[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71879-71883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22963]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R7-NWRS-2023-N071; FXRS12630700000-234-FF07R08000; OMB Control 
Number 1018-0141]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Alaska Guide Service 
Evaluation

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an 
information collection with revisions.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 
November 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB 
(JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or by 
email to [email protected]. Please reference ``1018-0141'' in the 
subject line of your comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at (703) 358-2503. Individuals in the United States who are 
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access

[[Page 71880]]

telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 
CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information collections require approval under 
the PRA. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.
    On April 19, 2023, we published in the Federal Register (88 FR 
24207) a notice of our intent to request that OMB approve this 
information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 
days, ending on June 20, 2023. The Service also published the Federal 
Register notice (and both forms) on Regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R7-
NWRS-2023-0005) to provide the public with an additional method to 
submit comments (in addition to the typical [email protected] email and 
U.S. mail submission methods). We received the following comments in 
response to that notice:
    Comment 1: Anonymous electronic comment received May 6, 2023, via 
Regulations.gov (FWS-R7-NWRS-2023-0005-0004): ``I recommend prohibiting 
commercial guiding on public lands. It is not necessary or appropriate. 
Many of them do something illegal [because] they have a client paying 
money and that alone pressures them to same day airborne, herd animals, 
bait, and the list goes on and on.
    There are plenty of hunters in Alaska if some rich fancy pants from 
Germany wants a trophy well he can afford to spend the time and money 
to learn the skill.''
    Agency Response to Comment 1: This comment does not address the 
information collection requirements. No response required.
    Comment 2: Electronic comment received May 16, 2023, via 
Regulations.gov (FWS-R7-NWRS-2023-0005-0005) from Josh Hayes: ``Data 
collection is necessary in order to properly understand guide/client/
public interaction within the Refuges. In the high use areas, and in 
competitive permitted areas of Refuges in Alaska I feel it is paramount 
that commercial operators are regularly evaluated. Modern data 
collection is often electronic via phones, apps, internet based 
reporting etc. Due to limited internet/cell phone access and 
connectivity in many areas of Alaska--these collection methods are 
convenient only when allowing the Client to respond/reply within a 
fairly broad timeframe.
    As a commercial operator collecting in depth personal information 
from every client/guest is not necessarily convenient. Often due to 
inclement weather, written documentation is nearly impossible, and 
phones/devices often prove difficult to operate in rain, snow, or 
colder climates. Many clients/guests are invitees of an individual or 
entity that has booked the trip on the client/guests behalf. For the 
commercial operators it would streamline data collection processes if 
only the individuals booking the trip provided their personal data--FWS 
could then solicit those individuals directly. Often times commercial 
operators only have the information of the point of contact for trip 
bookings and are not in contact with the other invitees until the day 
of the trip. Data Collection/Evaluation Comments;
    I believe that the following questions should be asked to 
individual clients being hosted by the guides and outfitters within all 
refuges:
    1. Did the guide/outfitter create and express accurate expectations 
prior to booking?
    2. Was the guide/outfitter honest regarding trip opportunities 
prior to booking? On the web, social media platforms, advertisements 
etc...?
    3. What was the level of public access and participation within the 
Refuge?''
    Agency Response to Comment 2 (by numbered recommendation):
    1. Did the guide/outfitter create and express accurate expectations 
prior to booking? Section 2 Question 4 asks the respondent to rate 
their level of agreement with the following statement ``My guided 
experience was what I expected based on the guide's advertisement''. We 
believe this question captures what is being expressed by the 
commenter. We recommend no change.
    2. Was the guide/outfitter honest regarding trip opportunities 
prior to booking? On the web, social media platforms, advertisements 
etc...? Section 2 Question 4 asks the respondent to rate their level of 
agreement with the following statement ``My guided experience was what 
I expected based on the guide's advertisement''. We believe this 
question captures what is being expressed by the commenter. We 
recommend no change.
    3. What was the level of public access and participation within the 
Refuge? It is unclear what the commenter is requesting clients be asked 
about ``level of public access'' and ``participation''. We recommend no 
change.
    Comment 3: Electronic comment received May 18, 2023, via 
Regulations.gov (FWS-R7-NWRS-2023-0005-0006) from Michael Zweng:
    ``Section #1--New form question #1. Although I explain to my 
clients in detail where we hunt, I think the question should have some 
specifics to guide the clients such as: name the bay where you hunted, 
the river you hunted, the mountain range where you hunted.
    I would eliminate question #5. This is going to guided hunting 
clients so we already know the answer.
    Section #2--New for question #1. I provide detailed client handbook 
to all my clients that explain everything on question #1. However, some 
clients are not necessarily interested in this aspect of the refuge and 
it goes in one ear and out the other. They may not absorb it and a 
guide may get a poor score just because the client did not absorb the 
information. This may reflect poorly on the guide and I think this 
question should be removed.
    Section #3--New form question #2. This question should be removed.
    Section #4--New form Question #1. This question implies the guide 
did some things poorly. The client may feel obligated to fill in this 
section even if it was the best outdoor experience they ever had. Maybe 
ask the question ``Please list anything your guide could have done to 
make your experience better''. You will probably get feedback about 
better food and better accommodations but my hunts are sold as 
adventurous backpack style hunting so it was explained what we eat and 
how we hunt.
    Section #5--This entire section should be eliminated. It has no 
bearing on the quality of guide services provided and adds no value to 
the intended purpose of this questionnaire. I feel a lot of my clients 
would fail to complete this entire questionnaire if they were asked 
these questions.''
    Agency Response to Comment 3 (by section):
    Section #1: We believe this open-ended style question allows for 
the respondent to have maximum flexibility in describing where on the 
refuge their guided trip occurred. We recommend no

[[Page 71881]]

change. This Form is not specific to competitively awarded guide 
service evaluations, but rather to all guided services on refuges 
(including noncompetitive guided activities as well as nonconsumptive 
uses). We recommend no change.
    Section #2: The question asks the respondent to rate their level of 
agreement with the statement ``Your guide(s) provided information about 
. . .'' not how well the client understood the information. The 
information gathered from this question is of interest to the National 
Wildlife Refuge System as it pertains to education and interpretation 
opportunities for guided clients. We recommend no change.
    Section #3: Understanding accessibility accommodations on National 
Wildlife Refuges is important to ensuring visitors of different 
physical abilities can experience Refuges. We recommend no change.
    Section #4: We do not believe this question make any implications 
about the guides' services. By asking how a guide might ``have made 
your experience better'' (as asked in the Form), the Service may learn 
valuable feedback about visitor preferences. This initial effort (i.e., 
revision of the Form) is necessary to conduct a 2-year pilot of the 
revised Guide Service Evaluation Form. What we learn will help the 
Service determine whether further Form revision is needed. We recommend 
no change.
    Section #5: The National Wildlife Refuge System is interested in 
who visits Refuges to inform Visitor Services outreach activities. We 
recommend no change.
    Comment 4: Anonymous electronic comment received June 4, 2023, via 
Regulations.gov (FWS-R7-NWRS-2023-0005-0007): ``Please don't allow 
hunting, fishing, and trapping on any of these wildlife refuge 
locations anymore. Please protect the animals. These killings don't 
benefit these animals in any way and this killing business is 
unnecessary.''
    Agency Response to Comment 4: This comment does not address the 
information collection; no response required.
    Comment 5: Electronic comment received June 19, 2023, via 
Regulations.gov (FWS-R7-NWRS-2023-0005-0008) from Jon M. DeVore, 
Attorney, on behalf of the Alaska Professional Hunters Association 
(APHA). Excerpts from the letter that express perspectives about the AK 
Guide Evaluation Form are below:
    ``1. So, the proposed Alaska Guide Service Evaluation form should 
set a specific goal of how best to gather the information it seeks in a 
manner that is most likely to obtain the greatest number of 
respondents.
    2. APHA recommends that the FWS should be more transparent about 
how the Alaska Guide Service Evaluations may be used by the FWS.
    3. This is not a suggestion that client evaluations be the only 
tool used to evaluate guides, but we do recommend that evaluations be 
available as a reference for the ranking panel and then used as a 
decision factor by the refuge manager.
    4. However, if it is the intent that the name and operations of 
individual guides are to be made public, the FWS should notify in 
advance the guide and operations.
    5. For example, bad weather may have caused a less than optimal 
experience, so we recommend that the FWS take any such factors into 
consideration when utilizing client feedback that might be pre-disposed 
to be negative for reasons unrelated to the guide personally.
    6. It is critical to ask, up front, if the hunter was successful in 
harvesting their target species then bifurcate the evaluations into two 
broad categories: successful harvest and unsuccessful harvest.
    7. Once harvest and weather are controlled for, clients should 
evaluate their trip first and foremost on safety.
    8. However, the Federal Register is not transparent on how the 
information will be ultimately used.''
    Agency Response to Comment 5: Comment responses by response number:
    1. This comment addresses post-data collection decision making but 
does not address the content of the Guide Service Evaluation Form; no 
response required.
    2. This comment addresses post-data collection decision making but 
does not address the content of the Guide Service Evaluation Form; no 
response required. This initial effort (i.e., revision of the Form) is 
necessary to conduct a 2-year pilot of the revised Guide Service 
Evaluation Form. What we learn will help the Service determine whether 
further Form revision is needed and how we will use this information.
    3. This comment addresses post-data collection decision making but 
does not address the content of the Guide Service Evaluation Form; no 
response required. This initial effort (i.e., revision of the Form) is 
not specific to competitively awarded guide service evaluations, but 
rather to all guided services on refuges (including noncompetitive 
guided activities as well as nonconsumptive uses).
    4. This comment addresses data management but does not address the 
content of the Guide Service Evaluation Form; no response required. All 
survey respondent names and responses will remain anonymous to the 
public.
    5. There are many factors that may impact the guided client 
experience on refuges. It is not possible for the Guide Service 
Evaluation Form to analyze all factors that are outside of the control 
of the guide service provider or the Service. This initial effort 
(i.e., revision of the Form) is necessary to conduct a 2-year pilot of 
the revised Guide Service Evaluation Form. What we learn will help the 
Service determine whether further Form revision is needed.
    6. This Form is not specific to competitively awarded guide service 
evaluations, but rather to all guided services on refuges (including 
noncompetitive guided activities as well as nonconsumptive uses). This 
initial effort (i.e., revision of the Form) is necessary to conduct a 
2-year pilot of the revised Guide Service Evaluation Form. What we 
learn will help the Service determine whether further Form revision is 
needed.
    7. Safety concerns are captured in Section 2 Question 2 of the 
Guide Survey Evaluation Form, ``Please rate your level of agreement 
with the following statement: your guide used skills that kept you 
safe''.
    8. This comment addresses post-data collection decision-making but 
does not address the content of the Guide Service Evaluation Form; no 
response required. This initial effort (i.e., revision of the Form) is 
necessary to conduct a 2-year pilot of the revised Guide Service 
Evaluation Form. What we learn will help the Service determine whether 
further Form revision is needed and how we will use this information.
    As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on 
new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This 
helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements 
and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public 
understand our information collection requirements and provide the 
requested data in the desired format.
    We are especially interested in public comment addressing the 
following:
    (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether or not the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection 
of

[[Page 71882]]

information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 
used;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (4) How might the agency 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 submission of response.
    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of 
public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request 
to OMB to approve this information collection request (ICR). 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 in your 
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public 
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Abstract: We collect information via Form 3-2349 (Alaska Guide 
Service Evaluation) to help us evaluate commercial guide services on 
our national wildlife refuges in the State of Alaska (State). The 
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-ee), authorizes us to permit uses, including commercial 
visitor services, on national wildlife refuges when we find the 
activity to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was 
established. With the objective of making available a variety of 
quality visitor services for wildlife-dependent recreation on National 
Wildlife Refuge System lands, we issue permits for commercial guide 
services, including big game hunting, sport fishing, wildlife viewing, 
river trips, and other guided activities. We use FWS Form 3-2349 as a 
method to:
     Monitor the quality of services provided by commercial 
guides.
     Gauge client satisfaction with the services.
     Assess the impacts of the activity on refuge resources.
    The client is the best source of information on the quality of 
commercial guiding services. We collect:
     Client name.
     Guide name(s).
     Type of guided activity.
     Dates and location of guided activity.
     Information on the services received, such as the client's 
expectations, safety, environmental impacts, and client's overall 
satisfaction.
    We encourage respondents to provide any additional comments that 
they wish regarding the guide service or refuge experience, and ask 
whether or not they wish to be contacted for additional information.
    The above information, in combination with State-required guide 
activity reports and contacts with guides and clients in the field, 
provides a comprehensive method for monitoring permitted commercial 
guide activities. A regular program of client evaluation helps refuge 
managers detect potential problems with guide services so that we can 
take corrective actions promptly. In addition, we use this information 
during the competitive selection process for big game and sport fishing 
guide permits to evaluate a renewing applicant's ability to provide a 
quality guiding service.
    The Service is actively reviewing the current evaluation form to 
identify ways to improve the information collected to:
     Provide more quantifiable and defensible data;
     Provide statistical data for each completed and submitted 
form; and
     Translate the client responses into useful information, so 
refuge management can make better informed decisions.

Proposed Revisions

    Alaska Guide Service Evaluation (Form 3-2538) (NEW)--With this 
submission, the Service will propose a new form (Form 3-2538, ``Alaska 
Guide Service Evaluation'') to OMB for approval. The Service initially 
proposed this form for viability testing under OMB Control No. 1090-
0011, ``DOI Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative 
Feedback on Agency Service Delivery,'' in our December 22, 2020, 
Federal Register notice (85 FR 83604). However, the pandemic 
significantly limited the number of guide trips during the 2020 through 
2022 seasons. In addition, changes to Control No. 1090-0011 now 
prohibit testing of new forms. We are now proposing the form to be 
approved under this collection (Control No. 1018-0141) rather than for 
usability testing under Control No. 1090-0011.
    In order to effectively adapt visitor services programming in the 
Alaska Region, we need to understand visitor satisfaction. To that end, 
the Alaska Guide Service Evaluation team, comprised of representatives 
from across the Region, with the assistance of the Human Dimensions 
Branch and the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, has 
revised the current guide evaluation form. The revised form provides 
the region's refuges with a useful and quantitative tool that reflects 
social science survey design best practices, and that is standardized 
for use across refuges in the region. Form 3-2538 would collect the 
following information from participants in the Alaska guide program:
     Details regarding the guided trip--name of the person(s) 
or outfitters guiding the trip and top three purposes for visiting the 
refuge.
     Experiences with guided trip.
     Level of satisfaction with guided trip and details 
regarding purpose of visit to refuge.
     Suggestions for improvements.
     Details about visitor--gender; State and/or country of 
residence; year of birth; race or ethnicity; details regarding formal 
schooling; and approximate household income.
     Contact information for followup questions (optional).
    Upon approval of the new Form 3-2538, the Service will review the 
form after two seasons to determine what, if any, changes need to be 
made prior to the next renewal of this collection. Individual refuge 
programs within Alaska will use the information collected to determine 
baseline guide-supported visitor experience conditions and be able to 
adapt management over time to continue to achieve desired guide-
supported visitor experience opportunities on Alaska's refuges.
    Alaska Guide Service Evaluation (Form 3-2349) (DISCONTINUE)--With 
this submission, and upon approval of Form 3-2538, the Service requests 
to discontinue the original Alaska Guide Service Evaluation (Form 3-
2349).
    The public may request copies of any form contained in this 
information collection by sending a request to the Service Information 
Collection Clearance Officer (see ADDRESSES).
    Title of Collection: Alaska Guide Service Evaluation.
    OMB Control Number: 1018-0141.
    Form Number: Forms 3-2349 and 3-2538.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents/Affected Public: Clients of permitted commercial guide 
service providers.
    Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 300.
    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 300.
    Estimated Completion Time per Response: 20 minutes.

[[Page 71883]]

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 100.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    Frequency of Collection: One time, following use of commercial 
guide services.
    An agency 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.
    The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Madonna Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-22963 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P