FR 2024-30475

The document under review is a notice from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) seeking public input on its Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program. This effort is part of NOAA's commitment to enhancing ocean and coastal environmental knowledge through educational grants, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public comments on this initiative are invited until February 18, 2025.

General Summary

NOAA's B-WET program, authorized by the America COMPETES Act, aims to boost public understanding of marine and atmospheric sciences through educational initiatives in various U.S. regions. The agency is extending its current information collection practices to evaluate and refine program outcomes. This includes gathering feedback from individuals involved in the program, such as grant awardees and educators, via surveys.

Issues and Concerns

Despite the program's positive intentions, several issues arise within the document:

1. Lack of Transparency in Selection Criteria: The document mentions that 165 awardees will participate but does not specify how these are chosen, potentially leading to concerns over favoritism or lack of fairness in the selection process.

2. Vague Results Communication: Details about how evaluation results have been used to alter program guidelines are not thoroughly explained, which may limit trust in the program's effectiveness.

3. Privacy Concerns: Information on how survey data will be protected is absent, raising concerns about the privacy of respondents' information.

4. Complex Language: Legal and administrative terms could pose comprehension challenges for the general public, making it difficult for all stakeholders to fully understand the program's implications.

5. Unclear Methodology for Burden Estimation: The document lacks a detailed explanation of how time and cost burdens on respondents are calculated, possibly impacting the credibility of these estimates.

6. Voluntary Participation Ambiguity: While participation is described as voluntary, potential repercussions for choosing not to participate, if any, are not addressed, which might concern some stakeholders.

7. Unspecified Burden Reduction Strategies: Although the document aims to minimize reporting burdens, it does not present specific strategies or methods to achieve this goal.

Public Impact

For the general public, this document highlights NOAA's efforts to enhance environmental education through targeted outreach and training. If successful, the B-WET program can contribute to a more informed populace capable of engaging in conversations about watershed protection and climate science.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

• Educators and Grant Recipients: These groups are directly impacted by participating in the surveys, which could guide alterations in educational content and methods. However, the voluntary nature of participation and the lack of clarity on non-participation consequences could create uncertainty.

• Environmental Advocates: Organizations focused on environmental education and conservation might view the B-WET program as a valuable tool for advancing their missions, as it provides federally-backed resources and support.

• Policy Makers and Analysts: For individuals in these roles, the document presents an opportunity to ensure federal resources are utilized efficiently and educational programs achieve their intended outcomes.

Overall, while the B-WET program presents a commendable initiative, the document could benefit from enhanced transparency, clearer communication strategies, and stronger assurances regarding data privacy to foster greater public confidence and engagement.

The document outlines the procedures involved in data collection efforts by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) related to the Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program. While the focus is on gathering public comment and detailing information collection methodologies, there is a specific financial aspect mentioned that is essential to address from a procedural and accountability perspective.

Financial Implications

The document states that there is an "Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs." This implies that the requirements imposed by this information collection activity will not directly burden the public financially, as there are no additional costs associated with recordkeeping or reporting beyond the time spent participating in surveys.

Relation to Identified Issues

• Transparency and Accountability: One issue raised is the lack of detail regarding how the evaluation system results have informed changes in B-WET program guidelines. While there's a claim of no cost to the public in terms of recordkeeping, transparency in how funds are allocated to ensure program improvements remains unaddressed. Understanding how financial decisions are influenced by survey data could enhance accountability.

• Protection of Information: The assurance of no financial burden does not address potential privacy concerns with survey data. Privacy measures should be articulated clearly to further underline that public participation incurs no financial or confidentiality risk.

• Clarity for the Public: Legal references and technical jargon, such as the mention of 33 U.S.C. 893a(a)—the America COMPETES Act—could obscure understanding of the legal basis for financial claims or obligations. More straightforward explanations could clarify the financial responsibilities or lack thereof for both NOAA and survey participants.

The mention of a zero-cost implication in terms of public financial responsibility highlights an intent to minimize burdens; however, it does not cover non-monetary costs such as time, which are only briefly mentioned. Further elaboration on both monetary and non-monetary impacts would provide a comprehensive view of the true "cost" to the participants involved in the B-WET program.