58812 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 17, 2007 / Notices 

Dated: October 11, 2007. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–20411 Filed 10–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[FY2009–FY2014] 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science Human Dimensions Strategic 

Plan 

AGENCY: National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science (NCCOS), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 

NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic 

Plan (FY2009–FY2014) and responses to 

public comments. 

SUMMARY: NOAA publishes this notice 

to announce the availability of the 

NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic 

Plan (FY2009–FY2014) and provide 

responses to public comments requested 

through a Federal Register Notice 

(Notice of availability and solicitation of 

public comments on the National 

Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Draft 

Human Dimensions Strategic Plan 

(FY2008–FY2013), 72 FR 7418–7419 

(Feb. 15, 2007)). 

DATES: The NCCOS Human Dimensions 

Strategic Plan is effective FY2009–

FY2014. 

ADDRESSES: The NCCOS Human 

Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009–

FY2014) is available electronically at 

http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/human/ 

strategy/NCCOSHDPlan.pdf. Hard 

copies of the plan may be obtained by 

sending a request to 

nccos.hd@noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marybeth Bauer, PhD, by e-mail at 

nccos.hd@noaa.gov (preferred) or mail 

at NOAA National Ocean Service, 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science, 1305 East-West Highway, NOS 

HQTR Route N/SCI, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

mission of NCCOS is to provide coastal 

managers and other decisionmakers 

with scientific information and tools 

needed to balance society’s 

environmental, social, and economic 

goals in mitigating and adapting to 

ecosystem stressors such as climate 

change, extreme natural events, 

pollution, invasive species, and 

resource use. Humans are integral to 

ecosystems, and the human dimensions 

of ecosystems are an integral focus of 

the science needed to achieve this 

mission. Understanding the impact of 

humans on the ocean, the impacts of the 

ocean on humans, and the human 

aspects of ocean governance provides 

the scientific basis for ensuring ocean 

health and quality of life for this and 

future generations. 

Marine science and policy institutions 

in the United States and worldwide 

recognize that a deeper understanding 

of the human dimensions of 

ecosystems—human causes, 

consequences, and responses to 

ecosystem stress—is needed to foster 

improved support for coastal and ocean 

decisionmaking. Examples include the 

Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science 

and Technology, Subcommittee on 

Integrated Management of Ocean 

Resources, United States Commission 

on Ocean Policy, Pew Oceans 

Commission, and NOAA’s External 

Ecosystem Task Team. 

The NCCOS Human Dimensions 

Strategic Plan (FY2009–FY2014) 

establishes goals and objectives for 

fostering improved support of coastal 

and ocean decisionmaking by 

integrating human dimensions into the 

NCCOS’s science program. It provides 

the basis for subsequent development of 

an implementation plan specifying 

programmatic elements such as 

strategies, outcomes, partnerships, and 

fiscal and human resources needs. 

Comments and Responses: On 

February 15, 2007, NCCOS published a 

notice of availability and solicitation of 

public comments on a Draft Human 

Dimensions Strategic Plan (Notice of 

availability and solicitation of public 

comments on the National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science Draft Human 

Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2008–

FY2013), 72 FR 7418–7419 (Feb. 15, 

2007)). During the 30-day public 

comment period, NCCOS received the 

following comments from the City of 

Craig, Alaska; Consortium for 

Oceanographic Research and Education; 

Island Resources Foundation; New 

Jersey Marine Science Consortium; 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Office of Science and 

Technology; NOAA’s National Ocean 

Service, Coastal and Ocean Resource 

Economics Program; NOAA’s Office of 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 

Office of Weather and Air Quality and 

Climate Program Office; NOAA’s 

Research Council; and University of 

Massachusetts-Amherst Human 

Dimensions of Marine and Coastal 

Ecosystems Program. In response to 

comments received, NCCOS revised the 

Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan 

as follows. 

General Comments 

Comment 1: Several commenters 

commended NCCOS on taking this first 

step toward integrating the human 

element into coastal management and 

the required supporting scientific 

efforts. 

Response: NCCOS appreciates this 

encouragement and advocacy from its 

coastal science and management 

partners, and looks forward to working 

with them to implement human 

dimensions research priorities. 

Comment 2: Several commenters 

stated that the document is too long and 

recommended eliminating redundancy. 

Response: NCCOS considerably 

reduced the length of the document and 

eliminated redundancy. To 

accommodate diverse levels of interest, 

NCCOS formatted the plan to describe 

each strategic objective at four levels of 

detail: A title, summary statement, 

concise rationale, and discussion. The 

discussion sections provide justification 

and explanation of strategic objectives at 

a level of detail that NCCOS believes is 

critical to cultivate a workforce that 

understands, appreciates, and facilitates 

the mission value of human dimensions 

research. 

Comment 3: Several commenters 

stated that the document includes 

excessive social science jargon. 

Response: NCCOS minimized social 

science jargon. However, NCCOS 

included and defined key technical 

terms such as socioeconomic driver, 

ecosystem service, mitigation, nonmarket value, and resilience. In doing 

so, NCCOS is responsive to the finding 

of the Social Science Review Panel to 

NOAA’s Science Advisory Board that 

developing social science capacity in 

NOAA is challenged by ‘‘a lack of 

formal understanding of what social 

science is and what its contributions 

can be, leading to an organizational 

culture that is not conducive to social 

science research.’’ By including and 

defining key technical terms, NCCOS 

aims to foster the human dimensions 

literacy and common language needed 

to develop an integral human 

dimensions focus within its science 

program. 

Comment 5: Several commenters 

stated that the plan should include 

programmatic elements such as projects, 

timelines, fiscal and human resource 

needs, and deliverables. 

Response: As explained in the 

‘‘Future Directions’’ section of the 

‘‘Overview,’’ NCCOS wishes to clarify 

that this plan provides the basis for a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 17, 2007 / Notices 58813 

follow-up implementation plan 

specifying programmatic elements such 

as those recommended. 

Comment 6: Several commenters 

recommended discussing specific 

programs, projects, or partnerships. 

Response: NCCOS affirms that this 

level of detail is beyond the scope of 

this plan, which is intended to establish 

broad human dimensions research 

priorities critical to achieve NCCOS’

mission. 

Comment 7: Several commenters 

stated that the scope of work outlined in 

the plan is overly ambitious for its time 

frame and unrealistic given NOAA 

budgets. 

Response: NCCOS wishes to clarify 

that this plan does not outline a scope 

of work. It is intended to provide highlevel strategic guidance as a basis for 

programmatic development responsive 

to changing fiscal conditions, legislative 

requirements, and other constraints and 

opportunities. 

Comment 8: One commenter 

recommended clarifying how this plan 

will change human behaviors. 

Response: NCCOS revised Objective 

1.2, ‘‘Human Causes and Socioeconomic 

Drivers of Ecosystem Stress,’’ to 

emphasize that ‘‘reducing stress on 

coastal systems generally requires 

accommodating or encouraging change 

in human behavioral patterns such as 

exurban development, agricultural 

practices, and resource use. Developing 

effective intervention strategies requires 

understanding behavioral patterns 

requiring remediation and their 

complex natural and socioeconomic 

drivers.’’ In addition, understanding the 

human impacts of changes in ecosystem 

services (as discussed in Objectives 1.3, 

‘‘Societal Consequences of Policy and 

Management Options,’’ and 2.1, 

‘‘Integrative Ecosystem Models and 

Decision Support Tools’’) provides the 

impetus for behavioral change. 

Comment 9: One commenter 

recommended clarifying how the plan 

captures the role of climate change in 

ecosystems. 

Response: NCCOS emphasizes that 

the goals and objectives established in 

this plan cut across multiple stressors 

such as climate change, extreme natural 

events, pollution, invasive species, and 

resource use. The document discusses 

specific stressors in so far as needed to 

illustrate cross-cutting research needs. 

Comment 10: One commenter 

recommended explaining the process 

used to develop the plan and including 

an appendix that lists contributors and 

their contact information. This 

commenter stated that the National 

Ocean Service Social Science Team 

should have been involved in 

development of the plan. 

Response: NCCOS has amended the 

‘‘Message from the Director’’ to explain 

that the plan was developed through an 

internal NCCOS process including 

content analysis of significant coastal 

and ocean science and management 

documents, vetted throughout NOAA, 

and substantively revised in response to 

public review and comments solicited 

through a Federal Register Notice. 

NCCOS relied upon the NOS Social 

Science Plan and subsequently 

requested comments from the National 

Ocean Service Social Science Team 

before finalizing the document. NCCOS 

has provided contact information for 

comments on the plan. 

Comment 11: One commenter 

expressed concern that the objectives 

are loosely defined and thus allow 

flexibility in interpretation of what will 

be accomplished. 

Response: NCCOS intentionally 

framed its human dimensions research 

goals and objectives in broad terms to 

enable flexibility in implementation as 

NCCOS priorities and capabilities 

change. 

Comment 12: One commenter 

recommended that the document put 

greater emphasis on the need to evaluate 

tradeoffs inherent to ecosystem 

management. 

Response: In the discussion of the 

‘‘Human Dimensions of Ecosystems,’’

which has been moved from an 

appendix to the ‘‘Overview,’’ NCCOS 

emphasizes that evaluating tradeoffs is 

fundamental to coastal management. In 

addition, NCCOS reconceptualized 

Objective 1.1, retitled ‘‘Coastal 

Decisionmaking,’’ from (in the draft) the 

need for stakeholder assessment to (in 

the final document) the need for 

decision support tools guiding 

stakeholder participation in 

decisionmaking confronting challenges 

such as tradeoffs. 

Comment 13: One commenter noted 

that the document does not aim to 

facilitate improved methods for costbenefit analysis such as new tools to 

identify, describe, and quantify benefits; 

improvements on cost assessments; and 

non-economic analyses that can 

enhance traditional approaches. 

Response: NCCOS revised Objective 

1.3, ‘‘Societal Consequences of Policy 

and Management Option,’’ to 

recommend economic impact analysis 

as an approach to help decisionmakers 

anticipate the cononomic consequences 

of alternative courses of action. As 

revised, this objective states that 

methods for putting a dollar figure on 

the costs and benefits of alternative 

management actions require 

improvement, e.g., accounting for the 

true costs and benefits of alternative 

actions for non-market values. 

Comment 14: One commenter noted 

that a systems approach is implicit in 

the document and recommended 

making it more explicit. 

Response: NCCOS is responsive to 

criticism that the plan is overly 

theoretical. In an effort to balance 

simultaneous recommendations for 

elaboration and elimination of 

theoretical discussion, NCCOS 

responded to this recommendation by 

adding the following text and associated 

references to the ‘‘Purpose’’ section of 

the ‘‘Overview’’: ‘‘Expanding human 

dimensions research will enhance 

NCCOS’ ecosystem science and foster 

improved support for coastal and ocean 

decisionmaking. As early as 1935, 

ecologists cautioned that limiting 

analysis to environmental systems is 

neither scientifically sound nor 

practically useful (Tansley, 1935). As 

with any system, understanding an 

ecosystem requires understanding 

complex interactions among system 

components. An ecosystem is defined 

by interactions between human and 

environmental systems (elaborated 

below). Recognizing these interactions, 

ecology is increasingly adopting a 

systems approach focusing on coupled 

social-ecological systems (also called 

human-environmental systems) (e.g., 

Collins et al., 2007; Colding et al., 2000; 

Berkes et al., 1998). Expanding NCCOS’

scientific focus from interactions within 

environmental systems to interactions 

between couple social-ecological 

systems will foster holistic ecosystem 

understanding.’’

Comment 15: One commenter stated 

that as this plan moves to other areas of 

NOAA (particularly related to fisheries 

and habitat management), NCCOS needs 

to ensure that its implementation is 

properly vetted to ensure fair and 

balanced use in the regulatory process. 

Response: NCCOS addressed this 

comment in Objective 1.1, ‘‘Coastal 

Decisionmaking.’’ This objective seeks 

to inform and facilitate decision 

processes that combine scientific 

analysis and broad-based stakeholder 

deliberation to elicit diverse societal 

values, establish clear objectives linking 

values to resource outcomes, develop 

measurable indicators, and examine 

tradeoffs. In addition, NCCOS notes that 

this plan has been vetted by public 

review through a Federal Register 

Notice (72 FR 7418–7419). Finally, 

NCCOS is part of NOAA and produces 

science that is used by other parts of 

NOAA in the context of managing 

multiple uses of coastal and ocean 

resources. In producing scientific 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
58814 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 17, 2007 / Notices 

information and facilitating its use, 

NCCOS makes every effort to ensure 

validity, fairness, and regulatory 

compliance. 

Comments on the Summary 

Comment 16: Several commenters 

recommended rewriting the 

‘‘Summary.’’ Specifically, commenters 

recommended eliminating the list of 

NCCOS and NOAA strategic definitions/ 

missions and summary of goals/ 

objectives established in the plan, and 

including a statement of purpose in the 

beginning. 

Response: NCCOS created an 

‘‘Overview’’ section that begins with a 

statement of purpose, specifies future 

directions, summarizes key drivers, 

provides background on the human 

dimensions of ecosystems, defines 

human dimensions research, and lists 

the goals and objectives put forth in the 

plan. NCCOS believes that the list of 

goals and objectives is critical to 

provide an at-a-glance summary of the 

plan, and has incorporated this list into 

a considerably shortened ‘‘Summary’’

section. NCCOS moved the list of 

NCCOS and NOAA strategic definitions/ 

missions to Appendix 2. 

Comment 17: One commenter 

recommended including National Ocean 

Service strategic elements in the list of 

strategic definitions/missions. 

Response: NCCOS added the National 

Ocean Service mission to this list, 

which was moved to Appendix 2. 

Comments on the Overview 

Comment 18: One commenter 

recommended including a comparative 

discussion of the terms ‘‘human 

dimensions’’ and ‘‘social science.’’

Response: NCCOS added the 

following text to the ‘‘Human 

Dimensions Research’’ section of the 

‘‘Overview’’: The distinction between 

the terms ‘human dimensions’ and 

‘social science’ often generates 

confusion. ‘Human dimensions’ refers 

conceptually to the roles of humans in 

ecosystems and resource management. 

‘Social science’ denotes a subset of the 

disciplines useful for describing, 

explaining, and predicting these role.’’

Comment 19: One commenter 

suggested giving greater emphasis to 

NCCOS’s role in providing feedback to 

the greater scientific community on the 

information needs of coastal managers. 

Response: NCCOS expanded its list of 

customers in the ‘‘National Centers for 

Coastal and Ocean Science’’ section to 

include the greater coastal and ocean 

scientific community. 

Comment 20: One commenter stated 

that the discussion of NCCOS’s 

fundamental strategy, the Integrated 

Assessment, ‘‘sounds like puffery’’

without empirical evidence of its value. 

Response: NCCOS added a reference 

to an example Integrated Assessment, 

Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico (Committee on 

Environment and Natural Resources, 

2000) to the ‘‘Integrated Assessments’’

section of the ‘‘Overview.’’

Comment 21: One commenter 

questioned the use of a fifteen-year-old 

National Research Council framework 

for understanding the human 

dimensions of ecosystems. 

Response: NCCOS believes that its 

adaptation of the National Research 

Council framework to conceptualize 

human dimensions of ecosystems (in 

terms of human causes, consequences, 

and responses to ecosystem stress) is 

round and useful. This model resonates 

with NCCOS scientists because of its 

simplicity and focus on stressors (an 

organizing feature of NCCOS’ science 

program). NCCOS will continue to 

evaluate and develop its approach to 

conceptualizing the human dimensions 

of ecosystems and socio-ecological 

systems. 

Comment 22: One commenter 

recommended a more targeted 

definition of human dimensions 

research. 

Response: NCCOS believes that the 

plan itself embodies a targeted 

definition by providing numerous 

examples of human dimensions 

research topics and methods. 

Comment 23: One commenter 

suggested mentioning that discussions 

with decisionmakers will influence 

NCCOS’ delivery of services. 

Response: NCCOS revised the ‘‘Future 

Directions’’ section of the ‘‘Overview’’

to emphasize that NCCOS’ research 

agenda will be established through 

customer-informed strategies that 

identify complementary human 

dimensions and environmental research 

priorities. In addition, in the ‘‘National 

Centers for Coastal Ocean Science’’

section, NCCOS added a statement that 

‘‘NOAA created NCCOS in 1999 to 

strengthen and integrate its coastal 

programs in ways that encourage strong 

external partnerships, increase and 

protect their integrity, and ensure they 

focus on NOAA’s coastal ocean 

missions.’’

Comment 24: One commenter 

recommended mentioning that this plan 

updates NCCOS’ contribution to the 

(2005) National Ocean Service Social 

Science Plan. 

Response: NCCOS amended the 

‘‘Human Dimensions Research Drivers’’

section of the ‘‘Overview’’ to state that 

this plan represents the development of 

NCCOS’ human dimensions vision since 

its contribution to the (2005) National 

Ocean Service Social Science Plan. 

Comment 25: One commenter 

recommended providing an update on 

specific NCCOS projects proposed in 

the National Ocean Service Social 

Science Plan. This commenter also 

recommended discussing how this plan 

will be integrated into the National 

Ocean Service Social Science Plan, the 

NOAA Research Plan, and NOAA’s 

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and 

Execution System. 

Response: NCCOS affirms that this 

level of detail is beyond the scope of the 

plan. 

Comment 26: One commenter stated 

that the figure representing the diversity 

of disciplines integral to human 

dimensions research is misleading 

because it treats these diciplines as 

‘‘equally impacting.’’

Response: NCCOS believes that the 

figure clearly represents the diversity of 

disciplines integral to human 

dimensions research without making a 

statement regarding their relative 

importance. 

Comment 27: One commenter stated 

that the discussion of NCCOS human 

dimensions accomplishments is 

defensive in tone. This commenter 

questioned the apparent historical 

emphasis on economics and 

recommended eliminating discussion of 

ongoing projects and other highlights. 

Response: NCCOS wishes to 

acknowledge its accomplishments in 

providing human dimensions 

information critical to supporting 

coastal and ocean management. These 

include new capacities, key 

publications, ongoing projects, and 

other highlights. NCCOS does not agree 

that this section should be eliminated. 

In addition, NCCOS believes that this 

plan corrects any historical 

overemphasis on economics by 

establishing goals and objectives that 

draw on a wide diversity of missioncritical human dimensions disciplines. 

Comment 28: Several commenters 

recommended including NCCOS’ work 

on the development of a human use/ 

socioeconomic indicator for 

eutrophication in the discussion of 

NCCOS human dimensions 

accomplishments. 

Response: NCCOS regrets the 

omission of this important work from 

the draft plan, and has added the 

requested information in the ‘‘NCCOS 

Human Dimensions Research’’ section 

of the ‘‘Overview.’’

Comment 29: One commenter 

recommended including NCCOS’

socioeconomic monitoring work in 

southeast Florida in the discussion of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 17, 2007 / Notices 58815 

NCCOS human dimensions 

accomplishments. 

Response: NCCOS regrets the 

omission of this important work from 

the draft plan, and has added the 

requested information in the ‘‘NCCOS 

Human Dimensions Research’’ section 

of the ‘‘Overview.’’

Comment 30: Several commenters 

recommended eliminating a reference 

(to Bergen and Carr, 2003), stating that 

the article does not provide a balanced 

description of the Channel Islands 

marine reserves network planning 

process. 

Response: NCCOS does not support 

the commenters’ judgment that the 

article cited is not balanced. However, 

in the course of responding to Comment 

12, NCCOS eliminated this reference. 

Comment 31: One commenter 

expressed concern that the plan 

contains ‘‘historical overtones of a need 

to understand an environment being 

destroyed by humans (e.g., stressors).’’

This commenter stated that such an 

approach downplays the management 

opportunities provided by human 

dimensions understanding. 

Response: NCCOS believes that the 

plan provides many examples of 

management opportunities facilitated by 

human dimensions understanding. To 

ensure that these opportunities are 

sufficiently emphasized, NCCOS added 

the following text to the ‘‘Purpose’’

section of the ‘‘Overview’’: ‘‘* * * 

Human dimensions understanding 

enhances coastal decisionmaking and its 

scientific support. The plan provides 

many examples. It begins by 

highlighting the effectiveness of coastal 

decisionmaking that integrates 

ecosystem understanding with 

meaningful stakeholder engagement. 

Social science offers techniques and 

approaches, based on an understanding 

of human and organizational behavior, 

that help decisionmakers work with 

diverse stakeholders to define and 

achieve management priorities in the 

face of challenges such as conflicting 

and changing societal values, multiagency authorities, and scientific 

uncertainty.’’ NCCOS disagrees that the 

concept of stressors is inappropriate. 

Comments on Objective 1.1 

Comment 32: One commenter 

recommended including economic 

value as a distinct type of value. 

Response: NCCOS eliminated the 

referenced discussion of values to 

preserve space in the process of revising 

Objective 1.1, re-titled ‘‘Coastal 

Decisionmaking,’’ as described in 

Comment 12. Instead, the document 

defines values by providing examples in 

the ‘‘Human Dimensions of Ecosystems’’

section of the ‘‘Overview’’, e.g., security 

from natural disasters, health, good 

social relations, and freedom to pursue 

personal and cultural interests 

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 

2005). 

Comment 33: One commenter 

recommended acknowledging that 

stakeholder values change over time. 

Response: NCCOS revised Objective 

1.1, re-title ‘‘Coastal Decisionmaking,’’

to acknowledge that decisionmakers are 

challenged by conflicting and changing 

societal values. 

Comment 34: One commenter noted 

the need to assess preferences for 

specific management options in 

addition to values. 

Response: NCCOS revised Objective 

1.1, re-titled ‘‘Coastal Decisionmaking,’’

to acknowledge the importance of 

assessing stakeholders’ preferences for 

specific management options. 

Comment 35: One commenter 

recommended discussing the 

relationships among values, norms, user 

expectations, satisfaction, intentions to 

behave, management preferences, and 

attitudes. 

Response: NCCOS amended the 

‘‘Human Dimensions of Ecosystems’’

section of the ‘‘Introduction’’ to state 

that ‘‘stakeholders’ values influence 

their attitudes, intentions, management 

preferences, satisfaction levels, and 

norms for behavior. Values differ among 

individuals, but can be studied at the 

group level. For example, groups 

engaging in similar activities at similar 

locations and rates of participation, and 

using similar equipment can be 

expected to share values. Stakeholder 

values is an important topic of human 

dimensions research, enabling 

understanding of: (1) How coastal 

resource conditions and management 

decisions are likely to be perceived by 

different groups; (2) how differing value 

systems interact to affect coastal 

resource management planning and 

effectiveness; and (3) interactions 

among changing value systems, 

management decision processes and 

outcomes, and resource conditions (e.g., 

Dietz et al., 2005).’’

Comments on Objective 1.2 

Comment 36: One commenter stated 

that discussion of Objective 1.2 is vague. 

Response: NCCOS agrees that this 

objective is vague and partly redundant 

with other objectives established in the 

plan. For these reasons, NCCOS 

eliminated the objective and 

incorporated references cited into other 

objectives as appropriate. 

Comment 37: One commenter 

recommended eliminating mention of 

the National Ocean Economics Program, 

stating that the program ‘‘does not 

represent good social science’’ and will 

‘‘seriously compromise the integrity’’ of 

the plan. 

Response: NCCOS eliminated this 

objective for reasons explained in the 

response to Comment 36. 

Comments on Objective 1.4 

Comment 38: One commenter stated 

that Objective 1.4 recommends specific 

research projects whereas the other 

objectives are more general. 

Response: NCCOS does not agree that 

Objective 1.4 recommends specific 

research projects. This objective 

recommends building on NCCOS’

success documenting and utilizing 

traditional and local ecological 

knowledge to enhance coastal and ocean 

science. 

Comments on Objective 1.5 

Comment 39: Several commenters 

noted that Objective 1.5 is unclear. 

Response: NCCOS substantively 

revised this objective (now reordered as 

Objective 1.7) to enhance clarity and 

reduce length. As revised, a large 

portion of the objective is incorporated 

into the ‘‘Overview’’ (in ‘‘Human 

Dimensions of Ecosystems’’) and 

Objective 1.1 (‘‘Coastal 

Decisionmaking’’). The second section, 

‘‘Ethical Questions Raised by the 

Implementation and Use of Science,’’

has been considerably shortened. 

Comment 40: One commenter noted 

that there is already a wealth of social 

science research regarding best practices 

for promoting community development 

in the context of environmental 

restoration. This commenter questioned 

whether social scientists participated in 

the Coastal Response Research Center 

workshop discussing this topic. 

Response: In an effort to reduce the 

length of this objective, NCCOS 

eliminated discussion of specific 

conclusions from this workshop. 

However, NCCOS notes that social 

scientists were present at the workshop. 

These participants were aware of the 

wealth of social science research related 

to community development, and played 

an important role in introducing 

restoration practitioners to the topic. 

Comments on Objective 1.6 

Comment 41: One commenter stated 

that the distinction between 

organizations and institutions (quoted 

from the International Human 

Dimensions Program) is ‘‘conceptually 

thin,’’ and that the examples provided 

in the definition are ‘‘less than eyeopening.’’ Another commenter stated 

that Objective 1.6 is not understandable 

to a non-social scientist. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
58816 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 17, 2007 / Notices 

Response: NCCOS addressed these 

comments by replacing this quote with 

a less technical definition of institutions 

and referring the reader to additional 

sources for a more sophisticated 

discussion. NCCOS notes that this 

objective has been reordered to 

Objective 1.5. 

Comment 42: Several commenters 

recommended mentioning the need for 

institutionalized social science data 

collection and sharing. 

Response: NCCOS revised this 

objective to state that the 

institutionalization of social science 

data collection, storage, management, 

and mining is a fundamental problem 

for incorporating human dimensions 

consideration into coastal 

decisionmaking. 

Comments on Objective 2.2 

Comment 43: One commenter 

questioned the emphasis on economics 

reflected in NOAA’s External Ecosystem 

Task Team’s summary of core social 

science capabilities needed to integrate 

human dimensions information into 

Integrated Ecosystem Assessments. 

Response: NCCOS eliminated this 

summary to reduce the length of the 

document. NCCOS notes that the 

External Ecosystem Task Team’s 

summary stands on its own (i.e., 

independently of NCCOS’ views) as a 

description of the Team’s vision. 

Comment 44: One commenter raised 

the question whether Integrated 

Ecosystem Assessments are to be 

revisited to determine their success in 

predicting consequences of alternative 

management actions. 

Response: NCCOS revised this 

objective to clarify that ‘‘Integrated 

Ecosystem Assessments are iteratively 

developed and revisited. Subsequent 

assessments evaluate past success in 

predicting the consequences of 

alternative management strategies as 

well as implementing previously 

identified research needs.’’

Comments on Objective 3.1 

Comment 45: One commenter stated 

that Goal 3 should focus on resilience to 

ecosystem stressors (rather than 

hazards) because the focus on hazards 

excludes ecosystem stressors. 

Response: NCCOS wishes to clarify 

that a focus on hazards does not exclude 

ecosystem stressors. Rather, the 

potential for any ecosystem stressor is a 

hazard. However, NCCOS agrees that 

the objective is too narrowly focused on 

the impacts of disasters. It also does not 

adequately emphasize the need to help 

coastal decisionmakers anticipate the 

consequences of ecosystem stress in 

relation to alternative intervention 

strategies. In response to these 

deficiencies, this objective has been 

reconceptualized to develop Objective 

1.3, ‘‘Societal Consequences of Policy 

and Management Options.’’

Comment 46: One commenter stated 

that Objective 3.1 ignores over fifty 

years of research on disasters and 

espouses myths such as the notion that 

disasters result in social disruption and 

conflict. Another commenter stated that 

Objective 3.1 should mention spouse 

battery (an example of social disruption 

and conflict) as a consequence of 

disasters. 

Response: NCCOS notes that these 

comments are contradictory. One 

highlights social disruption caused by 

coastal disasters, while another denies 

it. In responding to Comment 45, 

NCCOS eliminated this discussion and 

captured key points in Objective 1.3, 

‘‘Societal Consequences of Policy and 

Management Options.’’

Comment 47: One commenter 

requested that NCCOS specify key 

factors considered in risk and 

vulnerability assessments and whether 

NCCOS will consider environmental or 

human impacts or both. 

Response: NCCOS notes that the draft 

provides a list of key components of risk 

and vulnerability assessments. NCCOS 

revised the text to clarify that 

environmental and human impacts will 

both be considered. 

Comment 48: One commenter stressed 

the importance of noting the unique 

requirements of small islands regarding 

vulnerability and resilience. 

Response: NCCOS amended the 

discussion of Goal 3, ‘‘Promote 

Ecosystem Resilience,’’ to state that the 

vulnerability of small island 

communities is heightened by factors 

such as the infeasibility of migrating out 

of danger zones and extreme land 

values. 

Comments on Objective 3.2 

Comment 49: One commenter noted 

that Objective 3.2 ignores changes that 

occurred to the risk communication 

process as a result of cell phones, the 

internet, and cable television. 

Response: NCCOS amended this 

objective to explain that development of 

communication messages and strategies 

should take into consideration changes 

to the risk communication process as 

result of modern technology such as cell 

phones and the internet. 

Comment 50: One commenter stated 

that the relationship between an 

audience’s belief in risk information and 

its level of trust in the communicating 

agency is ‘‘old hat.’’

Response: NCCOS is committed to 

developing the capacity of its workforce 

to understand, appreciate, and facilitate 

the mission value of human dimensions 

research. NCCOS believes that this 

commitment requires fostering an 

understanding of key concepts and 

methods that are familiar to social 

scientists, but new to many natural 

scientists. This commitment is 

responsive to the finding of the Social 

Science Review Panel to NOAA’s 

Science Advisory Board that developing 

social science capacity in NOAA is 

challenged by ‘‘a lack of formal 

understanding of what social science is 

and what its contributions can be, 

leading to an organizational culture that 

is not conducive to social science 

research.’’

Comments on Objective 3.3 

Comment 51: One commenter noted 

that local, regional, and national 

agencies rarely have the finances for risk 

communication research and typically 

lack the understanding that they need it. 

Response: Through this plan, NCCOS 

aims to foster understanding of the need 

for risk communication research to 

develop scientific products and tools 

that foster public understanding of risks, 

trust in the communicating agency, and 

risk-protective behavior. As explained 

in this objective, NCCOS will work with 

coastal managers and other customers to 

develop and test products, and facilitate 

their use in decisionmaking, to achieve 

these ends. 

Comment 52: One commenter raised 

the question of how effective 

communication is defined. 

Response: NCCOS points out that the 

existing text defines effective risk 

communication as communication that 

fosters public understanding and trust, 

and prompts at-risk populations to 

respond appropriately to mitigate and 

adapt to undesirable environmental, 

sociocultural, and economic 

consequences of ecosystem stress. 

Comments on Objective 4.1 

Comment 53: One commenter 

recommended clarifying the role of 

NCCOS’ cooperative research institutes 

in implementing this plan. 

Response: NCCOS revised this 

objective to state that ‘‘providing human 

dimensions understanding critical to 

support coastal decisionmaking will 

require retooling of many activities 

across NCCOS’ component research 

centers, laboratories, and partnerships 

with cooperating institutions such as 

NCCOS’ coral reef research institutes.’’

NCCOS similarly amended the ‘‘Future 

Directions’’ section of the ‘‘Overview’’

to specify that a follow-up 

implementation plan will specify 

program- and project-level actions and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 17, 2007 / Notices 58817 

other programmatic elements ‘‘to 

develop an integral human dimensions 

research focus in NCCOS—including its 

component research centers, 

laboratories, and partnerships with 

cooperating institutions such as NCCOS’

coral reef research institutes.’’

Comment 54: One commenter noted 

that the workforce needed to support 

ecosystem science must be 

interdisciplinary. 

Response: NCCOS agrees with this 

comment. This objective focuses on 

development of human dimensions 

capabilities that complement NCCOS’

existing technical workforce, which is 

predominantly comprised of biological, 

physical, and ecological scientists. 

Comments on Appendix 1 

Comment 55: One commenter stated 

that the 2006 National Research Council 

report, Facing Hazards and Disasters, 

does not (as described in the draft) 

recommend ‘‘that future social science 

research treat hazards and disaster 

research interchangeably and view the 

five core topics of hazards and disaster 

research within a single overarching 

framework.’’

Response: NCCOS points out that this 

is a direct quote from an Executive 

Summary of Facing Hazards and 

Disasters provided by the National 

Research Council Committee on Disaster 

Research in the Social Sciences: http:// 

www.nap.edu/catalog/11671.html. 

However, NCCOS eliminated this quote 

in the process of reducing the length of 

the document. 

Comment 56: One commenter 

recommended expanding the discussion 

of ‘‘Balancing Societal Objectives’’ and 

moving it to the front material of the 

document. 

Response: As recommended, NCCOS 

moved a substantive part of this section 

to a discussion of the ‘‘Human 

Dimensions of Ecosystems’’ in the 

‘‘Overview.’’

Comments on Appendix 2 

Comment 57: One commenter noted 

that the entry for the 2006 National 

Research Council report, Facing 

Hazards and Disasters, mistakenly 

includes information related to a 2005 

National Science and Technology 

Council report, Grand Challenges for 

Disaster Reduction. 

Response: NCCOS regrets this mistake 

and eliminated the misplaced 

information from the entry for the 2006 

National Research Council report, 

Facing Hazards and Disasters. 

Comment 58: One commenter 

recommended duplicating the entry for 

the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Research and Control Act in the table of 

drivers related to pollution (in addition 

to harmful algal blooms). 

Response: As recommended, NCCOS 

included the Harmful Algal Bloom and 

Hypoxia Research and Control Act in 

the table of drivers related to pollution. 

Comments on Appendix 3 

Comment 59: Several commenters 

requested inclusion of specific 

additional references. 

Response: NCCOS included suggested 

references where appropriate. NCCOS 

notes that this document is not intended 

to provide an exhaustive literature 

review. 

Gary C. Matlock, 

Director, National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science. 

[FR Doc. 07–5111 Filed 10–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–M 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program 

helps to ensure that requested data can 

be provided in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the impact of collection requirement on 

respondents can be properly assessed. 

Currently, the Corporation is 

soliciting comments on the attitudes 

and behaviors of volunteers to 

determine the factors which influence 

volunteering and volunteer retention. 

The collection will include information 

on the frequency and intensity of 

volunteering, the types of organizations 

where individuals volunteer, the 

volunteer activities that are performed, 

the ways in which individuals access 

volunteer opportunities, and the 

perceived barriers to volunteering. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section December 17, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection activity, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for 

National and Community Service, Office 

of Research and Policy Development, 

Attn. Carla Manuel, Policy Analyst, 

Room 10901A, 1201 New York Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20525. 

(2) By hand delivery or by courier to 

the Corporation’s mailroom at Room 

8100 at the mail address given in 

paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 

4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

(3) By fax to: (202) 565–2785, 

Attention Carla Manuel, Policy Analyst. 

(4) Electronically through the 

Corporation’s e-mail address system: 

cmanuel@cns.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carla Manuel, (202) 606–6720 or by 

e-mail at cmanuel@cns.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Corporation is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Corporation, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and, 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology 

(e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses). 

Background 

The Corporation is interested in 

learning about the behaviors, attitudes, 

and factors which influence 

volunteering and volunteer retention. 

This study will include focus groups to 

determine the themes and trends that 

impact volunteering and volunteer 

retention. The focus groups will include 

questions on the value of service, factors 

affecting decisions to volunteer and 

select volunteer activities, and attitudes 

about volunteering. 

Current Action 

The Corporation seeks to collect new 

information on the motivation and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES