Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments on iCoast-Did the Coast Change?, 44858-44860 [2014-18148]

Download as PDF 44858 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Notices associated with the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas pipelines and related well field activities in Oklahoma. If approved, the permits would be issued to the applicants under the Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan Associated with Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma (ICP). The ICP was made available for comment on April 16, 2014 (79 FR 21480), and approved on May 21, 2014 (publication of the FONSI & Canyon Creek Energy Operating application notice was on July 25, 2014, 79 FR 43504). The ICP and the associated environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact are available on the Web site at https://www.fws.gov/ southwest/es/oklahoma/ABBICP. However, we are no longer taking comments on these documents. Applications Available for Review and Comment We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus; ABB). Please refer to the appropriate permit number (e.g., Permit No. TE–123456) when requesting application documents and when submitting comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with this application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Permit TE–40328B Applicant: ScissorTail Energy, LLC and Subsidiaries, Tulsa, OK. Applicant requests a new permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma. Permit TE–40320B Applicant: Enable Midstream Partners, LP, Oklahoma City, OK. Applicant requests a new permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and VerDate Mar<15>2010 22:09 Jul 31, 2014 Jkt 232001 decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma. Public Availability of Comments Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety. Authority We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). Dated: July 17, 2014. Joy E. Nicholopoulos, Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region. [FR Doc. 2014–18165 Filed 7–31–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX14MN00CO0000] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments on iCoast—Did the Coast Change? U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of a new information collection, iCoast—Did the Coast Change? AGENCY: We (the U.S. Geological Survey) are notifying the public that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the information collection request (ICR) described below. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and as part of our continuing efforts to SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this ICR. DATES: To ensure that your comments on this ICR are considered, we must receive them on or before September 2, 2014. ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email: (OIRA_SUBMISSION@omb.eop.gov); or by fax (202) 395–5806; and identify your submission with ‘OMB Control Number 1028–NEW: iCoast—Did the Coast Change?’. Please also forward a copy of your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648–7195 (fax); or Gs-info_collection@usgs.gov (email). Please reference ‘OMB Information Collection 1028–NEW: iCoast—Did the Coast Change?’ in all correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophia B. Liu, Research Geographer, Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies, US Geological Survey, 600 4th Street South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33705, sophialiu@usgs.gov. You may also find information about this Information Collection Request (ICR) at www.reginfo.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract As part of its mission to document coastal change, the USGS has been acquiring aerial photographs of the coast before and after each major storm for the past 18 years to assess damages to the natural landscape and the built environment. A typical mission consists of approximately 2,500 photographs. The digital photo-archive maintained by the USGS is a valuable environmental record containing approximately 140,000 photographs taken before and after 23 extreme storms along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. At the same time, the USGS has been developing mathematical models that predict the likely interactions between storm surge and coastal features, such as beaches and dunes, during extreme storms, with the aim of predicting areas that are vulnerable to storm damage. Currently the photographs are not used to inform the mathematical models. The models are based primarily on pre-storm dune height and predicted wave behavior. E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM 01AUN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Notices If scientists could ‘‘ground truth’’ coastal damage by comparing before and after photographs of the coast, the predictive models might be improved. It is not physically or economically possible for USGS scientists to examine all aerial photographs related to each storm, however, and automation of this process is also problematic. Image analysis software is not yet sophisticated enough to automatically identify damages to the natural landscape and the built environment that are depicted in these photographs; human perception and local knowledge are required. ‘iCoast—Did the Coast Change?’ (hereafter referred to as ‘iCoast’) is a USGS research project to construct a web-based application that will allow citizen volunteers to compare these before and after photographs of the coast and identify changes that result from extreme storms through a process known as ‘crowdsourcing’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Crowdsourcing). In concept, this application will be similar to those of other citizen science image comparison and classification projects such as the Citizen Science Alliance’s Cyclone Center project, (see www.cyclonecenter.org), which asks people to classify types of cyclones by comparing satellite images. There are two distinct purposes to ‘iCoast’: • To allow USGS scientists to ‘ground truth’ or validate their predictive storm surge models. These mathematical models, which are widely used in the emergency management community for locating areas of potential vulnerability to incoming storms, are currently based solely on pre-storm beach morphology as determined by high-resolution elevation data, and predicted wave behavior derived from parameters of the approaching storm. The on-the-ground post-storm observations provided by citizens using ‘iCoast’ will allow scientists to determine the accuracy of the models for future applications, and • to serve as a repository of images that enables citizens to become more aware of their vulnerability to coastal change and to participate in the advancement of coastal science. The application consists of sets of before-and-after photographs from each storm with accompanying educational material about coastal hazards. Since the photographs of a given area are taken on different dates following slightly different flight paths, the geographic orientation of before and after images will differ slightly. Often there will be more than one image covering approximately the same VerDate Mar<15>2010 22:09 Jul 31, 2014 Jkt 232001 geographic area and showing the same coastal features. Participants are asked to identify which post-storm image best covers the same geographic area and shows the same natural and man-made features as the image taken after the storm. After the best match between before-and-after aerial photographs is established, participants will classify post-storm coastal damage using simple one-or-two word descriptive tags. This type of tagging is similar to that used in commercial photo-sharing Web sites such as Flickr (www.flickr.com). Each participant will classify photographs of their choice. They may classify as many photographs as they wish in as many sessions as they choose. In order for a citizen to participate in classifying the photographs, the following information must be collected by this application: (1) Participants will register for the ‘iCoast’ application using externally issued credentials via the Federally approved ‘‘Open Identity Exchange’’ (www.openid.net) method. This Federal Government program benefits users by accelerating their sign up, reducing the frustration of maintaining multiple passwords, allowing them to control their own identity, and minimizing password security risks. User credentials will be managed and authenticated by Google, an Identity Provider approved by the Federal Government. During the login process participants will be redirected to a Google owned and operated login page. Following successful authentication of Id and password, participants are asked by Google to confirm agreement to their Google email address being shared with ‘iCoast’. Users have the option to decline this and halt the login process with no information shared to ‘iCoast’. If a participant accepts the sharing of their email address then the USGS will store the address within the ‘iCoast’ database. ‘iCoast’ is never supplied nor does it request a participant’s password directly. Storing of the participant’s email address by ‘iCoast’ is necessary to permit the pairing of Google login credentials with their ‘iCoast’ profile. The USGS will encrypt all stored participant email addresses. No other information or Google account access is shared by Google to ‘iCoast’ and nothing is shared from ‘iCoast’ to Google at any time. (2) Level of expertise: At initial log in to ‘iCoast’, the participant will be asked to indicate what type of ‘crowd’ or group he or she belongs to by picking from a pre-determined list (e.g. coastal scientist, coastal planner, coastal resident, general public etc.). The participant may also optionally PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44859 contribute his or her professional affiliation in an open text box, but this is not required. Professional affiliation may provide additional information to the scientists to more fully assess the accuracy of a participant’s classifications. Provision of level of expertise alone will not allow an individual to be personally identified. (3) Keyword tagging: After comparing pre-and post-storm aerial photographs, participants can select predefined keyword tags OR they can submit their own in a free-form text field. The keyword tags will help the USGS determine classification accuracy, and confirm or refute pre-storm predictions of coastal inundation and damage derived from the mathematical storm surge models. This application will have many benefits. It will serve the cause of open government and open data, in that these images will be available to the public in an easily accessible online format for the first time. It will enhance the science of coastal change and allow for more accurate storm surge predictions, benefitting emergency managers and coastal planners. It will also familiarize coastal communities with coastal processes and increase their awareness of vulnerabilities to extreme storms. We anticipate that this application will be used by educators to further science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education; outreach to educators is planned. II. Data OMB Control Number: 1028–NEW. Title: iCoast—Did the Coast Change? Type of Request: Approval of new information collection. Respondent Obligation: None (participation is voluntary). Frequency of Collection: Occasional. Description of Respondents: Coastal scientists, coastal managers, marine science students, emergency managers, citizens/residents of coastal communities. Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 2500. Estimated Time per Response: We estimate that it will take 30 minutes per person to log into the system, read the introductory and help material and tag 2–3 photo comparisons. Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1250. Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’ Burden: There are no ‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens associated with this collection of information. Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM 01AUN1 44860 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Notices you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until the OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obliged to respond. Comments: On February 28, 2014 we published a Federal Register notice (79 FR 11461) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval and soliciting comments. The comment period closed on April 22, 2014. We received no comments. III. Request for Comments We again invite comments concerning this ICR as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) how to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Please note that comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done. Richard Z. Poore, Center Director, USGS Coastal and Marine Science Center. [FR Doc. 2014–18148 Filed 7–31–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311–AM–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS–NCR–NACA–15266; PX.XDESC0047.00.1] tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Antietam, Monocacy, Manassas White-Tailed Deer Management Plan National Park Service, Interior. Notice of Availability. AGENCY: ACTION: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 22:09 Jul 31, 2014 Jkt 232001 National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the White-tailed Deer Management Plan (Plan), Antietam National Battlefield, Maryland; Monocacy National Battlefield, Maryland; and Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia. The plan would manage white-tailed deer populations in order to support preservation of the natural and cultural landscape. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Antietam National Battlefield, Monocacy National Battlefield, and Manassas National Battlefield Park are all located in the NPS National Capital Region within about an hour’s drive from Washington, DC. The U.S. Congress set aside these park units to represent outstanding aspects of our natural and cultural heritage. All three battlefields commemorate one or more Civil War battles and the history associated with these battles. The purpose of the FEIS and Plan is to develop a deer management strategy that supports preservation of the natural and cultural landscape through the protection and restoration of native vegetation. Although relatively rare at the turn of the twentieth century, whitetailed deer have grown abundant in the Mid-Atlantic region during recent years. Current deer densities of 130–230 deer per square mile are substantially larger than commonly accepted sustainable densities for this region, estimated at about 15–25 deer per square mile. In addition, the NPS needs to plan for the potential threat posed by chronic wasting disease (CWD), which could spread to these park units. The NPS has developed the FEIS under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and consistent with laws, regulations, and policies applicable to NPS units, and with the purposes of these three parks. The FEIS describes and analyzes three action alternatives (B, C, and D) to guide management actions and strategies for white-tailed deer. The alternatives include lethal and non-lethal actions to manage and reduce the impacts of white-tailed deer. Included in the alternatives is the no-action alternative (alternative A), which would continue current deer management. Under Alternative A, the parks would also take no new actions with respect to CWD. Alternative B of the Plan provides a nonlethal deer reduction option to implement nonsurgical reproductive control of does when an acceptable reproductive control agent is available that meets NPS established criteria. Large constructed exclosures would also PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 protect 5–20% of the forested area of the parks to allow reforestation. Additional techniques include fencing of crops and woodlots, crop protection through sacrificial rows, and aversive conditioning. Alternative C of the Plan provides a lethal deer reduction option through the use of sharpshooting with firearms, possible capture and euthanasia to reduce deer populations to the target density and maintain that level. Donation of meat would also occur, subject to any concerns or restrictions related to CWD. Alternative D of the Plan provides a combined lethal and nonlethal deer reduction option through the use of sharpshooting with firearms, possible capture, and euthanasia to reduce deer populations to a desirable level and maintain that level. Once the target density has been reached, it may use nonsurgical reproductive control of does when an acceptable reproductive control agent is available that meets NPS established criteria. Under all three of the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D), the parks would also implement a longterm CWD response plan. Under this plan, if CWD is confirmed in or within 5 miles of a park, the park would lethally reduce the deer population to decrease potential for CWD transmittal and spread. Deer populations could be reduced to 15–20 deer per square mile or as needed to cooperate with state programs and testing requirements, but would be reduced to no less than 10 deer per square mile. Deer will be tested for CWD. The FEIS evaluates potential environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives. Impact topics include the natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. The Draft EIS was released in July 2013 and was available for public and agency review and comment beginning with publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Comments were accepted during the 60day public comment period. After this public review, NPS revised this document in response to public comments. The FEIS is now available. Interested persons and organizations may obtain the FEIS online at https:// parkplanning.nps.gov/anti. A 30-day no-action period will follow this Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. After this period, the selected alternative will be documented in a Record of Decision that will be signed by the Regional Director of the National Capital Region of the NPS. Notice of approval of the EIS would be published E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM 01AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44858-44860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18148]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

 Geological Survey

[GX14MN00CO0000]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments on 
iCoast--Did the Coast Change?

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a new information collection, iCoast--Did the Coast 
Change?

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

SUMMARY: We (the U.S. Geological Survey) are notifying the public that 
we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the 
information collection request (ICR) described below. To comply with 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and as part of our continuing 
efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the 
general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to 
comment on this ICR.

DATES: To ensure that your comments on this ICR are considered, we must 
receive them on or before September 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments on this information 
collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer 
for the Department of the Interior, via email: (OIRA_SUBMISSION@omb.eop.gov); or by fax (202) 395-5806; and identify your 
submission with `OMB Control Number 1028-NEW: iCoast--Did the Coast 
Change?'. Please also forward a copy of your comments and suggestions 
on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance 
Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, 
Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7195 (fax); or Gs-info_collection@usgs.gov (email). Please reference `OMB Information 
Collection 1028-NEW: iCoast--Did the Coast Change?' in all 
correspondence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophia B. Liu, Research Geographer, 
Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies, US Geological Survey, 600 4th 
Street South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33705, sophialiu@usgs.gov. You may 
also find information about this Information Collection Request (ICR) 
at www.reginfo.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

    As part of its mission to document coastal change, the USGS has 
been acquiring aerial photographs of the coast before and after each 
major storm for the past 18 years to assess damages to the natural 
landscape and the built environment. A typical mission consists of 
approximately 2,500 photographs. The digital photo-archive maintained 
by the USGS is a valuable environmental record containing approximately 
140,000 photographs taken before and after 23 extreme storms along the 
Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. At the same time, the USGS has been 
developing mathematical models that predict the likely interactions 
between storm surge and coastal features, such as beaches and dunes, 
during extreme storms, with the aim of predicting areas that are 
vulnerable to storm damage. Currently the photographs are not used to 
inform the mathematical models. The models are based primarily on pre-
storm dune height and predicted wave behavior.

[[Page 44859]]

    If scientists could ``ground truth'' coastal damage by comparing 
before and after photographs of the coast, the predictive models might 
be improved. It is not physically or economically possible for USGS 
scientists to examine all aerial photographs related to each storm, 
however, and automation of this process is also problematic. Image 
analysis software is not yet sophisticated enough to automatically 
identify damages to the natural landscape and the built environment 
that are depicted in these photographs; human perception and local 
knowledge are required. `iCoast--Did the Coast Change?' (hereafter 
referred to as `iCoast') is a USGS research project to construct a web-
based application that will allow citizen volunteers to compare these 
before and after photographs of the coast and identify changes that 
result from extreme storms through a process known as `crowdsourcing' 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing). In concept, this 
application will be similar to those of other citizen science image 
comparison and classification projects such as the Citizen Science 
Alliance's Cyclone Center project, (see www.cyclonecenter.org), which 
asks people to classify types of cyclones by comparing satellite 
images.
    There are two distinct purposes to `iCoast':

     To allow USGS scientists to `ground truth' or validate 
their predictive storm surge models. These mathematical models, which 
are widely used in the emergency management community for locating 
areas of potential vulnerability to incoming storms, are currently 
based solely on pre-storm beach morphology as determined by high-
resolution elevation data, and predicted wave behavior derived from 
parameters of the approaching storm. The on-the-ground post-storm 
observations provided by citizens using `iCoast' will allow scientists 
to determine the accuracy of the models for future applications, and
     to serve as a repository of images that enables citizens 
to become more aware of their vulnerability to coastal change and to 
participate in the advancement of coastal science.

    The application consists of sets of before-and-after photographs 
from each storm with accompanying educational material about coastal 
hazards. Since the photographs of a given area are taken on different 
dates following slightly different flight paths, the geographic 
orientation of before and after images will differ slightly. Often 
there will be more than one image covering approximately the same 
geographic area and showing the same coastal features. Participants are 
asked to identify which post-storm image best covers the same 
geographic area and shows the same natural and man-made features as the 
image taken after the storm. After the best match between before-and-
after aerial photographs is established, participants will classify 
post-storm coastal damage using simple one-or-two word descriptive 
tags. This type of tagging is similar to that used in commercial photo-
sharing Web sites such as Flickr (www.flickr.com). Each participant 
will classify photographs of their choice. They may classify as many 
photographs as they wish in as many sessions as they choose.
    In order for a citizen to participate in classifying the 
photographs, the following information must be collected by this 
application:
    (1) Participants will register for the `iCoast' application using 
externally issued credentials via the Federally approved ``Open 
Identity Exchange'' (www.openid.net) method. This Federal Government 
program benefits users by accelerating their sign up, reducing the 
frustration of maintaining multiple passwords, allowing them to control 
their own identity, and minimizing password security risks. User 
credentials will be managed and authenticated by Google, an Identity 
Provider approved by the Federal Government. During the login process 
participants will be redirected to a Google owned and operated login 
page. Following successful authentication of Id and password, 
participants are asked by Google to confirm agreement to their Google 
email address being shared with `iCoast'. Users have the option to 
decline this and halt the login process with no information shared to 
`iCoast'. If a participant accepts the sharing of their email address 
then the USGS will store the address within the `iCoast' database. 
`iCoast' is never supplied nor does it request a participant's password 
directly. Storing of the participant's email address by `iCoast' is 
necessary to permit the pairing of Google login credentials with their 
`iCoast' profile. The USGS will encrypt all stored participant email 
addresses. No other information or Google account access is shared by 
Google to `iCoast' and nothing is shared from `iCoast' to Google at any 
time.
    (2) Level of expertise: At initial log in to `iCoast', the 
participant will be asked to indicate what type of `crowd' or group he 
or she belongs to by picking from a pre-determined list (e.g. coastal 
scientist, coastal planner, coastal resident, general public etc.). The 
participant may also optionally contribute his or her professional 
affiliation in an open text box, but this is not required. Professional 
affiliation may provide additional information to the scientists to 
more fully assess the accuracy of a participant's classifications. 
Provision of level of expertise alone will not allow an individual to 
be personally identified.
    (3) Keyword tagging: After comparing pre-and post-storm aerial 
photographs, participants can select predefined keyword tags OR they 
can submit their own in a free-form text field. The keyword tags will 
help the USGS determine classification accuracy, and confirm or refute 
pre-storm predictions of coastal inundation and damage derived from the 
mathematical storm surge models.
    This application will have many benefits. It will serve the cause 
of open government and open data, in that these images will be 
available to the public in an easily accessible online format for the 
first time. It will enhance the science of coastal change and allow for 
more accurate storm surge predictions, benefitting emergency managers 
and coastal planners. It will also familiarize coastal communities with 
coastal processes and increase their awareness of vulnerabilities to 
extreme storms. We anticipate that this application will be used by 
educators to further science, technology, engineering and mathematics 
(STEM) education; outreach to educators is planned.

II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-NEW.
    Title: iCoast--Did the Coast Change?
    Type of Request: Approval of new information collection.
    Respondent Obligation: None (participation is voluntary).
    Frequency of Collection: Occasional.
    Description of Respondents: Coastal scientists, coastal managers, 
marine science students, emergency managers, citizens/residents of 
coastal communities.
    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 2500.
    Estimated Time per Response: We estimate that it will take 30 
minutes per person to log into the system, read the introductory and 
help material and tag 2-3 photo comparisons.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1250.
    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping ``Non-Hour Cost'' Burden: 
There are no ``non-hour cost'' burdens associated with this collection 
of information.
    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 
provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and

[[Page 44860]]

you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless 
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until the OMB 
approves a collection of information, you are not obliged to respond.
    Comments: On February 28, 2014 we published a Federal Register 
notice (79 FR 11461) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB 
for approval and soliciting comments. The comment period closed on 
April 22, 2014. We received no comments.

III. Request for Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this ICR as to: (a) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to 
perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) 
the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed 
collection of information; (c) how to enhance the quality, usefulness, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize 
the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Please note that comments submitted in response to this notice are 
a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing 
address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable 
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire 
comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be 
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the OMB in your 
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public 
review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

Richard Z. Poore,
Center Director, USGS Coastal and Marine Science Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-18148 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.