Freshwater Spills Symposium (FSS) Evaluation Form

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 4, 2009

SUBJECT: Request for OMB Clearance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Freshwater Spills Symposium (FSS) Evaluation Form under Voluntary Customer Satisfaction ICR 1711.05, OMB number 2090-0019

TO: Desk Officer for EPA

Office of Management and Budget

FROM: Leigh DeHaven

Office of Emergency Management

Regulation and Policy Development Division

THROUGH: Patricia A. Bonner

Customer Service Director

Office of the Administrator

Spencer W. Clark

ICR Desk Officer

Office of Environmental Information

Background:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPAs) Office of Emergency Management (OEM) promoted the first Freshwater Spills Symposium (FSS) in 1996, to offer an opportunity for federal, state, local and industry responders; natural resource trustees and managers; facility response planners and additional stakeholders to exchange knowledge targeted at the unique problems presented by freshwater oil spills.

The symposium, now held triennially, emphasizes the frequently understated impact of oil spills on inland water bodies. These spills have a higher potential for public contact and environmental contamination. They tend to occur close to populated or sensitive areas where valued resources and ecosystems, such as drinking water, endangered species and wetlands are threatened.

FSS encourages the transfer of technology, advances new ideas and provides a forum for the discussion of varied freshwater oil spill issues through a series of presentations, posters and panel discussions. By the efforts of highly regarded speakers and participants, the Freshwater Spills Symposium aims to further EPA’s understanding of the challenges posed by oil spills in freshwater environments, and to expand the resources and information currently available.

EPA OEM seeks to better understand the benefits of the symposium and the efficiency of interactions with collaborating partners. Distributing a FSS Evaluation Form during the symposium will help FSS organizers excel at strengths and improve weaknesses based on the analyzed information. Stakeholder perspectives are necessary for FSS to achieve its full potential and continue the standard of excellence that participants expect.

Evaluation Purpose and Description:

The purpose of the voluntary evaluation form is to provide OEM with specific recommendations on how to better satisfy collaborating partners and meet symposium participant needs and expectations. The evaluation form consists of 12 general questions which will address the following:

1. Satisfaction of the participants with the quality of information they have received while attending different sessions at the FSS

2. Convenience of FSS timing and location

3. Suggestions for improvement and additional comments

Methodology and Use of the Questionnaire:

The anonymous evaluation will be disseminated during registration and administered in a handout format at the end of each session. The forms will be collected by FSS organizers. Feedback and evaluation of responses will be analyzed by the project leads for identification of opportunities to improve service. The team will retain an electronic copy of the captured data and analysis for 3 years after the completion of the collection. The evaluation form consists of 12 questions which deal with participant satisfaction with FSS presentations, materials, and/or resources. The breakout session and short course evaluation questions (3 questions each) will only be completed by the maximum capacity of each section—80 participants.

Response analysis will enable us to determine whether the support EPA OEM has provided under this initiative has met the needs of stakeholders. Although Overall Symposium Question 5 is not satisfaction based, it is measuring timing and location as an important factor for attending the next FSS. Responses will assist the evaluation team in providing recommendations for where to stage FSS 2012, and therefore increasing participant satisfaction with timing and location.

All responses will be stored in a database. The resources invested in implementing recommendations will vary annually depending on results, availability of funds and competing priorities.

Respondents Burden

The evaluation form is completely voluntary and lists 12 questions in total: 6 for the overall symposium, 3 for the short course, and 3 for a breakout session. FSS will have approximately 300 attendees, and there is an 80 person maximum capacity for each breakout session and short course. Though it is possible that the breakout session questionnaire could be filled out multiple times depending on the number of sessions attended, it is unlikely that all participants will answer and return the survey forms. As a conservative estimate, EPA is using the full 300 participants to calculate the burden for the symposium, assuming that all participants will fill out the complete questionnaire one time. It should take respondents approximately 13 minutes to complete the 12 questions. This amounts to a total annual burden of about 65 total burden hours over all respondents.

Agency Burden

The estimated total annual burden hours for EPA’s Office of Emergency Management represents the amount of time used for feedback collection, analysis and reporting.

Table 1: Total Annual Internal Burden

Labor Category	Hours	Cost
Environmental Protection Specialist	15	$525 ($35/hr)
Management	15	$525 ($35/hr)
Administrative	10	$350 ($35/hr)
Total	40 hours	$1,400

EPA ICR No. 1711.05

OMB Control No. 2090-0019

EXPIRATION DATE: 8/30/2009

Proposed list of Questions

For federal, state, local, and industry responders; natural resource trustees and managers; facility response planners; and additional stakeholders receiving services from EPA’s Office of Emergency Management.

The Office of Emergency Management is seeking feedback from those we work with in protecting the environment. We welcome your responses to the questions below, as well as any additional suggestions or comments. (Responses will be collected by a third party and will remain anonymous.)

Overall Symposium

1. Please identify the organization(s) you are associated with.

1. Federal Agency

2. State Organization

3. Industry

4. Community Organization

2. For the following, please rate your satisfaction with EPA’s Office of Emergency Management Freshwater Spills Symposium on a scale of 1-6, with 1 being dissatisfied and 6 being extremely satisfied.

1. Registration

1

2

3

4

5

6

2. Short Courses

1

2

3

4

5

6

3. Plenary Session

1

2

3

4

5

6

4. Breakout Session

1

2

3

4

5

6

5. Facilities

1

2

3

4

5

6

3. What is your overall rating of the Freshwater Spills Symposium?

1

2

3

4

5

6

4. What addition to the next Freshwater Spills Symposium would increase your level of satisfaction?

5. If timing and location are convenient, do you plan on attending the next Freshwater Spills Symposium?

Yes

No

6. Please provide any additional suggestions or comments you have.

Breakout Sessions

Breakout Session Title:

1. For the following, please rate your satisfaction of the breakout session you attended on a scale of 1-6, with 1 being dissatisfied and 6 being extremely satisfied.

1. The session was informative.

1

2

3

4

5

6

2. The session material was useful.

1

2

3

4

5

6

3. The instructor interacted well with the audience.

1

2

3

4

5

6

4. The room set-up was appropriate for the session.

1

2

3

4

5

6

5. The session was well organized.

1

2

3

4

5

6

6. The session was relevant to the Symposium.

1

2

3

4

5

6

2. How satisfied are you that all issues were covered?

1

2

3

4

5

6

3. Please provide any suggestions or comments you have.

Short Courses

Course Title:

1. For the following, please rate your satisfaction of the short course you attended on a scale of 1-6, with 1 being dissatisfied and 6 being extremely satisfied.

a. The course was informative.

1

2

3

4

5

6

b. The course material will be useful to me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

c. The instructors interacted well with the audience.

1

2

3

4

5

6

d. The room set-up was appropriate for the course.

1

2

3

4

5

6

e. The session was relevant to the Symposium.

1

2

3

4

5

6

f. The overall quality of the session was high.

1

2

3

4

5

6

2. How satisfied are you that all issues were covered?

3. Please provide any suggestions or comments you have.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one (1) minute per question, plus one (1) minute per survey to review instructions, gather information, and review selections. Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggestions for reducing the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OEI Collection Strategies Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460-0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management & Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1711.05 and the OMB control number 2090-0019 in any correspondence.

6