[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2551-2553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-205]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <greek-i>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 <greek-i>1024-xxxx) Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB by fax at 202-395-6566 or by 
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a3533283b253e3539313f2e3a151718541f150a541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1857514a59475c575b535d4c5877757a367d7768367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dd91b8b2b3bcafb9828ea9b2aab89db3adaef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="430f262c2d2231271c10372c3426032d33306d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dr. Margaret Wild. Voice: 970-225-
3593, Fax: 970-225-3585, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2bf93809593809786ada59b9e96b29c8281dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eaa78b988d8b988f9eb5bd83868eaa849a99c48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 <greek-i>104-0224, NPS <greek-i>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 <greek-i>1024-0224, 
NPS <greek-i>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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>