0459 ss 040809rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
COASTAL AND ESTUARINE LAND CONSERVATION,
PLANNING, PROTECTION, OR RESTORATION
OMB CONTROL NUMBER 0648-0459
A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
This request is for a renewal of the information collection.
In FY 2002, Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to establish a Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) “for the purpose of protecting important coastal
and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or
aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational state to
other uses,” giving priority to lands which can be effectively managed and protected and which
have significant ecological value. Congress further directed the Secretary to issue guidelines for
this program delineating the criteria for grant awards, and to distribute funds in consultation with
the States' Coastal Zone Managers' or Governors' designated representatives based on
demonstrated need and ability to successfully leverage funds. The Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (OCRM), within NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS), published
guidelines that establish procedures for eligible applicants who participate in this voluntary
program to use during the three phases of the program:
1) developing state conservation plans under this program (and updating them every 5
years)
2) soliciting project proposals for eligible states and territories to nominate to a national
funding competition under this program
3) submitting final grant applications for projects selected for funding and carrying out the
projects.
The original authority for this program is codified at 16 U.S.C. 1456d, Coastal and Estuarine
Land Conservation Program. In addition to the CELCP, NOAA also has, or is given, authority
under the Coastal Zone Management Act, annual appropriations or other authorities, to issue
funds to coastal states and localities for planning, conservation, acquisition, protection,
restoration, or construction projects. On March 30, 2009, new legislation, amending the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) and authorizing the program under this Act, was enacted
through Title XII, Subtitle E of P.L. 111-11 (Section 12502 of H.R. 146). This new law
formally establishes the program as part of the Coastal Zone Management Act and makes some
changes to the program as currently implemented.
It is necessary to collect information beyond that outlined in OMB Circular A-102 in order to
plan for and implement these projects. This information is needed to comply with applicable
federal statutes, regulations and policies, including the National Environmental Policy Act,
Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act, Coastal Barriers
Resources Act, National Flood Insurance Program, National Historic Preservation Act, and
Americans with Disabilities Act, among others. It is also needed to comply with requirements
contained in OMB standards or other applicable laws, regulations or policies governing federal
financial assistance related to construction, acquisition, restoration, enhancement, protection, and
1

if necessary, disposition of property, and those relating to financial assistance awards to state or
local government agencies or entities, non-governmental or private organizations, or others.
A. Conservation Planning
In order to qualify to participate in the national funding competition under this program, a coastal
state must develop, and submit to NOAA for approval, a Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Plan that provides an assessment of priority conservation needs and detailed
guidance for nominating and selecting land conservation projects within the state. Plans are
intended to be fairly simple and concise, and may make use of work that has already been done
in the state or region, such as regional or state watershed protection plans. State plans must
include the following information, as described in the CELCP Program Guidelines, Section 3:
•

A description of the geographic scope of the program within the state, and the types
of lands or values to be protected through the program;

•

Descriptions and maps of “project areas” that identify the state’s priority areas for
conservation, including areas threatened by conversion, based on state and national
criteria (listed below) for the program;

•

A prioritization, based on state criteria, of project areas or types of lands included
within the state plan;

•

A description of existing plans, or elements thereof, that are incorporated into the
CELCP plan;

•

A list of state or local agencies, or types of agencies, that are eligible to hold title to
property acquired through the program;

•

A description of public involvement and interagency coordination that occurred
during the development of the plan; and

•

A description of the state’s process for reviewing and ranking proposals for
nomination to the national selection process. The vetting process should, at a
minimum, involve representatives from the state’s coastal zone management
program, National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs), and any other agencies or
entities that the state considers appropriate for identifying projects that meet the
state’s priorities for coastal and estuarine land conservation.

B. Application for Federal Funding
In order to apply for funding for project grants, applicants (eligible states and territories) will
need to submit proposals as part of a national competitive funding process and, if selected for
funding, a final grant application. In the case of Congressionally-directed projects, applicants

2

will need to submit all elements listed below as part of a final grant application. Some of the
information to be collected is already covered under OMB Circular A-102.
OCRM will use the Project Application and NEPA Checklist as well as supporting
documentation, to review land acquisition, conservation or other similar projects proposed by
eligible states and local governments. The information will be collected when the states and
local governments submit project proposals for review and approval by NOAA.
Project proposals submitted to the annual funding competition contain the following elements: a
project description/scope of work; project budget and justification of proposed costs, project
checklist, and project location/site maps. With this renewal, the project description and proposed
budget are being combined within one Project Application and NEPA Checklist.
1. Project Description/Scope of Work.
The Project Description should describe:
• The nature of the project, including acreage and types of habitats or land values to
be protected, as well as how the funds (federal and non-federal) will be used;
• How the proposed project meets the state and national criteria and its expected
benefits in terms of coastal and estuarine land conservation;
• Discrete benchmarks for completing the project within a specified time period;
and
• The types of activities that would be allowed to take place on the land and a
strategy for long-term stewardship, such as maintenance or enforcement against
illegal uses.
2. Project Budget and Justification of Proposed Costs.
The Project Budget should describe:
•
•
•

The breakdown of project costs, as applicable, by category – such as salary,
fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, construction, other
(primarily using Standard Form 424A);
The basis for the estimate of land acquisition costs and the source of matching
funds;
Whether this project has been submitted in application(s) for other sources of
federal funding, and if so, which federal program(s) and year(s).

3. Project Location and Site Maps: A map of the state or coastal county showing the
general location of the project and a map of the project site showing the location and
extent of the proposed acquisition and the relationship to significant natural features
(slope, wetlands, dunes, floodplains, access points, etc.).

3

4. A completed Project Application and NEPA checklist along with any supporting
information, to demonstrate the project’s eligibility or merit, justify the proposed cost
of the project, and document compliance with Federal laws, regulations and policies.
There are three main elements of the Checklist:
•

CELCP Lead Certification/Eligibility of Project: A list of criteria for projects
under the CELCP. The CELCP lead (as applicant) is asked to check all that
apply. The CELCP lead is also asked to briefly describe how the project
addresses priorities identified in state/territory CELCP plans. This information
will help ensure that proposed projects are consistent with the purposes of the
CELCP.

•

Applicant and Project Information: Project title, applicant, point of contact,
general location, project abstract, characteristics and values of the property,
and other supporting information needed to demonstrate the project’s
eligibility or merit (described below).

•

Compliance with Other Federal Authorities: Several statutes, including, but
not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered
Species Act, attach requirements to the actions of federal agencies and the use
of federal funds. This section of the checklist asks the applicant to answer
several questions about the proposed project to assist NOAA in determining
whether funding the project would trigger our responsibilities under relevant
federal statutes.

Final grant applications or grant awards (for projects selected for funding) will require the
following elements, in addition to the preceding elements, for each property being acquired or
used as match:
1. Documentation of a landowner’s intent or willingness to sell, which may be in the
form of a letter of intent, option letter, contract, or similar form.
2. Complete, self-contained appraisal developed in accordance with the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Uniform Standards for Federal
Land Acquisition (“Yellow Book”).
3. Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, if applicable.
4. Site Survey/Plat* Map.
5. Evidence of Title.
6. Standard Forms for Federal Financial Assistance (non-construction).
* A plan, map, or chart of a piece of land with actual or proposed features (as lots)

Note: The NEPA portion of the project checklist submitted here for OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) is a modified version of the project checklist that is
already in use for section 306A of the CZMA under OMB Control No. 0648-0119
(renewal currently under review at OMB). This renewal request (OMB Control No.

4

0648-0459) covers the checklist itself and any documents or supporting materials
described in the checklist. This proposed information collection will enable NOAA to
implement the CELCP, under its current or future authorization, and facilitate the review
of similar projects under other authorities.
C. Performance Reporting
Each grant recipient is required to: 1) report semi-annually on their progress in carrying out the
approved project; and 2) submit a final progress report. These documents are submitted to
NOAA electronically via NOAA’s Grants Online system. As a standard condition of the grant,
recipients are required to provide documentation of completion for all required tasks, such as a
copy of the recorded deed or easement and installed sign acknowledging NOAA’s financial
support for the project.

2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
Planning projects (development of CELCP plans) would normally be one-time collections of
information but may be updated periodically; for example, once every five years. These plans
are used to establish eligibility for the state or territory’s participation in the program and serve
as a guide to potential applicants and merit reviewers to determine whether a proposed project
advances the state or territory’s coastal land conservation priorities.
Applications for financial assistance are collected once per year, subject to availability of
funding in the President’s Budget Request and/or through the appropriations process. If NOAA
solicits projects for funding through a competitive process, NOAA may solicit project proposals
that contain a subset of the information that will be required with a final grant application. The
information is used to evaluate the merit of project applications. Merit reviewers evaluate and
score each proposal. Program staff use the information to conduct technical reviews of the
proposed projects for compliance with program requirements and guidelines.
For projects selected for funding within the amounts appropriated, NOAA will request applicants
to submit the remaining information required for a final grant application, semi-annual progress
reports; and, at the end of the award period, the information needed to document completion of
all required tasks under the grant. The information is used to: monitor progress of grantees on a
semi-annual and annual basis; and ensure compliance with applicable OMB Standards or other
federal statutes, regulations or policies governing issues related to construction, acquisition,
restoration, protection, and if necessary, disposition of property, as well as those relating to
financial assistance awards to state or local government agencies or entities, non-governmental
or other grantees.

5

The NOS will retain control over the information and safeguard it from improper access,
modification, and destruction, consistent with NOAA standards for confidentiality, privacy, and
electronic information. See response to Question 10 of this Supporting Statement for more
information on confidentiality and privacy. The information collection is designed to yield data
that meet all applicable information quality guidelines. Although the information collected is not
expected to be disseminated directly to the public, results may be used in scientific, management,
technical or general informational publications. Should NOAA’s Ocean Service decide to
disseminate the information, it will be subject to the quality control measures and predissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.
NOAA encourages states to submit information in electronic format whenever possible, via disk
or internet-based submittal (e-mail, Grants.gov or NOAA’s internet-based grant application
system, Grants Online, and supported by paper originals or copies as needed for proof of
signature or approval. The project application/checklist is available at
coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/land/media/checklist_FY2008.doc (the reformatted checklist
submitted for this renewal is not yet posted). Project proposals and final grant applications may
be submitted electronically through Grants.gov to Grants Online. NOAA requires use of the
Grants Online system, which manages grant-related tasks, for final grant applications and
semi/annual reports.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
NOAA is the only agency charged with administering the CELCP and issuing these funds. The
type of information collected under this request is very similar in nature to information already
collected under the Coastal Zone Management Act, particularly the planning elements of section
305, and the land acquisition and construction projects under section 306A, and approved by
OMB Control No. 0648-0119. Through this collection, NOAA avoids duplication by using the
project checklist, or portions thereof, to meet the information collection needs for the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program, under its current or future authorization, as well as
similar projects assigned to the agency under other authorities given by Congress.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
This collection does not involve small businesses and is not likely to involve other small entities.
NOAA is also able to offer guidance or assistance in completing the application process.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
The agency would not be able to implement the program or projects effectively or at all if the
collection was conducted less frequently. The information collection would correspond with
Congressional or other requirements for: establishment of a program (normally one-time),
6

issuance of financial assistance awards (normally issued once for each appropriations cycle), and
performance reporting (semi-annual or annual reporting is standard).
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
Not applicable.
8. Provide information on the PRA Federal Register Notice that solicited public comments
on the information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments
received in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response
to those comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to
obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of
instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data
elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
A Federal Register Notice published on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1175) solicited public comment
on this renewal request. None was received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
Not applicable.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
The contents of final planning documents are considered a matter of public record. Draft
planning documents, and financial or other sensitive information contained in project
applications would be considered pre-decisional and/or private under the Freedom of
Information Act.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
No sensitive questions are asked.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
The total annual burden is estimated as 1,405 hours. The number of projects and applicants may
vary in any given year upon the amount of appropriations and the proposed cost of individual
projects. Several states have already received NOAA approval for CELCP plans and many
others have submitted draft plans to NOAA for review. This calculation has been updated to
reflect: the average number of competitive project proposals received each year; the estimated
number of ongoing or new grants awarded each year that require semi-annual and annual
reporting; the remaining number of eligible states that have not yet developed a CELCP plan for
NOAA review/approval, and the number of state plans requiring revisions prior to approval.
7

The total one-time burden for the respondents is estimated to be 1,065 hours over 3 years.
27 respondents x 35 hours/respondent
(revision of draft CELCP plans)
1 respondent x 120 hours/respondent
(development of CELCP plans)

= 945 hrs/3 years
= 120 hrs/3 years

Total: = 1,065 hrs/3 years
= 355 hrs/year
The total annual burden in addition to the above one-time annualized burden for the
respondents is estimated to be 1,050 hours, based on the following assumptions.
60 responses (est.) x 15 hours/response/year
(project application and checklist)

= 900 hrs/year

30 responses (est.) x 5 hours/response/year
= 150 hours/year
(final grant application with due diligence materials (3.5 hours) and
semi-annual and annual reporting for grant awards (total of 1.5 hours)
Thus, the total annualized burden is estimated to be 355 + 1,050 = 1,405.
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in #12
above).
To copy and mail documents, the total cost is estimated at $523, as follows:
For CELCP plans, the annualized cost is estimated by spreading the total costs for the 28
respondents (for one new plan and 27 revisions) equally across the 3-year renewal period. The
total cost is estimated as: $7.50 per plan (3 copies each, max. 50 pages, $0.05/page) to copy and
approximately $3.50 per plan to mail, for an individual total of $11.
Subtotal: CELCP plans ($11.00 x 28) = $308/ 3 years = $103/year
For project applications, the annual cost is estimated as $5.00 per project application to copy (5
copies each, avg. 20 pages, $0.05/page) and $5.00 to mail if submitted in paper form = $10 (the
annual cost is estimated as $0 if submitted electronically via Grants.gov.). In addition, the
annual cost for record keeping is estimated at $2.00 to retain 2 copies on file of each project
application. An estimated 50% of project applications are submitted in paper form.
Subtotal: applications and performance reports = $420/year
Project applications submitted in paper: ($10.00 x 30) = $300/year
Recordkeeping for project applications: ($2.00 x 60) = $120/year

8

For final grant applications and semi/annual reports, the cost estimate is estimated at $0 because
these documents must be submitted electronically via NOAA’s Grants Online system.
Total for plans and project applications: $103 + $420 = $523.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The cost in staff time for NOAA to review CELCP plans is estimated as 10 hours each at
$40/hour, for a total annual cost of approximately $2,000-$4,000 for 5-10 plans per year.
The cost in staff time for NOAA to review project checklists and performance reports for each
project is estimated as 2 hours each at $40/hour, for a total annual cost of approximately $4,000,
based on 100 hours.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
The increased estimate for the annual recordkeeping and reporting hours is due to an increase in
the projected number of project proposals received each year as more states participate in the
competitive program (the estimate has increased from 50 to 60).
The increased annual estimate of burden hours for the CELCP plans reflects the fact that a
number of state plans submitted for review and approval by NOAA require additional revision
prior to approval, so the number of revision responses has been increased for the renewal period
(previously 22 new plans were expected; for this next 3-year period, we estimate 1 new plan and
27 revisions).
In addition, while the number of states that have not yet developed a CELCP plan for NOAA
review/approval decreased significantly, the estimate of time needed to develop an initial draft
was increased from 35 hours to 120 hours, based on feedback from respondents.
It should be noted that the estimate of 60 new project proposals per year may vary based on past
appropriations, the variable nature of land transactions, and other factors that affect each state’s
level of participation in the program. The estimate is based on the maximum number of project
proposals that NOAA would expect to receive in an average year, based on recent experience.
NOTE: The recordkeeping/reporting cost increased from $516 to $523: the increased number of
proposals and increased postage costs were almost balanced by the increase in electronic
submissions. However, in ROCIS, the previous cost is shown as $1,000, as the cost was rounded
up when the information collection was migrated to ROCIS.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
NOAA may summarize information contained within the information collection in order to
provide internal assessments of program performance or resource allocation, progress reports, or
accomplishments, or information required by the Congress or agencies of the federal government
outside of NOAA for oversight.
9

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.
Not applicable.
B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

Not applicable.

10