[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57016-57019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23673]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

[NPS-WASO-NRSS-SSB-19329; PPWONRADE2, PMP00EI05.YP0000]


Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Glen Canyon Survey

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information 
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize 
the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the 
estimated burden and cost. We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

DATES: You must submit comments on or before October 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments and suggestions on this information 
collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at 
OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email) 
and identify your submission as 1024-0270. Please also send a copy of 
your comments to Bret Meldrum, Chief, Social Science Program, National 
Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525-5596 (mail); 
[email protected] (email); or 970-267-7295 (phone) and Phadrea 
Ponds, Information Collection Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 
Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or [email protected] 
(email). Please reference Information Collection 1024-0270 in the 
subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John Duffield, University of 
Montana, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Missoula, MT 5981; 
[email protected] (email); or: 406-721-2265. You may review the ICR 
online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review 
Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

    On September 23, 2013 we published a 60-day Federal Register Notice 
(78 FR 58344) asking OMB to approve a pilot and final survey for a 
collection of information to study the economic value of National Park 
System resources along the Colorado River Corridor (which includes the 
Glen Canyon Dam and Grand Canyon National Park). On September 18, 2014, 
we received a Notice of Action (NOA) from the Office of Management and 
Budget approving the pilot version of the survey. The survey was 
pretested using a small sample to determine the respondents' reaction 
to key choice attributes (cost). The focus of the pretest was on the 
understandability and effectiveness of the conjoint questions in 
conveying information, and eliciting consistent, meaningful responses. 
The results of the pretest suggested that the survey and sampling 
methods provided the replication of the Welsh et al. (1995) study we 
expected. We were also satisfied that the pretest results could provide 
current information about the passive use value held by the American 
public for resources in Glen and Grand Canyon along the Colorado River.
    The purpose of this ICR is to request the use of the final version 
of the survey instrument that the NPS will use to collect information 
from the general public about their understanding of National Park 
System resources along the Colorado River Corridor. In addition to 
providing information to the Secretary of the Interior, we anticipate 
that the data will also update the Welsh et al. (1995) study that was 
used in the 1996 Record of Decision which the Department of the 
Interior used to inform its decision on Glen Canyon Dam operations. We 
acknowledge that planning processes related to Glen Canyon Dam 
operations will rely on many sources and providers of information to 
evaluate economic impacts and affected resources. The primary purpose 
of this ICR is to obtain information contemplated by the National Park 
Service Organic Act of 1916, Mission and Policy as follows: Social 
science research in support of park planning and management is mandated 
in the NPS Management Policies 2006 (Section 8.11.1, ``Social Science 
Studies''). The NPS pursues a policy that facilitates social science 
studies in support of the NPS mission to protect resources and enhance 
the enjoyment of present and future generations (National Park Service 
Act of 1916, 38 Stat 535, 16 U.S.C. 1, et seq.). NPS policy mandates 
that social science research will be used to provide an understanding 
of park visitors, the non-visiting public, gateway communities and 
regions, and human interactions with park resources. Such studies are 
needed to provide a scientific basis for park planning and development.

II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1024-0270.

[[Page 57017]]

    Title: Glen Canyon Survey.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Description of Respondents: Individual Households and general 
public.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    Frequency of Collection: One-time.
    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: Total 1,573 (1,503 mail back 
surveys and 70 non-response surveys).
    Estimated Completion Time per Response: 30 minutes per mail back 
survey and 5 minutes per non response survey.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 758 hours.
    Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: There are no non-hour burden 
costs associated with this collection.

III. Comments

    On September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58344) we published a 60-day Federal 
Register Notice asking OMB to approve a pilot and final survey for a 
collection of information to study the economic value of the resources 
of the Colorado River. The Notice announced that we were preparing an 
information collection to be submitted to OMB for approval. We received 
three requests to review the survey instruments. In response to the 
requests, we provided a summary of the study purpose and design and 
informed the requestors that the final versions of the survey would be 
available for review once the request was submitted to OMB.
    On July 9, 2014 we published in the Federal Register (73 FR 38946) 
a Notice of our intent to request that OMB approve the pilot study for 
this information collection. In that Notice, we solicited comments for 
30 days, ending on August 8, 2014. We received comments from the 
following organizations in response to that Notice: (1) Colorado River 
Energy Distributors Assoc. (CREDA); (2) Southern Nevada Water 
Authority; (3) Colorado River Board of California (CRB); (4) Arizona 
Department of Water Resources; (5) Western Area Power Administration; 
(6) Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association Of Arizona; and (7) 
American Public Power Association.
    In summary, comments received from the organizations primarily 
concerned their overall objections towards the study and the overall 
utility of the collection. However, none of the letters addressed any 
specific changes or editorial corrections that could be made to the 
survey or the methodology. The NPS gave a presentation and addressed 
many questions regarding this survey and its methodology at the August 
28, 2014 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) meeting. 
The AMWG is a semi-annual meeting that is attended and represented by 
federal and state government agencies, including the National Park 
Service, and other stakeholders, tribal governments, and environmental 
organizations. Economists from the NPS also provided updates and 
addressed additional questions during two AMWG stakeholder conference 
calls (November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014). A summary of the 
comments received from the following organizations are included below:

Colorado River Energy Distributors Assoc. (CREDA)

    Comment: This collection is not necessary and will not have 
practical utility and does not clearly meet the requirements of 5 CFR 
1320. Public will have the opportunity to comment on actual 
alternatives in public draft of the EIS. Survey alternatives do not 
accurately portray LTEMP alternatives therefore study is unnecessary 
and misleading. The purpose and intent of study needs to be clarified 
otherwise CREDA believes it is an unwarranted and unnecessary burden on 
respondents. The requested materials were not available until recently. 
Commitment to ``include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB 
to approve this ICR'' was not met. There are inaccurate and misleading 
references in the Authorizing Statue(s) information and in Supporting 
Document A.
    NPS Response: In order to collect information from the public, we 
must be granted approval by the Office of Management and Budget to do 
such. In accordance with, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, which is the purpose of 5 CFR 1320.1, we have submitted 
the proper paperwork to OMB to request approval for this information 
collection, and were granted the approval to collect the information 
for the pilot study associated with this collection. We are again 
following the proper guidance provided by OMB to request approval to 
collect the requested information. For the conjoint analysis 
methodology, respondents are provided with information about the 
resource outcomes, not the alternatives. This methodology values 
individually the management outcomes, such as the conditions of river 
beaches, native fish populations, and trout populations. The outcome 
levels selected for the survey are set statistically to maximize 
estimation efficiency and are intended to represent the range of 
potential impacts. It is then possible to estimate the values of LTEMP 
alternatives by setting individual outcome levels to match those of the 
respective alternatives and adding their indicated values together. The 
NPS presented and addressed these questions regarding the survey 
methodology at the August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also provided 
updates and addressed questions during the November 13, 2014 and 
December 16, 2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.

Southern Nevada Water Authority

    Comment: The survey fails to adequately represent resource 
interactions, dam operations, and associated management actions. The 
survey overemphasizes recreational values and underemphasizes values of 
other stakeholders. Results will misrepresent the value of important 
resources and provide false valuation of contemplated actions. Request 
that AMWG be given opportunity to discuss the survey's details at their 
August 2014 meeting.
    NPS Response: For the conjoint analysis methodology, respondents 
are provided with information about the resource outcomes, not the 
alternatives. This methodology values individually the management 
outcomes such as the conditions of river beaches, native fish 
populations, and trout populations. The outcome levels selected for the 
survey are set statistically to maximize estimation efficiency and are 
intended to represent the range of potential impacts. It is then 
possible to estimate the values of LTEMP alternatives by setting 
individual outcome levels to match those of the respective alternatives 
and adding their indicated values together. The NPS presented and 
addressed these questions regarding the survey methodology at the 
August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also provided updates and 
addressed questions during the November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014 
AMWG stakeholder calls.

Colorado River Board of California (CRB)

    Comment: The FRN lacks specific information that would aid the 
public in more fully understanding the purpose and need of the study. 
Unclear how any data and/or information collected via the ICR survey 
instruments would be used by the NPS. The CRB suggests that the 
appropriate venues for those activities should be through the AMWG and 
with the input of the LTEMP EIS co-lead agencies (i.e., Reclamation and 
NPS) and cooperating agencies. It is not clear that any information 
collected by the NPS would contribute to the overall

[[Page 57018]]

analysis of the six detailed and complex alternatives being evaluated 
through the LTEMP EIS process. The CRB suggests that both survey 
instruments significantly oversimplify and/or understate the current 
state of scientific knowledge and uncertainty. As presently structured, 
the survey is incomplete and potentially misleading. The CRB suggests 
that the most meaningful and appropriate venue in which to solicit 
public feedback is through the LTEMP EIS process.
    NPS Response: The current 30-day FRN attempts to provide the 
clarity requested. The title has been changed to ``Glen Canyon Passive 
Use Survey.'' For the conjoint analysis methodology, respondents are 
provided with information about the resource outcomes, not the 
alternatives. This methodology values individually the management 
outcomes such as the conditions of river beaches, native fish 
populations, and trout populations. The outcome levels selected for the 
survey are set statistically to maximize estimation efficiency and are 
intended to represent the range of potential impacts. It is then 
possible to estimate the values of LTEMP alternatives by setting 
individual outcome levels to match those of the respective alternatives 
and adding their indicated values together. The NPS presented and 
addressed questions regarding the survey methodology at the August 28, 
2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also provided updates and addressed 
questions during the November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014 AMWG 
stakeholder calls.

Arizona Department of Water Resources

    Comment: Alternatives presented in the survey do not represent the 
range of alternatives in the EIS and would result in little or no 
practical utility. It would be more appropriate for the pubic to 
comment on actual alternatives in the public draft of the LTEMP EIS.
    NPS Response: For the conjoint analysis methodology, respondents 
are provided with information about the resource outcomes, not the 
alternatives. This methodology values individually the management 
outcomes such as the conditions of river beaches, native fish 
populations, and trout populations. The outcome levels selected for the 
survey are set statistically to maximize estimation efficiency and are 
intended to represent the range of potential impacts. It is then 
possible to estimate the values of LTEMP alternatives by setting 
individual outcome levels to match those of the respective alternatives 
and adding their indicated values together. The NPS presented and 
addressed questions regarding the survey methodology at the August 28, 
2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also provided updates and addressed 
questions during the November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014 AMWG 
stakeholder calls.

Western Area Power Administration

    Comment: The FRN Notice is insufficient to discern utility of the 
information collection and therefore recommends that NPS clarify scope 
and purpose of information collection to allow parties to better 
understand the utility. The title of information collection is 
misleading. WAPA requested that NPS share the survey document and 
proposed that NPS integrate the collection of information through the 
survey, economic analysis, and any analysis that is being conducted to 
inform the Secretary on alternative management options.
    NPS Response: The current 30-day FRN attempts to provide the 
clarity requested. The title has been changed to ``Glen Canyon Passive 
Use Survey.'' All documents associated with this submission are posted 
in Reginfo.gov as required by the Office of Management and Budget. The 
request for additional information in the 60-day Federal Register 
Notice provided three separate addresses--to which this letter was 
addressed and received. The Web site for Reginfo.gov is displayed, as 
required, in the 30-day Federal Register Notice of July 9, 2014 (79 FR 
38946) for this request. A second 60-day Notice was not required for 
the final survey because the request was made in the 60-day FRN 
published on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58344) and closed on November 
23, 2013. This study is only one of many studies being conducted to 
inform the Secretary on alternative LTEMP management options.

Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona

    Comment: Echoed comments from others. Concerned about hidden and 
obscure documents not easily available for review by the public and 
interested parties so the ICR is fatally flawed as to be beyond 
salvage. Improper use of federal funds for which there is no credible 
use in the upcoming EIS analysis.
    NPS Response: All documents associated with this submission are 
posted in Reginfo.gov as required by the Office of Management and 
Budget. The request for additional information in the 60-day Federal 
Register Notice provided three separate addresses--to which this letter 
was addressed and received. The Web site for Reginfo.gov is displayed, 
as required, in the 30-day Federal Register Notice of July 9, 2014 (79 
FR 38946) for this request. A second 60-day Notice was not required for 
the final survey because the request was made in the 60-day FRN 
published on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58344) and closed on November 
23, 2013. The NPS presented and addressed questions regarding the 
survey methodology at the August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also 
provided updates and addressed questions during the November 13, 2014 
and December 16, 2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.

American Public Power Association

    Comment: The collection is not necessary for proper performance of 
NPS functions as required by 5 CFR 1320 and will not have practical 
utility. Concerned by methodologies used and requested further 
examination of all aspects of this ICR including survey methodologies.
    NPS Response: In order to collect information from the public, we 
must be granted approval by the Office of Management and Budget to do 
such. In accordance with, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, which is the purpose of 5 CFR 1320.1, we have submitted 
the proper paperwork to OMB to request approval for this information 
collection and were granted the approval to collect the information for 
the pilot study associated with this collection. We are again following 
the proper guidance provided by OMB to request approval to collect the 
requested information. The NPS presented and addressed questions 
regarding the survey methodology at the August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting 
and provided updates and addressed questions during the November 13, 
2014 and December 16, 2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.
    Each of the organizations above rejected the notion of the need for 
this collection. The NPS participated in a number of conference calls 
coordinated by these groups to answer the concerns voiced in these 
correspondences. The NPS stated the basis for this collection is 
predicated on the research needed to update the Welsh et. al. (1995) 
because this was the most recent study addressing this topic and 
therefore up-to-date information on economic value of the NPS resources 
along Colorado River is overdue and necessary for NPS management needs.
    In addition to the pilot survey, we solicited feedback from three 
professionals with expertise in economic valuation, natural resource 
management and planning as well as survey design and methodology. The

[[Page 57019]]

reviewers were asked to provide comments concerning the structure of 
the revised survey instrument and to provide feedback about the 
validity of the questions and the clarity of instructions. We also 
asked if the estimated time to complete the survey seemed adequate. We 
received several editorial and grammatical suggestions to provide 
clarity and to correct punctuation. Those edits were incorporated into 
the final versions of the surveys.
    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
     Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, 
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
     The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this 
collection of information;
     Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents.
    Comments that you submit in response to this Notice are a matter of 
public record. Before including your address, phone number, email 
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you 
should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal 
identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. 
While you can ask us or OMB in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it 
will be done.

    Dated: September 15, 2015.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-23673 Filed 9-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-EH-P