Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Submission of Conservation Efforts To Make Listings Unnecessary Under the Endangered Species Act
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Commerce Department wants to keep track of efforts to help endangered animals. They've asked for comments on a plan that might be a bit confusing and hard to complete. They're checking if one person is enough to report on all this work and figuring out how to measure success. They're also asking for people to give their thoughts on a website, but it might be tricky to use.
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request, made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, involves extending a current information collection concerning conservation efforts under the Endangered Species Act. The initiative includes creating conservation plans or agreements, monitoring their effectiveness, and producing annual reports. Public comments on this proposal are invited for 30 days following the notice's publication date.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a formal notice from the Department of Commerce regarding an information collection request submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This request seeks to extend involvement in conservation efforts under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It seeks to gather data through the creation of conservation plans, monitoring their success, and compiling annual reports. The public is invited to provide feedback within a 30-day period following the announcement.
Summary of the Document
The notice outlines a bureaucratic process where the Department of Commerce seeks approval from the OMB to continue collecting detailed information related to conservation efforts that could potentially eliminate the need for official endangered species listings. The effort primarily involves partnering with various stakeholders to devise and monitor conservation strategies. The document also functions as a call to the public for comments, allowing stakeholders to participate in the conservation planning process.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A primary concern is the extensive time commitment indicated in the document. It states that completing an agreement or plan requires an average of 2,500 hours, which seems exceedingly high. This figure raises questions about the efficiency and potential waste of resources inherent in this process.
Another area of concern is the notably low number of respondents, which is listed as just one. This figure implies limited engagement and suggests that the collection process may not gather a wide range of data or perspectives, potentially affecting the quality and comprehensiveness of the conservation plans being evaluated.
Moreover, the document lacks clear criteria for evaluating the success of conservation efforts, which could lead to inconsistencies in the assessment of these plans and challenges in effectively measuring their outcomes. The technical jargon throughout the notice could also pose a barrier to understanding for the general public, hindering broader awareness and engagement.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The public at large may experience indirect impacts, particularly regarding environmental conservation and biodiversity. These efforts, if successful, could lead to fewer species needing protection under the ESA, potentially reducing regulatory burdens over time. Conversely, the potentially cumbersome and inefficient process described may lead to concerns about government transparency and the effective use of taxpayer funding.
Specific stakeholders, such as businesses, state, local, and tribal governments, might view the voluntary nature of the program both as an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, voluntary participation may encourage engagement from parties with genuine interest and commitment to conservation. However, it might also result in inadequate participation rates, which could jeopardize the effectiveness and representativeness of the data gathered.
Additionally, stakeholders familiar with navigating regulatory procedures may find the notice's guidance straightforward in providing feedback. However, those less experienced with federal comment submission processes might struggle, reducing the diversity of input and potential innovation in conservation strategies.
In conclusion, while the document outlines an important initiative for conserving species under the ESA, notable improvements in clarity, efficiency, and engagement could enhance its effectiveness and public perception.
Issues
• The document states that the average hours per response for completing an agreement or plan is 2,500 hours, which may seem excessive and could indicate inefficiency or potential wasteful spending.
• The number of respondents is indicated as 1, which seems unusually low and may warrant investigation to ensure comprehensive data collection and participation.
• The text mentions 'procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan or agreement, and an annual report,' but lacks specifics on the criteria for evaluating 'success,' making it unclear how effectiveness will be measured.
• The document uses technical language related to regulatory and administrative processes, such as references to the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB Control Number, and ESA sections, which may be difficult for the general public to fully understand without additional context.
• The process for submitting written comments via www.reginfo.gov could be more clearly outlined, especially for individuals unfamiliar with navigating regulatory websites.
• The document states a 'voluntary' respondent obligation, which might result in a lack of participation, potentially affecting the robustness of the information collected.