![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
30-Day Notice of Submission of Study Package to Office of Management and Budget; Opportunity for Public Comment
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 2551-2553]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ja07-83]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
30-Day Notice of Submission of Study Package to Office of
Management and Budget; Opportunity for Public Comment
AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5
CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National
Park Service (NPS) invites comments on a proposed new collection of
information (OMB #1024-xxxx).
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has up to 60 days to
approve or disapprove the NPS request for the collection of
information, but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure
maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments within 30
days of the date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register.
This study will provide the NPS and park managers with critical
public input regarding deer issues in and around northeastern NPS
units. The study will use a mail survey of hometown in communities near
parks to assess: (1) The degree to which experience, individual
capacity, and perceptions of institutional capacity affect residents'
intention to participate in deer management planning, (2) the degree of
[[Page 2552]]
cognitive co-orientation between park managers and stakeholders about
deer and deer management, and (3) social and demographic attributes of
residents with different degrees of intention to participate and/or co-
orientation to managers.
DATES: Public comments will be accepted on or before February 20, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior, (OMB #1024-xxxx) Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB by fax at 202-395-6566 or by
electronic mail at OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov. Please also send a copy of
your comments to Leonard E. Stowe, National Park Service, 1849 C
Street, NW., (2605), Washington, DC 20240, or by e-mail to
Leonard_Stowe@nps.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Margaret Wild. Voice: 970-225-
3593, Fax: 970-225-3585, E-mail: Margaret_Wild@nps.gov.
You are entitled to a copy of the entire ICR package free-of-
charge. The NPS published a Federal Register notice to solicit comments
on this proposed information collection on September 18, 2006, Volume
71, Number 180, pages 54686-54687.
Input was sought out from a number of stakeholders and others
interested in the research project, including interviewees identified
in previous preliminary qualitative inquiry with residents of
communities near three of the five parks to be surveyed (see OMB
Approval #104-0224, NPS #05-047). Comments from two
individuals were received as a result of this request for input.
One unsolicited request for a draft survey was received from D.J.
Schubert, Wildlife Biologist at the Animal Welfare Institutes. Mr.
Schubert submitted a number of comments in response to the draft
survey. He believed that to adequately assess public opinion, the
survey should be broadened to include park users and to a
representative sample of the public nationwide. He also believed that
those who receive the survey may understand it to be an indication that
it is the first step towards management action, and that the
introductory remarks were inadequate. He also believed the survey
should include more knowledge questions to assess the reasons behind
people's beliefs about both the NPS and deer and questions that assess
people's experience using non-lethal deer management alternatives. In
addition, he thought the format of Question 8 could be confusing;
believed that Question 10 should be worked more neutrally and should be
presented as two questions for clarity; and believed that Question 11
asked people to make value judgments that may be based on different
criteria for different people. He was concerned that some of the data
collected in the survey may be difficult to interpret and may provide
misleading results unless additional data is collected and the survey
is amended. He also stressed that resolving deer-related concerns in
national parks is dictated by law, regulation, and policy and that
management cannot deviate from such standards, regardless of public opinion.
Comments regarding sampling frame were received from Gerard
Stoddard, President of the Fire Island Association. He observed that
there are many long-term renters who would not be reached by a survey
focusing on homeowners. He also noted that Fire Island communities are
IN, not near the park. We recognize that there are many stakeholders
who are interested in the management of Fire Island National Seashore,
from homeowners to long-term renters, short-term renters, campers,
boaters, and other day users. We chose to focus on homeowners for this
survey because preliminary qualitative inquiry indicated that were
somewhat different from renters (see OMB Approval #1024-0224,
NPS #05-047). Long-term renters were included in preliminary
qualitative inquiry and their perspectives helped shape the questions
included on the survey instrument. Language describing the study area
of interest and a map showing park boundaries were added to the
questionnaire to clarify the relationship between Fire Island
communities and Fire Island National Seashore boundaries.
Another comment regarding sampling frame was received from Ronald
Martin, President of the Fire Island Pines Property Owners Association.
He pointed out that the opinions and experiences regarding deer may be
different for communities on Fire Island and those on Long Island. He
believed that results should be geographically segmented. In response
to this comment, geographic information about responses will be
collected so that analysis can be accordingly segregated.
This survey is not meant to be a metric of general public opinion,
nor is it designed to be a tool for making decisions about different
action alternatives. The survey is intended to assess only local
community beliefs about and level of interest in deer and deer issues
in and around these parks and is not equivalent to public scoping as
required by the National Environmental Policy (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4231 et
seq.). If any of the parks decide to consider formal management action
related to deer, a full public scoping process would be undertaken. In
response to the above comments, a section to this effect is included in
the cover letters that are received with the survey. At this time, only
Valley Forge NHP is undertaking a Deer Management Environmental Impact
Statement, and they have begun a separate public scoping process.
In designing the survey, we worked closely with professionals who
specialize in survey design and considered tradeoffs between likelihood
of response and survey length, clarity of questions, and depth of
understanding. We are not attempting to intuit the full suite of
people's reasons for holding the beliefs that they do. We recognize
that people's history of experience, knowledge, and values (among
others) will play a large role in the way they respond to question
items. To fully assess all the reasons behind each response is beyond
the scope of any survey. Instead, our goal is to identify the climate
for communication with the park; i.e., what are the main concerns of
local community members and how are these similar or different from the
park. Future dialogue with park staff would be needed to determine the
full suite of reasons behind these concerns. Questions 8, 10 and 11 are
similar in format to questions that have been used in previous surveys
conducted by Cornell University's Human Dimensions Research Unit and
did not appear to pose problems of clarity. In response to specific
comments above, we reworded question 10 to be more natural.
Each of the study sites for this survey is a park where formal deer
management is not currently in place. Formative research with NPS
managers identified local community members as playing a crucial role
in the development of issues (like those related to deer) from vague
concerns to topics meriting management action (Leong and Decker 2005).
This survey is designed to help managers identify salient problem
elements and communication needs, should they decide to move forward
with deer management. By identifying these needs a priority, this
survey will help managers improve the quality of future public
participation and civic engagement processes that are mandated by
Federal policies as a vital part of the decision-making process
(National Park Service 2000, 2001b, a, 2003). These policies also
recognize that local communities may have different concerns than the
general public and that it is important to consider these
[[Page 2553]]
concerns in addition to national concerns.
The survey cannot be used to make recommendations about management
actions because (1) the management problem has not yet been defined
(except in the case of Valley Forge NHP), and (2) no questions were
asked about potential actions. No other unsolicited comments were
received for this one-time information collection as a result of the
Federal Register notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Identifying Capacity for Local Community Participation in
Wildlife Management Planning: White-tailed Deer in Northeastern NPS Units.
OMB Number: To be requested.
Expiration Date: To be requested.
Type of Request: New collection.
Description of need: NPS and DOI policies have begun to emphasize
on civic engagement and public participation in park management (NPS
Director's Order 75A), as well as communication and collaboration with
local communities (NPS Director's Order 52A). Discussions with NPS
natural resource managers indicate a need for tools to better
understand local community residents and ways to engage them in
management and planning, especially in situations where communities may
be impacted by NPS Management decisions. This study will provide
insight on local stakeholder opinions and experiences related to the
role of parks in deer and other wildlife management, their
understanding of deer issues and ways to address them in parks, and the
influence of public input in wildlife management in parks. This
information will assist park staff in improving communication with the
public in the event that these parks consider managing impacts related
to deer in the future. Insights from this study also should enhance NPS
ability to respond to other natural resource management issues that
involve local communities.
The goal of this study is to identify criteria for public
involvement strategies that successfully engage the public in
management planning, particularly with respect to deer management.
Collection of these data will assist NPS managers in fulfilling recent
policy directives for public participation by indicating how to adapt
participatory processes to best meet the specific management and
stakeholder contexts. Should these data not be collected, future
participatory processes will be undertaken without the benefit of
research showing the relevance to public-participation processes to
audiences. This could result in receiving public input that is not
representative of the public at large or designing participatory
processes that are more likely to incite controversy than identify
constructive solutions. Specific requirements regarding the information
that must be submitted by offerors in response to a prospectus issued
by NPS are contained in sections 403(4), (5), (7), and (8) of the Act.
Comments are invited on: (1) The practical utility of the
information being gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden hour
estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (40 ways to minimize the burden to
respondents, including the use of automated information collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Before including
your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau Form Number: None.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Description of respondents: Residents of communities near: The
Potomac Gorge area of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical
Park; Fire Island National Seashore; Morristown National Historical Park;
Prince William Forest Park; and Valley Forge National Historical Park.
Automated data collection: This information will be collected via
mail-back questionnaire. Telephone interviews will be conducted with a
small number of non-respondents to the mail survey. No automated data
collection will take place.
Estimated average number of respondents: 2500 (2000 respondents for
mail survey; 500 respondents for telephone interviews).
Estimated average number of responses: 2500 (2000 responses for
mail survey; 500 responses for telephone interviews).
Estimated average burden hours per response: \1/3\ hour for mail
survey respondents, \1/12\ for follow-up telephone interview respondents.
Frequency of Response: 1 time per respondent.
Estimated annual reporting burden: 709 hours.
Total Non-hour Cost Burden: 0.
Dated: January 10, 2007.
Leonard Stowe,
NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-205 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-M