[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51133-51143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Sixty-day Notice of Intention To Request Clearance of Collection 
of Information--Opportunity for Public Comment

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) Social Science Program is 
considering submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a 
request for clearance of a three year program of collections of 
information that would conduct surveys of the public regarding park 
visitors and visitor services. The NPS is publishing this notice to 
inform the public of this proposed three year program and to request 
comments on the program and the proposed approach.
    Under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR 
Part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park 
Service is soliciting comments on: (a) Whether the collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the NPS, including whether the information will have practical utility; 
(b) the accuracy of the NPS estimate of the burden of the collection of 
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 
used; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on those who are to respond, including the use of 
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of 
information technology.

DATES: Public comments will be accepted on or before December 1, 1997.

SEND COMMENTS TO: Dr. John G. Dennis, NPS Washington Office Social 
Science Program Coordinator, Natural Resources (3223 MIB), National 
Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John G. Dennis. Voice: 202-208-
5193, Fax: 202-208-4620, Email:
< <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1dbded9dfeeeed5d4dfdfd8c2f1dfc1c29fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8a2a7a0a69797acada6a6a1bb88a6b8bbe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a> >.
    Proposed Request for Clearance of a Three Year Program of 
Collections of Information: A Proposed Process for OMB Approval of NPS-
Sponsored Public Surveys.

1.0  Introduction

    The National Park System preserves the nation's natural and 
cultural heritage and provides for its enjoyment by citizens and 
visitors from throughout the world. The management of park resources is 
necessarily the management of people. Visitors, employees, 
concessioners, nearby communities, interest groups, local governments--
all affect and are affected by units of the National Park System. An 
accurate understanding of the relationship between people and parks is 
critical to achieving the dual mission of the National Park System: 
protecting resources unimpaired and providing for public enjoyment. 
Such understanding requires a sound scientific basis. Hence, social 
science research is a necessary and important function of the National 
Park Service (NPS).
    NPS managers face unprecedented needs to better understand the 
public's values, attitudes and behaviors with respect to parks. Park 
visitation for recreation and other purposes is expected to rise 34% by 
the year 2000. Indirect use of parks via print, audio-visual, and 
electronic media also is expected to increase. Management of these uses 
of parks and of services provided by NPS and park concessioners will 
require state-of-the-art techniques. Interactions between park managers 
and government or private managers and owners of lands surrounding the 
parks will increase in frequency and intensity as differing management 
goals meet at common boundaries. The people who live and work in 
communities near the parks are affected by the ways park uses grow and 
the ways managers of park and adjacent lands interact. The increased 
emphasis on securing public participation in NPS decision-making 
requires greater knowledge about these many different publics and their 
needs. New laws and initiatives, such as the Government Performance and 
Results Act (GPRA), have created additional needs for the information 
that NPS social science research can provide.
    The NPS has established a new social science program and is 
implementing a strategic program plan (Usable Knowledge: A Plan for 
Furthering Social Science and the National Parks, 1996). The plan calls 
for increased social science research related to the NPS mission. This 
research in turn will increase the need for efficient and effective 
data collection from the many different publics who may be affected by 
NPS efforts to carry out the mission.
    This notice describes a proposed 3-year trial effort to 
``reinvent'' the Paperwork Reduction Act process by which NPS secures 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for NPS-sponsored 
surveys to

[[Page 51134]]

collect data from one specific segment of these publics--the park 
visitors. The benefits of this experiment in reinvention will be 
significant to the NPS, Department of the Interior (DOI), OMB, NPS 
cooperators, and the public. In addition, such a program, if it proves 
fully successful, could be adopted by other federal agencies that 
routinely conduct studies of visitors to the nation's public lands.

1.1 Definitions

    Collection of Information--obtaining information or causing 
information to be obtained by or for an agency by means of identical 
questions posed to ten or more persons.
    Data--material serving as a basis for discussion, inference, or 
determination of policy, for example, individual numbers or short 
phrases that provide bits of information about a subject.
    DOI--Department of the Interior.
    GPRA--Government Performance and Results Act, enacted in 1993 to 
increase the quality and responsiveness to the American people of the 
federal government.
    Information--facts or figures ready for use, for example, all forms 
of data, written analyses, and graphical presentations that together 
provide a body of knowledge about a subject
    Information Collection Burden--the effort that a person must make 
to respond to a request for information, usually measured in minutes or 
hours.
    Information Collection Survey--a generic, written or orally 
presented format for a collection of information that asks a person to 
answer a pre-established set of questions.
    Metadata--information about information or about how to access 
information, such as information about the characteristics of a set of 
data, or a description of data collection categories, or coding 
instructions used to store information.
    OMB--Office of Management and Budget.
    NPS--National Park Service.
    National Park System--all 375 units, totaling approximately 83 
million acres, of federal land that have been assigned to the National 
Park Service to manage, including among other designations, parks, 
monuments, recreation areas, lakeshores, seashores, preserves, historic 
sites, and battlefields.
    NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist--the individual who, on a 
rotating basis, heads the National Park Service Social Science Program.
    Paperwork Reduction Act--the 1995 statute that directs the Federal 
government to reduce the information collection burden it imposes on 
the public.
    Peer Review--quality assurance review of data, documents, projects, 
or programs conducted by reviewers who have equal or greater levels of 
technical training and experience than do the preparers of the data, 
documents, projects, or programs being reviewed
    PI (Principal Investigator)--the person or persons responsible for 
conducting a research project.
    Survey Topic--a specific type of information needed for planning, 
management, operations, and evaluation of performance related to the 
NPS mission and responsibilities. Any given survey topic area may 
include several variables of interest.
    Variables of Interest--characteristics that can be measured, 
including the specific kinds of information within a survey topic that 
would be sought through questions.
    Visitor Survey--a structured, written or oral method for obtaining 
from park visitors information that is used to educate park managers 
and others about the views of visitors regarding park programs and 
resources
    83-I Package--a form and attached statements that federal agencies 
must submit to OMB to request permission to present a collection of 
information to more than 9 members of the public.

2.0  Overview of This Notice

2.1  Summary of Need for Change

    NPS needs to sponsor information collection surveys of the public 
to provide to park managers information for improving the quality and 
utility to the public of park programs. NPS finds the current process 
by which it secures OMB approval of proposed collections of information 
can be improved with respect to securing public comment and can be made 
more efficient for the federal government through reducing current 
levels of personnel and funding necessary for preparing and reviewing 
the proposed collections of information. NPS believes it has developed 
an alternative approach for processing proposed collections of 
information that will be both more effective and more efficient. The 
proposal presented in this notice is designed to test the alternative 
approach using one subset of NPS information collection surveys for a 
3-year test period.

2.2  Summary of this Proposal

    NPS is considering submitting to OMB this proposal to request that 
OMB approve an alternative set of practices and procedures by which OMB 
determines whether or not to approve proposed NPS information 
collection surveys of the public regarding topic areas relating to 
visitors and visitor services. Under this proposal, NPS would request 
that OMB review NPS procedures for these surveys as a program, rather 
than reviewing each and every individual survey of the public related 
to visitors and visitor services that NPS seeks to conduct. Under the 
procedures proposed here, NPS and DOI would conduct the necessary 
quality control through requiring peer review of appropriate program 
elements, maintaining an ongoing process for improving the scientific 
quality and efficiency of survey instruments related to visitors and 
visitor services, and proactively soliciting public review of this 
proposed alternative set of practices and procedures. NPS also would 
maintain an information base of public surveys conducted in parks on 
all topic areas to be used to increase the efficiency of future 
surveys. Under this proposal, NPS would request that OMB assign an OMB 
number, expiration date, and total number of information collection 
burden hours to NPS for the topic areas relating to visitors and 
visitor services. NPS would then allocate this OMB number, expiration 
date, and appropriate number of burden hours to each survey within 
these topic areas that NPS recommends and DOI approves. NPS would 
request that management oversight of its actions be maintained by 
having DOI be responsible for the final decision on all individual 
surveys that NPS proposes within the topic areas and by having OMB 
monitor NPS actions through its review and decision regarding this 
proposed NPS request, its review of NPS annual reports of actions taken 
under the OMB number and expiration date that NPS would request be 
assigned, and comments that OMB receives directly from the public.

2.3  Summary of Benefits of this Proposal

    Adoption of the proposed program presented in this notice would 
benefit NPS management of its public survey process by increasing the 
efficiency of NPS personnel time and funding allocations, by improving 
NPS receipt of effective public and peer comments, and by improving NPS 
access to usable information while minimizing the burden on the public. 
DOI and OMB would benefit through greater efficiencies of their review 
and oversight functions and through the testing of alternative 
procedures for managing the information collection process. The public 
would benefit directly through a more effective and

[[Page 51135]]

less burdensome process for obtaining its review of NPS proposed 
information collection activities, the more efficient expenditure of 
NPS federal funds used to develop and approve surveys and manage their 
application, and a more efficient use of burden hours. The scientific 
community would benefit through a more efficient management review 
process, greater focus on use of peer review to improve the scientific 
quality of information collection, increased attention to 
methodological improvements, and better administration and wider 
sharing of data and information obtained from surveys of the public.

3.0  Details of the Elements of this Proposed Process

    The following paragraphs discuss each of the elements of this 
proposal that NPS is considering presenting to OMB. The discussion 
includes: topic areas to be covered by the proposed process, techniques 
for ensuring appropriate and effective public involvement in the review 
of proposed survey purposes and activities, the approach for obtaining 
peer review of proposed survey methodologies, procedures for involving 
parks and the NPS in the administration of public surveys, the 
procedure by which OMB would assign and NPS would allocate OMB numbers 
and related expiration dates and burden hours, responsibilities and 
procedures for reporting results of surveys and the use of allotted OMB 
numbers and related expiration dates and burden hours, procedures by 
which DOI and OMB would maintain effective program oversight, 
designation of responsibilities and responsible officials, and 
relationship to other NPS initiatives.

3.10  Topic Areas

    Topic areas are specific types of information needed for planning, 
management, operations, and evaluation of performance related to the 
NPS mission and responsibilities. Each topic area may include several 
variables of interest. This proposal would focus on topic areas related 
to visitors and visitor services. The topic areas and variables of 
interest covered in this proposal are identified in detail in Section 
4.0.

3.20  Public Involvement

    The OMB regulations regarding information collections require 
sponsors of such collections to seek adequate, widespread, and useful 
public review of proposed information collection activities. The 
regulations specifically require publication in the Federal Register of 
a notice of opportunity for the public to review a proposed survey at 
two different stages during development of the survey instrument. NPS 
experience to date suggests that this process does not achieve the 
desired public review and comment for NPS sponsored surveys.
    The Visitor Services Project, for example, has conducted 100 very 
similar studies, has published its survey methodology in peer-reviewed 
scientific papers, has solicited peer review of its questionnaires and 
questions as they have been revised or new questions added, and has 
obtained individual OMB approvals study by study. Despite its following 
of established procedures for securing widespread review, the Visitor 
Services Project has received very few public and a handful of 
governmental inquiries, and no substantive comments, in response to the 
opportunities for public review. Similarly, based on limited reports 
from practitioners who recently have conducted other types of surveys 
in parks, of about 15 surveys that went through the old or new Federal 
Register review process, only 3 received any public inquiry, with the 
inquiries leading to no specific feedback to NPS. Beyond this required 
process, all of these surveys received review by the affected managers 
and most received peer review as well.
    The individual visitor studies sponsored by the NPS thus have 
received little benefit from individually conducting the standard 
review process established in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
They instead have experienced delays associated with the additional 
time periods involved in the review process. They have experienced 
Federal Register publication costs which, under the current requirement 
for two notices per study, will amount to approximately $500.00 per 
study with no return of comments from the public for this cost to the 
taxpayers. They have imposed potential additional burdens on the public 
by requesting that the public separately review each and every one of 
the individual study plans and questionnaires, despite the similarities 
in purpose, topic areas, methodology, and planned uses of results.
    Using the knowledge gained from this past experience, NPS is 
initiating a different approach to achieving public review of its 
survey process that it believes will be both more comprehensive and 
more effective. NPS is publishing this 60 day notice of intent to 
submit to OMB for approval a proposed collection of information to 
conduct all surveys prepared under this proposed process. In publishing 
this notice, NPS specifically requests public, scientific, and 
management comments on the appropriateness, suitability, and 
effectiveness of each element of the proposed process. NPS asks that 
respondents offer specific comments on the proposed topic areas. NPS 
asks for reactions to the proposal's discussion of benefits for program 
management, for involving the public with the minimum amount of burden, 
and for improving the methodologies for conducting surveys in and about 
parks. After addressing all public, scientific, and management comments 
received in response to this notice, NPS proposes to submit a revised 
version of this proposal to OMB and to publish a 30 day Federal 
Register notice to announce to the public that it has submitted a 
formal collection of information proposal to OMB to seek approval for 
all surveys that would be conducted during the 3 year test of the 
revised proposal.
    NPS thus in this notice is soliciting public review and comment on 
a proposed public survey process that would deal with a group of 
selected, common topic areas related to visitors and visitor services, 
not on individual survey instruments. NPS believes this proposed 
approach will reduce the burden to the public for reviewing documents 
and will increase the level of public participation in development of 
useful topics and survey approaches.
    As part of this broad public review process, NPS also will directly 
inform public interest organizations that have a clear interest in 
parks, park management, and visitor uses of parks about the opportunity 
to comment on this Federal Register notice. Such organizations to be 
contacted directly as representatives of large segments of the public 
will include: National Recreation and Park Association, National Parks 
and Conservation Association, Conference of National Park Cooperating 
Associations, National Association of State Park Directors, National 
Association of Interpreters, National Inholders Association, National 
Association of Counties, National Association of Conservation 
Districts, National Governors Association, Appalachian Trail 
Conference, American Hiking Society, Partners in Parks, National Tour 
Foundation, and National Association of Park Concessioners. By means of 
this notice, NPS requests other interested organizations to identify 
their interest and to provide NPS with comments regarding this proposed 
process for NPS to use in seeking OMB approval of NPS-sponsored public 
surveys.

[[Page 51136]]

3.30  Peer Involvement

    In accordance with standard scientific practice, peer review occurs 
throughout the research process for developing objectives, methods, 
sampling design, questionnaire design, target populations, and data 
analysis strategies for prospective research. This peer involvement 
contributes significantly to improving the quality of research and its 
potential to address applied problems of the national parks. Each 
Principal Investigator (PI) or program manager, as appropriate, would 
be responsible for managing the process of obtaining, documenting, 
responding to, and summarizing the results of peer review on the PI's 
or program manager's research activities. NPS proposes to monitor the 
peer review that is obtained during four stages in the visitor survey 
process: (1) determination of appropriate topic area variables, (2) 
problem identification for each research project, (3) development and 
pre-testing of research instruments, and (4) preparation of reports for 
individual research projects and for this test of a program of 
collections of information.

3.31  Program Topic Area Variables

    As part of publication of this notice, NPS will solicit peer review 
of the scientific appropriateness of the topic area variables included 
in this proposal. Peer reviewers will be asked to comment on the 
appropriateness, inclusiveness, and description of the variables 
proposed for each identified topic area.

3.32  Research Project Problem Identification

    Under terms of this proposal, for each proposed, NPS-sponsored 
public survey, the principal investigators (PIs) intending to conduct 
the survey would work with park staff to identify and develop the 
objectives, scope, and target audience for research to address the 
management problem identified by the park manager. For new or 
significantly modified existing surveys, the PIs also would be expected 
to consult with peer researchers to ensure that the selected 
objectives, scope, and target audience are scientifically valid and 
have a high probability of yielding results useful for addressing the 
identified management problem.

3.33  Development and Pre-testing of Research Instruments

    Whenever they are developing sampling strategies, questions to ask, 
layout of questionnaires, or statistical techniques to be used for 
analyzing results for new or significantly modified surveys, the PIs 
would consult, as appropriate, with their research peers. In these 
cases, the PIs also may test drafts of their proposed survey 
instruments on small samples of students or colleagues, as appropriate. 
The PIs would use such peer review comments and test results to provide 
insight on probable park visitor perspectives about the research 
instruments. They also would use the information to identify any 
trouble-spots in the proposed questionnaires regarding syntax, layout, 
and design to guide their revising the questionnaires in ways that will 
minimize the burden to the public that will be asked to respond to the 
questionnaires. The PIs also would request comments on the planned 
research design and proposed questionnaires from key individuals in the 
park or parks under study. Following this consultation, testing, and 
review by peers and managers, the PIs would complete their improvements 
to the proposed research and questionnaire designs and prepare final 
versions of their research plans and questionnaires.

3.34  Research Project and Program Report Preparation

    As they prepare their project reports, the PIs would submit a draft 
of each proposed report for review by NPS staff and by research 
scientists where appropriate. The PIs would use the review comments 
they receive to help them prepare final reports that are clearly 
articulated, scientifically sound, and have maximum applicability for 
addressing the identified management problem. Similarly, the NPS Social 
Science Program would solicit and use appropriate peer review as part 
of its preparation of technical reports about NPS Social Science 
Program findings.

3.35  NPS Documentation of Peer Review

    NPS would document peer review in four ways. First, NPS would 
provide in the required 30-day Federal Register notice that is part of 
the OMB collection of information decision process an analysis of the 
peer review it received on the topic area variables in response to this 
60-day Federal Register notice. Second, NPS would require, at the time 
each NPS sponsored PI submits a final report, that the PI either 
describe the nature of the peer review the PI obtained or explain why 
the PI did not obtain peer review. Third, NPS would encourage PIs to 
publish their NPS sponsored surveys in peer reviewed publications. 
Fourth, NPS would provide in each NPS annual report to DOI and OMB that 
would be required by this proposed process a summary of all the peer 
review activities conducted during the year being reported.

3.40  Park or NPS Program Involvement

    To ensure that NPS-sponsored public surveys provide information of 
use to management decision-making, NPS park and central office managers 
would maintain appropriate levels of involvement throughout the survey 
process. NPS park or central office managers would initiate the process 
when they identify needs for information about visitors to parks and 
request that a survey be conducted. NPS social science cooperators 
would respond to the request by proposing specific visitor survey 
projects. The requesting NPS manager then would work with the 
cooperators to ensure that the proposed projects can be accommodated 
within existing park management or NPS policy constraints and that the 
projected results of the proposed research will provide the information 
and levels of precision the requesting manager needs for decision-
making. Park managers would provide in-park logistic and public 
relations support to the research cooperators as appropriate. The 
requesting managers would receive the project reports from the social 
scientists who conduct the surveys and would apply the findings to 
their management decision-making as appropriate. Park and central 
office managers also would monitor the public's response to the survey 
process and report to the NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist any 
concerns or suggestions about the process that warrant consideration or 
follow-up action.
    The NPS Social Science Program would serve as the program manager 
for the proposed process. Its specific proposed responsibilities are 
described later in this proposal.

3.50  Assignment of OMB Number, Expiration Date, and Allowed 
Information Collection Budget

    Under terms of this proposed collection of information that NPS is 
considering submitting to OMB, NPS would propose that OMB assign a 
single number and three year expiration date to NPS for NPS to allocate 
without further review from OMB to all surveys that NPS might sponsor 
within the topic variables and limits regarding visitors and visitor 
services identified in this proposal. NPS further would propose that 
OMB assign NPS an annual Information Collection Budget from which NPS 
would distribute burden hours to the approved surveys according to 
need. NPS would not allocate the assigned number, an expiration date,

[[Page 51137]]

and a specific number of burden hours to any proposed questionnaire 
until NPS had secured approval of the questionnaire from DOI. Once it 
had received that approval, NPS would allocate to the approved survey 
the number, a date that does not exceed three years, and an appropriate 
number of burden hours, and would notify the applicant that the survey 
is approved. NPS also would assign a unique NPS identification number 
to each survey NPS approves to ensure that each survey receiving the 
common OMB number is identifiable. Once NPS had distributed the total 
number of OMB authorized annual burden hours for any given year, NPS 
would stop using this pilot process for approving requests for surveys 
in these topical areas and would process all additional such requests 
in that year through the existing review system. Alternatively, NPS 
might request OMB to approve additional burden hours under terms of 
this proposed process.

3.60  Annual Information Collection Budget

    NPS in recent years has used a total of between 4,000 and 7,000 
burden hours per year for conducting public surveys related to visitors 
and visitor surveys. Under the terms of this proposal, and given that 
NPS expects to add some new public surveys to meet its GPRA 
responsibilities, NPS would propose to request that OMB approve a total 
annual information collection budget for the surveys that NPS would 
process under the terms of this proposal of 8,000 burden hours. This 
annual burden would be approximately 2.7% of the total burden hours NPS 
reported for Fiscal Year 1997 and 0.2% of the total that DOI reported 
for the same year.

3.70  NPS Reporting Responsibilities

    NPS would submit annually to DOI and OMB a report that would 
describe for the past year: (a) NPS survey activities undertaken, (b) 
improvements achieved in data collection activities (including savings 
in NPS full time equivalent personnel (FTE) and funds), (c) results of 
peer evaluation of NPS planned surveys and reports of completed 
surveys, (d) public comments about NPS surveys and public responses to 
the opportunity to review this proposal provided through the two 
Federal Register Notice publications, and (e) plans for the next year. 
Toward the end of the three year period identified in this proposal, 
NPS would submit a triennial report that would summarize the entire 
experience of the authorized activities and make recommendations for 
futher action.

3.80  DOI and OMB Oversight

    Under this proposed process, DOI would meet its statutory 
responsibilities by reviewing and approving or rejecting each 
individual NPS proposal to allocate the OMB number to an NPS sponsored 
survey instrument that is elligible within the terms of this proposal. 
DOI would review the NPS annual and triennial reports and, based on its 
review, forward the reports to OMB or return them to NPS for further 
work. DOI would review all individual survey instruments that NPS 
submits separately from this proposed process and would act on them in 
accordance with existing procedures.
    OMB would review this NPS request for a 3 year pilot test to 
conduct public surveys and approve or reject the proposal. Should OMB 
approve this proposal, OMB would use the NPS annual reports to monitor 
NPS decisions and actions regarding the allocation of the OMB number to 
NPS-sponsored survey instruments. OMB would review all NPS survey 
instruments that do not qualify for this proposed process and act on 
them in accordance with existing procedures.

3.90  Program Responsibilities and Responsible Officials

3.91  National Park Service

    The NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist, working through the NPS 
Social Science Program, will secure public review of this program 
proposal through the two step Federal Register notification process, 
will obtain other forms of public review of this proposal, and will 
solicit peer review of the proposal prior to preparing the final 
proposal package that would be submitted for OMB decision.
    The NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist, working through the NPS 
Social Science Program, would provide guidance for and, as requested, 
assist the preparation, public review, and technical review as 
appropriate of all NPS-sponsored individual survey instruments. For 
those survey instruments submitted under this proposed program and for 
which, therefore, individual public review would not be conducted, the 
Visiting Chief Social Scientist would review the instruments for 
compliance with technical standards and programmatic guidelines. The 
Visiting Chief Social Scientist would reject survey instruments that do 
not comply with the minimum requirements, would determine appropriate 
burden hours and expiration dates for those that do comply, and would 
recommend to DOI for approval those instruments that meet the 
requirements. Once the Visiting Chief Social Scientist had received 
approval from DOI, the Visiting Chief Social Scientist would allocate 
the OMB number and an expiration date and number of burden hours to, 
and authorize the PI to use, the approved instrument. Should a PI 
question a decision by the Visiting Chief Social Scientist, the PI 
would submit an appeal to the Associate Director, Natural Resource 
Stewardship and Science, for a decision.
    For those information collection activities that would fall outside 
the OMB-approved topic areas included in this proposal, the responsible 
park or other NPS manager would prepare and submit through the NPS 
Visiting Chief Social Scientist to DOI and through DOI to OMB 
individual standard Paperwork Reduction Act submissions. This process 
would include the associated two-fold opportunities for individual 
public review in keeping with the existing public notification and 
timing requirements.

3.92  Department of the Interior

    The DOI Office responsible for oversight of DOI information 
collection activities, currently the Office of Policy Analysis, would 
provide oversight of NPS within-approved-limits activities. The DOI 
Office of Policy Analysis also would review, accept, and forward to OMB 
the NPS annual reports of information collection activities. In 
addition, the DOI Office of Policy Analysis would review and submit to 
OMB those NPS applications for proposed survey activities that would 
fall outside whatever topic areas would be approved by OMB should OMB 
approve this proposal.

3.93  Office of Management and Budget

    The OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs would review 
and act on DOI recommended NPS requests for approvals of information 
collection topic areas, requests for approvals of information 
collection activities that are outside existing approved limits, and 
NPS annual reports.

3.100  Additional, Related NPS Initiatives

    The NPS would engage in three initiatives related to this proposed 
request to OMB. One is preparing a strategic plan for visitor surveys. 
The second is sponsoring research on survey methods. The third is 
developing an archive of NPS survey results. Each is briefly described 
below.

[[Page 51138]]

3.101  A Strategic Plan for Visitor Surveys

    Currently, NPS surveys respond to park-specific requests for data 
to meet individual park management needs. While this approach 
successfully supports those parks that are able to provide funds and 
attract researchers, it does not necessarily also contribute to needs 
of other parks or of the NPS as a whole. The exception is the Visitor 
Services Project, which uses a common survey format for all parks 
surveyed and relies on an Advisory Committee that meets annually to 
recommend to the NPS Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship 
and Science, for final decision the approximately 10 parks that will 
receive visitor studies during the year. The Advisory Committee 
develops its decisions using an established set of criteria and a 
formal nomination process.
    Within 12 months following approval of this proposal, NPS would 
develop a strategic plan for determining where, why, and when to 
conduct visitor surveys in units of the National Park System. The plan 
would be developed in consultation with park managers, social 
scientists, NPS and DOI officials, and OMB. While focusing on ensuring 
that visitor surveys meet the needs of the specific parks requesting 
them, the plan also would develop an approach for strategically 
aggregating the results from the parks selected for study. It also 
would explore how to identify a set of possible ``indicator parks'' and 
how best to use those parks to represent the National Park System. In 
addition, it would determine other actions that would make NPS data 
collection at individual parks more cost-effective, more representative 
of large classes of visitors, and thus more useful for both park and 
national levels of analysis and decision-making. The experience gained 
from this strategic analysis of visitor surveys would form the basis of 
future strategic analyses of other classes of information collection 
activities.

3.102  Research on Survey Methods

    Studies conducted by NPS within the topics of visitors and visitor 
services offer opportunities to conduct methodological research useful 
to both the NPS and other agencies with similar user populations and 
data collection needs. Research on improving response rates, reducing 
non-response bias, improving survey and interview design, reducing 
sampling error, increasing validity of measures, and improving public 
review of survey instruments are all important and possible. As an 
integral part of this proposal, NPS would initiate a modest program of 
research on these and other questions regarding survey methods. At 
least one project would be completed in the fiscal year following OMB 
approval of this proposal, submitted to a scientific journal for 
publication, and shared with OMB and other agencies.

3.103  Archive of NPS Survey Results

    To support its research on survey methods and to increase the 
efficiency and effectiveness of its use of past information surveys, 
NPS would build a social science data and information archival system 
that would incorporate the existing Visitor Services Project (VSP) data 
base, which currently includes all visitor surveys conducted by the 
VSP. This archive ultimately would include survey metadata, survey 
data, and written reports for all NPS sponsored surveys. This archive 
would be available to the public under existing guidelines.

4.0  Topic Areas

    This proposal focuses on the general subject of visitors and 
visitor services. It covers the specific kinds of information needed by 
NPS for planning, management, operations, and evaluation of performance 
related to meeting needs of visitors. The specific topic areas included 
in this proposal are: visitor characteristics, trip/visit 
characteristics, visitor activities and uses of park resources, visitor 
expenditures, visitor evaluations of park services, visitor perceptions 
of their park experiences, and visitor opinions on park management. For 
each topic area, this proposal provides definition, scope, 
justification for data collection, and a few examples of typical 
questions that could be asked and variables that could be expected as 
answers. The specific questions to be prepared for any individual 
survey would have to relate to one or more of the approved topic areas 
and would have to be approved by NPS and DOI as part of the review and 
approval process requested in this proposal.

4.10  Topic Area on Visitor Characteristics

4.11  Definition

    Visitor characteristics are attributes of individual park visitors 
or visitor groups. Some examples include: age, zip code or country of 
residence, group type, ethnicity, disabilities/impairments, language 
abilities, socio-economic status, and visit frequency.

4.12  Scope

    Visitor characteristics relevant to the mission, management, and/or 
operations of National Park System units are included.

4.13  Justification for Data Collection

    The diverse units of the National Park System cater to the total 
diversity of the U.S. population and a cross section of international 
visitors. Qualitative and quantitative data about the nature and 
breadth of this diversity of park users provide NPS managers with 
information they need to ensure that park visitor services, education 
programs, facilities, and management operations respond appropriately 
to the capabilities, needs, and concerns of park visitors.

4.14  Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers

    A. For you and your group on this visit, please indicate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Number of visits made 
                                             Current age         U.S. Zip Code or name   to this park (including
                                                                   of foreign country          this visit)      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yourself.............................                                                                           
Member #2............................                                                                           
Member #3............................                                                                           
Member #4............................                                                                           
Member #5............................                                                                           
Member #6............................                                                                           
Member #7............................                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. On this visit, what kind of group were you with? Please check 
only one.

Alone
Family
Friends
Family and Friends
Other (Please describe: ____)
    C. What languages do you or members of your group regularly speak 
at home? Please check all that apply.
    (Answer choices should reflect the languages most frequently spoken 
by visitors to the park)
    D. Does anyone in your group have any physical disabilities which 
limited their ability to visit (park)? yes/no
    If yes, what kind of disability? Please check all that apply.

Hearing
Visual
Mobility
Learning
Mental

4.20  Topic Area on Trip/Visit Characteristics

4.21  Definition

    Trip/visit characteristics include travel factors which affect a 
trip or decisions which visitors make prior to, during, or following 
their trip to a park.

[[Page 51139]]

Examples include use of overnight accommodations, transportation, trip 
route, trip origin, trip destination(s), entrance/user fees, ability to 
obtain tickets, and length of trip.

4.22  Scope

    Trip characteristics relevant to the mission, management, and/or 
operations of National Park System units are included.

4.23  Justification for Data Collection

    Information about how visitors plan their trips, about features of 
their trips, and about their visits in the parks support park managers' 
efforts to provide park-access and park-specific information to 
visitors before they arrive at the parks; to work with local and 
regional planners dealing with transportation alternatives, facilities, 
and services that support visitors traveling to and from parks; to 
assist park concession managers in providing appropriate trip planning 
information to prospective visitors; and to more effectively handle 
visitors' trip-related needs (such as fees, tickets, permits, 
facilities, and services) once the visitors have arrived in the parks.

4.24  Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers

    A. On this trip, how much time did you and your group spend in 
(park)?

If less than 24 hours:
Number of Hours: ____
If 24 hours or more:
Number of Days: ____ (Please list partial days as \1/4\, \1/2\, etc.)

    B. On this visit, what forms of transportation did you and your 
group use to get to (park)? Please check all that apply.
    (Choices of answer should be appropriate for the park situation.)
    C. On this visit, what were your reasons for visiting (park)? 
Please check all that apply.
    (Choices of answer should be appropriate for the park situation.)
    D. Prior to this visit, how did you and your group get information 
about (park)? Please check all that apply.

Received No Information Prior to Visit ____
Go on to Question ____
Friends/Relatives ____
Travel Agency ____

    (Answer choices should be appropriate for the park situation.)

4.30  Topic Area on Visitor Activities and Uses of Park Resources

4.31  Definition

    Visitors participate in a variety of activities during their visits 
to parks or related areas. While there are hundreds of activities in 
which visitors can engage, some important examples include: 
sightseeing, visiting visitor centers, day hiking, backpacking, 
picnicking, camping, shopping, observing wildife, attending ranger-led 
programs, taking photographs, boating, fishing, and many others.
    Visitors also use a variety of park or related area resources 
including natural and cultural resources as well as infrastructure when 
they visit these areas. Some examples include roads, trails, restrooms, 
parking lots, drinking water, viewpoints/overlooks, visitor centers, 
gift shops, stores, lodges/motels, etc. Depending on the site, visitors 
may harvest berries, fish, game animals, fire wood, or sea shells; 
travel cross-country in roadless and trailless parts of the park; 
travel through historic structures or landscapes; or handle historic 
objects.

4.32  Scope

    Visitor activities or uses of resources which are relevant to the 
mission, management, and/or operations of National Park System units 
are included.

4.33  Justification for Data Collection

    Park and related area managers and planners use knowledge about 
visitor activities to design and operate interpretation, resource 
management and preservation, law enforcement, safety, and facility 
management activities to meet the needs of the visitors. They also use 
this information to support all aspects of planning, from buildings, 
roads, and trails, to exhibits. In addition, they must have the 
collected data available to track visitor use trends and project future 
demands for visitor uses. In conducting their management, planning, and 
monitoring activities, managers also use the information to effectively 
allocate their limited personnel and financial resources to the highest 
priority elements of their visitor services programs.

4.34  Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers

    A. On the list below, please check all of the activities that you 
and your group participated in during this visit to (park).
    (Answer choices should include all appropriate activities and 
``other'' for write-in answers)
    To gain additional information, the above question can be asked in 
different ways:
    (a) On the list below, please check the activities that you and 
your group did at (park) on this visit. Please check all that apply.
    (b) For your past visits to (park), please check the activities 
that you and your group have done. Please check all that apply.
    B. Please check the services which you or your group used at (park) 
during this visit.
    (Answer choices should include all appropriate services.)

4.40  Topic Area on Visitor Expenditures

4.41  Definition

    The visitor expenditures topic area deals with the time and dollar 
costs that vistors experience in association with visiting parks and 
surrounding areas.

4.42  Scope

    Visitor expenditures data include information related to direct 
visitor expenditure patterns in the park or surrounding area (direct 
expenditures) and to visitor expenditures associated with their travels 
to access the park or surrounding area (indirect expenditures).

4.43  Justification for Data Collection

    Park and related area managers and business managers, planners, and 
other members of communities around the parks use visitor expenditure 
information to identify relationships between parks and local/regional 
economic development. Visitor expenditure data also provide insight to 
government and business managers regarding pricing issues related to 
entrance and user fees, costs of services in parks and related areas, 
concession fees, and to estimate the value of parks and park-related 
attributes for visitor uses.

4.44  Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers

    A. We are interested in the expenditures your group made within 
(name of state). Please indicate the amount of dollars spent by your 
group in each of the following categories regarding your trip to (name 
of park).

a. transportation to (name of park) $____
b. equipment and supplies $____
c. lodging $____
d. raft outfitters $____
e. food and beverage $____
f. other, please specify $____

4.50  Topic Area on Visitor Evaluation of Park Services

4.51  Definition

    Visitor evaluation data include quality and importance ratings of 
services which visitors used or

[[Page 51140]]

potentially could have used during their park or nearby area visit.

4.52  Scope

    Services or facilities provided in parks by NPS, concessioners, or 
other cooperators that are used by visitors, available to visitors but 
not used, or potentially available to visitors are included.

4.53  Justification for Data Collection

    Planners and managers of parks and related areas use data from 
visitor evaluations of services and facilities to improve customer 
service directly onsite; improve the efficiency of other park or 
related area operations that results in improved customer service; 
improve agency operations at the local, regional, and national levels 
to remove institutional barriers that prevent the providing of better 
services to visitors; develop a long-term data base to permit 
monitoring any changes in the provision of visitor services over time; 
and compile information that can satisfy reporting requirements of the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

4.54  Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers

    Typically an evaluation asks visitors to rate services and 
facilities such as the courtesy of employees, the cleanliness of 
facilities, and quality of brochures and maps. Visitors rate these 
services and facilities on a scale from excellent to poor. For example:
    A. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the visitor services 
provided to you and your group at (park) during this visit?
    (a) Please check the visitor facilities or services in (park) which 
you or your group used during this trip.
    (b) Next, for only those facilities or services which you or your 
group used, please rate their importance to you on a scale from 1-5, 
with 5 being of great importance and 1 being of no importance.
    (c) Finally, for only those facilities or services which you or 
your group used, please rate their quality from 1-5, with 5 being of 
high quality and 1 being of low quality.
    (a) Use facility/service in (park)
    (b) If used, how important
    (c) If used, what quality?

                                                                                                                
                                                 [Check If Used]                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Not  important         Extremely          Very  poor          Very  good  
                                 ------------------------    important   ---------------------------------------
                                                         ----------------                                       
                                     1       2       3       4       5       1       2       3       4       5  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restrooms.......................                                                                                
Trails..........................                                                                                
Etc.............................                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Answer choices should be appropriate to the park)

4.60  Topic Area on Visitor Perceptions of Their Park Experiences

4.61  Definition

    Visitor perception data deal with the visitors' awareness of 
elements of the natural and social environments in the parks they 
visit, their observations about those elements, and how their awareness 
and observations influence their overall park experiences.

4.62  Scope

    Involves visitor experiences regarding park natural and cultural 
resources, other visitors to the park, park and other employees, and 
park infrastructure and services. Also includes visitors' perceptions 
of their experiences while in the park and surrounding areas.

4.63  Justification for Data Collection

    Park managers use visitor perception information to guide decision-
making about resource and visitor activity management to ensure that 
park programs both provide visitors with high quality experiences that 
meet the visitors' expectations and also protect the integrity of the 
resources and visitor activities that the visitors come to experience. 
Managers use visitor perception information to develop specific, 
measurable indicators and standards of quality for both the visitor 
experiences and resource conditions. Managers also may use the 
information to identify what personal and social norms to use for 
developing these indicators and standards of quality. The indicators of 
quality show what levels of quality of experience result from the 
various different levels of management effort. The standards of quality 
show the levels of quality that visitor experiences must equal or 
exceed to be considered acceptable outcomes. NPS will need visitor 
perception data and associated indicators and standards of quality to 
be able to benchmark the GPRA standards for acceptable outcomes that 
NPS established in 1996. Meeting these outcomes will ensure that NPS 
achieves its mission of providing high quality visitor experiences 
while protecting park natural and cultural resources.

4.64  Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers

    Visitor perception questions seek to identify indicators of quality 
and standards of quality. For example:
    A. What have you enjoyed most about your visit to (park) today?
    B. Has anything detracted from the quality of your visit to (park) 
today? If so, what?
    C. How much of a problem do you feel the following issues are at 
(park)? (Visitors are presented a list of potential indicators of 
quality and asked to judge--using a standardized response scale--the 
degree to which each issue is a problem.)
    D. We are interested in how many people you feel could visit this 
place at any one time without your feeling too crowded. To help judge 
this, we have developed a series of photographs that show different 
numbers of people at this place. Please rate each of the photographs by 
indicating how acceptable you feel each one is based on the number of 
people shown. (Visitors are presented a series of photographs and asked 
to judge--using a standardized response scale--the acceptability of 
each photograph.)

4.70  Topic Area on Visitor Opinions on Park Management

4.71  Definition

    Visitor opinions about park management include the ideas, beliefs, 
attitudes, preferences, and values that visitors express regarding all 
aspects of NPS park management.

[[Page 51141]]

4.72  Scope

    Includes visitor opinions about how the park manages its natural 
and cultural resources, maintains its physical structures, guides human 
uses of park resources and facilities, and provides educational and 
other services to the visitor.

4.73  Justification for Data Collection

    NPS manages park resources according to general and specific park 
plans that interpret general legislation, specific park enabling 
legislation, and NPS policy. Surveys that include visitor opinions on 
park management provide an important avenue for securing the public 
involvement that permits the NPS to understand what visitors know and 
think about park resource and other management actions. Such surveys 
will be necessary to evaluate fee and any other demonstration projects 
directed by the Congress. These surveys also help NPS to determine 
whether or not park educational efforts about park management actions 
are addressing the proper avenues of thought, are being presented 
effectively and in the most productive venues, are being understood by 
the recipients, and are useful to the recipients. Park managers use 
this knowledge to improve park planning, resource management, visitor 
education, maintenance, and visitor services.

4.74  Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers

    A. The park's lake naturally contained no fish and the fish that 
are there now resulted from humans planting fish in the lake. How would 
your use of the lake area be affected if all the fish were removed from 
the lake? (Circle a number to indicate your response)

1  Would come to the area more often
2  No change in use of the area
3  Would come to the area less often
4  Would stop coming to the area
5  Would stop visiting the park

5.0  Benefits

    NPS expects the procedure proposed in this notice for processing 
proposed collections of information related to the topic areas 
involving visitors and visitor services will provide substantial 
benefits to NPS, DOI, and OMB management of the information collection 
program, to public review of proposed collections of information, to 
the public burden related to reviewing proposed collections of 
information and responding to approved surveys, and to the science of 
conducting surveys of those members of the public who use parks.

5.10  Benefit to Program Management

5.11  NPS

    By managing surveys related to visitors and visitor services as a 
coherent, single information collection program, NPS would increase the 
efficiency of its use of personnel and fiscal resources, improve the 
timing and focus of the public and peer review it obtains about its 
activities, reduce duplication of survey effort, develop improvements 
in procedures used to estimate the burden imposed by surveys of 
visitors to parks, improve the delivery of usable knowledge to park 
managers, and improve the archiving, use, and availability to the 
public of the results of past surveys.

5.12  DOI

    In overseeing NPS management of the topic areas relating to 
visitors and visitor services as a coherent, single program, DOI would 
benefit by receiving more systematic and technically current survey 
instruments to review, having available to it the information contained 
in the NPS archive, and having available the NPS annual reports as 
tools for monitoring the responsiveness of the NPS program. The more 
efficient, effective, and independent position provided to DOI for 
overviewing NPS conduct of a program of surveys related to topic areas 
dealing with visitors and visitor services also would reduce financial 
costs and administrative burdens experienced by DOI.

5.13  OMB

    OMB would benefit by having better public and peer review of a 
program of surveys, by having the NPS annual report available for 
efficient program monitoring and oversight, by testing a process for 
improving agency management of the review of proposed collections of 
information, by testing alternative procedures for conducting 
information collections in ways that minimize the burden to the public, 
and by receiving information from several NPS initiatives, including 
elements of research methodology and administration (see Section 5.3), 
related to the topic areas of visitors and visitor services. In 
addition, OMB would experience a reduction in its administrative burden 
with respect to reviewing proposed collections of information.

5.20  Benefit to the Public

    The OMB approval process proposed in this notice would result in 
substantial benefits to the public. The public's opportunity and 
ability to assess the entire program of NPS surveys of visitors would 
benefit because of the general streamlining of the review process, 
enhanced coordination of survey research efforts, and more efficient 
and effective communication with the public. The public also would 
benefit because better coordination of the information derived from 
visitor surveys will contribute to more productive use of social 
science information in the management of the national parks, resulting 
in better customer service and resource protection. Additionally, both 
of these sets of benefits would result in more efficient use of public 
funds, including through reducing expenditures and government personnel 
time spent on preparing and publishing individual Federal Register 
notices.

5.21  Involvement of the Public

    The public would be engaged in meaningful dialogue about the social 
science survey process through its opportunity to review the program 
proposal at two stages of proposal development and through the reports 
that would be provided by the proposed, coordinated annual and 
triennial reporting process.
    This notice in itself benefits the public by providing information 
in a concise and comprehendable way about the purposes for which NPS 
conducts surveys of the public, the types of questions NPS asks of the 
public, and how NPS uses the responses to those questions to meet 
management needs for information. By focusing public review on the 
development and administration of a collection of information program 
rather than on individual, apparently unrelated survey instruments, NPS 
is encouraging greater public involvement in assessing the program and 
is making that involvement easier, more encompassing, more 
intelligible, and more productive.
    The annual reports to be prepared as part of the proposed program 
would summarize the research activities conducted within the topical 
areas identified in this proposal. The triennial report would provide a 
synthesis of what has been learned during the three year cycle and, 
should the program perform as envisioned, describe topical study areas 
that NPS would propose for a subsequent three year planning cycle. 
These reports together would inform the public of the underlying 
purposes of proposed survey research and of the results of already 
conducted research.

5.22  Burden Efficiency

    By shifting the timing and focus of public review of NPS sponsored 
public

[[Page 51142]]

surveys from individual surveys to a program of surveys, the process 
initiated with this notice is reducing the potential number of public 
burden hours expended on reviewing proposed public survey 
questionnaires and is increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of 
those burden hours that the public does expend. By building 
methodological research into its overall strategy, the proposed process 
would stimulate development of improved and more efficient survey 
questions, survey designs, and sampling approaches, thus reducing the 
public burden in responding to surveys while at the same time making 
the application of that burden have broader utility.

5.30  Benefit to Science

5.31  Peer Review

    Currently, individual scientists are responsible by DOI policy to 
obtain peer review for social science work plans and reports associated 
with in-house survey research. The extent of this review varies widely 
by individual scientist and the type of project.
    The proposed OMB approval process identified in this notice would 
result in a comprehensive series of survey and program reports and 
records that are reflective of the overall NPS program of social 
science research and its methodologies. Consequently, NPS would be able 
more easily to solicit peer review that focuses on Servicewide efforts 
and methodologies. This type of review would represent a significant 
benefit beyond that received from current individual peer review 
contributions. In addition, the NPS Social Science Program Office under 
the proposed plan would monitor individual requests for information 
collection and would require that requestors document the peer review 
they already have obtained and explain the absence of peer review where 
such review is lacking.
    Within 12 months following approval by OMB of a proposal of the 
type contained in this notice, NPS would develop an expanded peer 
review process to ensure that all social science activities receive 
appropriate levels of peer review at appropriate stages in the 
development of the activities. NPS would involve both scientists and 
managers in this development and would ensure that the resulting 
process reflects academic, NPS, DOI, and OMB guidance regarding peer 
review.

5.32  Methodological Development

    One of the significant advantages of this proposal is that it 
clearly establishes an incentive for methodological development and 
improvement. This would work in two ways. First, there would be 
stronger incentives for constructive peer review. Second, the proposed 
process would remove an unintended consequence of any reliance on a 
question catalog. In the past, NPS projects to conduct public surveys 
experienced a strong incentive to use an NPS question catalog because 
its use offered a somewhat reduced time for achieving OMB review. 
However, an unintended consequence of the use of the question catalog 
was the emergence of a disincentive to develop more valid and reliable 
measures for more complex items because of the burden of securing OMB 
review and approval. Because the application of survey research and 
social science concepts to park management is still developing, this 
disincentive is actually counter-productive to stimulating the 
methodological improvement needed in many research areas.
    Under the proposed process, individual projects would receive peer 
review requested by individual researchers. All survey proposals would 
be reviewed by the Visiting Chief Social Scientist. Many projects would 
receive and benefit from additional peer review requested by the NPS 
social science program. Within this umbrella of increased professional 
dialogue and oversight, individual researchers would be encouraged to 
scientifically develop questions and other items that provide better 
data for NPS managers. Improvements in methodology, because they would 
be closely monitored by the NPS social science program, would be more 
quickly transmitted to all parks and researchers who could benefit.
    The proposed process would lead to more competent planning and 
administration of survey research in the National Park System. Research 
would be more focused on topics which have high research and management 
priority. Researchers, themselves, would be more efficient because of 
reduced waiting time for questionnaire approvals. The more centralized 
research focus and repository of survey research findings would 
encourage a greater degree of synergy in survey research in the 
National Park System.

5.33  Data Management

    The activities envisioned in this proposal would include an effort 
to develop and implement protocols for data management, data set 
documentation, and sampling methodology documentation that would 
benefit the exchange of data among scientists and the consolidation and 
assessment of data across individual research projects. The development 
of a data archive system and a clearly stated requirement that all 
publicly funded research projects must deposit a complete data set in 
the archive would increase the availability of data to the broad 
research community.

5.34  Efficiency of the Proposed Process for Scientists and Science

    The proposed review process would increase the focus of scientists 
on dealing with the scientific effectiveness of their planned surveys. 
The proposed changes would foster the evolution of methods and 
questions that must occur for the survey process to become more 
efficient and effective. The growing availability over time of park 
data from the proposed archive would support comparative, longitudinal, 
multi-park, and National Park Systemwide analyses that would increase 
scientific understanding about visitors in parks. The data archive 
would provide baseline analyses that can make future scientific surveys 
and assessments more efficient at a lower overall burden cost to the 
public.

6.0  Conclusion: An Important Experiment

    The approach for review and decision-making proposed in this notice 
regarding collections of information provides NPS, DOI, and OMB with a 
voluntary test of an alternative method for improving the productivity, 
efficiency, and effectiveness of a Federal information collection 
program. This test may affirm a method by which NPS can reduce the 
potential future information burden on the public, increase useful 
public review and comment, reduce duplication and increase 
collaboration in the information collection and analysis effort, meet 
shared data needs with shared resources, enhance access to information 
through use of electronic formats for both researchers and the public, 
and contribute to meeting NPS information collection and technology 
needs. It is an important experiment in reinventing government.

7.0  Contributing Authors

    John Dennis, Jean Haley, Darryll Johnson, Dave Lime, Margaret 
Littlejohn, Gary Machlis, Bob Manning, John Peine, and Bill Stewart 
contributed to preparation of this proposal.

8.0  Selected Literature

    Barber, B. 1987. Effective social science: eight cases in 
economics, political science, and sociology. New York. Russell Sage 
Foundation.

[[Page 51143]]

    Guston, D.H. and K. Keniston. 1994. The fragile contract: 
university science and the federal government. Cambridge, MA and 
London, England. The MIT Press.
    Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation and ecology. 
New York. John Wiley and Sons.
    Harmon, D. (ed.). 1994. Coordinating research and management to 
enhance protected areas. Cambridge, UK. International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
    Leopold, A.S. and D.L. Allen. 1977. A review and recommendations 
relative to the National Park Service science program. Memorandum to 
the Director of the National Park Service. Washington, DC. National 
Park Service.
    Lewis, M.S., D.W. Lime, and D. Anderson. 1996. Paddle canoeists' 
encounter norms in Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. 
Leisure Sciences 18(2):143-160.
    Lime, D.W. 1993. Analysis of emerging issues in national parks: a 
1992 employee study in the midwest region. Univ. of Minnesota, 
Cooperative Park Studies Unit. National Park Service.
    Lindblom, C.E. and D.K. Cohen. 1979. Usable knowledge: social 
science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT and London. Yale 
Univ. Press.
    Machlis, G.E. 1992. Social science and protected area management: 
the principles of partnership. Paper to Fourth World Congress on 
National Parks and Protected Areas. Caracas, Venezuela. February.
    Machlis, G.E. 1996. Usable knowledge: a plan for furthering social 
science and the national parks. Washington, DC. National Park Service.
    Manning, R.E. 1986. Studies in outdoor recreation. Corvallis: 
Oregon State University Press.
    Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, M. Hof, and W. Freimund. 1995. The 
visitor experience and resource protection (VERP) process: the 
application of carrying capacity to Arches National Park. The George 
Wright Forum 12(3):41-56.
    Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, and M. Hof. 1996a. Social carrying 
capacity of natural areas: theory and application in the U.S. national 
parks. Natural Areas Journal 16(2):118-127.
    Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, W.A. Freimund, and D.G. Pitt. 1996b. 
Crowding norms at frontcountry sites: a visual approach to setting 
standards of quality. Leisure Sciences 18(2):39-59.
    Manning, R.E., D. Johnson, and M. VandeKamp. 1996c. Norm congruence 
among tour boat passengers to Glacier Bay National Park. Leisure 
Sciences 18(2):125-142.
    Marion, J.L. 1993. A social science plan for the mid-Atlantic 
region. Virginia Tech. Inst. Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Blacksburg, 
VA. National Park Service.
    National Academy of Sciences. 1992. Science and the national parks. 
Washington, DC. National Academy Press.
    National Park Service. 1988. Management policies. Washington, DC. 
National Park Service.
    National Park Service. 1992. National parks for the 21st century: 
the Vail agenda. Post Mills, VT. Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
    National Park Service. 1993. Visitor experience and resource 
protection process. Denver: Denver Service Center, National Park 
Service.
    National Park Service. 1995. Visitor experience and resource 
protection implementation plan for Arches National Park. Denver: Denver 
Service Center, National Park Service.
    Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: how the 
entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York. 
Penguin Books USA Inc.
    Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein. 1986. Carrying capacity in recreation 
settings. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
    Vaske, J.J., A.R. Graefe, B. Shelby, and T. Heberlein. 1986. 
Backcountry encounter norms: theory, method, and empirical evidence. 
Journal of Leisure Research 18(3):137-153.
    Williams, D., J.W. Roggenbuck, and S.P. Bange. 1991. The effect of 
norm encounter compatibility on crowding perceptions, experience, and 
behavior in river recreation settings. Journal of Leisure Research 
23:154-172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: A Proposed Process for OMB Approval of NPS-Sponsored Public 
Surveys.
    Bureau Form Number: None.
    OMB Number: To be requested.
    Expiration date: To be requested.
    Type of request: Request for new clearance.
    Description of need: The National Park Service needs information 
concerning park visitors and visitor services to provide to park 
managers information for improving the quality and utility to the 
public of park programs.
    Automated data collection: At the present time, there is no 
automated way to gather this information, since the information 
gathering process involves asking visitors to evaluate services and 
facilities that they used during their park visits. The intrusion on 
individual visitors is minimized by rigorously designing visitor 
surveys to maximize the ability of the surveys to use small samples of 
visitors to represent large populations of visitors and by coordinating 
a program of surveys to maximize the ability of new surveys to build on 
the findings of prior surveys.
    Description of Respondents: A sample of visitors to parks or of 
people who have relationships to parks.
    Estimated average number of respondents: The proposal does not 
identify the number of respondents because that number will differ from 
individual survey to individual survey, depending on the purpose and 
design of each individual survey.
    Estimated average number of responses: The proposal does not 
identify the average number of responses because that number will 
differ from individual survey to individual survey, depending on the 
purpose and design of each individual survey. For most surveys, each 
respondent will be asked to respond only one time, so in those cases 
the number of responses will be the same as the number of respondents.
    Estimated average burden hours per response: The proposal does not 
identify the average burden hours per response because that number will 
differ from individual survey to individual survey, depending on the 
purpose and design of each individual survey.
    Frequency of response: Most individual surveys will request only 1 
response per respondent.
    Estimated annual reporting burden: The proposal identifies the 
requested total number of burden hours annually for all of the surveys 
to be conducted under its auspices to be 8000 burden hours per year. 
The total annual burden per survey for most surveys conducted under the 
auspices of this proposal would be within the range of 100 to 300 
hours.
Diane M. Cooke,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, WASO Administrative Program 
Center, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 97-25850 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P


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