supplemental_statement_A

The Supporting Statement for OMB 0596-0171

Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects of Livestock Ranching

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the col­lection of information necessary. Iden­tify any legal or administrative require­ments that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the col­lection of information.

Management of federal lands is hampered in many cases because land managing agencies lack sufficient information to understand and monitor socio-cultural values and changing attitudes toward land and resource use. This lack of up-to-date information impedes efforts of the USDA Forest Service (FS) to work with livestock ranchers who graze their cattle under permit on Forest Service-managed lands (permittees). In northern New Mexico, many of these permittees are descendants of Hispanic settlers who have farmed and ranched in the area for 400 years. Much of the land they now use under federal permit was formerly owned or used by local communities under Spanish and Mexican land grants prior to U.S. takeover of the region in 1848.

Cultural differences and historic problems over land use contribute to disagreements and misunderstandings between the permittees and federal land managers. This study, conducted on the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests, will provide data on economic, social, and cultural contributions of livestock ownership to the permittees of northern New Mexico. Prior studies conducted in the late 1960s and 1970s require updating and revision to provide the most current information. Our pilot study, begun in 1998, has indicated a need for a broader base of data. The results of this research should help agency personnel manage the land more effectively and work more cooperatively with livestock grazing permittees. Such information may also serve to improve agency/community relations by promoting greater understanding of the local culture and the role of livestock ownership in that culture. As the public becomes more involved in the pre-decision making process of federal land management, a greater need arises for public education on the relationship between land and the rural way of life.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what pur­pose the information is to be used. Except for a new collec­tion, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the infor­ma­tion received from the current collec­tion.

1. What information will be collected - reported or recorded? (If there are pieces of information that are especially burdensome in the collection, a specific explanation should be provided.)

Information on the economic, social, and cultural contributions of livestock ownership to federal grazing permittees is of interest to land managers, policy makers, social scientists, the public, and the permittees themselves. This information is being used to help agency personnel manage the land more effectively and work more cooperatively with the permittees by increasing understanding of the local culture and the role of livestock ownership in that culture. This information is also available for purposes of public education.

The information collected describes the economic, social, and cultural contributions of livestock operations to the permittees. These data include the following: background information on the permittee and his/her family, background information on the livestock operation, contribution of the livestock operation to the household economy, and contribution of the livestock operation to the cultural, lifestyle, and land use values of the family.

Forest Service file code series 2200 covers the information gathered by this survey. The retention period varies depending upon the secondary and tertiary file designation assigned to this information. The minimum retention period is two years.

2. From whom will the information be collected? If there are different respondent categories (e.g., loan applicant versus a bank versus an appraiser), each should be described along with the type of collection activity that applies.

The information is being collected from livestock permittees from the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests.

3. What will this information be used for - provide ALL uses?

Information gathered from this study assists managers on the two forests in working more effectively with grazing permittees by encouraging increased intercultural understanding. It has potential use in the development and updating of grazing allotment plans and allotment plan revisions, and in forest plans and forest plan revisions for the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests. This type of information is also valuable in public education programs concerning the rural culture of northern New Mexico. This study will also contribute to multiple research publications.

4. How will the information be collected (e.g., forms, non-forms, electronically, face-to-face, over the phone, over the Internet)? Does the respondent have multiple options for providing the information? If so, what are they?

A questionnaire administered in a face-to-face interview by the researchers is used to collect the information. The survey is administered in either English or Spanish depending upon the preference of the respondent. Respondents who are unable to schedule an interview will have the option of returning their completed questionnaire by mail.

5. How frequently will the information be collected?

This is a one-time collection. Information is collected once from each respondent.

6. Will the information be shared with any other organizations inside or outside USDA or the government?

The published report will be available to all interested parties.

7. If this is an ongoing collection, how have the collection requirements changed over time?

This is a one-time collection, and the collection requirements have not changed over time.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of auto­mat­ed, elec­tronic, mechani­cal, or other techno­log­ical collection techniques or other forms of information technol­o­gy, e.g. permit­ting elec­tronic sub­mission of respons­es, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any con­sideration of using in­fo­r­m­a­t­ion technolo­gy to re­duce bur­den.

Data collection is following proved, successful methods with little opportunity for using automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technologically assisted collection techniques. It cannot be assumed that the intended respondents have access to equipment required for automated data collection. Discussions with local FS staff, with representatives of the permittees themselves, and prior experience indicate that the majority of the group responds much more readily to personal contact than to impersonal, automated means of data collection. Our pilot study (OMB 0596-0144, Retired) and prior studies have used personally administered questionnaires with considerable success.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplica­tion. Show specifically why any sim­ilar in­for­mation already avail­able cannot be used or modified for use for the purpos­es de­scri­bed in Item 2 above.

There is no known duplication of effort. Major studies that emphasize the social and cultural contributions of livestock ownership to the heritage and traditions of northern New Mexico were conducted primarily in the late 1960s and 1970s. This information should be updated and revised to account for changing demographic conditions over the past 20-25 years. More recently economic studies have been undertaken, but they are generally statewide or regional in scope and do not focus specifically on federal permittees. Specific, current studies of social, cultural, and economic contributions of livestock ownership are needed to augment prior and/or wider scale studies. Our pilot study (OMB 0596-0144, retired) comprises a preliminary portion of the broader study.

5. If the collection of information im­pacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to mini­mize burden.

There will be no significant impact on small businesses or entities. Those questioned respond to the survey only one time and participation is voluntary. The survey is administered at a time and location selected by each respondent. Respondents keep no records and file no reports in response to this information collection. Those who have participated in the study so far have indicated that this is an important information collection and will be helpful in preserving their ranching operations.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is con­ducted less fre­quent­ly, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

Since this study is designed to provide information on small-scale livestock operations in conjunction with federal allotments, its implementation is of considerable importance. If these data are not collected, grazing allotment plans and forest plan revisions (for the target forests) will not be based on the most current and appropriate socio-cultural and economic information. Agency/community relations may also be hindered or remain stagnant from a lack of knowledge that might otherwise help to promote intercultural understanding and cooperation

Frequency under this OMB clearance is once. There are no known technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collecti­on to be con­ducted in a manner:

• Requiring respondents to report informa­tion to the agency more often than quarterly;

• Requiring respondents to prepare a writ­ten response to a collection of infor­ma­tion in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

• Requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any docu­ment;

• Requiring respondents to retain re­cords, other than health, medical, governm­ent contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;

• In connection with a statisti­cal sur­vey, that is not de­signed to produce valid and reli­able results that can be general­ized to the uni­verse of study;

• Requiring the use of a statis­tical data classi­fication that has not been re­vie­wed and approved by OMB;

• That includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by au­thority estab­lished in statute or regu­la­tion, that is not sup­ported by dis­closure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unneces­sarily impedes shar­ing of data with other agencies for com­patible confiden­tial use; or

• Requiring respondents to submit propri­etary trade secret, or other confidential information unless the agency can demon­strate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permit­ted by law.

There are no special circumstances. The collection of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and iden­tify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting com­ments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public com­ments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address com­ments received on cost and hour burden.

Federal Register publication was Thursday, July 13, 2006, pp.39656-39657, Vol. 71, #134. One comment was received from B. Sachau, 15 Elm Street, Florham Park, NJ 07932.

The comment states that the proposed renewal represents a wasteful use of tax dollars because the agency has been managing the area for many years without the information. “If you’ve done without it this long, you can do without it”. The Forest Service should be satisfying national interests not local ones. The commenter also states that grazing is environmentally destructive and should be phased out.

B. Sachau apparently comments frequently on a wide range of Federal Register entries. As discussed under A. 1 above, management of federal lands is hampered in many cases because land managing agencies lack sufficient information to understand and monitor socio-cultural values and changing attitudes toward land and resource use. This lack of up-to-date information impedes efforts of the FS to work with livestock ranchers who graze their cattle under permit on FS managed lands. In northern New Mexico, many of these permittees are descendants of Hispanic settlers who have farmed and ranched in the area for 400 years. Much of the land they now use under federal permit was formerly owned or used by local communities under Spanish and Mexican land grants prior to 1848. The information being collected will help the Forest Service to balance both local and national interests, as well as assist in maintaining centuries-old, traditional economic practices in a sustainable manner.

Describe efforts to consult with persons out­side the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years even if the col­lection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

We met with Forest Service range personnel from both the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests and with officers of the two statewide grazing associations concerning questionnaire development and administration. We consulted with locally knowledgeable permittees from both forests and with Drs. Clyde Eastman (retired) and John Fowler of Agricultural Economics, New Mexico State University (NMSU). We also met with representatives from the Cooperative Extension Service, NMSU.

The draft questionnaire for the pilot study (OMB 0596-0144, Retired), which forms the basis of this study, was also reviewed by Forest Service range personnel from the two forests and the Southwestern Regional Office in Albuquerque, and by Eastman and Fowler of NMSU.

Our pilot study on the Española and Canjilon Ranger Districts served as a test for methods, techniques, and questions for the current study. The pilot study helped to assess the research questions that are guiding the current study and the methods and techniques that are used to collect the desired information. Results were used to evaluate and refine the research design by developing new topics and questions, and deleting those that were inappropriate. The Española/Canjilon information structures the direction and development of the project for the Santa Fe and Carson Forests.

The information will be collected once from each respondent. No records need to be compiled by respondents.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than re-enumeration of contractors or grantees.

Respondents will receive no payments or gifts.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

There is complete protection of any demographic information collected from participants. Names and addresses are not recorded on the questionnaire. Names and addresses are destroyed after receipt of any mailed information. When contacted, permittees are asked to participate, are told that participation is voluntary, and that all responses are confidential. All public requests for records associated with this information collection will be processed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

The survey does not contain sensitive questions. The survey does contain questions relating to the cost of maintaining a livestock operation that might be considered private by some respondents. The purpose of these questions is to determine economic contribution of these operations to their owners. Responses to these economic questions, as is the case with all other questions, are not mandatory and respondents are so informed. In addition, names and addresses of respondents will are not recorded on the questionnaire and are not maintained after receipt of mailed information.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated.

• Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form.

a) Description of the collection activity

b) Corresponding form number (if applicable)

c) Number of respondents

d) Number of responses annually per respondent,

e) Total annual responses (columns c x d)

f) Estimated hours per response

g) Total annual burden hours (columns e x f)

(a) Description of the Collection Activity	(b) Form Number	(c) Number of Respondents	(d) Number of responses annually per Respondent	(e) Total annual responses (c x d)	(f) Estimate of Burden Hours per response	(g) Total Annual Burden Hours (e x f)
One-time, personally administered questionnaire	N/A	150	1	150	1.5	225
Totals	N/A	150	---	150	---	225

• Record keeping burden should be addressed separately and should include columns for:

a) Description of record keeping activity: None

b) Number of record keepers: None

c) Annual hours per record keeper: None

d) Total annual record keeping hours (columns b x c): Zero

• Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories.

(a) Description of the Collection Activity	(b) Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents (Hours)	(c) Estimated Average Income per Hour	(d) Estimated Cost to Respondents
One-time, personally administered questionnaire	225	$25.00	$5625
Totals	1.5	---	$5625

13. Provide estimates of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information, (do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in items 12 and 14). The cost estimates should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component annualized over its expected useful life; and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component.

There are no capital operation and maintenance costs.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Provide a description of the method used to estimate cost and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The response to this question covers the actual costs the agency will incur as a result of implementing the information collection. The estimate should cover the entire life cycle of the collection and include costs, if applicable, for:

• Employee travel costs: $3850.00

  • Includes $3000.00 for .5 year of leased GSA vehicle (based on $6000.00 per year for FY 2005);

  • $850.00 per diem for 2 researchers, @85.00 per day for 5 days of travel with overnights. Most days do not require overnight stays.

• Employee labor and materials for collecting the information (employee labor throughout is figured at cost to government): $7467.00

  • $7167.00 for GS11/1 @ $23.89 per hour for 300 hours to collect information.

  • $300.00 for postage for introductory packet for 150 packets @ $2.00 per packet (all based on prior experience with mailing packets and administering the questionnaire).

• Employee labor and materials for analyzing, evaluating, summarizing, and/or reporting on the collected information: $18,208.00

  • $4778.00 for GS11/1 @ $23.89 per hour for 200 hours for data analysis and reporting

  • $5430.00 for GS 13/7 @ $54.30 per hour for 100 hours for data analysis and reporting

  • $8000.00 Postage and supplies for mailing draft and final publication to participants and for publishing the final report (based on the 600 copies approved under the initial OMB approval.

  • Postage and supplies for mailing draft (600 @ $2.50 per packet): $1500.00

  • Postage and supplies for mailing final (600 @ $2.50 per packet): $1500.00

  • Cost to print and publish final report : $5000.00

Employee Travel Costs	Employee labor and materials for collecting the information	Employee labor and materials for analyzing, evaluating, summarizing, and/or reporting on the collected information	Total Cost
$3,850	$7,467	$18,208	$29,525

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB form 83-I.

This request is for renewal of OMB 0596-0171 to finish data collection from 150 respondents. The initial collection was approved for 600. The remaining 150 are part of the initial 600. There are no changes; the request is for completion.

16. For collections of information whose results are planned to be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication.

Information from the questionnaires will be entered into computer files by the researchers. Data will be backed up on microcomputer diskette, CD, or tape. We plan to conduct statistical analysis using SPSS-PC (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), a statistical package resident on research station computers. Consistencies in data set development and analysis will contribute to replication of efforts and data exchange.

We will conduct data analysis with descriptive statistics to display the current responses from the permittees participating in the study. Description is the primary focus of analysis. Descriptive statistics will include percentages of occurrence for the discrete variables and frequencies and measures of central tendency and dispersion for the continuous variables. Quantitative data manipulation techniques will not be used on the discussion questions on pages 7 and 8 of the questionnaire. Some comparisons between selected responses from this study and those from the pilot study and earlier published reports will be made. Rudy King, Rocky Mountain Research Station Biometrician, Fort Collins, Colorado, has reviewed and helped design statistical analysis that will be used on the project.

The results of this study will be published as Forest Service research reports and in appropriate scientific journals. Reports and results will be provided to the forests under study and to the Southwestern Regional Office, U. S. Forest Service. We will provide all results and reports to the participants. Reports will also be available to other researchers and the public.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The expiration date of OMB approval will be displayed.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in item 19, "Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act."

There are no exceptions to the certification statement identified in item 19, "Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act."

Page 12