0052 ss rev 120607 part a

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHERY STATISTICS SURVEY
OMB CONTROL NO.: 0648-0052

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
Collection of these data is necessary to fulfill statutory requirements of Section 303 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1853 et. seq. and to
comply with Executive Order 12962 on Recreational Fisheries. Section 303 (a)) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies data and analyses to be included in Fishery Management Plans
(FMP), as well as pertinent data that shall be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce under the
plan.
In the past, it was thought that commercial fisheries took the greater part of the fishery catch in
the marine waters of the United States. However, most species of fish in estuarine and inshore
areas, as well as in many open ocean waters, are harvested by both commercial and recreational
fishermen. Recent data indicate that catches by the marine recreational fishery are a significant
portion of the total landings of many marine species. Therefore, it is essential to monitor both
the commercial and recreational components of the fishery on a continuing basis. The Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) makes up the core of the Agency’s
recreational fishery data collection efforts. Implementation of the new components and sampling
levels for the previously approved survey components will depend on fiscal year funding.
This revision will fulfill statutory requirements of Section 401 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act. Section 401 (g) requires that the Secretary
of Commerce, “establish a program to improve the quality and accuracy of information
generated by the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey”. The Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA), further specifies that
future surveys should, “target anglers registered or licensed at the State or Federal level to collect
participation and effort data”, and that the program, “to the maximum extent feasible implement
the recommendations of the National Research Council” that were provided in a 2006 review of
the methods currently used by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to survey marine
recreational fishing effort and catch. One of the major NRC recommendations was that future
telephone surveys of fishing effort should utilize available lists of licensed or registered saltwater
anglers as sampling frames.
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 MSRA, signed into law in January 2007, requires that the Secretary of Commerce develop
and implement a program to improve the quality of marine recreational fishing data by January
1, 2009. Furthermore, MSRA specifies that future fishing surveys target anglers registered at the
State or Federal level. Recognizing that available angler list frames may not provide complete
1

coverage of people who fish recreationally in saltwater, the NMFS, Office of Science and
Technology developed a “dual-frame” telephone survey approach that combines more efficient
sampling from angler list frames with the less efficient RDD sampling of residential households.
Currently, the approach has been implemented in the Gulf of Mexico Region, and it is
anticipated that the methodology will be expanded to other states and regions as state and/or
Federal saltwater angler registries are implemented (as required by MSRA). Preliminary results
suggest that the use of participant list frames is greatly increasing the efficiency of telephone
sampling efforts over levels achieved by random-digit-dialing (RDD) household surveys: to date,
calls to those on the angler lists result in an average of 45-55% responding that they have had
recent fishing activity, compared to 7-12% for the RDD surveys. This request is to expand the
dual-frame methodology into North Carolina, which recently implemented a state saltwater
fishing license.
The data are used annually by NMFS, regional fishery management councils, interstate marine
fisheries commissions, and state fishery agencies in developing, implementing and monitoring
fishery management programs. Failure to conduct these data collections would prevent the
Secretary from meeting statutory requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1996.
Catch and effort statistics are fundamental for assessing the influence of fishing on any stock of
fish. The quantities taken, the fishing effort, and both the seasonal and geographic distributions
of the catch and effort are required for the development of regional management policies and
plans. Social and economic data are used to provide descriptive and behavioral information on
marine recreational fishing participants; provide estimates of the value of important recreational
fisheries; analyze fisheries management decisions regarding allocation, changes in management
strategies or changes in factors that affect catch rates and/or access to marine recreational species
for fishing sites; estimate the contribution of recreational fisheries to regional economies; and
estimate the impact of fisheries regulations on regional economies. In addition to the need for
data on recreational anglers, fisheries management requires cost-earnings on the charter boat
fleet.
Accurate and timely catch statistics collected over the range of a species must be used in
association with biological studies to perform the stock assessments necessary for monitoring the
effectiveness of fishery management planning for optimum yield. Several fish species are now
being managed under FMP quota systems that include recreational fishery components. For
example, this collection has been the key source of data used to monitor recreational quotas for
the harvest of red snapper, king mackerel and Spanish mackerel in the Southeast Region. This
collection provides coastwide information on quantity, species composition, and size distribution
of catch. Such information is not available from any other source. For example, catch
distributions and harvested size distributions obtained in this data collection have formed the
basis of FMPs developed for bluefish, red drum, red snapper, summer flounder, weakfish, winter
flounder, and other key species targeted by the marine recreational fishery.
It is anticipated that the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to
support publicly disseminated information. As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the
information gathered has utility. NMFS 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 response #10 of this Supporting
Statement for more information on confidentiality and privacy. The information collection is
2

designed to yield data that meet all applicable information quality guidelines. Prior to
dissemination, the information will be subjected to quality control measures and a 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.
The methodological approach for the MRFSS has been developed and refined over 23 years,
employing the experience of NMFS statisticians and contractors in statistical sampling and
survey methods. State-of-the-art interviewing methods have been used to minimize response
times. The proposed data collections require interviewer-mediated reporting of data by
respondents in order to minimize item non-response and maximize accuracy of the collected data
and statistics estimated from those data. The proposed telephone survey requires use of
computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) methods that greatly reduce response errors
and data entry errors.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
NMFS has the lead Federal responsibility for collection of data from marine recreational
fishermen and coordinates marine recreational fishing informational needs with other agencies.
For example, in 1987 NMFS coordinated an economic study of marine recreational anglers on
the Atlantic Coast with the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, NMFS has worked
with State fishery agencies each year to coordinate data collection efforts and avoid duplication.
In some cases, NMFS employs State personnel under contract to conduct field interviewing. The
Survey is not conducted in Texas, since existing Texas-sponsored surveys provide the
information that would have been obtained by NMFS.
Angler License Directory Surveys (ALDS) are being integrated with the Coastal Household
Telephone Survey (CHTS) in a dual-frame survey approach. This introduces the slight
possibility that a household or individual could be selected for both surveys (CHTS and ALDS)
during a single sampling period in areas where the sample frames overlap. Sample draws for
each survey are being carefully sorted and screened to identify households that have been
selected for both surveys, and measures have been implemented to ensure that a household is not
contacted multiple times during a single sample period.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
No small businesses will be impacted by this revision.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
An annual survey of recreational anglers is required to monitor changing conditions in the
fishery and support modifications in fishery regulations for each fishing year. A continuous time
series of data is scientifically essential. Start up costs in hiring and training of interviewers and
in overhauling of the site, selection frame for biannual surveys would greatly exceed the
3

budgeted amount for the Survey, and reduce funds available to collect sufficient interviews to
meet statistical objectives.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
The collection is consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines.
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.
A Federal Register Notice, published on September 12, 2007, solicited public comment on this
revision. Several comments were received regarding the proposed survey. Comments are
summarized below.
Comment: Limiting the phone survey to licensed anglers will not account for those anglers
fishing without a license.
Response: Unlicensed anglers will be accounted for through the existing CHTS. The CHTS will
be integrated with the ALDS in a dual-frame approach.
Comment: Two individuals recommended the use of email or online surveys.
Response: Future efforts to collect recreational fishing information may utilize the use of online
reporting tools. The purpose of this revision is to refine a survey methodology that utilizes
angler directories as sampling frames as required by MSRA.
Comment: Three comments supported the proposed survey in NC, suggesting that it will be a
substantial improvement over the existing survey.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments or gifts to respondents are given under this program.
10. Describe any assurance or confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
Responses are kept confidential as required by section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens and
NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Confidentiality of Fisheries Statistics, and will not be
released for public use, except in aggregate statistical form without identification as to its source.
Section 402(b) stipulates that data required to be submitted under an FMP shall be confidential
and shall not be released except to Federal employees and Council staff responsible for FMP
4

monitoring and development or when required under court order. Data such as personal
addresses and phone numbers will remain confidential.
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 are asked.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
Directory Frame Telephone Survey of Licensed Marine Recreational Anglers
This revision includes only adjustments to hours associated with conducting directory-frame
telephone surveys. No other survey component will be affected by this revision.
Persons

Contacts

Mean
Time
(min.)

Total Hours

Anglers with no trips*

17,068

17,068

1.0

284

Anglers with trips

11,378

11,378

7.0

1,327

28,446**

28,446

TOTALS***
*
**
***

***1,611

Based on 40 percent of anglers having trips during last two months.
New totals include 3,750 additional contacts in North Carolina (2,250 expected to report no trips and 1500 to report trips,) resulting in
272 additional hours.
This information is shown as (c) in Total program burden below

Total program burden:
Survey

Persons

Contacts

Hours

(a) Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS)

497,729

482,354

12,647

0

37,500

4,375

(c) Angler Directory Telephone Surveys *

28,442

28,442

1,611

(d) Base Intercept Survey

153,000

168,300

11,858

(e) For-Hire Telephone Survey

8,500

44,200

5,157

(f) Vessel Directory Maintenance

5,000

5,000

167

(g) Economic Telephone Survey

0

0

1,038

(h) Economic Intercept/Telephone Survey

0

38,500

3,239

(i) Economic Telephone Survey of Angler
Directory

22,000

22,000

978

(b) Longitudinal Sampling – CHTS

5

(j) Follow-up Economic Mail Survey

0

50,400

1,400

(k) Economic Survey of For-Hire Businesses

0

1,125

2,108

(l) Biological Data Collection

10,000

10,000

167

TOTALS

724,671

887,821

44,745

* This revision includes only adjustments to burden hours associated with angler license directory telephone surveys. Total contacts and burden
hours reflect these adjustments.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in #12
above).
These data collections will incur no cost burden on respondents beyond the costs of response
time.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
Annual cost to the Federal government is approximately $350,000 divided as follows: $300,000
in contract award money and $50,000 in professional staff, overhead and computing costs.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
We are requesting an adjustment of 3,746 respondents and 272 burden hours to expand an
existing data collection methodology to North Carolina. Expansion of the methodology to North
Carolina (NC) will help satisfy the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
All data collected and analyzed will be included in table format available on the web page of
the Fisheries Statistics Division, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries
Service. The web address is http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational. Additional summaries of
data will be included in the annual publication “Fisheries of the United States.”
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.
N/A.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the OMB
83-I.
There are no exceptions.

6