Justification Form





Justification for an Information Collection under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service’s Federal Lands Transportation Generic Clearance (OMB Control No. 0596-0236)



November 2017



Justification for Submission under Federal Lands Transportation Generic Clearance (OMB Control Number 0596-0236)

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service Office of Regulatory and Management Services

Forest Service Tracking Number: (for internal use only) 2017 – xx – FS

			Date Submitted to Forest Service/USDA:	10/16/2017
1.	IC Title:	Region 1 Survey to Inform Forest Planning, Monitoring and Management of Forests in Region 1
2.	Bureau/Office:	USDA Forest Service



3.

Abstract: (not to exceed 150 words) The study will identify visitor perspectives and local stakeholder opinions about management policies. A brief survey will be conducted of randomly selected stakeholder households. The self-administered questionnaire will be mailed to households and take 15 minutes to complete. The data will be analyzed by Forest Service employees and University of Montana staff and faculty. The results will describe recreation patterns, users’ key issues with their experiences, barriers to local stakeholder participation, and local stakeholder opinions of management actions. These results will be used, along with corporate data, to meet the monitoring requirements for the 2012 Planning Rule to monitor contributions to social sustainability, and specifically how forest plans contribute to connecting people to nature and supporting vibrant communities. This information will inform recreation and resource management planning on forests in Region 1 in order to maximize contributions to social sustainability, as per the 2012 Planning Rule requirements.

4.

Bureau/Office Point of Contact Information

First Name:

Rebecca

Last Name:

Rasch

Title:

Regional Social Scientist

Bureau/Office:

Region 1, Regional Office

Street Address:

Building 26, Fort Missoula Road

City:

Missoula

State:

MT

Zip code:

59808

Phone:

406-329-3696

Fax:

406-329-3411

Email:

[email protected]

5.

Principal Investigator (PI) Information [If different from #4]

First Name:

Patrick

Last Name:

Barkey

Title:

Director, Bureau of Business and Economic Research

Bureau/Office:

Bureau of Business and Economic Research

Address:

Gallagher Business Building, 32 Campus DR., #6840, University of Montana

City:

Missoula

State:

MT

Zip code:

59812

Phone:

406-243-5513

Fax:

406-243-2086

Email:

[email protected]

6.

Lead agency IC Clearance Officer Reviewing the IC:

First Name

Nicholas

Last Name

DiProfio

Title

Program Analyst

Phone

202-205-1082

Email

[email protected]

7.

Description of Population/Potential respondents

The survey population is all households within Census County Divisions (CCD) which are located within 50 miles of Forest Service Region 1 land boundaries. The size of the population is approximately 350,000 households.

8.

IC Dates

(mm/dd/yyyy)

to

(mm/dd/yyyy)

01/01/2018

03/01/2018

9.

Type of Information Collection Instrument (Check ALL that Apply)

_Intercept

__Telephone

_X_Mail

_X_Web-based

__Focus Groups

__Comment Cards

__Other

Explain:

10. Instrument Development:

(Who assisted in content development? Statistics? Was the instrument pretested? How were improvements integrated?)

The survey instrument was drafted using the list of pre-approved CVTS questions. The initial draft was prepared by Forest Service staff and the University of Montana faculty. The survey methods and instruments for this study were reviewed by recreation project managers on forests in Region 1, social scientists and recreation managers at the BLM Montana/Dakotas office, the regional planning director, regional recreation manager, social science faculty at the University of Montana College of Forestry, the principal investigator at the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana and a social scientist and CVTS clearance manager at VOLPE. Further, the questions in this survey are similar (and in many cases identical) to those used in previous studies at several other National Forest recreation areas and NPs that were reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget as part of the Federal Land Management Agencies Compendium of Questions (OMB Control No. 0596-0236).

Moreover, pre-testing and consultation were conducted with 9 volunteer participants identified by the BBER with no specific background or training in survey research methods or analysis (i.e., representative of the general public, rather than survey experts). In particular, the individuals were asked to complete the questionnaire, and asked a series of debriefing questions after to elicit their feedback on the practical utility of the study, questionnaire/respondent burden, quality and clarity of the questionnaires and instructions, and ways to minimize respondent burden.

Results from the pre-testing were incorporated into the survey instrument.

11. Which of the five areas from the Compendium of Questions will be addressed in your IC? (Check all that apply). .

X Topic Area #1: Respondent characteristics

X Topic Area #2: Traveler Information

X Topic Area #3: Trip behaviors

X Topic Area #4: Assessment of Visitor Experiences and Transportation-Related Facilities, Conditions,

and Services

• Topic Area #5: Economic Impact and Visitor Spending/Costs

In addition, for each question in your survey instrument (or discussion guide, comment card, etc), please indicate the Compendium Topic Area and the unique question identifier from the Compendium. If the question is not taken from the Compendium, indicate “NEW”. See the instructions for a sample table.

As this survey will be administered via household, not at the site, all site-specific references in the compendium questions were modified to refer to local public lands. All trip specific references were modified to refer to a typical trip. Any additional modifications are noted in the table below.

Survey Question Number	Compendium Question Identifier	Additional Modification Y/N	Explanation
1	n/a		Question to identify who will complete the survey
2	RESPRO2	Y	Added more options as a purpose of lands
3	RESPRO2	Y	Added more options as a purpose of lands
4	RESPRO2	y	Added more options as a purpose of lands
5	OPIN1	Y	Amended transportation management options to management options
6	OPIN1	Y	Amended transportation management options to management options
7	SAFE1	y	Modified from open ended to close ended answer format
8	SAFE1	Y	Modified from open ended to close ended answer format
9	OPIN4	Y	Added more management options
10	OPIN4	Y	Added more management options
11	VHIS1	N
12	VHIS2	Y	Amended to only include public lands, not divided by land ownership
13	TACT4	Y	Modified to include frequency of participation in each activity
14	TACT4	Y	Modified to include frequency of participation in each activity
15	TACT4	Y	Modified to specify activity type and include frequency of participation in each activity
16	TACT9	Y	Split multiple part questions into 3 separate questions
17	TACT9	Y	Split multiple part questions into 3 separate questions
18	TACT9	Y	Split multiple part questions into 3 separate questions
19	VHIS19	N
20	EVAL18	Y	Modified to refer to visit in general and amended options
21	EVAL21	Y	Modified and added issues to issues list and Separated two part question into two questions
22	EVAL21	Y	Modified and added issues to issues list and separated two part question into two questions
23	EVAL21	Y	Separated two part question into two questions
24	GEN1	N
25	AGE5	N
26	ETHNIC1	N
27	RACE2	N
28	LANG4	Y	Separated two part question into two questions
29	LANG4	Y	Separated two part question into two questions
30	EDU1	N
31	HOU2	N
32	RES10	Y	Amended to ask if permanent or seasonal resident
33	RES12	N
34	RES14	N
35	EMP3	Y	Amended to include more employment statuses
36	INC1	N

12. Methodology:

(Use as much space as needed; if necessary include additional explanation on separate page).

Respondent Universe

The respondent universe is all local stakeholders of Forest Service Region 1 lands. The universe is defined as all households within Census County Divisions (CCD) which are located within 50 miles of Forest Service Region 1 land boundaries. The size of the universe is approximately 350,000 households (American Community Survey, US Census 2016).

Sampling Plan/Procedure

The sample of households within the CCDs will be randomly selected from a list of occupied residences (single-family and group residences). The list is known as the U.S. Postal Service’s Computerized Delivery Sequence File (CDSF). This list covers between 95% and 99% of all adults in the United States (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014). The Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana has extensive experience surveying this population and has designed the sampling procedure. The sample will be stratified by population characteristics including age and Native American population.

Instrument Administration

BBER will administer the survey using a self-administered data collection (as opposed to interviewer-administered, i.e. telephone) to minimize the risk of possible under-coverage bias in the data collected caused by the current prevalence of the use of cellular telephones. According to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, as of December 2015 about 47.7%% of all households were cell phone-only (Blumberg & Luke, 2016). In addition, research has shown that 10% of a cell phone owners live in a state that is different from the number associated with their cell telephone number, and 40% of cell phone owners live in a different county from the number associated with their cell telephone number (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014). This disassociation of cell telephone numbers from geography leads to exclusion of people from telephone surveys at a rate that is particularly worrisome when conducting survey research on limited geographic areas.

BBER will print, assemble, and mail all contacts with the adult residents surveyed. The first contact respondents will receive is a pre-survey notification letter. The primary purpose of the pre-notice letter is to provide a positive and timely notice that the recipient will be receiving a request to help with an important study (Dillman 2009). It will be brief, personalized, positively worded, and aimed at building anticipation rather than providing the details or conditions for participation in the survey. A secondary purpose of the pre-notice is to determine how many of the sampled addresses are undeliverable. Undeliverable addresses will be corrected if possible and a second pre-notice will then be mailed.

The pre-notice will also provide respondents the option to complete the survey using the Internet. The pre-survey notice will present a secure, unique hyperlink to the survey that can be easily typed into the respondent’s Internet browser. Some respondents prefer using the Internet to complete surveys, and the administration cost for this option is quite low which lowers overall survey cost.

This survey’s next respondent contact will be a thank you/reminder letter. The letter will be mailed one week after the initial letter. The primary purpose of this letter is to jog the memory of respondents who have not yet responded. A secondary purpose is to thank those who have responded. Again, the letter will offer respondents the option to complete the survey using the Internet.

The survey’s third contact with respondents will be the questionnaire packet. The packet will be mailed first class about one week after the reminder notice. The packet will consist of a cover letter, the questionnaire, and a return envelope. The cover letter will be no more than one page in length and will be printed on appropriate letterhead, and will again offer respondents the option to complete the survey using the Internet. The questionnaire will be in booklet format with an attractive cover. A commemorative postage stamp will be placed on the return envelope.

BBER will follow the first questionnaire packet mailing with a second questionnaire packet mailing to only those respondents who have not yet responded either by mail or via the Internet. This mailing will follow the previous by 2-3 weeks. The physical look of this mailing and the content of the cover letter will vary from the previous contacts in order to maximize response.

BBER will document case status in a manner that allows calculation and reporting of a unit response rate. Unit response rate is:

I / (I+P+NC+R+NI)

Where

I = completed surveys

P = partial surveys

NC = noncontacted but known eligible units

R = refused eligible units

NI = other non-surveyed units.

Expected Response Rate and Confidence Levels

Selecting a random sample of 4,000 households is expected to yield approximately 1,000 completed questionnaires. The target response rate is approximately 25 percent. This response rate is realistic as it is similar to that obtained from similar information collections by the BBER University of Montana of this population.

Estimates derived from 1,000 survey completions will have a 95% confidence interval of +/- 3%.

Strategies for dealing with potential non-response bias

Strategies for potential non-response bias are incorporated into the survey administration plan. Households will be contacted on a maximum of four occasions to reduce non-responses.

Additionally, the notification letter with be adjusted with each contact to appeal to those less likely to respond.

If the first notification attempt is unsuccessful, a follow up letter will be sent. If the follow up letter is unsuccessful, a survey packet will be sent If the first survey packet is not returned, a second survey packet will be sent. This method of repeated contact of non-respondents should yield a higher response rate and reduce non-response bias in the data.

The BBER has used these methods on this population frequently and achieved success in minimizing non-response bias.

The demographics of survey respondents will be compared with the demographics of the CCDs to determine whether respondents are statistically significantly different from the CCD population.

The results will provide insight as to whether those who did not respond were systematically different than those who did respond. We will provide both weighted and unweighted estimates if the data show there is significant non-response bias in the sample.

Description of any pre-testing and peer review of the methods and/or instrument (recommended)

The survey methods and instruments for this study were reviewed by more than 15 experts in social science, survey research and forest management. The draft survey instrument was reviewed by a social scientist at VOLPE (CVTS program manager), two research social scientists at the University of Montana College of Forestry, a recreation program manager and an economist at the BLM, a research social scientist at the USGS social science analysis division, three forest-level recreation program managers, the regional recreation program manager, the regional planner, the regional inventory and monitoring coordinator, the regional trails manager, the regional Wilderness manager, and the team of researchers at the BBER.

The questions in this survey are similar, and in many cases identical, to those used in previous studies at several other national forest recreation areas and national parks that were reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget as part of the Federal Land Management Agencies Compendium of Questions (OMB Control No. 0596-0236).

Pre-testing and consultation were conducted with 9 volunteer participants identified by the USFS, and with no specific background or training in survey research methods or analysis (i.e., representative of the general public, rather than survey experts). In particular, the individuals were asked to complete the questionnaire, and asked a series of debriefing questions after to elicit their feedback on the practical utility of the study, questionnaire/respondent burden, quality and clarity of the questionnaires and instructions, and ways to minimize respondent burden. Participants were also asked to indicate if they had any difficulty or confusion with skip patterns, multi-item response scales, and/or instructions for recording responses (e.g., “Please mark one button (X) for each item”).

The feedback from the pre-test participants was positive. Participants indicated that the layout of the questionnaires, and question wording were straightforward, which helps to minimize respondent burden. Participants reported no trouble with skip patterns, multi-item response scales, and instructions for recording responses.

The time it took each respondent to complete the questionnaire was recorded by the pre-test administrators: 10 to 15 minutes was the typical response time. This finding helps to validate the burden estimates reported in the submission, and suggests that participation in the study does not cause undue/excessive respondent burden. Finally, the completed questionnaires were inspected by the pre-test administrators, after the pre-test was concluded. Inspection of the completed questionnaire indicated that respondents followed skip patterns correctly, answered all of the relevant questions, and recorded their answers correctly.

Participants in the pre-test offered minor suggestions to improve the wording or format of specific questions in the survey instruments, and revisions to the questionnaires were made accordingly.

13.

Total Number of Initial Contacts and Expected Number of Respondents

Initial Contacts: 4,000

Expected Respondents: 1,000

14.

Estimated Time to Complete Initial Contact and Time to Complete Instrument

Initial contact: 1 minute

Instrument completion: 15 minutes

15.

Total Burden Hours

Contacts

Respondents

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

Total

Contacts: 4,000

Respondents: 1,000

Total: ~16 minutes per respondent = 266.7 hours; 3,000 non-responses x 4 minute = 200 hours.

Total = 466.7 hrs.

16. Reporting Plan: Presentations will be made to explain the findings and their implications to the following groups: regional leadership team, ten forest and grassland leadership teams, regional and forest level program managers, faculty at the University of Montana College of Forestry, Society and Conservation department, students in the Society and Conservation major at the University of Montana College of Forestry, and stakeholder groups. The results of this information collection activity will be presented in an internal agency report to the Forest Service Region 1 regional leadership team. The project results may be published in a peer-reviewed scientific publications discussing the methods, results, and conclusions, and recognizing the support given by the USFS.

17. Justification, Purpose, and Use:
IC Justification and Purpose	The Region 1 Regional Office of the Forest Service is proposing to conduct a survey of local stakeholders in order to determine what new and existing activities are in highest demand, how visitors evaluate the quality of their experience, and local visitor and stakeholder opinions about management policies and priorities. Region 1 of the Forest Service contains nine forests and one grassland across Montana, Northern Idaho, South Dakota and North Dakota. Forests and grasslands in the region receive approximately 5.8 million visits annually from stakeholders residing with 50 miles of Region 1 lands. Visits from those travelling less than 50 miles account for approximately 66 percent of all visits to the forests and grasslands in the region. The data collected from this public survey will help the recreation managers and social scientists in meeting monitoring requirements for forest planning, specifically, monitoring of recreation resources and contributions to social sustainability. The data will also be used to inform recreation planning and forest management efforts. Below are the relevant Forest Service rules and guidance which justify this information collection. 2012 Planning Rule The 2012 Planning Rule states that: § 219.8 Sustainability. The plan must provide for social, economic, and ecological sustainability within Forest Service authority and consistent with the inherent capability of the plan area, as follows: (b) Social and economic sustainability. The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to guide the plan area’s contribution to social and economic sustainability, taking into account: 1) Social, cultural, and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan; 2) Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, and access; and scenic character; 3) Multiple uses that contribute to local, regional, and national economies in a sustainable manner; 4) Ecosystem services; 5) Cultural and historic resources and uses; and 6) Opportunities to connect people with nature. (36 CFR 219.8) 7) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. (36 CFR 219.10 (a)). The 2012 Planning Rule requires that each forest plan have a monitoring plan, which includes monitoring questions to identify whether or not the plan in moving towards desired conditions. Conducting this survey will help the nine forests and one grassland in the region identify whether they are moving towards the desired conditions for recreation resources and contributions to social sustainability, as required by the Rule. The data collected will be used in the regional broad scale monitoring effort to increase efficiency in data collection and monitoring across the region. The proposed survey will help the region in determining the needs of the public in achieving the desired conditions outlined in forest plan monitoring plans across the region. These include monitoring the following desired conditions and management approaches, which are proposed for forests in the region currently undergoing plan revision: Desired Condition - Key forest benefits including: clean air, clean water and aquatic ecosystems, management of terrestrial ecosystems, education and volunteer programs, flood control, infrastructure, forest products, mineral and energy resources, preservation of historic, cultural, tribal or archeological sites, geologic features, grazing, scenery, recreation and designated areas contribute to the well-being, quality of life and health and safety of the public. Goal - Engagement with local agencies, partner organizations and the public is a central part of ecosystem goods and services related planning, particularly in environmental justice communities where residents are more vulnerable to shifts in social and economic conditions. Management Approaches - The Forest can analyze impacts of potential management actions on contributions to the quality of life and health and safety of the public. The 2012 Planning Rule requires that national forests conduct monitoring of recreation resources and contributions to social sustainability. In order to follow requirements for the use of best available scientific information (BASI) for forest plan monitoring, surveys are the recommended monitoring tool. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) : NFMA requires that the Forest Service: "(1) provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained therefrom in accordance with the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and in particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness;” "(d) The Secretary shall provide for public participation in the development, review, and revision of land management plans including, but not limited to, making the plans or revisions available to the public at convenient locations in the vicinity of the affected unit for a period of at least three months before final adoption, during which period the Secretary shall publicize and hold public meetings or comparable processes at locations that foster public participation in the review of such plans or revisions. "Sec. 14. Public Participation and Advisory Boards.--(a) In exercising his authorities under this Act and other laws applicable to the Forest Service, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give the Federal, State, and local governments and the public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment upon the formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs.
IC Goals	The goal of this project is to collect information that will meet the monitoring requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule for forest plan revision to monitor recreation resources and contributions to social sustainability. This information will inform US Forest Service managers in upcoming recreation planning efforts for the region. In particular, the survey instrument in this study is designed to collect information about stakeholders’ perceptions, experiences, and expectations, with respect to recreation opportunities, management preferences and visitor experience. The information collection is also designed to help identify recreation related issues experienced by visitors to forests in the region, and assess visitors’ opinions about recreation planning and management processes.
Utility to Managers	Results will identify the top priorities of the public, issues of management concern and locations of visitor conflict. This information will be incorporated into future resource management and recreation planning for the region. This information will also be incorporated into required forest plan monitoring reports and used to inform the regional broad-scale monitoring effort.
How will the results of the IC be analyzed and used?	Information from the paper questionnaire will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet, and then imported for analysis into Stata SE14, which is a well-established, common statistical software package. Information from the web-based survey will be exported into an Excel spreadsheet and then imported into Stata SE 14. All data will be stored in electronic and hardcopy, and archived according to established data management procedures required by the Federal Government. The project manager will verify the quality of questionnaire electronic data entry. Upon study completion, the survey data collected in this study will be available from the USFS in a suitable electronic format, along with proper documentation. Results will identify any issues of management concern or locations of visitor conflict. This will be incorporated into future resource management and recreation planning for forests in Region 1 of the Forest Service.
How will the data be tabulated? What Statistical Techniques will be used to generalize the results to the entire customer population? How will limitations on use of data be handled? If the survey results in a lower than anticipated response rate, how will you address this when reporting the results? (Use as much space as needed; if necessary include additional explanation on separate page). Survey questions include a mix of data types, including nominal (e.g., activity participation), ordinal (e.g., 5-point Likert-type attitude scales), and qualitative (e.g., descriptions). We will report frequency distributions for all variables and means and standard errors for each interval-level variable. Differences between managerially relevant subgroups (e.g., visitors who engage in different activities) will be tested with Analysis of Variance (alpha = .05). Based on the projected sample size (1,000 completed questionnaires), there will be 95% confidence that the findings from the survey will be accurate to within 3 percentage points, and will have a power level greater than 0.80 for the range of statistical tests that will be conducted with the data in this study (two-tailed independent samples t-tests, multi-group Analysis of Variance, and chi-square tests of independence), at the .05 alpha-level. This level of accuracy and statistical power is generally accepted as sufficient in peer-reviewed social science quantitative studies. Thus, the proposed sample size will be adequate for bi-variate and multi-group comparisons. Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative survey data collected in this study will use standard methods for survey research in parks and recreation settings.
Is this survey intended to measure a Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance measure? If so, please include an excerpt from the appropriate document. (Use as much space as needed; if necessary include additional explanation on separate page). This IC is not intended to measure a GPRA performance measure.

Certification Form for Submission Under OMB Control Number 0596-0236

This form should only be used if you are submitting a collection of information for approval under the USDA-Forest Service Federal Lands Transportation Generic Clearance.

If the collection does not satisfy the requirements of the Generic Clearance, you should follow the regular PRA clearance procedures described in 5 CFR 1320.

Bureau/Office – USDA, US Forest Service, Region 1
IC Title (Please be specific) Region 1 Survey to Inform Forest Planning, Monitoring and Management of Forests in Region 1
Estimated Number Contacts Respondents		Initial Contacts: 4000 Expected Respondents: 1000		Time per Response Contacts Respondents		Initial contact: 1 minute Instrument completion: 15 minutes
Contacts: 4,000 Respondents: 1,000 Total: ~16 minutes per respondent = 266.7 hours; 3,000 non-responses x 4 minute = 200 hours. Total = 466.7 hrs.				Total Burden Hours Contacts Respondents ------------ Total		1,000 responses x 16 minutes = 266.7 hours; 3,000 non-responses x 4 minute = 200 hours. Total = 466.7 hrs.
Bureau/Office Contact (who can best answer questions about content of the submission): US Forest Service – Region 1 Regional Office, Regional Social Scientist
Name	Rebecca Rasch, PhD – [email protected]		Phone	406-214-8256
Certification: The collection of information requested by this submission meets the requirements of OMB control number 0596-0236
Bureau/Office Qualified Statistician David Hancock, USDA, NASS					DATE
Bureau/Office Information Collection Clearance Officer Nick DiProfio, Program Analyst, FS					DATE
Forest Service, Office of Regulatory and Management Services Charlene Parker, OCIO					DATE

1