Justification





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)



July 2018



Introduction: Federal Lands Transportation Generic Clearance Submission, OMB Control Number 0596-0236



The Federal Lands Transportation Generic Clearance is intended to help Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) measure visitors’ transportation-related experiences in order to improve on any transportation-related issues or problems and to promote planning across land units, regionally and nationally.

A brief overview of the steps involved in submitting an Information Collection Request (ICR) is provided below. For more detailed information, along with a list of bureau/office contacts, please see the Best Practices and Guidance document developed specifically for this generic clearance.

(See: http://volpe-public-lands.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/flma_lrtp_cvts/documents/Guidance_FLMA_CVTSproject.pdf).

1. If more than one bureau/office (e.g., FWS and BLM) is collaborating on an IC, the partners must select a “lead” bureau/office to spearhead the effort, along with a contact person from the lead bureau/office.

2. The Information Collection Clearance Officer (ICCO) from the lead bureau/office must review the ICR and provide feedback to the lead bureau/office contact.

3. After the ICCO review has been completed (including a review by the DOI Information Collection Clearance Coordinator), the ICCO must forward the ICR to the USDA Forest Service and copy the FLMA Generic Clearance Coordinator ([email protected]

4. After the Forest Service ICCO review, the USDA Departmental Clearance Officer submits the ICR to the OMB desk officer for the Forest Service via ROCIS.

5. The OMB desk officer reviews the ICR and provides comments. The lead bureau/office revises the ICR as necessary. Upon approval by OMB, a Notice of Action is issued.

Instructions for Completing the Justification Form

1. Information Collection (IC) Title/Date Submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Office of Regulatory and Management Services: Insert title for the proposed IC (e.g., survey, focus group, comment card, etc.). Insert date that the expedited approval package will be submitted to Forest Service. Reminder: Please submit the package through the lead bureau/office Information Collection Clearance Officer and copy the FLMA Generic Clearance Coordinator.

2. Lead Bureau/Office: Insert the name of the lead bureau/office conducting the survey.

3. Abstract: Summarize the proposed study with an abstract not to exceed 150 words.

4. Bureau/Office Point of Contact Information: Complete the bureau/office contact information. Forest Service will communicate with OMB initially and then direct them to the point of contact listed here (and to the IC Clearance Officer listed in #6 below) throughout the remainder of the approval process. Forest Service should be included on any correspondence pertaining to this IC.

5. Principal Investigator (PI) Conducting the IC: Complete information about the PI who will be conducting the IC, if different than Point of Contact listed in #4. Otherwise note: Same as #4.

6. Lead bureau/office IC Clearance Officer Reviewing the IC: Provide the name and contact information for the ICCO from the lead bureau/office who reviewed the IC.

7. IC Dates: List the time period in which the IC will be conducted, including specific starting and ending dates. The starting date should be at least 45 days after the submission date. The request for expedited approval, and submission of a complete and accurate approval package, must be made at least 45 calendar days prior to the first day the PI wishes to begin the IC.

8. Type of IC Instrument: Check the type(s) of information collection instrument(s) that will be used. If other, please explain.

9. Data Collection Instrument: Explain how the data collection method and instrument (e.g., survey, interview guides, discussion guides, etc.) were developed. With whom did you consult during the development? Who were the social science and/or statistical experts who reviewed the instruments? How did you address any concerns raised or improvements suggested? Did you pretest the data collection instrument? If yes, how did you address any concerns raised or improvements suggested? (Note: A description of any pre-testing and peer review of the methods and/or instrument is highly recommended.)

10. Which of the six topic areas from the Compendium of Questions will be addressed in your IC? Check all that apply. For each question in your survey (or discussion guide or comment card), please indicate the Compendium Topic Area and the unique question identifier from the Compendium. For any questions that are not taken from the Compendium, please indicate “NEW” in the table.

Sample table:

Survey Question Number	Compendium Topic Area	Compendium Question Identifier
Q1	#1- Respondent characteristics	GROUP1
Q2	#1- Respondent characteristics	VHIS7
Q3	#2 Traveler Information	TINFO1
Q4	#2 Traveler Information	NEW
Etc.

11. Methodology: Explain how the IC will be conducted. Provide a description of the methodology including: (a) The population of interest (b) How will the users/visitors be sampled? (if fewer than all users/visitors will be surveyed); (c) What percentage of users/visitors asked to participate will respond, and (d) What actions are planned to increase the response rate? If statistics are generated, this description must be specific and include each of the following:

- The respondent universe,

- The sampling plan and all sampling procedures;

- How the instrument will be administered;

- Expected response rate and confidence levels; and

- Strategies for dealing with potential non-response bias.

Note: Web-based surveys are not an acceptable method of sampling a broad population. If a survey is completely web-based, it must be limited to services provided by the web site. However, it is appropriate to use web-based surveys in combination with other methods, such as an in person intercept.

12. Total Number of Initial Contacts and Expected Number of Respondents: Provide an estimated total number of initial contacts and the total number of expected respondents.

13. Estimated Time to Complete Initial Contact and Time to Complete Survey Instrument: Estimate the time to complete the initial contact and the time to complete the information collection (e.g., survey, comment card, focus group, etc.)(in minutes).

14. Total Burden Hours: Provide the total number of burden hours. The total burden hours should account for the amount of time required to instruct the respondents and the amount of time required for the respondent to complete the survey (or other data collection mechanism).

15. Reporting Plan: Provide a brief description of the reporting plan for the data being collected.

16. Justification, Purpose and Use: Provide a brief justification for the information collection, its purpose, goals, and use (including utility to managers). Specifically, describe how data will be tabulated and what statistical techniques will be used to generalize the results to the entire user population. Describe how data from the survey will be used. Describe how you will acknowledge any limitations related to the data, particularly in cases where we obtain a lower than anticipated response rate. Note whether or not the information collection is intended to measure a Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance measure.

Instructions for Checklist

Review the checklist to ensure you have met the requirements for submission and that your approval package includes the required items.

Instructions for Certification Form:

Complete the Form and include the names of those who certify that the Justification Form meets the requirements of the generic clearance (OMB control number 0596-0236).

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)

			Date Submitted to Forest Service/USDA:
1.	IC Title:	Lake Sidney Lanier Boater Survey
2.	Bureau/Office:	U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District



3.

Abstract: (not to exceed 150 words) The purpose of this survey is to gather information that will support a recreational carrying capacity study for Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia. The survey will gather information on user experiences, perceptions, and preferences in regards to crowding and transportation safety. The contractor will collect and analyze data to determine boater’s perceptions of the resource, social conditions, and management of the lake. Results of the recreational carrying capacity study will be used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the update of the Lake Sidney Lanier Master Plan and Shoreline Management Plan in order to evaluate and compare the effects of alternative scenarios of development and use levels on recreation, public safety and the environment

4.

Bureau/Office Point of Contact Information

First Name:

Meredith

Last Name:

LaDart

Title:

Project Manager

Bureau/Office:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

Street Address:

109 St. Joseph Street

City:

Mobile

State:

AL

Zip code:

36602

Phone:

(251) 690-2608

Fax:

Email:

[email protected]

5.

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

First Name:

Jamie

Last Name:

Childers

Title:

Project Manager

Bureau/Office:

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Address:

1899 Powers Ferry Road, SE, Suite 400

City:

Atlanta

State:

GA

Zip code:

30339

Phone:

770-738-6043

Fax:

770-850-0949

Email:

[email protected]

6.

Lead agency IC Clearance Officer Reviewing the IC:

First Name

Christie

Last Name

King

Title

Chief Information Services Branch & USACE Records Program Manager

Phone

(202) 761-7138

Email

[email protected]

7.

IC Dates

(mm/dd/yyyy)

to

(mm/dd/yyyy)

06/01/2018

09/4/2018

8.

Type of Information Collection Instrument (Check ALL that Apply)

X_Intercept

__Telephone

X_Mail

__Electronic

__Interviews

__Focus Groups

__Comment Cards

__Other

Explain:

9. Instrument and Method Development:

Who assisted in development of the methodology, questionnaire and/or statistics? Describe any pre-testing and/or peer review that was conducted. How were improvements integrated?

The survey methods and instruments for this study were reviewed by Project Managers and social scientists from the Tetra Tech Team, the study contractor. Questions were developed by selecting appropriate questions from the FLMA’s Compendium of Survey Questions and grouping and ordering them in an intuitive fashion.

This survey was developed using previous OMB-approved surveys developed by experts in recreational carrying capacity studies. The survey questions were adopted from a list of OMB-approved questions that have been used in similar surveys. Therefore, a pre-test was not completed for this survey.

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

• X…Topic Area #1: Respondent Characteristics

• Topic Area #2: Traveler Information

• X Topic Area #3: Trip Behaviors

• Topic Area #4: Transportation Use and Travel Related Conditions

• X….Topic Area #5: Assessment of Visitor Experience

• Topic Area #6: 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.

Survey Question Number	Compendium Topic Area	Compendium Question Identifier	Notes
1	#1 Respondent Characteristics	VHIS19	Modified to a two-part question. First part of question was added to identify if the respondent has previously boated on Lake Lanier. Second part of the question was not modified.
2	#1 Respondent Characteristics	VHIS6	Modified the question to breakdown the number of visits between weekdays and weekend days. Changed “visited” to “boated on this lake”
3	#1 Respondent Characteristics	GROUP6	Question was modified to a two part question between GROUP6 with a follow up of GROUP7.
4	#3 Trip Behaviors	TDUR7	Question slightly modified to just record the number of days visiting the lake.
5	#3 Trip Behaviors	TDUR7	Question slightly modified to just record the number of hours spent on the lake on the present day.
6	#3 Trip Behaviors	TRANSUSE26	Question modified using only Part A) of TRANSUSE26 (Boat Type).
7	#1 Respondent Characteristics	BOAT5	Question modified using only part e. of BOAT5.
8	#1 Respondent Characteristics	BOAT5	No question mentions boat horsepower. However, BOAT5 is similar in that is asks specific questions about the type of boat used.
9	#3 Trip Behaviors	TACT5	Question modified to include ‘Personal Watercraft (jet ski)’ as a choice.
10	#3 Trip Behaviors or #1 Respondent Characteristics	TDEST11 or VHIS19, TDEST 9(b)	No question mentions specific locations. However, TDEST11 is similar in that it asks about planned visits and VHIS19 asks about their behavior and choice in locations visited. In 2009, a similar question was asked for the OMB-approved Table Rock Lake Boater Survey OMB: 0710-0001 EXPR: Sep. 30, 2009
11	#3 Trip Behaviors or #1 Respondent Characteristics	TDEST11 or VHIS19	No question mentions specific locations. However, TDEST11 is similar in that it asks about planned visits and VHIS19 asks about their behavior and choice in locations visited. In 2009, a similar question was asked for the OMB-approved Table Rock Lake Boater Survey OMB: 0710-0001 EXPR: Sep. 30, 2009..
12	#3 Trip Behaviors or #1 Respondent Characteristics	TDEST11 or VHIS19	No question mentions specific locations. However, TDEST11 is similar in that it asks about planned visits and VHIS19 asks about their behavior and choice in locations visited. In 2009, a similar question was asked for the OMB-approved Table Rock Lake Boater Survey OMB: 0710-0001 EXPR: Sep. 30, 2009..
13	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	SAFE22	Modified to a two-part question. First part of question is a general question regarding perception of the number of boats on the lake. Second part of question was not modified.
14	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	SAFE23	The question was not modified.
15	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	EVALBOAT7	Removed the phrase ‘How much, if at all,’ from the question.
16	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	EVALBOAT13	The question was not modified.
17	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	EVALBOAT1	Modified the question to ask the user regarding how many boats they saw on the water today instead of “expected to see”
18	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	EVAL6	Modified and removed “if at all”. Used a modified scale from CROWD 4, added additional negative scale
19	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	CROWD1	The question was modified to ask “did you feel crowded” instead of “how crowded did you feel”.
20	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	EVALBOAT2	Question was not modified..
21	#5 Assessment of Visitor Experience	SHPREF15	No question gives the respondent the opportunity to write in what they would like to add to the lake. However, SHPREF15 asks a similar question. In 2009, a similar question was asked for the OMB-approved Table Rock Lake Boater Survey OMB: 0710-0001 EXPR: Sep. 30, 2009)
22	#1 Respondent Characteristics	GEN1	The question was not modified.
23	#1 Respondent Characteristics	RES1	The question was not modified.

11. Methodology:

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

1. Population (i.e., Respondent Universe)

The target population consists of private dock permit holders, marina slip renters, general public users of boat ramps and launch sites (including campers) and individuals that have participated in public meetings related to the plans. Dock owners, campers and marina slip renters were exported from various permit and reservation systems. This database was developed to maintain a mailing list for the USACE Master Plan/Shoreline Management Plan update. This database is assumed to be representative of lake users. Other general public users will be identified during intercept contacts at designated recreation areas.

2. Sampling Plan/Procedure

The database will be crossed checked for duplicate names/addresses with duplicates removed. 1,200 individual names will be drawn as a random sample from the existing database of lake users.

Park intercepts will be made at Parks located around Lake Lanier.

3. Instrument Administration

Dock Permit holders, campers and marina slip holders: The survey (Att 1) and cover letter (Att 2) will be mailed to the selected households with a postage paid envelope. A reminder postcard (Att 3) and final follow-up letter (Att4) will be mailed at 2 week intervals respectively after the initial mailing.

Survey responses will be compiled into a single database. Survey forms received by mail will entered into a template and added to the survey response database. The combined results will then be exported to Excel for further analysis. Survey responses will be reviewed for consistency of responses (e.g., follow correct sequence, percentages sum to 100%, etc.)

General Park Users: Intercept surveys will be conducted at park locations around Lake Lanier. Potential respondents will be campers and day use area visitor present during the sampling times at Lake Lanier parks. On a sampling day, intercepts will occur throughout the day and only one individual in a party will be selected to complete the survey. Surveyors will use observational cues, such as boating related equipment, gear, or clothing, to help target potential boaters for intercept contacts. Selected visitors will be approached, provided a card with the Agency Disclosure and Privacy Act Statement (Att 5) and verbally asked to participate in the survey. Surveys (Att 6) will be conducted on computer, with paper forms as a back-up. The responses will be recorded by the Surveyor at the time of the intercept, with response option cards (Att 7) shown to the visitor for select questions. It is planned that 1500 park users will be contacted via this method.

4. Expected Response Rate and Confidence Levels

Dock permit holders, campers and marina slip holders: As a conservative estimate, a response rate of about 50% is expected.

General Park Users: A response rate of 60% is expected.

These response rates will yield a 95% confidence interval with a margin of error of +/- 5%.

5. Strategies for dealing with potential non-response bias

Non-response bias will be addressed based on the source of the respondent address (marina, dock holder, other public visitor) and comparison of the data collected. For dock owners and marina slip renters, the combination of Q8 and Q7 will be used to assess the amount of non-response from that group. For general public will compare zip code of respondents plus Q8 response with zip from mailing addresses. The dock permit list is a known universe maintained by USACE. The Marina slip renter list is maintained by the marina operators, but is assumed to be the entire universe. The other public list will be compared based on zip code to other sources of data to evaluate its representation of other recreational boating users at Lake Lanier. Comparative sources of data will be from the USACE comment card program, pass purchases, public meeting participants, and household distribution within a 30-50 mile range of the project.

To increase response rates, a reminder mailing will be sent approximate 2 weeks after the initial mailing. This mailing include the cover page and complete survey, the same documents as the initial mailing. The survey will be kept open for 30 days following the reminder to allow time for responses.

For the park user intercepts, demographic data from the survey will be used to evaluate the representativeness of park users in combination with other available sources of data including USACE comment cards, party size range based on national visitation multipliers and population statistics. Responses to Q’s 27-29 will be evaluated in comparison to population statistics within a 30-50 mile range of the lake.

12.

Total Number of Initial Contacts and Expected Number of Respondents

Dock, camper, marina: 1,600 initial contacts with 800 expected respondents

Park user: 1500 initial contacts with 900 expected responses

13.

Estimated Time to Complete Initial Contact and Time to Complete Instrument

Dock, camper, marina: Initial Contact: 0.5 min (time to read cover page/letter). Survey 10 minutes (including time to read instructions).

Park User: Initial Contact. 1 minute to introduce and request participation. Survey 10 minutes (including time to read instructions).

14.

Total Burden Hours

Contacts

Respondents

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

Total

Dock, Camper, Marina:

Initial Contacts* 13 hours

Survey Response** 133 hours

Total 146 hours

Park User Intercept

Initial Contacts*** 25 hours

Survey Response**** 153 hours

Total 178 hours

Grand Total 324 Hours

* Initial Contact = 1,600 x 1 per respondent x 0.5 min per response

** Survey Response = 800 x 1 per respondent x 10 min per response

*** Intercept contact = 1500 x 1 per respondent x 1 min per response

**** Intercept Survey = 900 x 1 per respondent x 10 min per response

15. Reporting Plan:

The results of the survey will be compiled into a report that will be made available to the USACE. The report will make comparisons to the 2003 USACE report Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Operation and Maintenance of Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia to indicate possible changes to user expectations and preferences. Presentations of the study will be made to the USACE as well. Aggregate results may be published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication discussing the methods, results, and conclusions, and recognizing the support given by the USACE.

16. Justification, Purpose, and Use:
IC Justification and Purpose	The Mobile District of the USACE’s update of the Lake Sidney Lanier Master Plan and Shoreline Management Plan requires an assessment of the recreational carrying capacity of the lake and an understanding of how future management activities may impact the boating density. Social carrying capacity is an important component to the study, which defines lake user’s expectations, perceptions and preferences. Boater’s opinions regarding boating density, safety, conflicts, and current lake management are an integral part of the carrying capacity study. Lake Lanier, the largest impoundment located wholly in Georgia, was formed by Buford Dam at river mile 348.32 on the Chattahoochee River about 35 miles upstream from Atlanta. Lake Lanier is one of the Corps of Engineers’ most visited projects. The lake had more than 65 million visitors between 2001 and 2012. As metropolitan Atlanta expands northward usage continues to increase. Future projections for the regions’ population indicates continued growth. With the rapid growth in the surrounding communities, management of the waters and lands around Lake Lanier is especially critical to ensure sustainable recreation opportunities and the quality experience desired by visitors to the lake. Social impacts from overuse of the resource can include crowding among recreationists, conflict between recreationists, increases in accidents, and increases in depreciative behaviors. In particular, the survey instrument in this study is designed to collect information about visitors’ perceptions, experiences, and expectations, with respect to recreation conditions and management, including transportation crowding and safety, and visitor experience quality. The information collection is also designed to help identify recreation issues experienced by visitors, and assess visitors’ opinions about potential management.
IC Goals	The goals of the survey are to: Determine the general characteristics of lake users. Determine the impact of current lake usage on the quality of the recreational experience, public safety, and the natural ecology of the lake. Determine boaters’ perspectives on the social conditions of the lake, and on current resource management of the lake.
How will the results be used (e.g., utility to Managers)?	Results of the survey will provide lake resource managers with information on boating densities by zone, public safety, social satisfaction with use of the lake, public preferences on their experience at the lake, environmental concerns, and current resource management. This information will provide guidance on future management actions.
How will the data be tabulated and analyzed? 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). The hard copy (paper) survey responses will be merged into a single database (e.g. Excel or Access). Once the survey period is closed and responses are loaded to the database, data summaries and characterization reports will be generated using the options available in 3rd party web application (Qlik or Tableau). These include standard reports that provide statistics and breakdowns for each question, reports that compare individual responses to the rest of the data, cross-tabulation, and question comparisons. Based on the projected sample size there will be 95% confidence that the sample estimates will be accurate. The range of statistical tests that will be conducted with the data in this study include two-tailed independent samples t-test, chi-square tests of independence, and simple linear and multivariate regression, at the .05 alpha-level. This level of accuracy and statistical power is generally accepted as sufficient in peer-reviewed social science quantitative study findings. Thus, the proposed sample size will be adequate for bi-variate comparisons. Key estimates from the data will be descriptive in nature, primarily measures of central tendency (mean and median), dispersion (standard deviation), and frequency distributions. Some tests for differences in means and proportions by various sub-groups are expected.
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 GPRA performance.

Checklist for Submitting a Request to Use USDA-Forest Service Federal Lands Transportation Generic Clearance

• All questions in the survey instrument are within the scope of one of the USDA-Forest Service Generic Clearance topic areas (see Compendium of Questions).



• The approval package is being submitted to the Forest Service Office of Regulatory and Management Services at least 45 days prior to the first day the PI wishes to administer the IC to the public.



• [IF SURVEY] A qualified statistician has reviewed and approved your request.



• Your bureau/office Information Collection Clearance Officer has reviewed and approved the approval package.

• When you forward the approval package to USDA Forest Service, copy the FLMA Generic Clearance Coordinator



The approval package includes:

• A completed Justification

•  A signed Certification Form

• A copy of the survey instrument

• Other supporting materials, such as:

• Cover letters to accompany mail-back questionnaires

• Introductory scripts for initial contact of respondents

• Necessary Paperwork Reduction Act compliance language

• Follow-up letters/reminders sent to respondents



The survey methodology presented in the Justification includes a specific description of:

• The respondent universe

• The sampling plan and all sampling procedures, including how respondents will be selected

• How the instrument will be administered

• Expected response rate and confidence levels

•  Strategies for dealing with potential non-response bias

• A description of any pre-testing and peer review of the methods and/or the instrument is highly recommended.

• The burden hours reported in the Justification include the number of burden hours associated with the initial contact of all individuals in the sample (i.e., including refusals), if applicable, and the number of burden hours associated with individuals expected to complete the survey instrument.

• The package is properly formatted (Word) and submitted to the Office of Regulatory and Management Services electronically. 

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
IC Title (Please be specific) Lake Sidney Lanier Boater Survey
Estimated Number Dock/camper/marina: 1,600 Contacts 800 Respondents Park Users 1,500 Contacts 900 Respondents			Time per Response Dock Camper Marina Contact .5 min per contact Response: 10 min per response Park Users Contact: 1 min per contact Response: 10 min per response
			Total Burden Hours Dock, Camper, Marina: Initial Contacts* 13 hours Survey Response** 133 hours Total 146 hours Park User Intercept Initial Contacts*** 25 hours Survey Response**** 153 hours Total 178 hours Grand Total 324 Hours * Initial Contact = 1,600 x 1 per respondent x 0.5 min per response ** Survey Response = 800 x 1 per respondent x 10 min per response *** Intercept contact = 1500 x 1 per respondent x 1 min per response **** Intercept Survey = 900 x 1 per respondent x 10 min per response
Bureau/Office Contact (who can best answer questions about content of the submission):
Name	Meredith LaDart Meredith Bridgers			Phone	251-690-2608 703-428-8458
Certification: The collection of information requested by this submission meets the requirements of OMB control number 0596-0236
Bureau/Office Qualified Statistician Dr Wen-Huei Chang, PhD						DATE
Bureau/Office Information Collection Clearance Officer Christie King						DATE
Forest Service, Office of Regulatory and Management Services						DATE

3