Supporting Statement Part A 0596-0129

The Supporting Statement for OMB 0596-0129

Day Use on Urban Proximate National Forests

March 2009

The Supporting Statement for OMB 0596-0129

Day Use on Urban Proximate National Forests

March 2009

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.

Laws, Statutes, and Regulations

• Public Law 95-307 (92 Stat. 353) Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978

Users of urban proximate National Forests come from a variety of ethnic/racial, income, age, educational, and other socio-demographic backgrounds. The activities pursued, information sources utilized, and site attributes preferred are just some of the items affected by these differences. Past studies completed through previously approved collection have provided baseline information from which managers have made decisions, revised forest plans, and renovated/redesigned recreation sites. Additional information is needed for the managers of urban proximate National Forests, in part to validate previous results and in part because of the continuously changing profile of the visitor population recreating on these National Forests. In the absence of the resultant information from the proposed series, the Forest Service will be ill-equipped to implement management changes required to respond to the needs and preferences of day use visitors. Study results will be provided to the resource managers of the urban proximate National Forests, as well as to managers across the United States addressing issues that are endemic to urban national forests, to enable more effective management of those areas. Results will also enlighten managers of broader community recreation patterns, interests, and resource concerns. A direct public benefit is anticipated through improvements in targeted resource-allocation based on community needs and recreation trends, customer service, more informed recreation management decisions, and increased attention to the diverse customer base served by the National Forests.

The proposed series is directly associated with our research mission statement and problem areas, as outlined in our Research Work Unit approval documents. A list of studies were submitted, reviewed, and approved during this process; this proposed series reflects the portion of studies to be conducted in-house, and requiring public contact during the proposed time period.

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.)

There are five sub-studies in this series. For each study there are common questions and a sub-set of specific questions related to one other topic. All participants will answer questions on the following topics: socio-demographic profile; National Forest visitation history and patterns; activity patterns; and why they recreate at particular sites. Each participant will respond to either study one, study two, study three, study four, or study five. In addition to the common questions, participants in study one will also answer questions about perceptions about management of natural areas and whether there are enough areas available. Participants in study two will also answer questions concerning their perceptions about safety on-site and in their neighborhoods. Participants in study three will also answer questions about barriers to recreation related to fire and fire management. Participants in study four will also answer questions about their observations of site conditions as well as the influence those conditions have on the site visit. Participants in study five will also answer questions about site development preferences.

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.

Information will be collected from recreation visitors to the urban National Forest day use areas in Southern California. Subjects will be contacted on-site to participate in the survey series. One hundred percent of respondents are individuals or households.

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

Urban proximate National Forests have used the information to assist in effective management of recreation activities and sites in the region studied. Data collected previously (expired but previously approved collection) has been used by the agency to institute forest newspapers, add site renovations to an existing picnic area, data-based redesign of recreation sites and in interpretive planning documents. Data results have also been presented at local, national and international meetings, and have been published in several outlets including Proceedings from those meetings, the Trends journal and the Western Journal of Applied Forestry as well as several peer-reviewed articles in Recreation, Parks, and Tourism journals. . Recent results were utilized in the four-forest planning process in Southern California (includes 4 National Forests). Results have been released in the Recreation Research Update (released to 1,400 people from multiple agencies), and were selected for inclusion in Federal Park & Recreation (Vol 19, Number 20, October 19, 2001).

The Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures Project will also use the information to further expand its information base on visitor characteristics, safety, fire management, and mitigation of inappropriate use and depreciative behaviors, such as vandalism. Collection of these data will provide opportunities for comparisons of visitor profiles and use shifts over time. If this information is not collected resource managers will have to make visitor based decisions on limited information. Findings of the proposed study series can greatly improve the decision-making tools and strategies used by managers of urban proximate National Forests, as well as other resource management agencies in the respective geographic regions.

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?

Survey questionnaires (one page, two-sided) will be given to potential respondents for on-site completion at urban proximate National Forests. Research teams will approach National Forest visitors and seek their participation in the study. Participation in this study is voluntary. The amount of completion time averages nine minutes.

4. How frequently will the information be collected?

Each year, one or two urban proximate National Forests will be selected to be studied. The instruments(s) to be used will be selected by site managers to best fit their needs.

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

Data results will be presented at local, national and international meetings, and published in several outlets including Proceedings from those meetings, leisure, recreation and tourism journals, and the research unit’s Recreation Research Update. This will make the results and application of the findings available beyond USDA.

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

This is an ongoing collection with no collection requirement changes.

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.

This collection does not include any automated or electronic methods. There are no plans in place to make this survey instrument available electronically. There are two main explanations for this decision. First, the data pertains to people who use the urban proximate National Forests so managers can obtain information about their actual customers. Second, I have found through field observations that many visitor groups prefer the face-to-face interaction that occurs on-site and they would not be inclined to participate if the survey were in electronic format. Using an electronic format also excludes people without Internet access. Accurate recollection of the experience is also likely to diminish over time, thereby making on-site data collection more suitable than electronic responses.

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.

The Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures Project knows of no other research efforts current or planned to collect the necessary information. The desired information is not currently available. There is another collection—the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE)—that is quite different from this collection. In part that is because NSRE is a national effort focusing on the general population (using telephone methodology) whereas this proposed collection covers specific trends in urban proximate National Forests (using a visitor contact methodology). Another primary difference is the kind of information being collected and the proposed use of that information because local or regional decision-making and management strategies cannot be made based upon national results.

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

This information collection does not impact small business or other small entities.

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.

Consequences would be a) decreased service delivery due to decreased quality, breadth, and validity of real-time information provided to resource managers on the socio-demographic profile of visitors, visitation history and patterns, activity patterns; questions about perceptions of uses of natural areas in general; perceptions about management of natural areas and whether there are enough areas available; perceptions about safety on-site and in their neighborhoods; perceptions about recreation use related to fire and fire management; and observations of site conditions as well as the influence those conditions have on the site visit; b) decreased ability to continue and expand approved research work unit’s assigned study topics such as understanding visitor profiles, safety, fire management, and mitigation of inappropriate uses and depreciative behaviors, such as vandalism; c) increased response time for inquiries into topics from managers and university contacts, d) increased dependency on cooperator availability to carry out research unit mission, and e) loss of information represented in follow-up longitudinal studies.

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.

A Federal Register Notice was published on September 19, 2008, Volume 73, page 54362. No comments were received in response to the notice.

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.

The document was reviewed by three university professors and a Station statistician for their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format, and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

• Dr. Vinod Sasidharan, San Diego State University, Dept. of Recreation, Parks & Tourism, (619) 594-4726

• Dr. Joanne F. Tynon, Oregon State University, Dept. of Forest Resources, (541) 737-1499

• Dr. Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis, University of Missouri, Dept. of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, (573) 882-9524

• Dr. Haiganoush Preisler, USDA Forest Service, Environmental Statistics Unit, (510) 559-6484

In addition, Edwin Anderson, NASS offered a review of the package. His comments have been incorporated into this package and will be attached to the submission. He raised some concerns that are not addressed in the package. Potential users are not a goal of the research and are not sampled. The current plan for random selection by site ensures forest representation so does not need a change. We guard against interviewer bias in the selection process by a thorough 2-day training session for interviewers. While we would like to conduct all data collection ourselves it is not feasible, thus the cost of cooperators increases the cost overall. We have to carefully consider the comparability of longitudinal data sets; changes in sampling or methodology compromises that comparability. This applies to his questions on income, education, language, and birth place. Also, the wording must follow Census survey wording. The use of U.S. median wage estimates is because the instrument goes beyond local areas so use of local wages might be inappropriate.

In addition, unsolicited comments were received from 5 survey participants during the summer of 2008. We did not collect their personal information as anonymity was assured in advance. They provided oral comments to the data collection team (students at California State University at San Bernardino). The comments were these:

“I think the forest can use this information to plan better. They should stay current with what visitors want.” (July 5, 2008)

“It (survey) was interesting and not too long.” (July 19, 2008)

“Not interested in completing the survey because the forest has fees to park vehicles.” (July 26, 2008)

“I filled this out once this summer already.” (August 6, 2008)

“I like being able to help the forest. You should not collect data all summer long and then again next summer.” (August 16, 2008)

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

No gifts or payments are planned for respondents.

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

Respondents will not include their name on the survey instrument. A respondent identification number will be assigned as protection in data handling. Only group responses will be reported. No information covered by a Privacy Act System of Records, Personally Identifiable Information, or other confidential information covered by a statute, regulation, or agency policy will be collected.

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.

No highly sensitive questions will be asked of respondents. Because each item requested is voluntary, respondents can skip any items they do not wish to respond to. Socio-demographic items to be gathered are standard in social science research. Because data will be kept anonymous, not linked to individuals in any publications or reports, and collected under voluntary response conditions, respondents are ensured anonymity.

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)

Table 1 -

(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)
On-site survey questionnaire		510	1	510	.147	75
Non-responses		90	1	90	.05	5
Totals	---	600	---	600	---	80

Participation is voluntary. The time burden is estimated to be 9 minutes for respondents including time to hear instructions, read questions, and provide responses. Persons contacted refusing to participate should they deem the time request disagreeable is estimated to be 3 minutes for non-responses. Based on a total of 600 respondents, the estimated annual burden is 80 hours.

• 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.

Table 2

(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
On-site survey questionnaire	80	$20.31	$1,625
Totals	80	---	$1,625

There is no cost to respondents other than the non-compensable value of their time in completion of the survey which is based on median wage estimates in the U.S of an estimate average of $20.31 per hour x 80 hours = $1,625.00 annually. Since participation is voluntary in each case, potential respondents may elect not to bear that time expense.

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 labor and materials for developing, printing, storing forms

• Employee labor and materials for developing computer systems, screens, or reports to support the collection

• Employee travel costs

• Cost of contractor services or other reimbursements to individuals or organizations assisting in the collection of information

• Employee labor and materials for collecting the information

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

Table 3

ACTION ITEM	PERSONNEL	GS LEVEL	HOURLY RATE*	HOURS	SALARY
Emp. Labor & materials for developing, printing, storing form	Social science technician	GS-7	15.77	120	$1,892.40
Emp. Labor for materials and developing data screens and reports, and analyzing	Social science analyst	GS-9	35.19	40	$1,407.60
Emp. Labor for reporting on the collected information	Research social scientist	GS-15	86.84	40	$3,473.60
Contractor services to assist data collection	Contractor				$48,000.00
Travel costs	Research Social Scientist				$2,000.00
Total					56,773.60

* Based on cost to government for 2009 wage rates.

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

There is no change from the previous submission

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

Each sub-component of the series will incorporate the following steps, with time frames based on need and scope of the particular sub-component. All data collection on this series will be completed within the requested three-year period, or a request for extension will be submitted. This proposed study framework implies a number of studies being conducted within the approved financial, time, and contact limits annually.

Detailed study plan development	1 month
Pre-test phase	1 month
Data collection	6 months
Data coding and analysis	2 months
Draft reporting and review internally	1 month
Final reporting internally External journal articles	1 month 1 year

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 agency plans to display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection on all instruments.

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

This information collection contains no exceptions to the certification statement.

Page 10