0596-0227 2012 Rev Supporting Statement 7-10-12

2012 The Supporting Statement for OMB 0596-0227

Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program

Final Rule

Note: The agency submitted a collection package at the proposed rule stage; however it failed to submit a package at the time of publication of the final rule, October 20, 2011, Vol. 76, #203, pages 65121-65133. This submission is for the final rule.

1. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the col­lection of information necessary. Iden­tify any legal or administrative require­ments that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the col­lection of information.

The Forest Service is authorized to implement the Community Forest Program (CFP) under Section 8003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-234; 122 Stat. 2043), which amends the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103d).

The purpose of CFP is to achieve community benefits through grants to local governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations to establish community forests by acquiring and protecting private forestlands. The authorizing language specifies that the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, may award grants to eligible entities to acquire private forests that provide specified public benefits to communities and are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses.

The authorizing language defines eligible entities as local governmental entities, Indian tribes, or qualified nonprofit organizations. Local government is defined as any municipal government, county government, or other local government body with jurisdiction over local land use decisions. Indian tribe is defined by section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). Nonprofit organization is as an organization that is described in section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 USCS § 170(h)(3)) and operates in accordance with one or more of the purposes specified in section 170(h)(4)(A) of that Code (26 USCS § 170(h)(4)(A)).

The rule states that community benefits under CFP include, but are not limited to one or more of the following:

1. Economic benefits such as timber and non-timber products resulting from sustainable forest management and tourism

2. Environmental benefits, including clean air and water, storm water management, and wildlife habitat

3. Benefits from forest-based experiential learning, including K-12 conservation education programs; vocational education programs in disciplines such as forestry and environmental biology; and environmental education through individual study or voluntary participation in programs offered by organizations such as 4-H, Boy or Girl Scouts, Master Gardeners, etc.

4. Benefits from serving as replicable models of effective forest stewardship for private landowners

5. Recreational benefits from public access, such as hiking, hunting and fishing

The Federal contribution to the project cannot be more than 50 percent of the total project cost. Allowable project and cost share costs will include the purchase price and the following transactional costs associated with the acquisition: appraisals and appraisal reviews, land surveys, legal and closing costs, development of the community forest plan, and title examination. The following principles and procedures will determine allowable costs for grants: (1) Local governments and Indian tribes refer to OMB Circular A–87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments).

(2) Nonprofit organizations refer to OMB Circular A–122 (Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations).

The Agency benefits from the collection by receiving information necessary to fulfill our statutory obligation to ensure that applicants to the Community Forest Program (CFP) are eligible for the program, and that the best CFP projects are selected. CFP helps the Agency meet its goals and objectives outlined in the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan 2007-2012.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what pur­pose the information is to be used. Except for a new collec­tion, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the infor­ma­tion received from the current collec­tion.

1. What information will be collected - reported or recorded? (If there are pieces of information that are especially burdensome in the collection, a specific explanation should be provided.)

The Forest Service will issue a national Request for Proposals (RFP) no more than once annually (depending upon the availability of funds) for grants under (CFP).

The State Forester or the equivalent Indian tribe official, per section §230.3 of the rule, will forward all applications to the Forest Service, and, as time and resources allow:

1) Provide a review of each application to help the Forest Service determine (a) that the applicant is an eligible entity (b) that the land is eligible (c) whether the project contributes to a landscape conservation initiative

2) Describe what technical assistance they may render in support of applications and an estimate of needed financial assistance (§230.10)

The applicant will need to provide information as outlined in the rule and the request for proposal. The rule defines the minimum application requirements (§230.4), but the RFP may include additional requirements. Requirements outlined in the rule:

(a) Documentation verifying that the applicant is an eligible entity and that the proposed acquisition is of eligible land that contains forest land

(b) Applications must include the following regarding the property proposed for acquisition:

(1) A description of the property, including acreage and county location

(2) A description of current land uses, including improvements

(3) A description of forest type and vegetative cover

(4) A map of sufficient scale to show the location of the property in relation to roads and other improvements as well as parks, refuges, or other protected lands in the vicinity

(5) A description of applicable zoning and other land use regulations affecting the property

(6) Relationship of the property within and its contributions to a landscape conservation initiative

(7) A description of any threats of conversion to non-forest uses

(c) Information regarding the proposed establishment of a community forest, including:

(1) A description of the benefiting community, including demographics, and the associated benefits provided by the proposed land acquisition

(2) A description of the community involvement in the planning and long term management of the community forest

(3) An identification of persons and organizations that support the project and their specific role in acquiring the land and establishing and managing the community forest

(4) A draft Community Forest Plan. The eligible entity is encouraged to work with the State Forester or equivalent Indian tribe official for technical assistance when developing or updating the Community Forest Plan

(d) Information regarding the proposed land acquisition, including:

(1) A proposed project budget (§ 230.6)

(2) The status of due diligence, including signed option or purchase and sale agreement, title search, minerals determination, and appraisal

(3) Description and status of cost share (secure, pending, commitment letter, etc.) (§ 230.6)

(4) The status of negotiations with participating landowner(s) including purchase options, contracts, and other terms and conditions of sale

(5) The proposed timeline for completing the acquisition and establishing the community forest

(6) Long term management costs and funding source(s)

(e) Applications must comply with the Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations (7 CFR 3015)

(f) Applications must also include the forms required to process a Federal grant. Section 230.7 references the grant forms that must be included in the application and the specific administrative requirements that apply to the type of Federal grant used for this program

Within 120 days of final land acquisition, the grantee must complete the final community forest plan and update the plan periodically, in accordance with the final rule (§230.9(a)). The successful grantees must submit a self-certifying statement electronically, in person, or by mail to the Forest Service to ensure that the land has neither been sold nor converted to non-forest use or a use incompatible with the purposes of the CFP, as required by final rule (§230.9(e)).

2. From whom will the information be collected? If there are different respondent categories (e.g., loan applicant versus a bank versus an appraiser), each should be described along with the type of collection activity that applies.

Information will be collected from eligible grant applicants. Eligible grant applicants are defined in the preamble of the rule as follows:

Eligible Entities

The statute establishing the Community Forest Program (CFP) states that only local governments, Indian tribes, and qualified nonprofit organizations are eligible to receive a grant through CFP. The statute also provided definitions for those three eligible organizations.

• Local governments – are defined as municipal, county, and other local governments with jurisdiction over local land use decisions.

• Indian tribes – are defined as those that are federally recognized tribes as prescribed by section 4 of the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act (U.S.C. 450b).

• Qualified nonprofit organizations – are defined as charities under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) and which also have a conservation purpose (26 U.S.C. 170(h)(4)(A)). A conservation purpose is defined as the preservation of land for outdoor recreation or education, protection of natural habitat or ecosystems, preservation of open space, and preservation of historic lands or structures. Consistent with regulations of the Internal Revenue Service (26 CFR 1.170A–14(c)(1)) qualified non-profit organizations must also have a commitment to protect in perpetuity, the purposes for which the tract was acquired under the CFP and demonstrate that they have the resources to enforce the protection of the property as a community forest. In general, a land conservancy or land trust is the type of organization that would be considered a qualified nonprofit organization under the authorizing statute of the CFP.

The State Forester or the equivalent Indian tribe official, per section §230.3 of the rule, will forward all applications to the Forest Service, and, as time and resources allow:

1) Provide an assessment of each application to help the Forest Service determine (1) that the applicant is an eligible entity; (2) that the land is eligible; and (3) whether the project contributes to a landscape conservation initiative

2) Describe what technical assistance they may render in support of applications and an estimate of needed financial assistance (§230.10)

Participation in the CFP is voluntary, information will only be collected from grant applicants and State Foresters or the equivalent Indian tribe officials who chose to participate in the process.

3. What will this information be used for - provide ALL uses?

The Forest Service will use the information in the application:

(1) To determine that the applicant is eligible to receive funds under the program

(2) To determine if the proposal meets the qualifications in the law and regulations

(3) To evaluate and rank the proposals based on standard, consistent information

(4) To determine if the projects costs are allowable and sufficient cost share is provided.

The State Forester or the equivalent Indian tribe official, per section §230.3 of the rule, will forward all applications to the Forest Service, and, as time and resources allow:

1) Provide an assessment of each application to help the Forest Service determine (a) that the applicant is an eligible entity; (b) that the land is eligible; and (c) whether the project contributes to a landscape conservation initiative

2) Describe what technical assistance they may render in support of applications and an estimate of needed financial assistance (§230.10)

The Forest Service will use the community forest plans and self-certifying statements to ensure that the Community Forest Program (CFP) purposes are secured in Community Forest funded projects in perpetuity. The updated plans will be used in periodic spot checks by Forest Service personnel to verify that the uses listed are in practice and are compatible with the purposes of the CFP.

4. How will the information be collected (e.g., forms, non-forms, electronically, face-to-face, over the phone, over the Internet)? Does the respondent have multiple options for providing the information? If so, what are they?

The information will be collected on standard grant forms (SF 424, SF 424c, and SF 424d) and via written submissions, generally via electronic means (text documents using word processing software or shapefiles using geographic information system (GIS) mapping software), to meet program requirements defined in sections § 230.3 Application process, § 230.4 Application requirements, and § 230.7 Grant requirements.

5. How frequently will the information be collected?

A request for proposals will be issued annually pending availability of funding through the appropriations process.

6. Will the information be shared with any other organizations inside or outside USDA or the government?

The Forest Service will not share proposal specific information collected with any other organizations inside or outside the Government. The Forest Service will summarize information collected, such as number of proposals submitted, total number of acres to be procured, total funding requested by all applicants, and summary of project benefits, with the Department of Agriculture, the Administration, Congress, and the public.

The authorizing statute requires applicants to submit their applications to their State Forester or equivalent Indian tribe official who, as time and resources allow, may review the proposals as outlined in §230.3 Application process, and forward all applications to the Forest Service.

7. If this is an ongoing collection, how have the collection requirements changed over time?

This is a new information collection request.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of auto­mat­ed, elec­tronic, mechani­cal, or other techno­log­ical collection techniques or other forms of information technol­o­gy, e.g. permit­ting elec­tronic sub­mission of respons­es, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any con­sideration of using in­fo­r­m­a­t­ion technolo­gy to re­duce bur­den.

In an effort to increase efficiency, convenience for the respondents, and to reduce burden, Forest Service allows applicants to submit the requested information by the means of their choice including electronically, hand delivery, hard copy, postal delivery, or by fax. Forms are readily available from www.grants.gov.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplica­tion. Show specifically why any sim­ilar in­for­mation already avail­able cannot be used or modified for use for the purpos­es de­scri­bed in Item 2 above.

The Community Forest Program (CFP) is a grant program, and applicants will be developing grant proposals for new projects. Forest Service is the only agency charged with administering this program and issuing these funds. Since all projects will be new, information about them will not be available from existing sources.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

The minimum requirements for all entities, regardless of size, are necessary to protect the public interest, not administratively burdensome or costly to meet, and are within the capabilities of all entities to perform. The recommendation of cooperation with State Forester or Tribal equivalent is intended to provide a means of minimizing the technical burden of preparing a community forest plan.

To offset the costs of assisting eligible entities and encourage State Forester or Tribal equivalent support of project preparation and management, technical assistance funds are made available and issued upon request to jurisdictions with successful grant applicants in accordance with section 230.10 of the final rule. In conversations with potential grantees, this information requirement was marginal when compared to the time requirement to prepare and complete the associated real estate transaction.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The Forest Service would not be able to implement the program effectively or at all if the collection was conducted less frequently or not at all, respectively. The information collection would correspond with Congressional or other requirements for issuance of financial grant awards (anticipated once for each appropriations cycle).

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:

• Requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

• Requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of infor­mation in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

• Requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

• Requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;

Required records are those that are normally maintained for landholding, the community forest plan, and the self-certifying statement certifying that the use and ownership has not changed in a manner which would contradict the Community Forest Program (CFP) purposes. These records would be maintained for the duration of the ownership of the land. The final rule also requires occasional spot checks by Forest Service personnel, which may, at most, require grantees to present the current version of their community forest plan to verify that the ownership is unchanged and that the use is consistent with the plan and the purposes of the (CFP).

• In connection with a statisti­cal sur­vey, that is not de­signed to produce valid and reli­able results that can be general­ized to the uni­verse of study;

• Requiring the use of a statis­tical data classi­fication that has not been re­vie­wed and approved by OMB;

• That includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by au­thority estab­lished in statute or regu­la­tion, that is not sup­ported by dis­closure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unneces­sarily impedes shar­ing of data with other agencies for com­patible confiden­tial use; or

• Requiring respondents to submit propri­etary trade secret, or other confidential information unless the agency can demon­strate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permit­ted by law.

There are no other special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner similar to those described above. The collection of information will be conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and iden­tify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting com­ments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public com­ments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address com­ments received on cost and hour burden.

The proposed rule with the 60-day comment notice embedded was published in the Federal Register January 6, 2011, Volume 76, Number 4, on pages 744-751. The Forest Service received over 180 comments from 38 respondents consisting of Tribal entities; Tribal members; two Regional Offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Association of State Foresters; state forestry agencies; national, regional, and local land trust organizations; national, regional, and local conservation organizations; city park departments; law students; and private citizens. No comments specifically addressed the information collection burden on the public pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

None of the comments received on the proposed rule addressed the information collection requirement for the grant applications, but rather focused on the defined role of the State Forester in reviewing the proposed grant applications and offered suggestions on the option for State Foresters to review the information collected. These comments ranged from increasing their role to clarifying the role, to reducing the role. One commenter agreed with the State Forester role; four commenters suggested reducing the role; two commenters suggested clarifying the role of State Foresters, and the last commenter suggested providing an increased role in the State Forester when reviewing the applications, but also providing additional technical assistance funds to cover the additional review time.

Twenty comments from seven respondents were received on the cost and hour burden imposed by this proposed rule. The remaining comments dealt with aspects of the program not associated with information collection. Comments, summaries, and responses are available in the Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203, published Thursday, October 20, 2011 located on pages 65124-65128. All twenty comments on cost and hour burden dealt with a perceived burden on State Foresters, Indian tribe officials, and/ or professional foresters.

A summary of the response can be found under Section 230.3 comments on the Application Process and is located in column two of page 65127 in the above cited final rule notice. In response to the above comments, the language of the final rule was clarified to emphasize the voluntary nature of State Forester or equivalent Tribal official involvement by stating their involvement is “based on available time and resources.” The requirement remained consistent between the proposed and final rule: to forward all applications they receive for the Community Forest Program to the US Forest Service. As a result, State Foresters/Indian tribe official participation in the Community Forest Program is voluntary and does not confer any liability for the program to the State/Indian tribe. Jake Donnay, senior director of Forest Policy at the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), was not at liberty to speak on behalf of the organization, but when asked about the change, he believed that the final program regulation appropriately addressed the concerns raised by some commenters, including NASF, that reviewing the applications might create a time and cost burden on State agencies.

Describe 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 record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

We contacted three individuals by phone who manage similar federal programs and information collections related to land acquisition. All indicated that the requirements were reasonable, clear, and necessary.

Elizabeth Crane-Wexler, Grassland Reserve Program Manager at the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), believed the 32 hours was an overestimate as much of the information collected is already prepared to present projects to nonprofit boards, city councils, etc. when proposing community forest plans internally at eligible entities. She believed that the burden was light primarily because the information would already be compiled by respondents, and this information collection is required for the government to receive the information and administer the program responsibly.

Leakhena Au, the North American Wetland Conservation Act Program Manager at the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), agreed that the nature of a land acquisition grant program required new information to be collected that is not available anywhere else and is therefore unique.

Elisabeth Morgan, Branch Chief for Recreation Grant Programs at National Park Service (NPS), had a similar perspective as Leakhena Au, but wanted to emphasize that the elements of data collected are necessary and consistent with other federal grant programs. Regarding the burden, Elisabeth cautioned against treating the 32 hours as anything more than the average, because the wide variability in project complexity could result in divergent burdens based on project needs and forest plan development.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years even if the col­lection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

We contacted three nonprofit organizations familiar with landowner assistance programs and forest conservation. We contacted the organizations by phone or through in person meetings. These organizations represent potential nonprofit applicants and work closely with small entities including local, state, and tribal authorities, to provide assistance in applying for programs similar to the Community Forest Program. Therefore, their feedback is representative of the experience we would expect nonprofits, and local or Tribal governments to have when applying for this program. After discussing the information collection requirements, the organizations agreed that the data are not available elsewhere and would need to be collected uniquely for each land acquisition project.

Kelly Reed, Director of Government Relations at The Conservation Fund

• agreed that because the grant program is scheduled to have an annual application process, the frequency is appropriate to the program. She also noted that the requests and requirements asked in the final rule seemed clear, and that the data and reporting requirements were acceptable. In fact, she was surprised that the self-certifying statements would only be required every five years.

• Russ Shay, Director of Public Policy at The Land Trust Alliance, had experience with several programs for land acquisition, including Forest Legacy and observed that this community forest program is a good bridge between local communities and forest conservation. His perspective as a land trust association policy director provided a colorful view of the program and he emphasized that the information collection requirements, while clear and reasonable, were nothing compared to the transaction costs and burdens associated with executing a real estate transaction.

• Jad Daley, Director of Climate Conservation Program at the Trust for Public Land, agreed that the information collection requirements were reasonable, necessary, and clear, agreeing that every piece of land is unique and therefore requires unique information collection.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than re-enumeration of contractors or grantees.

No payment or gift will be given to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

No information covered by a Privacy Act System of Records, Personally Identifiable Information, or other confidential information covered by a statute, regulation, or agency policy will be collected. As this program only applies to non-profits, tribes, and local governments, there is no need to collect Personally Identifiable Information.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

No questions of a sensitive nature will be asked as a part of this information collection.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated.

• Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form.

See separate spreadsheet for breakout of burden.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 180. This number was estimated by considering the number of eligible applicants who applied for land acquisition grants offered through the Forest Legacy Program and similar grant programs. Based on the definition of “eligible entity” outlined in the statute, the following table summarizes the most recent information on eligible entities:

Table 1. Estimated number of entities eligible to participate in the Community Forest Program*
Qualified Non-profits1	1,667
Local Governments 2	39,044
Federally Recognized Tribes3	565
Total	41,276

*Not all of the entities summarized in this table deal with forests, for example local governments in non-forested areas, so these estimates of eligible entities are high.

Land Trust Alliance, 2005 National Land Trust Census Report, Washington, DC, 2005.

² U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Census of Governments, Individual Stat Descriptions documentation, accessed 3/7/2011, http://www.census.gov/govs/cog/GovOrgTab03ss.htm

³ BIA Website Frequently Asked Questions "What is a federally recognized tribe?" answer accessed 3/7/2011 (http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm)

Since this is a new program which has been anticipated by many eligible organizations, we used our best professional judgment from working with the Forest Legacy Program to estimate 180 applicants, for our calculations.

To provide adequate funding and develop the program, we anticipate capping initial funding opportunities at $400,000. We anticipate Community Forest Program projects will receive an average federal contribution between $300,000, which provides motivation for respondents to invest the average 32 hours necessary to prepare proposals for this grant program. The proposed funding for CFP in the 2012 President’s budget is $5 million, and we estimate that the average successful project will have a Federal Contribution of $300,000, resulting in 15-16 successful applications (and 15-16 grant reporters) per year.

If annual CFP funding levels remain constant at $5 million and the grant period averages two years, we would expect 15-16 grantees in year 1 of the program, and 30-32 grantees on average for year 2 of the program and beyond. During the grant period, the grantees will be required to submit semi-annual grant reports to ensure they are making satisfactory progress toward meeting the land acquisition and community forest objectives.

The same calculus applies to self-certifying statements submitted every five years with up to 15-16 record keepers beginning in years 5 through 10 and then 30-32 thereafter. Self-certifying statements will be collected no earlier than FY2017 and are therefore not considered in the respondent burden below. Similarly, spot check inspections, which require former grantees to submit a current working copy of community forest plans and require Forest Service to review. This review will not occur before FY2017.

Record keeping for the Community Forest Program will be associated with ensuring that the acquired lands have remained in ownership and compatible use with the CFP purposes, and is limited to the community forest plan, to be maintained in perpetuity. The only records to be maintained unique to this program are the community forest plans, requiring updates as needed to guide management of the community forest and produced on demand for spot checks occurring beginning no earlier than FY2017.

• Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories.

Table 1: Total estimated annualized cost to respondents

(a) Description of the Collection Activity	(b) Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents (Hours)	(c)* Estimated Average Income per Hour	(d) Estimated Cost to Respondents
Submission of application narrative	5,888	$23.38	$137,661.44
Semiannual grant reporting	32	$23.38	$748.16
Totals	5,920	---	$138,409.60

To identify the national average income per hour, we used average hourly earnings from Table 1 of the Bureau of Labor Economic News Release, May 15, 2012 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t01.htm . The program is national in scope with multiple types of applicants; therefore, a national average is most applicable.

13. Provide estimates of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information, (do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in items 12 and 14). The cost estimates should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component annualized over its expected useful life; and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component.

There are no capital/start-up or ongoing operation/maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Provide a description of the method used to estimate cost and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The response to this question covers the actual costs the agency will incur as a result of implementing the information collection. The estimate should cover the entire life cycle of the collection and include costs, if applicable, for:

• Employee labor and materials for developing, printing, storing forms

• Employee labor and materials for developing computer systems, screens, or reports to support the collection

• Employee travel costs

• Cost of contractor services or other reimbursements to individuals or organizations assisting in the collection of information

• Employee labor and materials for collecting the information

• Employee labor and materials for analyzing, evaluating, summarizing, and/or reporting on the collected information

Table 2: Annualized cost to the Federal Government

ACTION ITEM	PERSONNEL	GS LEVEL	HOURLY RATE*	HOURS	SALARY COST TO GOVERNMENT
Request for Proposal preparation	1	14 (Step 5)	$45.99	16	$735.84
Review reports and audits	1	9 (Step 5)	$22.57	240	$5,416.80
Annual accomplishment reporting	1	14 (Step 5)	$45.99	20	$919.80
TOTAL					$7,072.44

* Taken from: http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf

The estimates included in this table include costs of information collection associated with the new program. However, if information collection does not occur, then the program could not be implemented, and therefore the cost to the agency would be zero.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB form 83-I.

This is a new information collection.

16. For collections of information whose results are planned to be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication.

Community Forest Program summary and accomplishment information will be published on the Forest Service website and in budget request documents to highlight program accomplishments within the US Forest Service, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Administration, and for members of Congress.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The expiration date is already displayed on the SF-424, SF-424c and SF-424d approved under other OMB control numbers and used in this information collection.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in item 19, "Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act."

There are no exceptions.

Page 1 of 12