[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Pages 77699-77704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30623]



Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-HQ-WSR-2013-N292]; [FVWF941009000007B-XXX-FF09W10000; 

Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Application and Performance Reporting 
for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Grants and Cooperative 

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 OMB for review and approval. We summarize 
the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the 
estimated burden and cost. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person 
is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: You must submit comments on or before January 23, 2014.

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 2042-PDM, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 
(mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov (email). Please include ``1018-TRACS'' 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.

    OMB Control Number: 1018-XXXX.
    Title: Application and Performance Reporting for Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Grants and Cooperative Agreements.
    Service Form Number: None.
    Type of Request: Request for a new OMB control number.
    Description of Respondents: Primarily 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; and 
federally-recognized tribal governments. For certain grant programs, 
institutions of higher education and nongovernmental organizations.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    Frequency of Collection: We require applications annually for new 
grants or as needed for multi-year grants. We require amendments on 
occasion when key elements of a project change. We require quarterly 
and final performance reports in the National Outreach and 
Communication Program and annual and final performance reports in the 
other programs. We may require more frequent reports under the 
conditions stated at 43 CFR 12.52 and 43 CFR 12.914.

[[Page 77700]]

                                                     Number of       Number of       time per      Total annual
                    Activity                        respondents      responses     response (in    burden hours
Application (Mandatory program)--collect and                  56             625               4           2,500
 enter information..............................
Amendment--collect and enter information........             150           1,500              .5             750
Performance Reports--collect and enter                       200           3,500               2           7,000
 additional information.........................
    Totals......................................             406           5,625  ..............          10,250

    Abstract: The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR), 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, administers financial assistance 
programs (see 77 FR 47864, August 10, 2012). You can find a description 
of most programs in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 
or on our Web site at http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov.
    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 may 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 and according to schedules and rules in 43 
CFR 12. The Office of Management and Budget has approved our collection 
of information for applications and performance reports for these 
programs and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1018-0109 and 1018-0147.
    In past years, grantees sent paper or emailed applications and 
performance reports to the Service. The process to send applications to 
the Service has moved to the electronic system at http://www.grants.gov 
for competitive programs and some mandatory programs. When processing 
performance reports, we received the paper reports, reviewed the 
reports and extracted information, and then entered data into the 
Federal Assistance Information Management System (FAIMS). FAIMS was 
decommissioned on October 1, 2012, and has been replaced with a new 
electronic system for data collection (Wildlife Tracking and Reporting 
Actions for the Conservation of Species (Wildlife TRACS)). Wildlife 
TRACS allows us to take advantage of newer technology and give grantees 
direct access to enter application data that can be used to submit 
through http://www.grants.gov and report performance accomplishments. 
We have trained State, tribal, commonwealth, territory, and District of 
Columbia personnel to use the new system, and will provide technical 
and administrative support as needed. Allowing applicants and grantees 
to enter information directly into Wildlife TRACS will provide more 
accurate reporting and allow us to process grants more efficiently. We 
will continue to enter information in Wildlife TRACS for some grantees 
or programs based on needs, resource limitations, and program size and 
    While replacing FAIMS with Wildlife TRACS and updating our process 
to a more efficient and effective electronic method, we have the 
opportunity to make improvements that will create more consistent and 
robust reporting that will better help guide the future of 
conservation. We plan to collect additional information not covered by 
our current OMB approvals. We will use Wildlife TRACS to collect 
information approved under our existing OMB control numbers as well as 
the new information we are asking approval to collect. Data input will 
be completed by applicants and grantees. We have requested that OMB 
assign a new control number to cover these actions.
    For mandatory grant program applications and amendments, we plan to 
     Geospatial entry of project location.
     Project status (active, completed, etc.).
     Project leader contact information.
     Partner information.
     Objectives, including output measures and desired future 
     Plan information (for projects connected to plans).
    For all WSFR grant program projects and reports, we plan to 
     The information above, as applicable to the approved 
     Public description.
     Action status (active, completed, etc.).
     Summary trend information, as applicable.
     Estimated costs, by action. (non-auditable).
     Effectiveness measures (initially for State Wildlife 
    For real property acquisition projects, we plan to collect 
information related to:
     Transactions, such as dates, method of transfer, who will 
own or hold the real property, 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 (yes or no).
    The table above shows only the time that will be required to obtain 
and enter the new information when we implement Wildlife TRACS. We 
expect that this time will decrease as grantees become familiar with 
the system. We also expect to reduce the burden currently approved 
under OMB Control Numbers 1018-0109 and 1018-0147 for reports, 
amendments, and grants that remain virtually the same from year to 
year. When grantees directly enter reporting information into Wildlife 
TRACS, they will not be required to submit written reports.
    Comments: On August 10, 2012, we published in the Federal Register 
(77 FR 47864) a notice of our intent to request that OMB approve this 
information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 
days, ending on October 9, 2012. In addition to asking for comments on 
the additional information we plan to collect, we also asked for 
comments on the new electronic method and process for collection of all 
information. We received comments from nine States and one member of 
the general public.

State Comments

    Comment: Three respondents were supportive of the electronic 
collection system, Wildlife TRACS, and its ability to demonstrate 
program accomplishments, as long as the data collection requirements 
are kept at the level of current approval by OMB.
    Response: The current OMB approval for WSFR grant programs gives 
performance information, but is not standardized and specific enough to 
create an effective national grant accomplishment database. Through the

[[Page 77701]]

electronic collection States and other grantees will be prompted to 
give information from drop-down options in data fields, will be led 
through the steps of data entry, and will be giving standardized 
information that will produce robust reports to demonstrate program 
    Comment: Two respondents commented that information beyond that 
necessary to demonstrate program accomplishments should not be 
    Response: We agree with this comment. We continue to work with 
several groups of Federal and State staff at various levels of 
involvement as we identify information needed and plan for future 
needs. We have received many suggestions and have been responsive to 
comments to limit data collection to that needed to responsibly assess 
grant accomplishments and respond to information requests from a 
variety of audiences. We are also using electronic models and tools 
within the electronic database that make it more user-friendly, more 
intuitive, and easier to enter data.
    Comment: One respondent was not supportive of the collection of 
additional information and argued that we have not demonstrated 
evidence of inadequacy of the existing performance reporting 
    Response: As of October 2012, the existing reporting system (FAIMS) 
was decommissioned, so we must use a new method of collecting 
information. We are obligated by Federal guidance, such as the 
Government Paperwork Elimination Act and other directives, to use 
electronic systems. We will do this through Wildlife TRACS, the system 
designed to replace FAIMS. We have listened to Congress, Federal and 
State staff, other grantees, and stakeholders to assess needs. We have 
considered the needs that FAIMS was unable to fulfill, information 
routinely needed, and how performance reporting helps plan for 
conservation into the future, and have developed Wildlife TRACS to 
address all of these needs. Most of the information requested in 
Wildlife TRACS is not new information and is covered by our approved 
OMB control numbers, but we organize the information so it is more 
consistent and easier to report. We limit additional information to 
that needed to improve the ability to report program accomplishments 
and to help assure continued grant program funding.
    Comment: Two respondents commented that effectiveness measures for 
State Wildlife Grants (SWG) should be recommended, not mandatory.
    Response: The Office of Management and Budget has repeatedly called 
for Federal agencies to document outcomes, not just outputs, of their 
work and the work they fund. Unlike other WSFR grant programs, SWG is 
subject to the annual appropriations process, increasing the need to be 
able to adequately demonstrate outcomes. The Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies, in their report ``Measuring the Effectiveness of 
Wildlife Grants, April 2011,'' demonstrates the need for States to 
provide more meaningful results and establishes effectiveness measures 
as a means to support State conservation work. If the expectation to 
complete the effectiveness measures allowed grantees to choose if they 
would respond or not, it would jeopardize the completeness of the 
national effectiveness measures data set. We will address effectiveness 
measures by guiding SWG grantees in our electronic system through a 
list of questions and responses designed to make the collection of 
information flow easier for the user. The amount of effort to complete 
this information is minimal compared to the benefits of the information 
available to decisionmakers.
    Comment: One respondent commented that Statewide projects do not 
fit the Wildlife TRACS model well.
    Response: Statewide projects will fit well into the electronic 
mapping used in Wildlife TRACS. The mapping tool is designed to allow 
users to select projects at a State level, or any level above or below 
that. Some geospatial advantages of the system may not be fully 
utilized at the State-scale level, but accomplishments can be captured 
easily and rolled up accurately in regional and national reports.
    Comment: Six respondents commented that burden hours were 
    Response: When determining the burden hours for the additional 
information and also accounting for applicants and grantees entering 
data into an electronic system directly, we compared Wildlife TRACS to 
a similar database, Habitat Information Tracking System (HabITS). 
HabITS has a similar approach to collecting data and has been in use 
long enough to know how long data entry takes from novice users, as 
well as experienced users. We used information from HabITS users as a 
baseline while considering other factors, such as the fact that we are 
only estimating burden for additional information and not for total 
information. Collection of information already covered by OMB Control 
Numbers 1018-0109 and 1018-0147 is not included in this request. We 
also consider that work savings will be accomplished under certain 
circumstances, such as projects that remain the same from year to year 
which will be extended annually through a simple process.
    Comment: Six respondents stated that it was difficult to comment 
effectively on burden hours because Wildlife TRACS was not yet 
completed and available for use. As a result, potential impacts on 
State staff were unknown.
    Response: We agree that without Wildlife TRACS being completed and 
available to use, we are not able to fully understand the burden of the 
system. However, the information from HabITS users gives us a good 
estimate of burden. The previous performance reporting system, FAIMS, 
is decommissioned, and we must move forward with Wildlife TRACS in 
order to have a system in place.
    Comment: Three respondents stated that it was difficult to comment 
on the estimates of burden hours due to the limited State agency access 
to Wildlife TRACS.
    Response: We agree that when we issued the 60-day notice there were 
only a few States that had access to Wildlife TRACS. We could only give 
limited access during the development process because of technology 
constraints. We expanded to a cloud-computing environment in October 
2012, and, effective January 2013, we expanded the number of States 
with access to the Wildlife TRACS training environment. No State will 
be asked to enter information into Wildlife TRACS until their staffs 
receive training.
    Comment: One respondent stated that the burden hour estimates did 
not consider the time it takes to develop project proposals.
    Response: The burden hours estimated are only for the new 
information we will ask respondents to provide. The burden hours 
incurred to develop a project are already captured in the current 
approval under OMB Control Numbers 1018-0109 and 1018-0147.
    Comment: One respondent commented that four additional hours to 
complete a grant application and two additional hours to complete a 
performance report is significant and will reduce staff productivity.
    Response: We expect these estimated burden hours to decrease as 
grantees become familiar with the process and use of electronic systems 
for reporting all information. We are continuing to review the 
electronic system as we train Federal and State staffs and will 
continue to implement suggested methods to streamline and simplify

[[Page 77702]]

functions. Using an electronic system will replace written performance 
reports and produce documents and reports that can be used for other 
tasks, such as submitting grant applications on http://www.grants.gov, 
further reducing overall workload.
    Comment: Two respondents commented that the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected will be enhanced through the 
use of Wildlife TRACS.
    Response: We agree.
    Comment: One respondent commented that Wildlife TRACS does not 
serve as a grant management system and that States must go to two 
systems, one for financial reporting and one for performance reporting.
    Response: The Department of the Interior retired FAIMS and 
transferred the financial reporting functions to the Federal Business 
Management System (FBMS). We were granted permission to temporarily 
keep FAIMS open for performance reporting, but it is now closed 
permanently. We cannot bring all of the information in FBMS over to 
Wildlife TRACS, but there are some fields that will be populated by 
FBMS with daily updates. Wildlife TRACS is not designed to be a grant 
management system, but we expect the improvements will assist grant 
managers and give consistent reporting information. We will continue to 
make improvements as we gain knowledge and improved technology.
    Comment: Two respondents stated they do not see any value added by 
Wildlife TRACS for grants management.
    Response: We disagree. There will be a transition period for 
learning the system, but, over the long term, State grantees should see 
the benefits of streamlined grants processes, improved performance 
information, and the benefits of newer technology. We will continue to 
accept comments for ways to improve the electronic systems and be 
responsive to suggestions for improvement.
    Comment: One respondent stated that we did not provide details on 
the additional information required for land acquisition projects and 
their usage.
    Response: We agree. WSFR and State grant managers that work with 
lands have developed a list of anticipated information and it is 
included in general terms. Many States have told us that they prefer to 
enter the information for accuracy and the extra information asked for 
real property actions is easily available. We will help States to enter 
complete information.
    Comment: One respondent commented that a trend line was not 
practical for survey projects that focus on general distribution of 
    Response: We agree. This information is intended for ongoing survey 
projects with objectives used to track measures used to estimate the 
annual status of species or habitats. The outputs of survey projects 
will be uploaded as attachments.
    Comment: One respondent stated that they currently estimate costs 
for projects and not actions and expressed concern about how the change 
will be accomplished in their State.
    Response: We will ask for costs only at the broadest action level. 
There are 13 Action categories that are designed to match typical WSFR 
grant actions; for example, education or technical guidance. The costs 
to be entered are estimated and are not auditable. They are entered to 
help grant managers link expected costs to their projects to help in 
planning, project review, and performance reporting. This information 
may be useful in the future to demonstrate approximate funds leveraged 
from other sources to accomplish conservation work.
    Comment: One respondent recommended that WSFR staff work with 
States through at least one complete grant cycle in implementing 
Wildlife TRACS.
    Response: We agree. WSFR has completed most of the Service and 
State training. Further training will continue via e-training venues. 
The trained Service staff will assist States as needed. No State will 
be expected to enter information into Wildlife TRACS until their staff 
has received training. WSFR staff will be engaged with State staff to 
assist in the transition for, at minimum, a full year.
    Comment: Two respondents stated that performance reports need to be 
written prior to Wildlife TRACS data entry and this duplicates effort.
    Response: We will not require grantees to submit written reports. 
Instead, States will directly enter performance reporting information 
into Wildlife TRACS.
    Comment: Three respondents stated that detailed project proposals 
need to be written prior to Wildlife TRACS data entry and this 
duplicates effort.
    Response: This has been addressed in the current structure of 
Wildlife TRACS. There are fields available in the system that will 
accommodate all of the required elements of a project statement as per 
50 CFR 80.82 and as required in other grant programs. Once entered into 
Wildlife TRACS, a document may be downloaded and saved that serves as a 
project narrative and used in http://www.grants.gov or other 
application processes. A separate project proposal does not need to be 
written for the WSFR grant approval process.
    Comment: Four respondents commented that using Wildlife TRACS for 
grant applications duplicates information submitted through http://www.grants.gov.
    Response: Wildlife TRACS is designed to collect information at the 
project and action levels, so most grant level information submitted 
through http://www.grants.gov is not applicable unless the grant only 
consists of a single project. If the grant only consists of a single 
project, the only duplicate information is a few fields on the SF-424 
(Application for Financial Assistance). Wildlife TRACS is designed to 
allow users to enter information into electronic fields and produce 
documents that the applicant may use when they submit applications 
through http://www.grants.gov, reducing user efforts.
    Comment: Two respondents commented that increased reporting 
requirements will result in increased staff workload.
    Response: We agree there will be an initial increase in staff 
workload as State staff learn the new system and enter new information. 
This is one reason why we will help enter information for the first 
year. After a 1-year grant cycle for continuing grants, information 
already entered can simply be updated with much less effort. 
Performance reporting though Wildlife TRACS will eliminate the need to 
prepare traditional written performance reports. Electronic workflow 
will reduce delays and allow for more efficient project approval and 
    Comment: Two respondents stated that no additional resources are 
going to be provided to States to enter information into Wildlife 
    Response: State administrative costs are eligible for funding under 
both the Wildlife Restoration (WR) and Sport Fish Restoration (SFR) 
grant programs. Receipts in the trust funds for both programs increased 
over 2012, resulting in an increase in funding for both WR and SFR for 
fiscal year 2013. This makes additional funds available if a State 
chooses to use them to provide additional resources to implement 
Wildlife TRACS. Training, technical assistance, and Service staff 
assistance are also being given to States as resources to help in using 
the electronic system for performance reporting.
    Comment: Two respondents commented that Wildlife TRACS geospatial 
data entry will require adding staff with this expertise.

[[Page 77703]]

    Response: Entering geospatial information into Wildlife TRACS will 
not require any specialized Geographic Information System (GIS) 
    Comment: One respondent commented that we must make additional 
efforts to minimize State burdens when implementing Wildlife TRACS.
    Response: We are reviewing the fields, mechanisms, and benefits of 
Wildlife TRACS to examine ways, within reason, to minimize State 
burdens for Wildlife TRACS data entry and use.
    Comment: One respondent recommended that WSFR staff should enter 
all data into Wildlife TRACS, with States performing quality assurance 
and control.
    Response: State staffs have first-hand knowledge of the projects 
and can enter better data. It would be more than a duplication of 
effort for the States to give the information to WSFR, have WSFR enter 
the information, then have State staff go back into the system and 
verify, clarify, and continue to revise incorrect information. 
Ultimately, State staffs need to be engaged in electronic data entry so 
that the quality of information is improved over that entered into 
FAIMS and so the performance information they are reporting is 
efficient and accurate.
    Comment: Three respondents recommended that Wildlife TRACS should 
only be used for accomplishment reporting, and not for applying for 
    Response: States will only enter data related to applying for a 
grant for mandatory (formula) grants. States will not be required to 
enter information into Wildlife TRACS for competitive grants until 
after a grant is awarded. If WSFR staff were responsible for entering 
project proposal information into Wildlife TRACS, they would be making 
decisions on the work, structure of the work as projects, and actions 
that they cannot make as these are State decisions. If WSFR were to add 
information that is not the way a State wants it structured, it would 
cause a greater burden on both parties. It would also make it hard for 
States to enter accomplishments, if grants were not structured by WSFR 
staff in a way that States would want them. WSFR has responded to 
concerns by designing Wildlife TRACS to create documents that can be 
used by States as attachments to an http://www.grants.gov application, 
reducing workload on the States.
    Comment: One respondent commented that proposed project information 
entered into Wildlife TRACS by States would be subject to revision 
during the grant approval process. This would mean more work in going 
back and forth to reach a final version.
    Response: If changes are needed during the grant approval process, 
it will create some type of workload regardless of what system is used. 
This is part of grants management. Changes made using an electronic 
system should be less of a burden and easier to manage with electronic 
workflow tools than changes made through other methods. Making the 
changes during the grant approval process reduces the workload during 
the accomplishment reporting period.
    Comment: One respondent commented that it would be inefficient for 
``placeholder'' geospatial data to be entered into Wildlife TRACS 
before work is completed and exact locations are known.
    Response: Geospatial information is central to the accurate 
reporting of conservation information and that is why it is 
incorporated into the structure of Wildlife TRACS. The electronic 
system requires that at least a basic map be entered as the first data 
entry step in order to set a general location for the work and the map 
will be altered later, as needed, for the specific project or action 
location. There will be tools given on the electronic system that will 
help users easily adjust the mapped areas as more information is 
received and projects and actions are better defined. We will give 
guidance on the easiest ways to use the electronic mapping tools that 
any typical user can understand.
    Comment: One respondent noted that Wildlife TRACS deployment lags 
FAIMS decommissioning by 3 months.
    Response: It was longer than 3 months, but was unavoidable due to 
development delays. However, this is not relevant to this information 
collection request.
    Comment: One respondent commented that revising project information 
in Wildlife TRACS will be burdensome because of the many times some 
projects are amended.
    Response: States need to submit appropriate paperwork each time 
they substantially amend projects according to existing grants 
processes. This will be done through the electronic system, with very 
little change in workload.
    Comment: One respondent asked exactly how Wildlife TRACS will allow 
more efficient grant processing.
    Response: When starting the grant process, all required elements of 
the project statement can be entered into Wildlife TRACS instead of a 
two-step process of submitting a file or paper copy of a narrative that 
would have to be entered later. Some information entered will be 
available as a report that can be attached to an http://www.grants.gov 
application. WSFR is exploring additions to this feature. Entering 
accomplishment information into the electronic system will fulfill 
performance reporting requirements, so written reports will no longer 
be needed. WSFR is exploring other efficiencies.
    Comment: States have not been properly trained nor had enough time 
to use the electronic system prior to publishing the notice asking for 
    Response: We agree the timing was unfortunate, but it was needed to 
get the process started for OMB approval for information collection. 
The States are now more familiar and this notice serves as a second 
chance for the public to comment.
    Comment: The additional information requested is really only for 
State Wildlife Grants.
    Response: The additional information we wish to collect is for all 
programs in WSFR except where described as an exception.
    Comment: Additional information beyond what is already approved and 
the additional listed in the 60-day notice will be collected through 
the electronic system, Wildlife TRACS.
    Response: It may appear that extra information is being collected 
beyond our current information collection approvals and that listed in 
the 60-day notice, but that is because the method of collection is 
different. For example, we would expect to see project purpose, need, 
and objectives in a written project statement, but this information 
will now be captured by entering information into prescribed data 
fields instead of in a paper narrative. Some of the fields in the 
electronic system replace hard-copy work flow processes, but the 
information is the same. We have thoroughly reviewed the existing 
application and performance reporting and identified the additional 
information we will ask for that is outside of the approval we have 
through OMB Control Numbers 1018-0109 and 1018-0147.
    Comment: Additional pieces of information such as: project 
location, contact information, real property information, workflow, and 
habitat information, are not needed to report to Congress.
    Response: Project location and habitat information are often 
important for requests we receive from Congress and others. Some of the 
information we will

[[Page 77704]]

collect will not be reported to Congress specifically as that 
information, but may be rolled-up to build the level of reporting that 
we need not only for Congress, but also for industry, the public, and 
other partners. Other information we will collect is required by policy 
or regulation and was collected differently prior to this, but is not 
new information. Some pieces of information are part of the system 
management process and are not expected to be used for that type of 
    Comment: The States should be given training, technical support, a 
system for collecting ongoing comments and suggestions, and definitions 
to help guide the consistency of entries.
    Response: We have been conducting training during 2013. We have 
developed Best Management Practices guidance, e-learning, examples of 
projects from various types of grants, instructions for how to enter 
the data, and other learning and use tools. We will post information on 
a Wiki that will allow users to search for specific information and 
easily find guidance. We will give technical assistance and answer 
questions through a Help Desk that will be supported indefinitely.
    Comment: There is concern that too much money will be spent on 
administration leaving less money for on-the-ground projects.
    Response: We expect there will be an increase in administrative 
burden for the first year or so using the electronic system. The 
electronic system will be used regardless of whether we add more 
information or not, as it is part of the application and reporting 
requirements for States to give the Service certain information in 
order to voluntarily receive grant funds. Especially with the increase 
in funds given to States in 2013 for Sport Fish Restoration and 
Wildlife Restoration, and the expected trend for continued increase in 
at least Wildlife Restoration funding to States, we expect no 
significant reduction in funding that can be used for direct 
conservation projects. Ultimately, however, it is a State decision on 
how they divide their WSFR funding between projects and administration.
    Comment: The Service should be responsible for all historical data 
    Response: We will bring as much historical information over from 
FAIMS as possible using the current technology. We will not expect 
users to enter information from past years.
    Comment: Instead of having to draw a point or polygon on a map, we 
need an option of entering GPS coordinates.
    Response: Users will have the option to enter mapping information 
several different ways, including using GPS coordinates. We have 
trained users on how to make the desired changes.
    Comment: The Service should divide the training up so that one 
class talks about how to do part of the data entry and another class 
something else.
    Response: We enlisted our professional WSFR trainers to organize 
and present initial training. They will continue to build tools and add 
components as needed for additional training as requested or as needed.
    Comment: States should not have to send in interim reports when a 
final report is due shortly after.
    Response: The reporting frequency and process is required by 43 CFR 
12 and is not part of the additional burden.
    Comment: Some projects affect over 200 species. How can we 
efficiently enter all of that information into the electronic system?
    Response: Entering species information is not required. A 
recommended best practice is to identify species that are directly 
benefitted by a specific action. Users will have the option to build 
customized groups of species that can then be applied to many different 
actions. We will continue to improve the process of working with 
species information to minimize the workload.
    Comment: Although it is a good idea for States to enter more 
information for the public to see, it will mean an extra workload and 
cost more money.
    Response: Any additions that States make to the electronic system 
beyond those we request are a decision of the State.

General Public Comment

    Comment: The commenter stated that members of the public should 
have the opportunity to review and approve projects in their State, and 
should have a say on how the State uses the funds.
    Response: Members of the public will be able to access grant 
information as a report in Wildlife TRACS. The commenter did not 
address the information collection, and we did not make any changes to 
our requirements as a result of this comment.
    We have consulted with States, organizations, other agencies, and 
other Federal staff when preparing the burden information, when 
determining the information we need for reporting actions, and when 
developing and implementing the new electronic system. We have formed 
several teams over the last 2 years during the development of the 
electronic system and have organized several more teams to assist in 
managing the system and responding to States and others into the 
    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 in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it 
will be done.

    Dated: December 19, 2013.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-30623 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]