Agency Information Collection Activities; Alaska Guide Service Evaluation
| Citation | 88 FR 71879 |
| Published date | 18 October 2023 |
| Record Number | 2023-22963 |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service,Interior Department |
| Section | Notices |
Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)
[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
