of the Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries in the U.S. Code. This statutory provision is considered part of the Federal law whether it appears in the Code as section text or as a statutory note. The provision from §902(f), entered as the note Inapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act, directed that all provisions of the Act amended under Pub.L. 106-553 related solely to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program that was created by that law, and do not affect any other parts of the Act. This includes the definition for the term “wildlife” added to 16 U.S.C. 669a(7), which, therefore, does not apply to the Wildlife Restoration program or funding. |
| Program Implementation | 2024 | Using Traditional WR funds for education | The issue is conservation and outdoor education as ineligible activities when using traditional Wildlife Restoration (WR) funds. States are limited in effectively managing and conserving wild birds and mammals and their habitat when a primary goal for the Program under the Pittman-Robertson Act (Act) is to restore, conserve, manage and improve those species and their habitats, leading to vital conservation education programs and activities being unfunded. | The JTF determined this does not fall within the scope of the JTF to rectify with policy. Unless Congress changes the Act, education is currently not eligible for general outdoor or conservation education activities under the traditional WR program and requesting these changes would be more appropriately handled by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. While education is not explicitly authorized as an eligible activity using traditional Wildlife Restoration funds in the Act or in the implementing regulation under 50 CFR 80.50, it is eligible as it applies to hunter education. Various conservation or outdoor education activities or projects could be eligible using Basic or Enhanced Hunter Education funds if there was a direct tie to recruitment, retention, and reactivation (R3) of hunter and recreational shooter efforts which would fulfill the purpose of the Act. Other conservation or outdoor education activities could be considered eligible if determined to be necessary, reasonable, and essential to directly supporting the eligible activity at 50 CFR 80.50(a)(1) “Restore and manage wildlife for the benefit of the public.” where they would be more appropriately serving the purpose for the eligible activity of providing ‘technical assistance’ instead of conservation or general outdoor education. |
| Program Implementation | 2024 | Deemphasize Recreation/ Sport Focus for Hunting | The issue concerns language and actions pertaining to WSFR programs that spotlight hunting and gathering as recreational activities, and don’t include a focus on purposes such as food security or sovereignty. | The JTF determined this is not a topic that is within the scope of the JTF to address or rectify with policy. The magnitude of this type of policy shift would be outside of their direct control and would likely need to be preceded by a legislative change. However, recognizing the sensitivity and timeliness of this topic, especially regarding working with Tribal communities, the CI and FACWG will work with States and Territories using technical assistance, communication, and training materials to assist in outreach and messaging on this. Specific to the Tribal sovereignty aspect, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Tribal liaisons also may play a role in the response. (The Wildlife Restoration Act (Act) does not itself associate the activity of hunting with recreation; in many instances where the Act identifies hunting it uses the phrase “hunting and recreational shooting” whereby recreational shooting is meant to confer non-consumptive shooting sports. The section of the Act that describes provisions for “wildlife-associated recreation projects” is not part of the traditional Wildlife Restoration Program, but only applies to the Wildlife Conservation and Recreation Program (WCRP) which is no longer funded.) |
| Real Property | 2020 | FAIR regulation impacts | The issue was concern that rules in the recently published Financial Assistance Interior Rule (FAIR) will significantly prolong property acquisition timelines and make it difficult to secure appraisal contracts, putting the acquisition of suitable and valued land at risk. | The JTF determined that this was not an issue for their engagement as the FAIR is not something they can control or affect. In addition, although the Department of the Interior received many State comments to the FAIR proposed rule that opposed the approach to real property acquisitions, the Department’s Appraisal and Valuation Services Office chose not to make any changes to the rule based on the comments received. WSFR, with support of the FACWG and the WSFR Lands Team, pulled together technical information to assist in understanding and framing the issue. WSFR's Assistant Director briefed the FWS Director to discuss additional communication strategies with DOI. |
| Real Property | 2022 | Required appraisal copies to sellers | The issue raised the concern that land acquisition rules for Federal financial assistance transactions that require States provide a copy of the appraisal to potential sellers could have negative financial implications to the State. The JTF was requested to review and narrow or clarify the scope for when a State wildlife agency must provide an appraisal to a seller in advance of a purchase. | The JTF determined that this is not a topic within the scope of JTF engagement, as neither the JTF nor the Service can affect those requirements. Land acquisition transactions using Federal financial assistance are governed by Federal regulation at 49 CFR 24, which WSFR has incorporated into its Service Manual chapters. The regulation clearly states that an appraisal is required prior to initiation of negotiations (unless donation or low value), that sellers even have the right to accompany an appraiser if they wish, and that the initial offer can be no less than the approved appraised fair market value. There is no requirement to provide the seller with a copy of the appraisal; however, negotiations must begin with an offer of just compensation based on the appraisal. There are appraisal waiver conditions at 49 CFR 24.102, but only when the acquisition situation satisfies them. for additional information. WSFR provides information on appraisal requirements, and courses on administering real property acquisitions using financial assistance. |
| Real Property | 2022 | Data disclosure under FAIR | The issue was related to the data disclosure requirements under the FAIR, Financial Assistance Interior Regulation and the ability of States to safeguard sensitive research and wildlife data. Without those safeguards States may not be able to continue using WSFR funds for acquisitions. | The JTF determined that this is not a topic within the scope of JTF engagement but agreed that this requirement has been misunderstood by State agencies. They requested that WSFR communicate how to interpret data sharing under an award. States are encouraged to discuss any concerns regarding treatment of data that they consider sensitive with their WSFR Regional Office. The data availability language in the FAIR at 2 CFR 1402.315 does not materially change Federal agency rights and responsibilities under 2 CFR 200.315 nor does it expand WSFR’s authority to collect research data collected under an award. In addition, WSFR is limited under the Paperwork Reduction Act as to what information they can collect. In the context of financial assistance awards, requirements under FAIR for availability of data are governed by data sharing agreements. Although certain U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awards do require data sharing, WSFR rarely enters into direct data sharing agreements with state agencies on WSFR-funded awards, with the primary purpose of data generated from the majority of WSFR awards being informing state management decisions. Having previously received a Federal award that fully or partially supported generation of that data does not compel the state to share data with the Service under such an agreement. |
