20250312_Recreation_Mapping_for_the_Salmon_River_Basin_Idaho_Supporting_Statement_A

Supporting Statement A

for paperwork reduction act submission

OMB Control Number 1028-NEW

Terms of Clearance: Not Applicable - New Collection.

Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection.

The USGS Minerals Research Program is interested in understanding how mining and reprocessing of legacy mine waste has the potential to impact people and values in the Salmon River Basin of central Idaho. Metals present in the Salmon River Mountains have been identified as critical to the energy transition. The Basin is also a hotspot for recreational activities, notably subsistence hunting and fishing, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness. Managing these resources thus requires finding an acceptable balance and while much is known about mineral locations and extraction techniques, no quantitative information is available about how the public uses the Basin, where they use it, or the benefits they derive from it. We intend to collect spatial and non-spatial information on users, uses, and associated values.

The purpose of this collection is research. The authorizing statute that necessitates this collection is the Organic Act of 1879 (43 USC 41-45). Novel methods of collecting the relevant information are being tested here for the first time but based on over a decade of research and development on social-value modeling.

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. Be specific. If this collection is a form or a questionnaire, every question needs to be justified.

We plan to ask residents and visitors how they use the Basin, to identify/map locations associated with their top use, and then what values they associate with the top use. We subsequently intend to use survey responses as input to the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SOLVES, https://solves.cr.usgs.gov/) tool to develop maps of use and value intensity throughout the basin.

Information to be collected includes:

1. Demographic information about respondents (no PII). This information helps understand who responded to the survey relative to county-level demographic information. It also provides a means of breaking out subgroups within the responding population, such as male versus female or high income versus low.

2. Natural resource uses each respondent engages in within the Basin (from a list) – this gives us an overall idea of the activities a respondent pursues in the Basin.

3. Whether the respondents derive any income from the use(s) – this is designed to differentiate between recreational and commercial users.

4. Locations on a map associated with each respondent’s top use – these points, associated with a specific activity type, will be aggregated across all respondents and used to develop a statistical model (Maxent) of use intensity for each use type.

5. Values (from a list) associated with their top use. Traditionally, social surveys (and the SolVES tool we developed to generate spatial information from responses) ask about values and have people try to place points associated with specific values. Here we are focusing on activities but are still interested in the values – we believe we will get better performing models for activities and can then back out value maps using a weighted average of the activity maps.

6. Attitudes towards different commercial natural resource uses in the Basin (from a list). This information will be used to differentiate between users who support or oppose different uses (i.e., commercial guiding, mining, timber extraction, etc.), allowing us to see whether there are significant differences between use types and values for each stakeholder group.

This information will be collected from residents of all counties intersecting the Basin, as well as visitors to selected events (see Statement B). The purpose of the latter is to identify whether visitors use/value the Basin differently than residents.

The information will be used to develop maps of use intensity for each activity type, as well as derivative maps associated with each value type. This effort is designed to test a new approach to developing spatial information on values (ecosystem services) that is designed to improve accuracy, as well as transferability between sites. We expect several journal articles to derive from this research – our primary objective. No other uses are planned.

This information will be collected one time only. The information collected will be made available to the public via USGS data release policy.

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 and specifically how this collection meets GPEA requirements.

Our collection is designed to be delivered 100% electronically, via tablets. We are designing the survey in ArcGIS Survey123, which gives us the ability to customize reference layers in maps for each activity type and, together with the ability to pan and zoom, should result in more precise point placement by respondents. This approach reduces the burden on the public, as well as the project team because point data no longer must be hand digitized from paper maps.

The results of the information collection will be made available online according to USGS data release policies.

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 SolVES tool was developed by members of the USGS project team in 2011. Over the past 13 years we have monitored all individuals and groups who have applied the tool, as well as others doing similar/related work via surveys or other means. Although SolVES has been applied worldwide, this data collection is the first the USGS has funded and is our first opportunity to redesign the survey approach based on our experience with modeling social values for ecosystem services. Our redesigned survey is the first of its kind.

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 businesses 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.

If the collection is not conducted, the USGS Minerals Research Program will have transferred ~$102,000 to U. Idaho with nothing to show for it. There is no alternative means via which this information can be collected and no means to address the primary research question without this information. There are no technical or legal obstacles to reducing the burden.

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

There are no circumstances that require us to collect the information in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

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 in response to the PRA statement associated with the collection over the past three years, and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

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 recordkeeping, 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 three 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.

On 05/21/2024, we published a 60-Day Federal Register notice 89 FR 44700. We did not receive any comments in response to that notice.”

In addition to the Federal Register notice, we consulted with nine (9) individuals identified in Table 8.1 who are familiar with this collection of information to validate our time burden estimates and asked for comments on the questions below:

Table 8.1

Organization	Title
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation	Operations Division Administrator
Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association	Executive Director
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation	Natural Resource Program Manager
U.S. Forest Service	Research Social Scientist
U.S. Forest Service	Research Social Scientist
Valley County Idaho	Recreation Planner
Payette Land Trust	General contact
Nez Perce Tribe	Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey	Regional Program Officer and Tribal Liaison

“Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility; whether there are any questions they felt were unnecessary”

Comments:

1. I could see some added text, even if speculative, about how this information will be used. Perhaps you’ve done that in the main OMB justification document.

2. Without knowing details of purpose and need, in my opinion all questions seemed like they would provide relevant and valuable use and site data, nothing seemed unnecessary other than a thought that locals identifying specific spots they visit may be problematic or deceptive in response.

Agency Response/Action Taken:

1. We added clarification to the opening statement.

2. We will also use pictures at the booth where people are intercepted.

“The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information”

Comments:

1. Seems accurate – was pretty quick.

2. I went through the survey in 10 minutes with consideration, but no comments, so 15 minutes seems spot on.

Agency Response/Action Taken: None

“Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected”

Comments:

1. Can informed consent be baked into the first page, to remove the second page?

2. The “natural resource use” framing throughout—I’m sure you’ve given this some thought, but it strikes me that some of these “uses” would be better described as “interactions” or something like that (art, education, sightseeing, etc.). Might be clunky to rephrase, but just observing some of these uses may be more relational (and the “use” framing might be off-putting to those folks).

3. After respondents have checked all their uses, is it possible for the next question (most important uses) to present the subset of the ones they’ve already selected? That would make for cleaner data entry.

4. Mapping: It took me a second to figure out what I was supposed to do with the “1,2,3” to select the three sites. Maybe a bit more instruction on that?

5. Mapping: Do you want to encourage people to zoom in to select their sites? Will that provide better spatial data (finer scale)?

6. Mapping: Does it make sense to offer special instructions for when it’s an area they want to select (rather than just a point)? Should pick a central part of the area to drop their pin?

7. Value ranking. Is it one question for all three sites selected? How should respondents answer if they’re different for each of the three sites?

8. For the two acceptability questions, I’m wondering how you’ll interpret the responses, since they’re not necessarily general knowledge topics. How would someone answer if they don’t know what the reprocessing of mine waste is (and thus can’t offer how acceptable they find it?). What if they don’t know enough about what re-opening would entail, to offer a response? Do you want people to just skip the questions int hat case? Or would offering a bit more of background information for both of those questions help more respondents give more meaningful response?

9. I thought appearance, navigation and intuitiveness was great. Would there be any value in considering a “timber management” component to go along with the mining?

Agency Response/Action Taken:

1. We edited to get informed consent onto the first page.

2. While the comment about natural resource use is sound from a social science perspective, we have opted to keep the existing language of “uses.” Our target demographic could be put off if asked about their interactions with the Salmon River Basin. In addition, the USFS and BLM conduct visitor use monitoring, not interaction monitoring, and we have used USFS use/activity types. Finally, this language replicates Brown and Reeds (2000) language conducted in National Forest contexts, allowing for comparison.

3. This was a great suggestion, so we have implemented it.

4. Additional instruction has been added.

5. The instructions now include “Zoom in to get close to your important site.”

6. We’re just using points, not areas.

7. It is one question for all three sites selected. We deliberately ask about values first so that respondents don’t have to consider different values for each point they place.

8. We have used a 4-point scale and a “don’t know enough to respond” option, as well as adjusted the questions to be more general.

9. We changed the overly technical mining-based questions to attitudinal questions replicating Brown and Reed’s (2000) work.

“Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents”

Comments: I think you have a good instrument here that will not scare away people inclined to complete surveys, and it is simple enough to encourage folks typically hesitant.

Agency Response/Action Taken: None.

Additional comments received during the outreach: (if you received any add’l comments – if not, you can delete this section)

Comments:

1. I’m not sure if it is my government computer, but this link initially seemed to require a username and password. I was able to cancel out and access the survey, but for a general population survey we may lose folks due to that prompt.

2. With regard to the intro page, I wonder if the top four paragraphs can be shortened a bit – or perhaps alternatively, replace some of the generic language about social values, their importance, etc, and try to give more information about how USGS plans to use the info. Are they working with the agencies that actually manage lands, for instance?

3. Can the language around “natural resources uses” be tweaked, and generalized, to be more inclusive and consistent with the answers?

Agency Response/Action Taken:

1. This was a technical glitch with Survey123 and will be corrected.

2. We edited the intro accordingly.

3. While the comment about natural resource use is sound from a social science perspective, we have opted to keep the existing language of “uses.” Our target demographic could be put off if asked about their interactions with the Salmon River Basin. In addition, the USFS and BLM conduct visitor use monitoring, not interaction monitoring, and we have used USFS use/activity types. Finally, this language replicates Brown and Reeds (2000) language conducted in National Forest contexts, allowing for comparison.

We did not receive responses from the Payette Land Trust, Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho Outfitters

and Guides Association, Valley Country, or USGS Regional Program Officer and Tribal Liaison.

All groups were contacted via email, with a follow-up email one week after the initial email.

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

We will not provide payments or gifts to respondents.

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

We do not provide any assurance of confidentiality because no PII will be collected.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and 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.

We do not ask questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:

* Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

* If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.

* Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here.

We estimate that there will be approximately 1,776 one-time respondents, totaling 444 burden hours at 15 minutes per response.

We estimate the total dollar value of the annual burden hours for this collection to be $20,517 (rounded). We used the Bureau of Labor Statistics news release USDL-20-0451, September 10, 2024 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2024, to calculate the total annual burden based on a rate of $46.21/hr for individuals, including benefits.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual non-hour cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected in item 12.)

* The cost estimate 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, maintenance, and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information (including filing fees paid for form processing). Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.

* If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

* Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We have not identified any non-hour cost burden associated with this collection.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The survey will be administered by the University of Idaho with funding from the USGS via CESU Grant G23AC00413-00 in the amount of $102,000 over 3 years. The annual cost to the government will be $34, 000 a year.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments in hour or cost burden.

This is a new collection.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

The information collected can be separated into two types: spatial and non-spatial. The non-spatial data include demographic information, attitudes towards natural resource uses in the Basin, primary activities/uses in the basin, and values associated with those uses. The spatial data include point locations associated with use/activity types. The spatial data will be attributed with the non-spatial data to generate shapefiles that contain all the non-spatial information about respondents. This will provide us with the ability to select subsets of respondents when mapping their preferred activities, for example, respondents who are in favor of mining versus those who are not, or respondents who derive income from the Basin versus those who do not. Developing maps that depict important use areas and associated values for different user/stakeholder groups will enable us to see where and how they might overlap, or not.

We intend to publish the information collected in the form of shapefiles of the point locations attributed with the respondent demographic and preference information. The one exception to this will be that we intend to exclude any spatial data related to tribal affiliation or ancestry. We are cognizant of concerns about data sovereignty and the release of any information identifiable as deriving from Native Americans will be dictated by the Tribes. The results of the collection, with this exception, will be made available via a USGS data release and associated with a journal article.

The most complex analytical technique we intend to use will be to derive value maps from a weighted combination of the use/activity maps. Previous surveys, conducted by others, have asked respondents about how they value an area and then asked them to place points on a map that they associate with their top values. In our experience, this causes two problems when it comes to spatial analysis. First, people don’t experience a landscape in terms of values – they rarely go out seeking a specific value such as aesthetic, spiritual, or recreation. This makes it challenging for respondents to identify specific places associated with a particular value. Second, a particular value may be derived from many different activities. As a result, locations associated with, for example, recreation value can derive from any number of activities, such as fishing, hunting, hiking, or rafting. Generating a spatial model for recreation value based on point locations for any type of recreation leads to poorly performing models because some respondents indicate mountain tops while others indicate river bottoms – there is no consistent link to explanatory environmental variables. By mapping specific activities, such as hunting or fishing, with hope to have a more consistent link to explanatory environmental variables that in turn leads to better performing spatial models. Our second question about the values respondents associate with each activity will provide us with a much more refined means of mapping values. This will be accomplished by a weighted combination of all activity maps associated with a particular value. For example, if 62% of fishers and 38% of hunters indicate recreation values associated with their activity, then the activity maps can be combined accordingly to develop an overall map of recreation value.

The time schedule for the project is highly dependent upon the OMB clearance process and the season. The vast majority of events in and visitation to the Salmon River Basin occurs during the summer months (June-October) when roads, rivers, and trails are accessible. If we have approval by summer 2025, we will conduct the survey then. Otherwise, it will have to wait until 2026. The processing and analysis of the collected information will begin as soon as the results are complete and should take approximately 3-6 months. We anticipate the first publication, and associated data release of the survey results within 6-12 months after survey completion.

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.

We will display the OMB Control Number and expiration date on appropriate materials.

18. Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

There are no exceptions to the certification statement.

- 11 -