Gulf Coast SS Part A rev 1007

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
REGIONAL ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM
FOR THE GULF COAST REGION OF ALASKA
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-xxxx

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
Regional or community economic analysis of proposed fishery management policies is
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA),
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Executive Order 12866, among others.
To satisfy these mandates and inform policymakers and the public of the likely regional
economic impacts associated with fishery management policies, appropriate economic
models and the data to implement these models are needed.
Much of the data required for regional economic analysis associated with the Gulf Coast
region of Alaska fisheries are either unavailable or unreliable. Accurate fishery-level
data on employment, labor income, and expenditures in the Gulf Coast region of Alaska
fishery and related industries are not currently available but are needed to estimate the
effects of fisheries on the economy of the Gulf Coast region of Alaska. To remedy this
information gap, this information collection will gather data from industry sources (i.e.,
commercial fishing vessel owners, local businesses) on these important regional
economic variables needed to develop models that will provide more reliable estimates
and significantly improve policy-makers’ ability to assess policy effects on fisherydependent communities in the Gulf Coast region.
For the same reasons as stated above, this information will also be collected from vessels
in the Southwest region of Alaska. An information collection request was submitted to
OMB in March 2007.
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information
will be used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used
to support information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the
collection complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
The information collected will be summarized and used by the economists conducting the
data collection program [an Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) economist and a
contractor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks(UAF)] to revise the deficient fishery
data in IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning, Minnesota IMPLAN Group) which is
a commercially available regional economic data set. After revision of the IMPLAN data
is completed, the revised IMPLAN data will be used to develop regional economic
models for fisheries in the Gulf Coast region of Alaska, including models such as inputoutput (IO) models and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models. The resulting
regional economic models will be used to estimate the impacts of fisheries resulting from

changes in fishery management policies for the fisheries in the Gulf Coast region of
Alaska, and thus provide policy-makers with additional information to aid in decision
making.
In this project, two different data collection methods will be used: (1) a mail survey of
vessel owners and (2) telephone interviews with local businesses including fish
processors. The mail survey will be used for three different vessel classes – small,
medium, and large vessels. The Small vessel class includes all vessels 32 ft and smaller.
The Medium vessel class includes all vessels that are larger than 32 ft, but equal to or
smaller than 90 ft. The Large vessel class includes all vessels larger than 90 ft. 1 Two
different versions of the mail survey were developed, one for the small vessel sector and
the other for medium and large vessel sectors. Attachment A contains the two different
versions of the survey. Telephone interviews with local businesses and fish processors
will also be conducted. The phone scripts for interviews with these businesses are found
in Attachment B. Each of these two data collection methods is described below.
Attachment C contains (a) an advance letter for the mail survey, (b) an initial mailing
letter (or cover letter) for the mail survey, (c) a postcard reminder for the mail survey, (d)
a follow-up phone call script for the mail survey, and (e) an advance letter that will be
sent to local businesses contacted for the phone interview.
Mail Surveys for Vessel Owners
The surveys for the fishers are structured to gather a limited amount of information
related to specific IMPLAN data requirements for employment and specific components
of personal income and value added. This includes questions about numbers of crew
1

IMPLAN data provides only aggregate information on harvesting activity; there is only one single
harvesting sector in IMPLAN data. To estimate the potential impacts of fishery management actions on
individual harvesting sub-sectors, it is necessary to disaggregate the whole harvesting sector into different
sub-sectors. Since Alaska fisheries are very complicated, there are many different ways of dividing the
harvesting sector into sub-sectors. There is no ideal, clear-cut way of dividing the harvesting sector. In this
project, the Gulf Coast harvesting sector is divided into three vessel classes depending on various factors
such as (1) sizes of the vessels, (2) species caught, (3) geographic distribution of the economic impacts, (4)
other factors. This division of vessel classes was supported by Alaska fisheries experts as well as
University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) economists familiar with Gulf Coast fisheries. The following is the
rationale used to divide the harvesting sector into three different vessel classes.

Small vessel class: The 32 ft upper limit is set because it is the size limit in some major Alaska fisheries on
drift netters and gillnetters which catch mostly salmon. These vessels are characterized by very similar
expenditures and income. This vessel class includes 831 vessels (population size) in the Gulf Coast
fishery. Also, the economic impacts (expenditures and income) associated with small vessel fisheries occur
mostly within local areas.
Medium and large vessel class: It is generally accepted that 90 ft is the limit for safe operation on the high
seas. Operation of sub-90 ft vessels (medium vessels) is generally more local than over-90 ft vessels (large
vessels). Therefore, medium vessels’ local spending per unit of output is higher than that of large vessels
which transit from home port (located mostly in Washington or Oregon) to fishing grounds. Medium
vessels’ activity will thus likely have most of their economic impacts on the Gulf Coast region while large
vessels’ activity are more likely to have multi-regional impacts on both the Gulf Coast, other regions of
Alaska, and the West Coast. Most of the fish species caught by large vessels is groundfish while those by
medium vessels are more varied.

members and skippers, crew share, ownership, and participation of owners in fishing
activities to identify labor and capital income components of owner’s fishing income.
Additional questions are targeted to identify specific fisheries-related crew, skipper, and
ownership shares of income from ex-vessel value. The resulting information will provide
a complete set of IMPLAN data for use in constructing three fishing vessel sectors in the
Gulf Coast region of Alaska, specifically the components of value added and
employment.
The following is a discussion of specific questions in the small vessel survey
(Attachment A). Since the questions in the large/medium vessel survey are the same
as those in the small vessel survey except that the small vessel survey has an
additional question (Question 6), discussion of the questions in the large/medium
vessel survey will not be provided. The explanation of each question relates the
purpose of the question to the data needs of the regional economic model for the Gulf
Coast region of Alaska.
Questions on Vessel Information: Question 1 is intended to determine the accuracy of
data that is already in the possession of the researchers. Determination of accuracy is
critical to the cost engineering component of the study which will be conducted to
impute operating costs after the data collection is completed 2 .
Questions on Skipper and Crew Payment and Employment Information: The first three
questions (Questions 2 to 4) ask about employment of skippers, crew, and owners.
Question 5 obtains information on the residency of crew, skipper(s), and owners who
provided labor in harvesting fish. Question 6 obtains information on fishery-based
employment for fisheries that are not year round. Question 7 is used to estimate
payments to the crew and skipper. More detailed explanation of each question is
given below.

2

The cost engineering study will rely on this vessel information to specify an average vessel for
determination of operating, maintenance, and depreciation costs associated with each vessel class. For
more details and examples of this type of study, see:

Cross, T. 1998. "Machinery Cost Calculation Methods." Agricultural Extension Service, University of
Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, AE&RD No. 13.
Patterson, P. and R. Smathers. 2006. "Custom Rates for Idaho Agricultural Operations, 2005-06."
University of Idaho College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Bul 729.
http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/pdf/BUL/BUL0729.pdf
Pacific Northwest Cooperative Extension. 1998 (revised in 2001). “Costs of Owning and Operating Farm
Machinery in the Pacific Northwest” PNW0346.
http://cru84.cahe.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/PNW0346.html

•
•

•

•
•

•

Question 2 provides the gross employment numbers to be used in the IMPLAN
model.
Question 3 provides information on how many months in the calendar year the
survey respondent was an owner of the vessel. If the owner owned the vessel
for less than a full year, the information from this question could be used with
the data from Question 7 to approximate the annual income to crew and
skipper(s).
Question 4 is the most complex and provides information needed to determine
employment by fishery, and to provide information which will be needed to
estimate employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property
income when combined with answers to questions that follow.
Question 5 will account for regional (the Gulf Coast region of Alaska)
employment of crew, skipper(s), and owners (by species).
Since P&I payments only occur during the active season, information from
Question 6 will allow us to calculate fishery-based employment for fisheries
that are not year around. For the large/medium vessel survey, this question is
not included, as the large/medium vessel owners that we spoke to indicated
that it would not be appropriate for them.
Question 7 will allow the estimation of crew and skipper payments. This
information contributes to the research goal of determining employee
compensation and proprietor income.

The survey concludes with space for respondents to comment on the survey or the
general study.
Telephone Interviews with Local Businesses
The objective of conducting telephone interviews with local businesses is to gain
information on what amount (in dollars) of the intermediate inputs were sold by local
businesses to each vessel class. Since each local business typically sells goods and
services in a single North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sector and
the NAICS sector that the business is in will be known from the Alaska Division of
Community Advocacy (http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm),
interviews with businesses in the Gulf Coast region of Alaska will be based on only a few
questions. Attachment B has the phone scripts with the detailed questions. Several days
before phone calls are made to local businesses, an advance letter will be sent to them
informing them of the purpose of the study, indicating that they will soon be called to
participate in the study, and letting them know what type of questions will be asked. The
advance letter is contained in Attachment C. Once the information on input sales to the
vessel classes is obtained, it will be mapped into IMPLAN sectors, and be used to revise
IMPLAN data. The interviews with local businesses will gain a very limited piece of
information from each business that will be used to construct the Gulf Coast region of
Alaska production function in IMPLAN.

Telephone Interviews with Fish Processors
Because fish processors are the most important local businesses for the fleet, their
interactions with the fleet are very important in the Gulf Coast regional economic models.
The questions that are asked of them will be slightly more complicated because they are a
multi-commodity and multi-service provider to individual vessels. Their activities are
limited mainly to selling the following to the fleet(s): fuel and lubricants, groceries,
fishing gear, vessel mechanical parts, vessel equipment, repair services, and bait.
Extensive interviews with processors provided guidelines in terms of how to ask these
questions. In the phone interview 3 with fish processors, we will ask them about their
sales of the above goods and services to each of the three vessel classes. Attachment B
contains the phone scripts with the detailed questions for fish processors. Since the
investigators have already established personal relationships with the principal fish
processors and they know that they will be contacted, no advance letter needs to be sent.
Once the information on fish processors’ sales to the vessel classes is obtained, it will be
used to revise the IMPLAN data and the production functions in the data.
As explained in the preceding paragraphs explaining the two methods of data collection,
the information to be gathered has utility. NOAA Fisheries will retain control over the
information and safeguard it from improper access, modification, and destruction,
consistent with NOAA standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic information.
See Item #10 below of this supporting statement for more information on confidentiality
and privacy. The information collection is designed to yield data that meet all applicable
information quality guidelines. Although the information collected is not expected to be
disseminated directly to the public, results may be used in scientific, management,
technical or general informational publications. Should NOAA Fisheries decide to
disseminate the information, it will be subject to the quality control measures and predissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the
use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other
forms of information technology.

3

The fish processors have very sophisticated accounting systems, and have detailed cost information which
the interviewers will be requesting. There are several reasons why a phone interview approach was chosen
as the method of collecting information from fish processors. First, in gathering information from people
engaged in fisheries in Alaska including fish processors, it is very important to build a personal relationship
to obtain the necessary information. Based on this relationship, a telephone interview is more effective
than a mail-out survey. Second, respondents to mail-out survey, especially those respondents engaged in
fishery-related activities in Alaska such as vessel owners, local businesses, and fish processors, suffer from
“survey respondent fatigue” since so many agencies, universities, and other institutions are sending them
various surveys. Most of the mail-out survey respondents, especially if the survey is voluntary and does
not provide any monetary or non-monetary reward, will just ignore and throw away the mailed surveys
when they receive them. This is why the response rates of mai-lout surveys for fisheries have traditionally
been so low. For the vessel owner survey in this project, it is infeasible to conduct phone interviews for
each of the vessel owners since the population is so large. However, if the population size is relatively
small as in the case of fish processors, telephone interview will generate higher response rate when
conducted based on the personal relationship already established. (RESPONSE TO COMMENT #1)

The information collection does not involve use of any of the above information
technology techniques. While it is easier for the investigators to collect the necessary
information through emails in this project, most of the survey respondents (including
vessel owners, local businesses, and fish processors) would find it more inconvenient to
respond in emails compared with telephone interviews or even mail-out surveys - and
they may not have internet access. More importantly, in the case of obtaining
information on Alaska fisheries, it is the personal relationship that is being developed that
will lead to responses, not the survey method. Therefore, unless personal contact or
relationship between investigators and the respondents are developed, the respondents
will simply ignore the e-mail surveys. (RESPONSE TO COMMENT #2).
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
An extensive search was conducted to find studies that collect regional economic
information for the study region, but did not yield any applicable studies. However,
several other data collection efforts for other regions in Alaska are noteworthy. One
study collected regional economic information for Southeast Alaska from 1995-96 (for
year 1994) 4 . Another study that tried to collect regional economic information in Alaska
is a study related to the snow crab fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region 5 .
Thus, the present project represents the first regional economic data collection project for
the study region and covers all fisheries instead of focusing solely on a subset of
fisheries.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities,
describe the methods used to minimize burden.
Telephone interviews with small local businesses (suppliers) in the Gulf Coast region of
Alaska will be used to obtain information about vessel expenditures on groceries and
other goods and services provided to commercial fishermen. To minimize the burden,
only a few questions will be asked of them and the phone call per business entity will be
less than 15 minutes. Some of fish processors are small businesses and the phone call for
each of these processors will be less than 40 minutes. This is a minimum amount of time
required to obtain the necessary information from the processors. (RESPONSE TO
COMMENT #3) The survey of vessel owners was constructed so as to minimize the
amount of time required to answer questions. For example, questions on vessel
expenditures are omitted from the survey to minimize burden. Also, characteristics
specific to the vessel are pre-printed in each individual survey so that the respondent does
not have to spend time on recalling or looking them up. This will also contribute to
minimizing burden. Questions are limited in number and scope, thereby minimizing the
burden to each respondent.
4

Hartman, J. 2002. Economic Impact Analysis of the Seafood Industry in Southeast Alaska: Importance,
Personal Income, and Employment in 1994. Regional Information Report No. 5J02-07. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game.
5
Herrmann, M., J. Greenberg, C. Hamel, and H. Geier. 2004. Regional Economic Impact Assessment of
the Alaska Snow Crab Fishery Integrated with an International Snow Crab Market Model. University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Management Working Series Report 2004-001.

6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the
collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
No other entity is likely to collect the information needed for resolving the IMPLAN
deficiencies. Therefore, if the data collection is not conducted by us, the deficiencies in
the IMPLAN data will not be fixed, and therefore, the mandates of MSA, NEPA, and
Executive Order 12866 described in Item #1 above will not be satisfied.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
None.
8. Provide a copy of the PRA Federal Register notice that solicited public comments
on the information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public
comments received in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the
agency in response to those comments. Describe the 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.
During the public notice period, three individuals asked for copies of the mail survey
forms. In response to the requests, we provided the forms to them. One of them also
asked for information on the sampling procedures, and asked about data collection and
estimation methods (such as population sizes, sample sizes, and out-of-region
expenditures). We replied to him with the requested information. Another person also
asked about the methods to be used for the project, including questions about what
information we will collect and what methods (mail survey, phone interview) we will
use. We provided the answers to her.

9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
We do not have any plan to provide any payments or other gifts to the respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis
for assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
On the first page of the survey, we provided a confidentiality statement as follows:
CONFIDENTIALITY: Per Section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C.
1801, et seq.), all individual surveys will be held by only a limited number of researchers
at UAF who will enter or work with the data. After the data are entered in an electronic
format, only these researchers will have password-protected access to the data. After data

from the surveys have been entered into an electronic format, the hard copies will be kept
in a locked metal cabinet. These individual surveys will be destroyed upon completion of
the study. Your name, vessel identification and address will be used only for mailing and
survey administration purposes. Only summary results will be reported to the public.
NMFS and other agencies will receive only aggregate results in summary form.
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.
No sensitive questions will be asked.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information
The estimated number of respondents is 500. The estimated total annual burden hours
are 171. These numbers are derived as follows: According to the Gulf Coast of Alaska
vessel revenue data for year 2005 6 (Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission), the
population size (the total number of harvesting vessels that landed fish at Gulf Coast
region ports) is 1,846. This population consists of three subpopulations – small vessels
(831), medium vessels (964), and large vessels (51). The optimal sample size 7 for each
subpopulation is calculated using the sampling procedures described in Attachment D
assuming a ±10% error in the estimate of population totals of interest and an alpha of
0.05. The resulting optimal sample sizes are 197 and 180 for small and medium vessel
classes, respectively. To achieve these numbers of respondents for the two vessel classes
(small and medium), assuming a 55% response rate, 359 surveys for the small vessel
class and 327 surveys for the medium vessel class need to be mailed out. Since the
population size of the large vessel class is very small (51), we will send the surveys to all
the large vessel owners. 8 This means that a total of 737 surveys need to be mailed out

6

We plan to collect 2005 data since the latest IMPLAN data to be revised with the survey data will also be
from 2005.
7
Optimal sample size as used here is the number of vessels needed for analysis to achieve the level of
precision desired given an allowed error of population estimate and an alpha.
8

Here, we are conducting a census for the large vessel class, where the sample size is equal to population
size (N). Since the survey is a voluntary survey, there will be some non-respondents. In this case, the
population totals (employment and labor income) will be estimated simply as:

⎛ N
⎜ ∑ Xi
⎜ i =1
Yˆ = ⎜ r
⎜⎜ ∑ X i
⎝ i =1
where

Xi
r
yi

⎞
⎟ r
⎟
⎟ ∑ yi
⎟⎟ i = 1
⎠
: auxiliary variable (vessel revenue) of ith unit,
: number of respondents,
th
: response sample data of i unit (employment or labor income), and

and a total of 405 vessels are expected to complete surveys assuming a 55% response
rate. Regarding the number of respondents from telephone interviews, all the units in the
population (146) will be contacted. Assuming a 65% response rate 9 , the estimated
number of respondents will be about 95 (66 local businesses and 29 fish processors).
Therefore, the total number of respondents from mail survey and telephone interviews is
estimated to be 500. Since it is estimated that about 20, 15, and 40 minutes will be taken
to conduct vessel owner survey, local business phone interview, and fish processor phone
interview, respectively, the estimated total annual burden hours are 171. See the table
below for details.

N

∑X
i =1

i

: adjustment factor for non-response.

r

∑X
i =1

i

We will assume that a sampling unit is either always a respondent or always a nonrespondent (i.e., the
response mechanism is fixed). This will imply that the variance of the estimate is zero. Under this
assumption, all of the error in the estimate is due to nonsampling error. Therefore we will publish the
response rate in conjunction with the estimate so that the data user can have some intuitive feel for the
quality of the estimate. The above assumption that the sampling unit is always a respondent or always a
nonrespondent is more than likely not totally true. This may be true for many sampling units, but for other
sampling units the probability of responding is greater than zero and less than one. Variance formulas
could be derived if these probabilities of responding were known, but since they’re not, we will assume that
they are either zero or one (Personal Communication, John Slanta, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). For the
other two vessel classes (medium and small vessel classes), we will use unequal probability sampling
(UPS), which is described in detail in Attachment D.
9

We assume a 65% response rate based on previous studies which show that, on average, about 65%
response rate was achieved for phone interviews with local businesses and fish processors. These studies
include:

Herrmann, M., J. Greenberg, C. Hamel, and H. Geier, March 4, 2004. “Regional Economic Impact
Assessment of the Alaska Snow Crab Fishery Integrated with an International Snow Crab Market Model.”
University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Management Working Series Report 2004-001.
Greenberg, J., M. Herrmann, H. Geier, and C. Hamel, January 2002. “Wild Salmon Risk Management in
Bristol Bay Alaska: Draft Final Report.” University of Alaska Fairbanks. Report to the United States
Department of Agriculture.
Herrmann, M., S.T. Lee, C. Hamel, K. Criddle, H. Geier, J. Greenberg, and C. Lewis. June 2000. An
Economic Assessment of the Marine Sport Fisheries for Halibut, and Chinook and Coho Salmon in Lower
Cook Inlet.@ OCS Study Minerals Management Service 2000-046. Annual Report No. 6. Coastal Marine
Institute, University of Alaska.

Information
Collection

Small Vessel mail
survey
Medium Vessel
mail survey
Large Vessels mail
survey
Local business
phone interviews
Fish processor
phone interviews
TOTALS

Estimated
hours
(responses
multiplied by
time per
response)

Number of
respondents

Responses per
respondent

Estimated
time per
response

197

1

20 minutes

65.7

180

1

20 minutes

60.0

28

1
1

20 minutes
15 minutes

9.3

66

16.5
1

40 minutes

29

19.3

500

170.8

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or
record-keepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden
hours in #12 above).
The estimated total annual cost to public is $0.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The total cost of this data collection project is estimated to be $6,187, which covers (a)
labor cost for implementing the survey and (b) mailing costs (for mail surveys, advance
letters, and postcard reminder) and telephone calls for interviews. Since we will use the
same survey questions as those developed for Southwest Alaska regional economic data
collection project, the survey development costs for the current project (Gulf Coast
project) are zero. The project will take one year and therefore, the annualized cost is
$6,187.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items
13 or 14 of the OMB 83-I.
This is a new program.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation
and publication.
The data collected will be used to revise IMPLAN data for the study region. The
collection of data is expected to start in August 2007. Based on this estimated starting

time, the revision of IMPLAN data and generation of a balanced social accounting matrix
(SAM) will be completed by February 2008. Summary results of data collection will be
published in a project report, but will not be made available on the Alaska Fisheries
Science Center’s website. Results from regional economic models to be developed using
the data will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
The expiration date will be displayed.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.