Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0001-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-20T05:00Z

1
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
FOR
THE
NATIONAL
ESTUARY
PROGRAM
A.
JUSTIFICATION
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1(
a)
Title
­
National
Estuary
Program
1(
b)
Characterization/
Abstract
Section
320
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
amendments
of
1987
established
the
National
Estuary
Program
(
NEP)
to
promote
long­
term
planning
and
management
in
nationally
significant
estuaries
threatened
by
pollution,
development,
or
overuse.
The
NEP's
objectives
are
to
protect,
preserve
and
restore
estuaries.
The
strategy
of
the
program
is
to
focus
on
estuaries
that
are
nationally
significant
in
recreational
and
commercial
value,
and
of
great
importance
for
fish
and
wildlife
resources.
Another
facet
of
national
significance
is
whether
lessons
learned
in
working
with
the
estuary
can
be
applied
to
other
coastal
areas.
The
NEP
strategy
emphasizes
estuaries
with
problems
which
detract
from
the
estuary's
value
and
where
there
is
a
greater
likelihood
that
NEP
efforts
will
result
in
improvements
in
water
and
sediment
quality
and
in
the
abundance
and
variety
of
living
resources.

Nationally
significant
estuaries
are
identified
in
one
of
two
ways:
1)
the
estuary
is
nominated
by
the
State
in
which
it
lies;
or
2)
the
Administrator
identifies
an
estuary
and
decides
to
convene
a
Management
Conference
(
the
local
managing
entity
of
an
NEP).
When
the
Governor
of
the
State
in
which
the
estuary
is
located
nominates
the
estuary
for
acceptance
into
the
NEP,
the
EPA
then
evaluates
the
Governor's
nomination.
If
the
EPA
approves
the
addition
of
an
estuary
to
the
NEP,
a
Management
Conference
is
convened
which
involves
community
stakeholders
including
Federal,
State,
local,
and
interstate
agencies
with
jurisdiction
over
the
estuary,
and
other
interested
groups.

The
addition
of
estuaries
into
the
NEP
has
been
conducted
in
five
groups
or
"
tiers."
The
first
two
tiers
included
twelve
estuaries
which
the
Congress
recommended
for
priority
consideration:
in
1987,
Albemarle­
Pamlico
Sounds
in
North
Carolina,
Buzzards
Bay
in
Massachusetts,
Long
Island
Sound
in
New
York
and
Connecticut,
Narragansett
Bay
in
Rhode
Island,
Puget
Sound
in
Washington,
and
San
Francisco
Bay
in
California;
and
in
1989
Delaware
Inland
Bays
in
Delaware,
Delaware
Bay
in
Delaware,
New
Jersey
and
Pennsylvania,
Galveston
Bay
in
Texas,
New
York­
New
Jersey
Harbor
in
New
York
and
New
Jersey,
Santa
Monica
Bay
in
California
and
Sarasota
Bay
in
Florida.
The
nominations
were
evaluated
using
EPA
guidance
on
the
content
of
Governor's
nominations.
In
1991,
a
third
tier
of
estuaries
was
designated
based
on
Governor's
nominations:
Indian
River
Lagoon
in
Florida,
Tampa
Bay
in
Florida,
Barataria­
Terrebonne
Estuarine
Complex
in
Louisiana,
Casco
Bay
in
Maine
and
Massachusetts
Bays.

The
first
17
estuaries
were
established
on
the
basis
of
completing
a
Comprehensive
2
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP)
in
five
years.
In
an
effort
to
maximize
successes
of
these,
the
Administrator
opened
a
fourth
tier
of
nominations
in
1991
which
called
for
the
completion
of
the
planning
process
in
four
years.
In
1992,
four
estuaries
were
designated
under
this
streamlined
approach:
Peconic
Bay
in
New
York,
San
Juan
Harbor
in
Puerto
Rico,
Corpus
Christi
Bays
in
Texas
and
Tillamook
Bay
in
Oregon.
Continuing
the
theme
of
streamlining,
the
Administrator
designated
seven
new
estuaries
in
1995
which
were
to
complete
their
CCMPs
in
three
years:
Great
Bay
in
New
Hampshire,
Barnegat
Bay
in
New
Jersey,
Maryland
Coastal
Bays
in
Maryland,
Charlotte
Harbor
in
Florida,
Mobile
Bay
in
Alabama,
Morro
Bay
in
California
and
Lower
Columbia
River
in
Washington.

Once
an
estuary
is
designated
by
the
Administrator,
an
agreement
of
intent
between
the
EPA
and
the
State
or
States,
called
a
Conference
Agreement,
establishes
the
governing
entity
for
the
project
which
is
called
a
Management
Conference.
The
Management
Conference
performs
an
objective,
technical
assessment
of
the
condition
of
the
estuary.
Based
on
this
assessment,
the
Conference
summarizes
the
estuary's
problems
and
indicates
which
problems
will
be
addressed
by
the
Conference.
After
the
estuary's
programs
are
identified,
the
Management
Conference
establishes
goals
and
objectives
for
the
estuary.
Goals
may
range
from
improving
the
current
status
of
the
estuary
to
maintaining
pristine
quality.
Specific
actions
and
commitments
to
protect
and
restore
the
estuary
are
developed
and
the
costs
and
benefits
of
options
are
evaluated.
This
information
is
used
by
the
Management
Conference
to
develop
a
comprehensive
estuary
management
plan
or
CCMP.
Once
the
CCMP
is
approved
by
the
Administrator,
the
NEP
is
responsible
for
oversight,
coordination
and
facilitation
of
CCMP
implementation
activities.

To
obtain
funding
to
administer
Management
Conferences,
to
characterize
and
define
problems
of
the
estuary,
and
to
develop
the
CCMP,
States
and
other
eligible
applicants
may
apply
for
federal
funds
using
a
standard
General
Federal
Assistance
application.
To
ensure
efficient
use
of
allotted
resources,
an
annual
work
plan
for
each
estuary
program
must
be
developed
by
the
Management
Conference
before
individual
awards
can
be
approved.
The
approved
work
plan
then
becomes
a
part
of
the
grant
agreement
between
EPA
and
the
recipient.

In
addition,
NEPs
must
also
prepare
an
implementation
report
every
three
years.
The
purpose
of
these
implementation
review
reports
is
to
document
progress
made
in
implementing
the
CCMPs,
to
highlight
successes,
strengths
and
environmental
results,
and
to
identify
areas
for
improvement.
This
information
is
used
by
EPA
to
make
sound
decisions
regarding
continued
funding
to
NEPs
implementing
their
management
plans,
to
transfer
lessons
learned
in
the
NEPs
to
other
coastal
watersheds
and
EPA
programs,
and
to
provide
guidance
and
programmatic
support
to
NEPs
based
on
needs
identified
in
the
report.

Individual
NEPs
must
also
develop
Government
Performance
Results
Act
(
GPRA)
reports
that
provide
information
about
environmental
results
and
progress
implementing
their
CCMPs.
These
are
submitted
annually
with
the
information
being
presented
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
with
other
EPA
GPRA
measures.
3
2.
Need
for
and
use
of
the
Collection
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
Statutory
authority
for
the
NEP
is
provided
by
§
320
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
as
amended.
The
terms
and
conditions
of
grants
under
the
NEP
are
provided
in
40
CFR
§
35.9040
and
§
35.9045,
including
the
requirement
for
the
50
percent
matching
funds
from
non­
Federal
sources
and
applications
that
are
consistent
with
the
annual
work
plan
prepared
by
each
Management
Conference.

For
each
NEP,
other
than
standard
application
data,
EPA
needs:
1)
the
Governor's
voluntary
nomination
to
determine
whether
an
estuary
should
be
included
in
the
NEP;
2)
the
annual
work
plan
to
determine
how
the
federal
and
non­
Federal
matching
funds
will
be
spent;
3)
an
implementation
review
report
documenting
program
implementation
progress
to
justify
continued
EPA
funding
under
section
320;
and
4)
annual
GPRA
reports
to
show
environmental
results
being
achieved.

The
State's
participation
in
the
NEP
is
voluntary.
A
Governor
nominates
an
estuary
for
the
NEP
on
his
or
her
own
initiative
using
guidance
which
EPA
has
established.
The
information
from
the
Governor
presents
already
available
knowledge
about
the
estuary
and
its
importance.
The
nomination
also
contains
the
Governor's
views
concerning
the
significance
of
the
estuary,
the
need
for
the
designation,
and
the
State's
goals
and
objectives
for
the
estuary
and
its
strategy
for
meeting
them.
To
select
an
estuary
for
designation,
EPA
uses
information
in
the
nomination
and
other
existing
public
information
on
the
national
significance
of
the
estuary,
the
importance
of
the
estuary
on
a
regional
scale,
the
environmental
problems
facing
the
estuary,
and
the
most
likely
causes
of
these
problems.

To
obtain
funding
under
the
NEP,
the
General
Federal
Assistance
Grant
application
must
be
filed
and
an
annual
work
plan
must
be
prepared.
The
burden
of
the
actual
grant
application
is
covered
under
the
ICR
for
General
Federal
Assistance
applications
(
ICR
No.
0938;
OMB
No.
2030~
0020).
The
only
burdens
covered
under
this
ICR
are
the
burdens
of
preparing
the
annual
work
plan,
the
implementation
review,
and
GPRA
reports
which
are
specific
to
the
NEP.
General
Federal
Assistance
Grant
application
burdens
are
not
unique
to
the
NEP
and
are
not
covered
by
this
document.

The
annual
work
plan
identifies
and
discusses
the
major
goals
and
milestones
and
projects
to
be
pursued
in
the
year
to
come.
The
goals
are
comprehensive
and
broad,
based
on
the
program
goals
established
by
the
Management
Conference.
In
addition,
the
work
plan
must
document
the
kinds,
amounts,
and
sources
of
funds
for
the
upcoming
year's
activities,
including
a
demonstration
of
how
the
required
matching
funds
will
be
provided
from
non­
Federal
sources.

NEPs
must
report
must
report
every
three
years
to
EPA
on
their
progress
in
implementing
the
CCMP
and
achieving
environmental
results.
4
NEPs
must
also
annually
prepare
a
GPRA
report
estimating
the
number
of
acres
of
habitat
being
restored
within
their
study
areas
and
also
indicate
the
number
of
CCMP
priority
actions
being
initiated.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
EPA
Administrator
uses
the
information
collected
under
this
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
to:
1)
evaluate
Governor's
voluntary
nominations
of
estuaries
for
the
NEP;
and
2)
evaluate
whether
grant
applications
under
the
NEP
should
be
approved.
The
following
paragraphs
describe
information
required
by
the
NEP:

$
Respondents
$
Processes
and
techniques
used
to
obtain
this
information
$
How
and
by
whom
the
information
is
used
$
Flow
of
informationBwhere
it
is
submitted,
filed
etc.

(
A)
Governor's
Nomination
A
Governor's
nomination
is
submitted
on
a
one­
time
basis
only
by
States
that
wish
to
participate
in
the
NEP,
and
nominations
are
accepted
only
when
the
administrator
determines
that
additional
programs
are
needed
and
that
sufficient
resources
are
available
to
support
them.
At
this
time,
the
EPA
does
not
anticipate
soliciting
nominations
in
the
information
collection
period
of
2003­
2006.
A
Governor's
nomination
is
submitted
by
a
State
in
which
the
target
estuary
lies.
If
the
estuary
is
located
in
more
than
one
State,
a
single
nomination
may
be
submitted
for
the
estuary
which
combines
the
information
from
all
the
participating
States.

EPA's
guidance
concerning
the
contents
of
the
Governor's
nomination
"
The
National
Estuary
Program
Final
Guidance
on
the
Contents
of
the
Governor's
Nomination,"
states
that
three
general
topics
should
be
addressed.

1.
The
national
significance
of
the
estuary
2.
The
need
for
a
conference
3.
The
likelihood
of
success
Much
of
the
information
included
in
a
Governor's
nomination
is
available
from
work
already
accomplished
by
States,
EPA
Regions
and
local
organizations.
Some
information
is
also
available
in
EPA's
305
(
b)
reports,
NOAA's
National
Estuarine
Inventory,
NOAA's
Coastal
Zone
Management,
Estuarine
Research
and
Marine
Sanctuary
Programs,
and
university
studies.
In
the
guidance,
States
are
urged
to
use
existing
and
readily
available
information
in
the
nominations.
New
research
and
studies
are
not
required.
For
example,
data
attained
from
the
State
economic
development
agency
or
a
community
business
group
can
be
used
to
evaluate
recreational
and/
or
commercial
value
of
the
estuary.
The
uses
of
the
specific
information
recommended
for
inclusion
in
the
nomination
by
the
program
guidance
are
described
below.

Describe
estuary's
boundaries
­
To
determine
if
estuary
meets
CWA
definition.
5
Describe
estuary's
value
­
To
determine
if
estuary
is
nationally
significant.
Demonstrate
how
problems
will
yield
transferable
results
­
To
determine
how
an
estuary
will
enhance
results
that
can
be
applied
to
other
estuarine
or
coastal
watersheds.
Data
on
economic
and
living
resources
­
To
determine
if
estuary
has
significant
local
or
regional
value.
Data
on
problems
­
To
determine
if
problems
reduce
value
of
estuarine
resources.
Discussion
of
cause
and
effect
­
To
determine
if
the
problem
is
sufficiently
understood
so
as
to
be
addressed
effectively.
Assess
existing
laws,
regulations,
control
programs,
enforcement
and
coordination
­
To
determine
if
the
proposed
estuary
program
entails
studies
and
control
efforts
beyond
these
programs.
List
overall
goals
for
the
estuary,
and
provide
examples
of
specific
objectives
and
action
plans
­
To
demonstrate
whether
State
has
an
understanding
of
the
work
which
must
be
done
to
mitigate
problems.
List
structure
and
membership
of
proposed
Management
Conference
­
To
demonstrate
broad
stakeholder
support
for
the
program.
Document
existence
of
and/
or
potential
for
generating
public
support
­
To
determine
whether
there
is
or
will
be
sufficient
public
support
for
successful
implementation
of
the
program.
Discuss
interests
and
agencies
already
working
in
the
estuary
­
To
determine
these
public
entities'
interest
in
and
commitment
to
protecting
or
restoring
estuarine
water
quality.
Discuss
ability
to
fund
the
management
of
the
conference
and
implementing
action
plans.
­
To
determine
if
the
non­
federal
cost
share
requirement
of
the
statute
can
be
met
and
if
sufficient
funding
exists
to
implement
the
program.

After
an
estuary
is
accepted
into
the
program,
the
information
in
the
Governor's
nomination
is
then
used
to
initiate
consensus
among
Management
Conference
members
on
priority
problems
to
be
addressed
by
the
program
and
to
set
goals
and
objectives.

(
B)
Annual
Work
Plan
In
order
to
receive
funds,
grantees
must
submit
an
annual
work
plan
to
EPA.
The
contents
of
annual
work
plans
are
specified
in
40
CFR
Section
35.9045.
Work
plans
should
include
a
listing
and
discussion
of
completed
projects
and
projects
planned
for
the
upcoming
year
as
well
as
describe
the
types
of
funding
and
amounts
to
be
supplied
by
each
funding
source.
The
work
plan
is
reviewed
by
EPA
and
also
serves
as
the
scope
of
work
for
the
grant
agreement.
Annual
work
plans
must
be
approved
by
the
EPA
after
they
are
approved
by
the
Management
Conference
so
that
assistance
funding
can
be
awarded.
EPA
also
uses
these
work
plans
to
track
performance
of
each
of
the
28
estuary
programs
currently
in
the
NEP.
6
Information
presented
in
the
work
plan
is
based
on
the
EPA/
State
Conference
Agreement
developed
for
the
Management
Conference,
but
may
further
define
the
goals
and
milestones
in
the
overall
plan
and
modifies
them
based
on
the
success
or
failure
of
activities
completed
in
the
previous
years.
The
information
is
available
from
the
Management
Conferees
and
from
the
Conference
Agreement.
EPA
uses
the
work
plan
to
determine
whether
the
monies
requested
in
the
grant
application
serve
the
seven
statutory
purposes
of
the
Management
Conference,
whether
they
fund
activities
consistent
with
the
individual
program
goals,
and
whether
their
expenditure
is
an
efficient
use
of
resources.
The
budget
information
is
also
used
to
determine
whether
50
percent
of
the
funding
is
provided
by
non­
Federal
sources
as
required
by
40
CFR
Section
35.9040.

(
C)
Implementation
Reviews
NEPs
must
submit
a
report
documenting
the
implementation
progress
that
has
been
made
by
the
program.
The
purpose
of
these
reviews
is
to
highlight
progress,
identify
opportunities
and
issues,
and
determine
whether
some
level
of
continued
base
funding
is
warranted.
These
reviews
must
be
conducted
and
a
report
on
implementation
progress
submitted
every
three
years.

Each
NEP
should
provide
written
information
on
the
following
set
of
topics:

$
Status
of
CCMP
implementation
(
programmatic
progress)

$
Environmental
results
and
monitoring,
including
environmental
indicators
$
Technical
assistance
and
public
education
$
Resources
$
Institutional
coordination
and
public
involvement
$
Overall
program
strengths
and
limitations
$
Feedback
on
EPA's
involvement
in
CCMP
implementation
While
annual
work
plans
are
submitted
as
a
component
of
the
implementation
reviews,
they
cannot
serve
in
place
of
the
implementation
review
because
annual
work
plans
are
limited
to
the
activities
of
the
grant
recipient.
The
implementation
review
encompasses
the
progress
made
by
the
overall
estuary
program
which
is
a
collaboration
of
many
stakeholders
each
contributing
to
the
implementation
of
the
management
plan
and
the
restoration
and
protection
of
the
estuary.
Only
the
NEP
can
collect
this
information
from
many
stakeholders
because,
according
to
purpose
(
6)
of
§
320
of
the
CWA,
the
NEP
is
responsible
for
monitoring
the
effectiveness
of
actions
taken
to
implement
the
management
plan.
In
addition,
§
320(
h)
of
the
CWA
requires
grant
recipients
to
report
on
the
progress
made
under
§
320.
The
standard
recordkeeping
requirement
for
EPA
grants
is
3
years
after
the
date
the
recipient
submits
the
final
Financial
Status
Report
(
FSR).
7
(
D)
Government
Results
Performance
Act
(
GPRA)
Reporting
The
Government
Performance
and
Results
Act
(
GPRA)
requires
that
each
agency
report
annually
to
Congress
on
the
results
of
its
activities
in
each
fiscal
year.
This
Annual
Performance
Report
forms
the
bridge
between
the
goals
and
objectives
presented
in
the
EPA
Strategic
Plan
and
budgeted
activities.
The
Annual
Performance
Report
tracks
the
progress
made
toward
implementing
goals
and
objectives
in
any
single
fiscal
year.
To
assist
in
fulfilling
this
requirement,
the
NEPs
are
asked
to
report
on
two
items.
The
first
is
determining
the
number
of
acres
of
habitat
that
have
been
restored
within
individual
study
areas.
Information
is
provided
on
the
type
of
restoration
being
performed
and
type
of
habitat
being
restored.
The
second
item
is
how
many
priority
action
items
within
the
CCMP
have
been
initiated.
This
is
an
indication
of
progress
being
made
implementing
the
CCMP.
NEP
reporting
on
these
items
helps
to
measure
EPA's
overall
goal
of
clean
and
safe
water.

Use
of
Improved
Information
Technology
States
can
access
numerous
computerized
data
bases
to
obtain
information
necessary
for
the
Governor's
nomination.
These
data
bases
are
particularly
useful
in
assessing
water
quality.
EPA
data
bases
which
are
available
are
the
Surf
Your
Watershed,
Index
of
Watershed
Indicators
(
IWI),
Reach
File,
Water
Quality
File,
Industrial
Facilities
Discharge
File,
Permit
Compliance
System,
BIOS,
Complex
Effluent
Toxicity
Information
System,
Water
Body
File,
Federal
Reporting
Data
System,
Needs
Survey
File,
and
Grants
Information
Control
System.
EPA
encourages
the
use
of
internet
resources
to
the
maximum
extent
in
all
NEP
transactions.
It
is
conceivable
that
nominations
and
work
plans
of
the
near
future
could
be
transmitted
to
EPA
electronically.

3.
Non
Duplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
3(
a)
Non
Duplication
The
NEP
is
a
program
which
is
being
directed
by
the
Office
of
Wetlands,
Oceans
and
Watersheds
(
OWOW).
The
Governor's
nomination,
the
annual
work
plan,
the
implementation
review,
and
GPRA
reporting
are
unique
documents
addressing
particular
requirements
of
the
NEP.
No
other
program
or
office
at
the
EPA
or
any
other
federal,
State,
or
local
agency
requests
this
same
data
organized
in
this
particular
manner.

Although
there
are
no
duplicative
reporting
requirements,
some
data
required
for
the
Governor's
nomination
may
be
available
from
other
EPA
programs
and
from
other
federal,
State
and
local
agencies.
However,
no
one
source
contains
all
the
data
required
for
the
Governor's
nomination.
Therefore,
the
data
must
be
compiled
from
other
sources
and
organized
in
a
manner
detailed
in
the
NEP
guidance
and
it
must
reflect
the
Governor's
priorities
and
recommendations.
The
nomination
guidance
also
affords
the
states
considerable
flexibility
in
style
and
interpretation.
Some
of
the
Federal
agencies
that
compile
information
relevant
to
the
Governor's
nomination
are
the
Department
of
Interior,
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration,
and
the
Natural
8
Resources
Conservation
Service.
In
addition,
public
interest
groups,
such
as
the
Nature
Conservancy,
may
possess
appropriate
information.
For
example,
data
on
declining
fish
catches
to
assess
the
estuary's
commercial
and
recreational
value
can
be
obtained
from
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
sources.
Listings
of
participating
sources
of
data
and
information
appear
in
the
ICR
for
the
National
Estuary
Program,
Appendix
A,
Nov.
22,
1989.
For
annual
work
plans,
implementation
reviews,
and
GPRA
reporting,
the
NEP
Management
Conferences
are
the
only
source
of
information.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
EPA
Published
a
Federal
Register
notice
on
10/
29/
2002
on
pages
65978­
65979
to
announce
the
renewal
of
this
ICR.
No
comments
were
received.

3(
c)
Consultations
EPA
convenes
two
national
conferences
with
the
NEP
each
year.
A
main
purpose
is
to
meet
with
respondents
and
receive
feedback
on
how
EPA
can
better
provide
service.
Discussions
on
how
reporting
can
be
made
less
burdensome
is
also
routine.
This
offers
an
opportunity
for
EPA
to
continually
evaluate
its
policies
and
guidance
to
make
them
as
effective
as
possible.

EPA
also
has
regulations
that
address
the
grants
portion
of
the
NEP.
These
regulations
require
that
a
Management
Conference
be
convened
and
that
certain
program
objectives
are
complete
before
funds
are
awarded
to
program
participants
under
section
320(
g)(
3)
of
the
CWA.
In
addition,
EPA
has
issued
the
guidance
package
entitled
"
The
National
Estuary
Program:
Final
Guidance
on
the
Contents
of
a
Governor's
Nomination."

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
A
Governor's
nomination
is
submitted
on
a
one­
time
basis
only
by
States
that
elect
to
participate
in
the
NEP,
and
only
when
the
Administrator
determines
that
there
is
a
need
for
additional
programs
and
that
there
are
sufficient
resources
to
support
these
actions.
At
this
time,
the
EPA
does
not
anticipate
soliciting
nominations
in
the
information
collection
period
of
2003­
2006.
Therefore,
frequency
of
collection
is
not
an
issue
for
the
reporting
requirements
contained
in
this
ICR.

Annual
work
plans
are
prepared
every
year
and
are
submitted
with
the
grant
application.
Priorities
for
Management
Conferences
can
change
during
a
year,
and
numerous
projects
are
tied
to
the
results
of
projects
completed
during
the
year.
Therefore,
work
plans
must
be
developed
annually
to
plan
and
track
the
progress
of
this
program.

Implementation
reviews
are
now
conducted
every
three
years,
which
is
less
frequent
than
during
the
last
ICR
cycle
when
it
was
required
every
two
years.
Three
years
is
an
appropriate
time
for
significant
progress
to
be
made
since
the
previous
review.
Longer
than
three
years
poses
the
risk
of
not
identifying
program
issues
which,
left
unaddressed,
may
result
in
program
failure
before
corrective
action
can
be
recommended.
This
also
puts
the
Agency
at
risk
of
funding
programs
that
are
not
using
EPA
funds
for
appropriate
purposes
or
achieving
expected
results.
Less
than
three
years
would
be
a
significant
burden
with
nominal,
if
any,
increases
in
useful
9
information.

GPRA
reporting
is
performed
on
an
annual
cycle,
typically
around
the
beginning
of
the
new
fiscal
year.
Therefore,
the
NEP
GPRA
reports
need
to
be
provided
annually
to
measure
progress
toward
annual
targets.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
information
collection
is
consistent
with
OMB
guidelines
contained
in
5
CFR
1320.6
in
that:

$
Information
is
not
collected
more
often
than
quarterly.

$
Responses
are
not
required
in
less
than
30
days.

$
Respondents
are
not
required
to
submit
more
than
an
original
and
two
copies
of
the
document.

$
It
does
not
provide
for
remuneration
of
respondents
other
than
contractors
or
grantees.

$
It
does
not
require
records
to
be
kept
for
more
than
three
years.

$
It
is
not
in
conjunction
with
a
statistical
survey.

$
Provisions
for
small
businesses
and
other
small
entities
are
appropriate.

$
Confidentiality
is
protected.

$
It
does
not
require
provision
of
information
in
a
format
other
than
that
which
it
is
customarily
maintained.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
The
Governor's
nomination
is
considered
an
application
and
is
confidential
until
a
Management
Conference
is
convened.
Similarly,
applications
for
320(
g)(
3)
grants
are
confidential
until
an
offer
or
award
is
accepted
by
the
applicant.
After
acceptance,
all
documents
are
public.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
information
of
a
sensitive
nature
is
requested
by
this
ICR.

4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
Respondents
are
mainly
State
and
local
government
workers.
The
SIC
code
applicable
to
the
State
and
local
governments
is
9511.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
(
I)
Data
items:
Annual
Work
Plans,
Implementation
Review
Report,
GPRA
Reports
For
annual
workplans
the
standard
recordkeeping
requirement
for
EPA
grants
is
3
years
after
the
date
the
recipient
submits
the
final
Financial
Status
Report
(
FSR).
(
ii)
Respondent
Activities:
Compiling
information
on
each
NEP
program
activities
such
as
restoration
projects,
outreach
material
that
has
been
developed,
and
workshop
proceedings.
This
may
include
reviewing
and
transmitting
information
or
searching
established
databases.
10
5.
The
Information
Collected
B
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
For
annual
workplans,
implementation
review
reports,
and
GPRA
reports,
the
agency
typically
will
answer
respondent
questions,
hold
conference
calls,
review
and
analyze
the
submissions,
record
the
submissions,
and
store
the
information.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodologies
and
Management
Annual
workplans
serve
as
a
scope
of
work
for
the
grant
agreement
and
are
submitted
in
hard
copy
form
as
part
of
the
grant
application.
Implementation
review
reports
are
submitted
partly
in
paper
because
of
examples
of
brochures,
pictures,
and
other
public
outreach
tools
that
have
been
developed,
and
partly
electronically.
GPRA
reports
are
mainly
provided
electronically
in
a
standard
Microsoft
Word
table
format.
Quality
is
checked
by
follow­
up
conversations
with
the
respondents.
For
example,
with
the
implementation
review,
conference
calls
are
set
up
to
go
over
the
specific
submittals
and
discuss
overall
progress
being
made
implementing
the
CCMP.
This
allows
for
detailed
scrutiny
of
the
information
provided.
The
processing
technology
at
this
time
is
standard
desktop
computer
with
word
processing
software.
Agency
staff
will
enter
and
store
some
data
electronically
using
these
formats.
GPRA
information
is
also
stored
in
a
manner
that
allows
the
public
access
through
the
EPA
website.
Much
of
the
other
information
is
not
electronic
and
will
be
disseminated
at
conferences
and
workshops
as
appropriate.
In
the
future
there
is
a
possibility
much
of
the
information
could
be
scanned
to
make
it
more
accessible
to
the
public.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
States
and
local
governments
are
the
most
likely
respondents
to
this
information
request.
The
burden
on
small
organizations
is
therefore
not
an
issue
for
the
reporting
requirements
contained
in
this
ICR.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
Annual
workplans
are
required
each
year
from
the
28
NEPs
by
June
30th.
Implementation
Reviews
are
scheduled
as
follows:
No
reviews
are
scheduled
for
2003;
in
2004,
nine
programs
will
submitting
Implementation
Reports,
five
programs
by
March
1,
2004,
and
four
programs
by
June
1,
2004.
GPRA
reports
are
submitted
annually
to
correspond
with
the
Agency
reporting
process
and
are
requested
to
be
provided
by
October
30th.

6.
Estimating
The
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
11
The
total
number
of
estuary
programs
in
the
NEP
is
limited
by
the
amount
of
funds
appropriated
from
Congress.
Current
status
and
budget
projections
provide
for
up
to
a
total
of
28
estuaries
in
the
NEP
in
FY2003.
During
the
term
of
this
ICR,
all
28
are
operating
in
the
post­
CCMP
implementation
stage
which,
as
discussed
in
the
abstract
in
section
1(
b),
concerns
oversight
and
implementation
of
the
CCMP.
During
the
post­
CCMP
phase,
the
NEP
programs
receive
significantly
less
funding
and
the
annual
work
plan
encompasses
less
effort
than
those
of
the
pre­
CCMP
period.
Based
on
the
experience
of
program
participants
to
date,
we
will
continue
to
use
the
burden
hour
estimates
developed
for
the
1999
ICR
calculations
for
both
respondents
and
agency.

(
A)
Annual
Work
Plans:
It
is
estimated
that
100
burden
hours
are
required
for
State
personnel
to
prepare
and
gather
information
to
summarize
the
previous
years
activities,
to
plan
for
the
current
year,
and
to
produce
the
annual
work
plan.
This
is
the
same
value
used
in
the
previous
review
cylce.
It
is
expected
that
Management
Conferences
will
be
moving
to
more
improved
records
keeping
and
tracking,
which
should
result
in
a
lower
burden
for
the
following
cycle.

The
annual
workplan
burden
to
respondent
is:

FY
03:
28
Annual
Work
Plans
28
Annual
Work
Plans
*
100
hrs/
workplan
=
2,800
hrs/
year
FY
04:
28
Annual
Work
Plans
2,800
hrs/
year
*
3
years
=
8,400
hrs/
3
years
FY
05:
28
Annual
Work
Plans
(
B)
Implementation
Review:
It
is
estimated
that
250
burden
hours
are
required
for
respondents
to
prepare
and
gather
information
to
summarize
the
previous
period's
activities.
Because
it
is
expected
that
NEPs
will
be
continually
reviewing
and
reassessing
priorities
within
each
program,
250
hours
is
considered
to
be
an
upper
limit
on
the
effort
required
to
prepare
an
implementation
review
report.
The
1999
ICR
value
of
250
will
again
be
used
for
this
cycle.
The
personnel
required
to
complete
this
effort
is
a
mix
of
white
collar
staff
levels
with
the
approximately
55
percent
being
technical
staff,
5
percent
being
secretarial
and
40
percent
being
administration
or
managerial
level.

The
implementation
review
report
burden
to
the
respondent
is:

FY03:
0
Implementation
Review
Reports
FY04:
9
Implementation
Review
Reports
FY05:
19
Implementation
Review
Reports
28
Implementation
Review
Reports
*
250
hours/
report
=
7,000/
3
years
(
C)
Government
Performance
Results
Act
Reporting:
Based
on
discussions
with
respondents,
it
is
estimated
that
an
upper
limit
for
burden
hours
to
the
NEPs
for
reporting
GPRA
information
is
60
hours
with
a
lower
limit
of
10
hours
for
those
programs
with
established
information
management
systems
in
place.
As
programs
begin
to
establish
tracking
systems
and
information
management
systems
the
burden
hours
should
decrease.
Presently,
the
annual
average
estimate
of
12
burden
hours
for
the
NEPs
collecting
and
reporting
GPRA
information
is
35
hours
per
report.

The
GPRA
reporting
burden
to
the
respondent
is:

FY03:
28
GPRA
Reports
28
GPRA
Reports
*
35hrs/
report
=
980hrs/
year
FY04:
28
GPRA
Reports
980
hrs/
year
*
3
years
=
2,940hrs/
3
years
FY05:
28
GPRA
Reports
6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
6(
b)(
I)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
(
A)
Annual
Workplans:
The
post­
CCMP
annual
workplan
is
estimated
to
take
100
hours
of
preparation
time
by
State
and
local
government
personnel.
In
the
last
ICR
cycle,
1999,
a
labor
rate
of
$
54/
hour
was
used
that
included
fringe
benefits
and
other
overhead
costs
as
well
as
travel
and
other
material
costs.
The
rate
and
burden
were
based
on
the
experience
of
the
States
of
Rhode
Island
and
California
during
the
FY
1997
implementation
review.
The
average
hourly
2002
rate
for
this
ICR
is
$
60,
as
adjusted
with
the
Employment
Cost
Index
(
ECI)
,
using
the
1999
ICR
baseline
of
$
54/
hour.
It
reflects
the
total
cost
to
employ
an
individual
and
includes
salaries,
fringe
benefits
and
other
overhead
costs.

The
annual
workplan
cost
to
the
respondent
is:

FY
03:
28
Annual
Work
Plans
28
Annual
Work
Plans
*
100
hrs/
workplan
=
2,800
hrs/
year
FY
04:
28
Annual
Work
Plans
2,800
*
3
years
=
8,400
hrs/
3
years
FY
05:
28
Annual
Work
Plans
2,800
hrs/
year
*
$
60hr
=
$
168,000/
year
(
B)
Implementation
Review:
It
is
estimated
that
250
burden
hours
are
required
for
respondents
to
prepare
and
gather
information
to
summarize
the
previous
period's
activities.
Because
it
is
expected
that
NEPs
will
be
continually
reviewing
and
reassessing
priorities
within
each
program,
250
hours
is
considered
to
be
an
upper
limit
on
the
effort
required
to
prepare
an
implementation
review
report.
The
State
and
local
government
labor
rate
of
$
60,
which
reflects
adjustment
from
the
1999
ICR
baseline
using
the
ECI,
will
be
used
(
see
Annual
Workplan
cost
description).

The
implementation
review
report
cost
to
the
respondent
is:

FY03:
0
Implementation
Review
Reports
FY04:
9
Implementation
Review
Reports
FY05:
19
Implementation
Review
Reports
28
Implementation
Review
Reports
*
250
hours/
report
=
7,000/
3
years
7,000/
3
years
*
$
60
=
$
420,000
$
420,000
/
3
years
=
$
140,000
/
year
(
C)
Government
Performance
Results
Act
Reporting:
Based
on
discussions
with
respondents,
it
is
estimated
that
an
upper
limit
for
burden
hours
to
the
NEPs
for
reporting
GPRA
information
is
60
hours
with
a
lower
limit
of
10
hours
for
those
programs
with
established
information
13
management
systems
in
place.
As
programs
begin
to
establish
tracking
systems
and
information
management
systems
the
burden
hours
should
decrease.
Presently,
the
annual
average
estimate
of
burden
hours
for
the
NEPs
collecting
and
reporting
GPRA
information
is
35
hours
per
report.
The
State
and
local
government
labor
rate
of
$
60,
which
reflects
adjustment
from
the
1999
ICR
baseline
using
the
ECI,
will
be
used
(
see
Annual
Workplan
cost
description).

The
GPRA
annual
reporting
cost
to
the
respondent
is:

FY03:
28
GPRA
Reports
28
GPRA
Reports
*
35hrs/
report
=
980hrs/
year
FY04:
28
GPRA
Reports
980
hrs/
year
*
3
years
=
2,940hrs/
3
years
FY05:
28
GPRA
Reports
980hrs/
year
*
$
60hr
=
$
58,800
(
6)(
b)(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs:
As
in
the
last
review
cycle,
1999,
no
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
are
expected.

(
6)(
b)(
iii)
Capital/
Start­
up
Operating
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs:
As
in
the
last
review
cycle,
1999,
no
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
are
expected.

(
6)(
b)(
iv)
Annualizing
Capital
Costs:
N/
A
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
(
A)
Annual
Workplans:
Part
of
the
overall
burden
and
cost
to
the
federal
government
is
based
on
the
number
of
annual
work
plans
expected
each
year
as
estimated
in
Item
No.
6(
a).
The
burden
and
cost
are
also
based
on
the
last
ICR
cycle
in
1999.
In
the
last
ICR
cycle,
1999,
reviewing
the
post­
CCMP
annual
work
plan
required
16
hours
of
federal
workers'
time.
These
estimates
were
collected
from
several
EPA
Regional
Offices
and
also
from
headquarters
staff
reviewers.
The
16
hour
value
is
still
applicable
for
this
review
cycle.
Also
in
the
last
ICR
cycle,
1999,
a
labor
rate
of
$
46/
hour
was
used
which
was
lower
than
the
State
and
local
government
rate
because
the
mix
of
staff
requires
less
senior
level
involvement.
The
average
hourly
federal
worker
2002
rate
for
this
ICR
is
$
52/
hour,
as
adjusted
with
the
Employment
Cost
Index
(
ECI),
using
the
1999
ICR
baseline
of
$
46/
hour.
The
burden
and
cost
to
the
federal
government
for
reviewing
annual
workplans
is
summarized
below.

(
A)
Post­
CCMP
Annual
Work
Plan
FY03:
28
NEP
Annual
Work
Plans
FY04:
28
NEP
Annual
Work
Plans
FY05:
28
NEP
Annual
Work
Plans
28
Work
Plans
*
16
hours/
plan
=
448
hours/
year
448
hours/
year
*
3
years
=
1,344
hours/
3
years
448
hours/
year
*
$
52/
hour
=
$
23,296/
year
14
(
B)
Implementation
Reviews:
Part
of
the
overall
burden
and
cost
to
the
federal
government
is
based
on
the
number
of
implementation
review
reports
expected
each
year
as
estimated
in
Item
No.
6(
a).
The
burden
and
cost
are
based
on
the
last
ICR
cycle
in
1999.
In
the
last
ICR
cycle,
1999,
reviewing
the
implementation
review
reports
required
40
hours
of
federal
workers'
time.
The
burden
is
based
on
experience
with
the
implementation
reviews
conducted
during
the
past
few
years.
These
estimates
were
collected
from
several
EPA
Regional
Offices
and
also
from
HQ
staff
reviewers.
The
40
hour
value
is
still
applicable
for
this
review
cycle.
Also
in
the
last
ICR
cycle,
1999,
a
labor
rate
of
$
46/
hour
was
used
which
was
lower
than
the
State
and
local
government
rate
because
the
mix
of
staff
requires
less
senior
level
involvement.
The
average
hourly
federal
worker
2002
rate
for
this
ICR
is
$
52/
hour,
as
adjusted
with
the
Employment
Cost
Index
(
ECI),
using
the
1999
ICR
baseline
of
$
46/
hour.
The
burden
and
cost
to
the
federal
government
for
reviewing
implementation
review
reports
is
summarized
below.

The
implementation
review
report
burden
and
cost
to
the
Agency
is:

FY03:
0
Implementation
Review
Reports
FY04:
9
Implementation
Review
Reports
FY05:
19
Implementation
Review
Reports
28
Implementation
Review
Reports
*
40
hours/
report
=
1,120hrs/
3
years
1120hrs/
3
years
*
$
52/
hour
=
$
58,240
$
58,240
/
3
years
=
$
19,413
/
year
(
C)
Government
Performance
Results
Act
Reporting:

Part
of
the
overall
burden
and
cost
to
the
federal
government
is
based
on
the
number
of
GPRA
reports
expected
each
year
as
estimated
in
Item
No.
6(
a).
Based
on
headquarters
experience
approximately
8
hours
of
federal
workers
time
is
required
to
review
a
GPRA
report.
The
hourly
rate
for
staff
is
$
52
per
hour
as
described
in
(
B)
above.
The
GPRA
review
burden
and
cost
is:

FY03:
28
GPRA
Reports
28
GPRA
Reports
*
8hrs/
report
=
224hrs/
year
FY04:
28
GPRA
Reports
224
hrs/
year
*
3
years
=
672hrs/
3
years
FY05:
28
GPRA
Reports
224hrs/
year
*
$
52/
hr
=
$
11,648
6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
The
total
universe
of
respondents
is
28,
as
every
NEP
is
required
to
submit
annual
workplans,
implementation
reviews,
and
GPRA
reports
over
this
three
year
cycle.

Total
Burden
to
Respondent:
15
Annual
Workplans
8,400
hrs/
3
years
Implementation
Reviews
7,000
hrs/
3
years
GPRA
Reports
2,940
hrs/
3
years
Total
18,340
hrs/
3
years
Annualized
6,113
hours/
year
Total
Cost
to
Respondent:
Annual
Workplans
$
504,000
/
3
years
Implementation
Reviews
$
420,000
/
3
years
GPRA
Reports
$
176,400/
3
years
Total
$
1,100,400
Annualized
$
366,800/
year
Total
Burden
for
Agency:
Annual
Workplans
1,344
hours/
3
years
Implementation
Reviews
1,120
hours/
3
years
GPRA
Reports
672
hours
/
3
years
Total
3,136
hours/
3
years
Annualized
1,045
hours/
year
Total
Cost
to
Agency:
Annual
Workplans
$
69,888
Implementation
Reviews
$
58,240
GPRA
Reports
$
34,944
Total
$
1,63072
Annualized
$
54,357/
year
6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
Tables
(
I)
Respondent
Tally
Total
Burden:
6,113
hrs/
year
Total
Cost:
$
366,800/
year
(
ii)
The
Agency
Tally
Total
Burden:
1,045
hours/
year
Total
Cost:
$
54,357/
year
(
iii)
Variations
in
the
Annual
Bottom
Line:
It
is
not
anticipated
that
there
will
be
a
significant
variation
(>
25%)
for
the
burden
or
cost
to
either
respondents
or
Agency
over
this
ICR
cycle.

6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
16
1999
2003
Change
in
Burden
Federal
Government
955
hours/
year
1,045
hours/
year
90
hours/
year
NEP
Respondents
5,967
hours/
year
6,113
hours/
year
146
hours/
year
An
action
notice
from
OMB
increased
the
original
burden
request
for
the
previous
ICR
by
40,800
hours.
This
cycle
will
reduce
the
estimated
burden
by
40,654
to
6,113
annual
respondent
hours.
These
estimated
hours
are
based
on
the
experience
of
the
NEP
participants
to
date.
Although
all
NEPs
will
be
submitting
post­
CCMP
Work
Plans,
which
are
significantly
less
burdensome
than
pre­
CCMP
Work
Plans,
NEP
reporting
burden
hours
have
increased
slightly
since
the
last
ICR
for
GPRA
reports.
By
the
end
of
this
term,
the
28
NEPs
will
be
required
to
submit
84
reports
that
weren't
submitted
last
cycle
to
show
environmental
progress
being
made
and
progress
toward
EPA's
Office
of
Water
GPRA
goals.
In
contrast,
implementation
review
reporting
has
been
reduced
from
every
two
years
to
now
every
three
years,
thereby
creating
less
burden
on
the
respondents.
EPA
instituted
the
implementation
review
process
to
ensure
that
continued
EPA
funding
under
section
320
is
appropriate.
This
determination
must
be
made
periodically
to
ensure
that
each
NEP
remains
on
track
and
continues
to
make
progress
implementing
their
CCMP
and
reporting
environmental
results.
The
implementation
review
reporting
is
anticipated
to
become
less
burdensome
by
the
next
cycle
as
reporting
becomes
more
streamlined
and
electronic
submittals
will
be
more
common.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
100
hours
per
response
for
Annual
Workplans,
250
hours
per
response
for
Implementation
Review
reports,
and
35
hours
per
response
for
GPRA
reporting.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
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.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2003­
0001,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
17
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
2426.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OW­
2003­
0001)
and
OMB
control
number
(
2040­
0138)
in
any
correspondence.