ICR SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

Chesapeake Action Plan/Activity Integration Plan (CAP/AIP) Reporting
System (EPA ICR Number 2365.01, OMB Control Number 2003-NEW)

1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract

In 2008, EPA’s Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) and its
partners developed the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP) to strengthen and
expand partnerships in the watershed, enhance coordination of
restoration activities, and increase the collective accountability for
protecting the Chesapeake Bay.  The primary mechanism for input into the
CAP is the Web-based Chesapeake Action Plan/Activity Integration Plan
(CAP/AIP) reporting system.  Through the CAP/AIP reporting system,
partner organizations provide data about the activities in which they
are engaged to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
 The CAP/AIP was developed in response to recommendations by the
Government Accountability Office and directives of the Explanatory
Statement of the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161).
 CBPO conducted its first partner-wide activity data call in 2008 that
included 10 federal, 7 state, and 2 local partners.  

The CBPO intends to expand the data call to more than 10 non-federal
partners to further support the legislative mandate and, more recently,
Executive Order (E.O.) 13508, signed by President Barack Obama on May
12, 2009.  Section 203(d) of the EO directs EPA to identify the
“mechanisms that will ensure that governmental and other activities,
including data collection and distribution, are coordinated and
effective, relying on existing mechanisms where appropriate.  Section
204 further directs that “Federal actions to protect and restore the
Chesapeake Bay are closely coordinated with actions by State and local
agencies in the watershed and the resources, authorities, and expertise
of Federal, State, and local agencies are used as efficiently as
possible.”  The CAP/AIP provides the tool to coordinate activities
among Bay partners, both federal and non-federal, in support of these
mandates.

The Web-based application reporting system is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://cap.chesapeakebay.net"  http://cap.chesapeakebay.net .  The
CAP/AIP reporting system includes detailed information about the
activities and funding conducted by partner organizations.  The partners
provide project information on the nature of the activity, responsible
organization, organizational point-of contact, resource levels,
geographic location, and major milestones on progress towards Chesapeake
Bay protection and restoration efforts.  Funds reported in the CAP/AIP
are linked to an organization’s own resource base so that data
associated with a set of funds is entered only by the originator of the
funding.  The information is organized by programmatic goal and topic
area, which aligns activities to the CAP and helps to provide an
accurate depiction of restoration activities, progress, and results as a
whole.   The information collection, as envisioned, will be conducted
annually.

Each reporting organization is assigned a user ID and password. 
Security measures have been established to protect data that have been
entered, including maintaining the data on a secure server on a secure
network, and confirming the data with each reporting organization.
Partners that participate in the information collection are able to
search the CAP/AIP database and view standard reports.  Partners will
use the enhanced and expanded data to update performance-management
dashboards that summarize and synthesize information so the program
partners can understand, at a glance, the progress being made in key
program areas.  The dashboards include measures of progress, information
about the resources CAP partners have dedicated to their efforts
described, and strategic analyses of what needs to be done to improve
implementation.  In addition, CBPO anticipates that some of the partners
will use the CAP/AIP reporting system as a tool for their own management
and planning efforts.

CBPO estimates the total annual respondent cost and burden to be
$63,041.32 (as of August 6, 2009).  The annual federal cost to
administer this information collection is estimated to be $36,008.00 (as
of August 6, 2009), which results in a total annual cost of $99,049.32.

2.	Need for and use of the Collection

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

Collecting information from more than 10 non-federal partners is needed
to effectively coordinate project activities and funding among partners
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and as a means to provide transparency
and accountability to the public.  Specifically, in a report entitled,
Chesapeake Bay Program:  Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better
Assess, Report and Manage Restoration Progress, dated October 2005, the
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended that CBPO:

complete efforts to develop and implement an integrated assessment
approach;

revise its reporting approach to improve effectiveness and credibility;
and

develop a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that takes
into account available resources.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161), Congress
directed EPA to:

immediately implement all of the recommendations of the 2005 GAO Report;

submit a report to Congress and to GAO, with supporting evidence, that
demonstrates the GAO recommendations have been implemented; and

develop a Chesapeake Action Plan for the remaining years of the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement.

Specifically, Congress stated that the Chesapeake Action Plan must:  (1)
clearly articulate realistic targets the Chesapeake Bay Program expects
to achieve in each of the remaining years; (2) describe the actual
activities the Chesapeake Bay Program will implement in each year to
achieve these annual targets; (3) identify the amount and source of
funding that will be used to accomplish each of these activities; and
(4) describe the process the Chesapeake Bay Program will use to track
and measure the progress of these actions. 

Consistent with GAO’s recommendations and the Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110- 161) of 2008, CBPO and its partners
developed the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP) to strengthen and expand
partnerships in the watershed, enhance coordination of restoration
activities, and increase the collective accountability for protecting
the Chesapeake Bay.  The primary mechanism for input into the CAP is the
Web-based Chesapeake Action Plan/Activity Integration Plan (CAP/AIP)
reporting system.  The CAP/AIP reporting system provides the tools
necessary to support a management system that more closely aligns
implementation responsibilities with the unique capabilities and
missions of the CBP partners.  

This collection of information is pursuant to Section 117 of the Clean
Water Act, the purpose of which is to expand and strengthen cooperative
efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay.  

This information collection also is necessary to address the priorities
outlined in Presidential Executive Order (E.O.) 13508 dated May 12,
2009, entitled “Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.”  The
E.O. establishes a new framework for federal leadership, planning, and
accountability through a Federal Leadership Committee, chaired by the
Administrator of EPA.  The Committee is required to, among other things,
coordinate data information mechanisms among federal, state, local, and
private partners.  Specific sections of the Executive Order include:

Section 203(d):   Identify the “mechanisms that will ensure that
governmental and other activities, including data collection and
distribution, are coordinated and effective, relying on existing
mechanisms where appropriate; and 

Section 204:   Ensure that “Federal actions to protect and restore the
Chesapeake Bay are closely coordinated with actions by State and local
agencies in the watershed and the resources, authorities, and expertise
of Federal, State, and local agencies are used as efficiently as
possible.” The CAP/AIP has been identified as the appropriate data
information mechanism.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The primary users of the data are EPA and the EPA partners.  EPA will
use the CAP/AIP information collection to identify and catalogue CBPO
partners’ resources and actions that are associated with efforts to
protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.  CBPO partners will be able to
view each other’s activities across the watershed with details such as
where the activity is occurring, how much funding the activity has
received, and which partners are involved.  With improved visibility of
Bay-wide activities and comprehensive progress reporting, the CAP/AIP
will help EPA to promote enhanced coordination among CBPO partners and
encourage the partners to continually review and improve their progress
in protecting and restoring the Bay.  

EPA and its partners will use the CAP/AIP reporting system to summarize
and synthesize information so the program partners can understand, at a
glance, the progress being made in key program areas.  Publically
available reports will include measures of progress, information about
the resources invested, and strategic analyses of actions necessary to
improve implementation.  In addition, CBPO anticipates that some of the
partners will use the CAP/AIP reporting system as tool for their own
management and planning efforts.  Bay restoration and protection efforts
will be made transparent and maintained in a centralized database to
enable the partnership to identify potential activity overlap and gaps. 
This will reduce duplication of effort and better target resources.  As
a whole, the CAP represents an important enhancement to the way the CBP
partnership will operate.

3.	Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a)	Non duplication

EPA conducted research into other EPA programs and other federal agency
programs, and state agency/department or non-government organizations to
determine whether any organization had information pertinent to the
Chesapeake Action Plan/Activity Integration Plan.  Within EPA, it was
confirmed that only the Chesapeake Bay Program Office had the pertinent
information.  Other Federal agencies investigated include the habitat
and restoration agencies within the U.S. Departments of Interior and
Commerce.  EPA confirmed that none of these agencies maintains or
requests information duplicative of the information entered into the
CAP/AIP reporting system.  Only one non-profit organization, Defenders
of Wildlife, was identified for possible duplicative information,
specifically   HYPERLINK "http://www.conservationregistry.org" 
www.conservationregistry.org , which is funded through Department of
Interior resources.  Research concluded that the newly developed
conservation registry is presently focused on the Pacific Northwest,
came online after CAP/AIP, and is uncertain of a sustainable funding
base.  Hence, no information similar to the CAP/AIP reporting system was
identified.

Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed states, only the State of Maryland
was identified for possible duplication, specifically,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.baystat.maryland.gov"  www.baystat.maryland.gov .  However,
Maryland’s information was not Bay-wide; it was specific to Maryland
and most of the information originates from EPA project activity funds.
Hence, no information similar to the information requested for the
CAP/AIP reporting system was identified in the state agencies.  

Pursuant to this research, EPA concluded that activity and funding
information required in the AIP is specific and unique to the Chesapeake
Bay's goals of protection and habitat restoration.  The CAP/AIP is the
only reporting system used to annually collect comprehensive information
about funding levels, which allows EPA to align funding and activities
to specific strategic target areas of the Chesapeake Action Plan.

3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13(d) EPA requests a waiver of the Federal
Register requirement for this emergency ICR.  Upon approval of the
emergency ICR, EPA will solicit comments in the Federal Register for a
renewal of the ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d).  

3(c)	Consultations

CBPO invited nine non-federal organizations to participate in
consultation to estimate their annual cost and burden for using the
CAP/AIP reporting system.  The consultations are in keeping with ICR
guidance to consult with no-more than nine non-federal organizations.
Organizations that did not participate in the 2008 data call were
provided a questionnaire for new users prior to phone consultations. 
Those organizations that participated in the 2008 data call were
provided a questionnaire designed for previous users prior to phone
consultations with respondents.  Respondents were asked to estimate
burdens for labor costs associated with reporting activities,
capital/startup costs, and operations and maintenance costs.  Table 1
provides a list of organizations asked to participate in consultations. 
Not all chose to participate.

Table 1.  Consultation Participants by Type of Organization

Name	Phone Number	Affiliation

State and Local Government

Susan Block	(804) 371-7486	VA Dept. of Conservation and Rec.

Diane Davis	(202) 741-0847	District of Columbia

Penny Gross	(703) 354-8419	Fairfax County Council

Brenton McCloskey	(410) 260-8722	State of Maryland 

Patricia Buckley	(717) 772-1675	Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Protection

Private / Non-Government Organizations

Amanda Bassow	(202) 595-2476	National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Dr. Jana Davis	(410) 974-2941, ext. 101	Chesapeake Bay Trust

Bydon Lidle	(717) 238-0425, ext. 317	Susquehanna River Basin Commission
(SRBC)

Kirk Mantay	(410) 224-6620	Ducks Unlimited

To date, CBPO has received completed questionnaires from six previous
users and no new users.  One consultation is still underway with a state
and local government organization.  CBPO conducted several phone
interviews with representatives of the participating respondents to
clarify responses to the questionnaires.

Due to CBP’s unique partnership with federal partners, CBPO consulted
and estimated the federal partners’ annual burden and cost for using
the CAP/AIP reporting system.  See Table 2 below for federal
consultations.  CBP based the federal burden estimate on EPA’s
experience because it has the most data reporting into the AIP and it
was the only federal agency to respond.  One federal respondent stated
that they had no experience with AIP and could not provide estimates.  

Table 2.  Federal Consultation Participants

Name	Phone Number	Affiliation

Lori Mackey	(410) 267-5715	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Brian Burch	(202) 566-0120	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bob Campbell	(410) 267-5747	National Park Service

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

The frequency of this information collection coincides with the federal
and state budgetary processes.  Annual submissions of information are
required to accurately align funding resources to ongoing restoration
and protection activities and to track progress against established
performance measures.  Less frequent reporting would preclude CBPO from
using the information collection to effectively evaluate and publish the
results of program activities. 

3(e)	General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with all of OMB’s general
guidelines.

Respondents are asked to report annually.

Respondents are provided more than 30 days to respond to the data call.

Respondents are not required to submit more than one copy of original
documents.

This information collection does not use a statistical survey.

Respondents do not receive a pledge of confidentiality in regard to the
information collection.  No information is confidential or personal; all
is considered public.

Respondents are not asked to submit proprietary or confidential
information.

3(f)	Confidentiality

Information in the CAP/AIP reporting system is not of a confidential
nature. AIP is collecting project and funding information with point of
contact name and all submittals are voluntary.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

None of the requested information is considered to be of a sensitive
nature.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

The respondents for this ICR include the partners of the Chesapeake
Action Plan, which includes federal, state and local agencies (NAICS
924110 and 924120), non-governmental organizations (NAICS 813312), and
other program partners.  

4(b)	Information Requested

Information from the CAP partners is collected through the web-based
CAP/AIP reporting system.  

(i)	Data items, including record keeping requirements

CAP partners provide detailed information about the activities they
undertake to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. 
Once logged in to the CAP/AIP reporting system, the partners enter data
about their activities which are grouped by partnership goals and topic
areas.  Each data item is designated as a reporting item.  CBPO does not
impose additional recordkeeping requirements on any respondent.  States
and other entities may impose their own recordkeeping that is separate
from CAP/AIP.  Specific data items entered into the AIP electronic
record about each activity include: 

Activity description;

Lead organization / Agency;

Point of contact;

Source of funding;

Status of funding;

Activity phase;

Hard dollars allocated to activity;

Number of FTEs allocated to activity;

Year of funding;

Pertinent geography; and

Pertinent C2K commitment.

Additionally, users have the option of entering other activity-related
information, including the following:

Collaborating organization;

Performance measures/units; and

Milestones.

Respondent Activities

CAP partners conduct the following activities to assemble, submit, and
store the data items identified above.  These activities reflect the
items of burden mandated by the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act.  

Table 3.  List of Respondent Activities 

Activity	Record Keeping	Reporting	CBP

Preparing to Use the System.  Detailed instructions for entering data
are provided in hard copy format and online and through training
workshops.  Gathering and reviewing the data to be entered, and
organizing it by CBP goal is a typical activity as part of common
business practices.  

X	X

Obtaining Access.  No special technology or systems are required for
this collection as the CAP/AIP reporting system is Web-based.  Internet
access is a standard business tool.  EPA establishes user IDs and
passwords for each reporting organization.

X	X

Entering Records.  CAP partners will review pre-populated system
elements, and review data entered by other partners to ensure no
duplicative data.  Records about new activities will be entered as
appropriate. 

X

	Reviewing and Verifying Records.  Reviewing and verifying the accuracy
of the data entered into the system is typical of standard business
practice.   

X	X

Feedback and Evaluation.  Users of the CAP/AIP reporting system are
encouraged to provide feedback on the system.  

X

	5.	The Information Collected–Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)	Agency Activities   

Activities undertaken by CBPO on an annual basis for this information
collection include:

Update reporting guidance and system instructions;

Notify system users of data call;

Conduct training;

Update Web site;

Solicit and compile feedback from users; and

Respond to user comments and questions.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

The Chesapeake Bay Program Office will use the Web-based CAP/AIP
reporting system available at http://cap.chesapeakebay.net to collect
data from the CAP partners.  Each reporting organization will be
assigned a user ID and password.  Security measures have been
established to protect data that have been entered, including
maintaining the data on a secure server on a secure network, confirming
the data with each reporting organization, and making only summarized
information available to the public.  

In preparation for the annual data call, EPA/CBPO will provide detailed
guidance about the database to the CAP partners (e.g., organize
training/workshops, facilitate hands-on demonstrations as necessary). 
CBPO will also verify the accuracy of the data entered into the system
during and after the data call.  Annual updating by the CAP partners
will be streamlined in light of the automated nature of compiling the
information.  To improve the efficiency of entering data, a cloning
button is available during data entry that allows users to make a copy
of the data for the next fiscal year, i.e., clone the 2008 data to
create and modify a record for 2009.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

EPA expects that small entities such as non-profit organizations (e.g.,
National Fish and Wildlife Association), local environmental community
associations (e.g., River Keeper Organizations), and local governments
(e.g., Fairfax County) will participate in the CAP/AIP.  EPA has
designed its information collections to minimize respondent burden while
obtaining sufficient and accurate information.  For example, EPA has
tailored the CAP/AIP system so that it requests only the minimum
information needed to establish contact with small entities.  Providing
information to the AIP is not a regulatory requirement and is voluntary
on the part of participants.  EPA has established several methods for
participating in the AIP and is fully prepared to help small entities
(e.g., training, workshops, conference calls, hands-on assistance,
etc.).   

5(d)	Collection Schedule

The information collection is based on an annual collection of data on
the activities of the CAP partners.  A typical annual schedule is as
follows:

Table 4.  Collection Schedule 

DATE 	ACTIVITY 

September/October	Outreach to Bay-wide Partnership

Conduct workshops / feedback sessions 

November/December	Data call sent to CAP partners 

January 	Data entry complete  

February 	Cross-functional QA and analysis by CBPO

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 

The consultations to determine the annual cost and burden estimates for
using the CAP/AIP reporting system are ongoing and incomplete.  EPA will
complete the consultations and provide a final estimate for the burden
and cost of the collection before submitting the renewal ICR.

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

Burden hour estimates are based on the responses to the consultation
questionnaires and follow-up discussions where needed with respondents. 
The respondents include state and local government agencies and
non-governmental organizations identified in Section 3(c). 
Additionally, federal burden is included on using the database by
consulting with EPA, a large user of the system as identified in Section
3(c).  Annual estimates for each type of respondent are provided in
table 5.

Table 5.  Annual Burden Estimate Per Response

Respondent Type 	Annual Burden Per Response

State and Local Government Agencies 	64.8 hours

Non-governmental Organizations	11.5 hours

Federal Partner Agencies	9 hours

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

 (i)	Estimating Labor Costs

Table 6 presents the annual respondent burden/cost estimate for state
and local government respondents.  Labor rates were derived from
information published by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and include
a benefits multiplier of 1.6.  Labor rates were also increased by 17
percent to account for overhead.  For each labor category, the labor
rate is the average of a calculated rate for state employees and a
calculated rate for local government agency staff.  

Table 6.  Annual Burden/Cost Estimate Per Response for State and Local
Government Agencies 

Information Collect Activity	Hours Per Response/ Year*	Labor Cost Per
Response/ Year	Capital or Startup Costs Per Response/ Year	O&M Cost Per
Response/ Year	Total Hours and Costs Per Response

	Managerial ($67.18/

hour)	Technical ($49.60/

hour)	Clerical ($31.68/

hour)



Total Hours/ Year	Total Costs/ Year

Preparing to Use the System	4.7	18.0	9.7	$1,512.55	$0.00	$0.00	32.3
$1,512.55

Obtaining Access	0.0	0.3	0.5	$32.37	$0.00	$0.00	0.8	$32.37

Entering Records	3.7	12.0	6.7	$1,052.73	$0.00	$0.00	22.3	$1,052.73

Reviewing and Verifying Records	1.3	2.0	2.7	$273.25	$0.00	$0.00	6.0
$273.25

Feedback and Evaluation	0.0	0.0	1.0	$31.68	$0.00	$0.00	1.0	$31.68

Other Activities	0.0	0.0	2.3	$73.92	$0.00	$0.00	2.3	$73.92

Total	9.7	32.3	22.8	$2,976.50	$0.00	$0.00	64.8	$2,976.50

*Source:	State agencies,
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics4_999200.htm

	Local government agencies,
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics4_999300.htm

Table 7 presents the annual respondent burden/cost estimate for
non-governmental organizations.  Labor rates were derived from
information published by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and include
a benefits multiplier of 1.6.  Labor rates were also increased by 17
percent to account for overhead.

Table 7.  Annual Burden/Cost Estimate Per Response for Non-governmental
Organizations 

Information Collect Activity	Hours Per Response/ Year*	Labor Cost Per
Response/ Year	Capital or Startup Costs Per Response/ Year	O&M Cost Per
Response/ Year	Total Hours and Costs Per Response

	Managerial ($67.18/

hour)	Technical ($49.60/

hour)	Clerical ($31.68/

hour)



Total Hours/ Year	Total Costs/ Year

Preparing to Use the System	4.0	0.0	0.0	$272.68	$0.00	$0.00	4.0	$272.68

Obtaining Access	1.0	0.0	0.0	$68.17	$0.00	$0.00	1.0	$68.17

Entering Records	4.0	0.0	0.0	$272.68	$0.00	$0.00	4.0	$272.68

Reviewing and Verifying Records	1.5	0.0	0.0	$102.26	$0.00	$0.00	1.5
$102.26

Feedback and Evaluation	1.0	0.0	0.0	$68.17	$0.00	$0.00	1.0	$68.17

Other Activities	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	0.0	$0.00

Total	11.5	0.0	0.0	$783.96	$0.00	$0.00	11.5	$783.96

*Source:	  HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/" 
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/ 

Table 8 presents the annual respondent burden/cost estimate for federal
respondents.  The federal labor rates were derived from information
published by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and include a benefits
multiplier of 1.6.  

Table 8.  Annual Burden/Cost Estimate Per Response for Federal Agencies 

Information Collect Activity	Hours Per Response/ Year	Labor Cost Per
Response/

Year	Capital or Startup Costs Per Response/

Year	O&M Cost Per Response/

Year	Total Hours and Costs Per Response

	GS14	GS13



Total Hours/

Year	Total Costs/

Year

	($72.51/ hour)	($61.36/

hour)





	Preparing to Use the System	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	0	$0.00

Obtaining Access	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	0	$0.00

Entering Records	6	2	$527.11	$0.00	$0.00	8	$527.11

Reviewing and Verifying Records	1	1	$103.19	$0.00	$0.00	2	$103.19

Feedback and Evaluation	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	0	$0.00

Other Activities	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	0	$0.00

Total	7.0	2.0	$630.30	$0.00	$0.00	9.0	$630.30

*Source:  http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/gs_h.asp (step 5); rates
include a benefits multiplier of 1.6

(ii)	Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

Respondents will not incur capital or operations and maintenance costs
for this information collection.

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

As shown in Table 9, the estimated annual cost to the federal government
for administering this collection of information is $36,008.00.

Table 9.  Total Annual Federal Administrative Burden/Cost Estimate

Information Collect Activity	Hours / Year*	Labor Cost/

Year	O&M Cost/

Year	Total Hours and Costs

	GS14	GS13	GS12

	Total Hours/

Year	Total Costs/

Year

	$72.51/

hour	$61.36/

hour	$51.87/

hour





Update Reporting Guidance and System Instructions	24	0	0	$1,740.29	$0.00
24	$1,740.29

Notify System Users of Data Call	24	0	0	$1,740.29	$0.00	24	$1,740.29

Conduct Training	40	0	0	$2,900.48	$0.00	40	$2,900.48

Update Web Site	0	12	16	$1,566.27	$0.00	28	$1,566.27

Solicit and Compile Feedback from Users	16	0	0	$1,160.19	$0.00	16
$1,160.19

Respond to User Comments and Questions	40	0	0	$2,900.48	$0.00	40
$2,900.48

Contractor support



	$24,000.00

$24,000.00

Total Administrative Burden	144	12	16	$12,008.00	$24,000.00	172
$36,008.00

*Source:  http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/gs_h.asp (step 5); rates
include a benefits multiplier of 1.6

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Final data is pending the completion of one consultation with a state
government organization.  CBPO estimates that 50 non-federal
organizations and 10 federal agencies are likely to participate in the
annual data call for the CAP/AIP.  CBPO’s intent is to increase the
number of participants over time to better coordinate activities and
resources in keeping with E.O. 13508.  The total burden and costs are
summarized in Table 10.

Table 10.  Annual Burden Estimate* 

Respondent Type	Hours Per Response	Cost Per Response	Number of Responses
Per Year	Total Annual Cost

State and Local Government Agencies 	64.8	$2,976.50	8	$23,812.00

Non-governmental Organizations	11.5	$783.96	42	$32,926.32

Federal Agencies	9	$630.30	10	$6,303.00

Total	Varies	Varies	60	$63,041.32

*Note:  Respondents will not incur capital or operations and maintenance
costs for this information collection

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

Final data is pending the completion of one consultation with a state
government organization.  As of August 6, 2009, the total annual cost
for this information collection is estimated to be $99,049.32.  The
bottom line burden hours and costs for each respondent group, federal
administrative hours, and operations and maintenance costs are listed in
Table 11.

Table 11.  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Line Item	Hours Per Response	Cost Per Response	Number of Responses Per
Year	Total Cost

State and Local Government Agency Responses	64.8	$2,976.50	8	$23,812.00

Non-governmental Organization Responses	11.5	$783.96	42	$32,926.32

Federal Agency Responses	9	$630.30	10	$6,303.00

Total Respondent Cost	Varies	Varies	60	$63,041.32

Federal Administrative Hours	2.87	$200.13	60	$12,008.00

Federal Operations and Maintenance (Contractor Support)



$24,000.00

Total 

	60	$99,049.32

(iii)	Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

CBPO does not anticipate significant variations in the annual bottom
line.

The burden requested in this ICR results from information collection
efforts associated with the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP).  In 2008, CBPO
conducted its first partner-wide activity data call that included 10
federal, 7 state, and 2 local partners.  EPA now intends to make the
Web-based Chesapeake Action Plan/Activity Integration Plan (CAP/AIP)
reporting system available to additional non-government organizations
and other program partners to gain a more comprehensive picture of
protection and restoration efforts and to facilitate a more accurate
tracking of progress and results.  The CAP/AIP reporting system includes
detailed information about the activities conducted by partner
organizations.  The partners provide project information, including the
nature of the activity, responsible organization, a point of contact,
resource levels, location, and major milestones in terms of their
progress towards Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration efforts.  

6(g)	Burden Statement

Final data is pending completion of one consultation with a state
government organization.  

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 64.8 hours per response for state
and local government agencies, 11.5 hours per response for
non-government organizations, and 9 hours per response for federal
agencies.  Burden is defined as 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 estimate
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.

 can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include OMB Control
Number 2003-NEW in any correspondence.

 Common Business Practice

CBPO ICR Supporting Statement Part A	  PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  13 
August 6, 2009

OMB requires a reason for change even for new ICRs.  For new ICRs, OMB
considers 0 hours to be the starting point, so anything we add is a
change.  Please feel free to make changes to what I have added.  

Since we are not publishing an FR at this point, this language can be
removed.  We will need to add it back when we do the submit the renewal
ICR.

