Other Form and Scanning Considerations

Although many options exist for form designs, it is best to use one form design wherever possible. Forms typically are coded so that the scanner understands which scan key to use, allowing operators to mix forms of various designs in one processing cycle without having to process each type of form separately.

Many other issues need to be considered when selecting a scanning technology. National forests or regional offices could band together to share scanning equipment and personnel when scanning forms. Buying one scanner per region or forest and training operators to be proficient with the scanning systems through regular use would be preferable to having a scanning system in each district office which may be used infrequently.

Some wildernesses may require more extensive information or longer written responses from visitors than is needed for the Infra-WILD database. One option for such information is to make an electronic clip image (similar to an Acrobat or a PDF file), allowing the responses to be reviewed by someone who can access the information on a computer. Some fields, such as visitor name and address, may be collected on the form, but not entered into a database. These fields may be useful in other situations, such as search and rescue.

Wilderness Permit Issues

A list of data fields common to wilderness permits was compiled during this study. The most common fields include:

• Name
• Address
• City
• State
• Postal code
• Country
• Number of people in party
• Method of travel
• Expected destination or camp
• Number of nights (at each camp)
• Entry point
• Entry date
• Exit point
• Exit date
• Number of stock animals
• Number of dogs
• Number of watercraft
• Visitor signature

Some fields, such as trail entry and exit codes, require an alphanumeric entry for each block. OMR (fill-in-the-bubble) technology for these fields requires much more space on a form than when a user writes the alphanumerical data. These fields require an ICR block so visitors can write in the trail information. Ideally, each check-in station would have a trail key (typically a 4-letter or 4-number block) that would correspond to the appropriate trailhead or destination. Figure 3 shows a proof of a form for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness that includes a combination of scanning technologies. The name, address, city, state, country, visitor signature, and date fields require clipped images; the zip code, entry point, entry date, and exit date fields are for ICR; and the checkboxes are for OMR.

Figure 3—Example of a draft self-issue permit
prepared for the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness (used with permission of
NCS Pearson).

Filling out wilderness permits legibly can be difficult in the field. Poor writing surfaces, inclement weather, poor writing instruments, and poor penmanship all create problems. Damaged cards with bent corners or wrinkled pages can raise havoc with the automatic feeders on scanners. If a wilderness area unit decides to scan permits, it should consider improving check-in stations (figure 4) to provide good writing surfaces and some protection from the elements. Illegible permits require more effort by the personnel who will have to decipher them.

Figure 4—A typical trailhead
registration station in the Lye
Brook Wilderness area of the
Green Mountain National Forest.

Observations and Recommendations

Determining which scanning technology best fits the needs of a particular wilderness is not easy. Each region and national forest office has different needs and budgets. The biggest decisions that need to be made upfront are:

• Which scanning technology should be used (OMR or ICR)
• Which steps, if any, will be done in-house?

Because of the cost of acquiring the scanning software and hardware, as well as the time and skill needed to learn how to use the specialized software and hardware, many units will outsource all, or at least part of the process to contractors. Most contractors or vendors will work with the customer to help them select the best options. Some contractors offer full service form development and scanning. Others are more specialized and may concentrate on software, equipment, or scanning services. A contractor may say they are full service, but subcontract part of their services. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but be aware of the possibility.

Some vendors offer online demonstrations of their software. This allows the purchaser a chance to view the program layout, ease of use, and its applicability to scanning permits. When a suitable scanning technology is selected, the next step is to develop a pilot test.

Pilot testing involves running a small-scale version of a scanning technology to see if it fits the application. At this point, most vendors will require a fee for services. A pilot test may allow the software, hardware, or scanning service to be tested, without committing to the cost of a full-scale project. The pilot test presents an opportunity to see how complicated the software might be, review scanning accuracy, determine how much time is needed to perform scanning operations, and to come up with a better cost estimate for the scanning operation. Some vendors may provide scanning equipment and software for a onetime pilot test but some cost will probably be involved. Contracting out scanning services for the pilot test might be the cheapest way of seeing whether scanning makes sense for a given application.

Technology in the scanning industry is always improving. OMR has not changed much in the last 30 years. ICR is becoming more accurate, less expensive, and easier to use. Many vendors are combining OMR and ICR technologies to improve accuracy, while maintaining simplicity in the scanning equipment and procedures. The downside of rapidly improving technology is that software and equipment quickly becomes outdated.

As with most electronic equipment and software, the cost of scanning equipment and software has dropped over the years. As the technology becomes less complicated, more vendors enter the market, typically reducing overall costs to the consumer. Industry mergers and buyouts change company names. Several sales representatives changed and a merger occurred during this short study. Such changes can be very confusing when you are trying to select the right scanning technology and vendor.

Conclusions

As with most large purchases, searching for the right scanning technology and vendor requires legwork. Vendors may try to sell you equipment or software that doesn't fit your application. Don't scan more fields of data than you need. Try to keep as many data fields in the OMR format as practical to lower costs and improve accuracy. Deal with vendors who are willing to help you scan your information at the lowest cost and with the highest accuracy. Contracting out scanning services initially will make it easier to define long-term costs, accuracy, the time needed to implement the technology, and whether to continue to contract out scanning or to purchase the required software and equipment to perform the service in-house.

Vendor/Resource List

The list below includes several scanning companies that MTDC considered while researching this project. MTDC does not endorse the listed companies.

Apperson, Data Collection Service Group
Web site: http://www.appersondcsg.com
Phone: 800–877–2341

CSS Consultants, Inc.
Web site: http://www.cssconsult.com
Phone: 585–377–4235

Mercator (Snap Survey Software)
Web site: http://www.mercatorcorp.com
Phone: 603–610–8700

NCS Pearson
Web site: http://www.ncspearson.com
Phone: 800–447–3269

Scantron Corp.
Web site: http://www.scantron.com
Phone: 800–445–3141

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Christina Boston and Kevin Cannon for their help on wilderness permit issues.

Christina Boston is a natural resource recreation manager wilderness specialist for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Superior National Forest.

Kevin Cannon is a recreation forester for the Canyon Lakes Ranger District, Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest.

About the Authors

Gary Kees is a project leader specializing in reforestation and nurseries, facilities, recreation, and GPS projects at MTDC. He received his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Idaho. Before coming to MTDC in 2002, Gary worked for the Monsanto Co. in Soda Springs, ID, as a mechanical/ structural engineer and project manager.

Steve Boutcher is information manager for the Forest Service Washington Office wilderness and wild and scenic river programs, based in Burlington, VT. He received his bachelor's degree in forestry and environmental studies from the University of Vermont. Steve has worked in a variety of positions in the Intermountain, Pacific Southwest, and Pacific Northwest Regions, including assignments in timber, fire management, GIS, and air resource management.

Single copies of this document may be ordered from:

USDA Forest Service, MTDC
5785 Hwy. 10 West
Missoula, MT 59808–9361
Phone: 406–329–3978
Fax: 406–329–3719
E-mail: wo_mtdc_pubs@fs.fed.us

For additional technical information, contact Gary Kees at MTDC.

Phone: 406–829–6753
E-mail: gkees@fs.fed.us

Electronic copies of MTDC's documents are available on the Internet at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management employees can search a more complete collection of MTDC's documents, videos, and CDs on their internal computer networks at:

http://fsweb.mtdc.wo.fs.fed.us/search