Paleontologist Focus Groups: Summary Report

1
Paleontologist Focus Groups Summary Report

• Social Research Laboratory
• Northern Arizona University

2
Table of Contents

• Purpose
• Methodology
• General Perceptions
• Permitting Guidelines
• Permit Reporting
• Permit Claims Space Issues
• Repositories
• Role of BLM in Paleontology
• Feedback and Response of BLM in Paleontology

3
Purpose of Study

• To achieve a better understanding of the BLM
  paleontology permitting process from perspective
  of permitees.
• Information will be used to build a national
  evaluation methodology and instrument.

4
Methodology

• Focus groups provide a
• Small discussion atmosphere where researchers can
  obtain detailed information
• Allows identification and exploration of salient
  issues
• Descriptive study - findings cannot be
  generalized to all paleontologists

5
Methodology

• 2 focus groups held in February, 2004.
• - Salt Lake City, Utah (7 participants)
• - Denver, Colorado (6 participants)

6
General Perceptions of the BLM Permitting
Process
7
The Permitting Process

• The process has improved and evolved over
  time
• Directions are understandable
• Rules and guidelines change frequently
• No formal training most learned process by
  trial and error or word-of-mouth
• Most prefer both on-line and paper applications

8
Topics to Explore in National Evaluation

• ? General experience with the permitting process.
• ? Types and number of permits held.
• ? Areas and regions of permits.
• ? Training and guidelines governing application
  process.
• ? Availability of application materials.
• ? Ease of obtaining application signatures.
• ? Comparative application experience for BLM
  permits, NPS, and USFS permits.
• ? Time for applications to be processed.

9
Permitting Guidelines and Personnel
10
Variations in Permitting Guidelines and Process

• Process varies among regions, states, and
  offices.
• Some variations by type of permit.
• Process can vary depending on relationships
  between personnel and paleontologist.

11
Topics to Explore in National Evaluation

• ? Training and expertise of BLM permitting
  staff
• ? Comparative application experience across
  offices and states
• ? Comparative application experience between SLCP
  and excavation permits
• ? Perceptions of BLM staff bias in application
  process
• ? Perceptions of paleontology by related groups
  and agencies
• ? Coordination of permits among scientific
  disciplines
• Experience with sites being vandalized

12
Permit Reporting and Report Use
13
Reporting Requirements

• Items to Consider
• Guidelines need to be clear and easy to follow
• Need more detailed guidelines
• Wide variations in reports questioned

• Suggestions
• Streamline forms to reduce redundancy
• Provide feedback
• Better coordinate time frames of forms with
  collection and repository deposit

14
Paleontology Reports

• Paleontologists would like more feedback on their
  reports
• Report findings should be shared
• Some feel frustration over lost or destroyed
  reports
• Reports involving mining and oil use permits are
  viewed as more important

15
Topics to Explore in National Evaluation

• Experiences with permit reporting
• Experience with reporting guidelines and
  instructions
• Perceptions of how BLM uses report information
• Preferred strategies for accessing archived
  reports

16
Paleontologists Views on Permit Claims and
Space Issues
17
One Area, One Permit Preferred

• Frustrations about BLM giving permits to
  different institutions for a single site
• For excavation permits, all participants want
  one area, one permit
• Multiple permits can be awarded for survey and
  land collection
• When permitees must work together, outside
  hearings and a clear recourse for complaints are
  necessary

18
Topics to Explore in National Evaluation

• Experiences with permit claims
• Perception of space issues
• Experience with sharing space
• Preferences for a system to resolve space
  disputes

19
Paleontologists Views on Repositories
20
The Challenge of Locating an Appropriate
Repository

• Permit approval is dependent upon finding an
  appropriate repository
• Paleontologists would like clearer guidelines on
  what constitutes a qualified repository
• There is no formal process of accreditation for
  repositories
• Paleontologists would prefer if BLM developed
  more repositories

21
Topics to Explore in National Evaluation

• Experiences with repositories
• Ease of locating and using repositories
• Quality of repository accreditation process
• Impact of repository on own work

22
Paleontologists Views on the Role of BLM in
Paleontology
23
Paleontology on BLM Lands

• Prefer that BLM act as a silent partner rather
  than active entity
• Prefer that BLM operate as regulatory agent
  rather than scientific collaborator
• Many paleontologists have encountered opposition
  to their work from local BLM offices who view
  their work as anti-religious or delaying
  development
• BLM is seen as more responsive to outside
  interest groups than paleontologists

24
Topics to Explore in National Evaluation

• Preferred role of BLM in paleontology permitting
• Experiences interacting with BLM personnel
• Perceptions of BLM attitude regarding scientific
  endeavors

25
Paleontologists Views on Feedback and Response
of BLM
26
The Communication Gap

• Participants are not aware of any formal
  notification process that informs permittees of
  changes in policies, guidelines or requirements
• Participants are not aware of any formal process
  for relaying feedback or giving input to BLM

27
Topics to Explore in National Evaluation

• Experiences when providing feedback on the
  permitting process
• Preferences regarding how changes in permitting
  process and regulations are distributed
• How can BLM improve the paleontology permitting
  process?