0052_SS_10 revision panel 070910 part a rev

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.
This request is for a revision of this information collection.
Collection of these data is necessary to fulfill statutory requirements of Section 303 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (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 (MSA) specifies data and analyses to be included in Fishery
Management Plans (FMPs), as well as pertinent data that shall be submitted to the Secretary of
Commerce under the plan.
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”. MSA 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 (NRC)” that were provided in a 2006
review of the methods currently used by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries to survey marine recreational fishing effort and catch.
The NRC Review suggested that recreational fishing surveys suffer from inefficiency, potential
bias due to under-coverage of angling populations, and potential bias due to non-response (NRC,
2006). NOAA Fisheries is addressing these concerns by developing and implementing the
Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), an improved system of surveys that will
replace existing marine recreational fishing data collection programs. One of the primary
objectives of MRIP is to assess potential sources of bias in ongoing data collection methods.
The NRC identified potential problems with onsite surveys or recreational anglers, which collect
catch information at the conclusion of recreational fishing trips. Generally, catch surveys are
interviewer- administered surveys conducted at publicly accessible fishing sites such as public
piers, beaches, marinas and boat ramps. Because the coverage of onsite surveys is limited to
public-access sites, estimates of total catch rely on assumptions about the behavior and success
of anglers who access the water from private-access sites such as private residences, community
beaches, marinas and docks, and private yacht clubs. Specifically, current sampling and
estimation approaches assume that anglers who are not accessible to interviewers (privateaccess) exhibit similar behavior and have similar success as anglers who are accessible to
interviewers (public-access). The NRC criticized the fact that this assumption has not been
tested. This requested revision will test the assumption that private-access anglers’ behavior and

1

success are the same as that of public-access anglers by collecting catch data and angler behavior
data through an offsite longitudinal panel survey.
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.
Recreational fishing catch and effort data are used annually by National Marine Fisheries
Services (NMFS), regional fishery management councils, interstate marine fisheries
commissions, and state natural resource agencies in developing, implementing and
monitoring fishery management programs, per statutory requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Catch and effort statistics are
fundamental for assessing the influence of fishing on any stock of fish. Accurate estimates
of the quantities taken, 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. Information collected through this study will be used to identify and quantify bias in
ongoing recreational fishing survey methods, as well as test the feasibility of panel designs
for collecting recreational fishing catch and effort data. The results of the study will be
used to develop more efficient and accurate surveys of recreational anglers.
The final survey instruments for this data collection will be developed through pretesting (focus
groups and/or cognitive interviewing) with fewer than ten individuals. The questionnaire will be
designed to collect the data elements currently collected through the Coastal Household
Telephone Survey (CHTS), Angler License Directory Survey (ALDS), and Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) Intercept Survey, all currently approved information
collections under OMB Control No. 0648-0052. Specific data elements that will be collected
include:
Recent Background
In a previous revision to OMB Control No. 0648-0052 (2009), we requested approval from
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct a mail survey to collect both fishing effort
and catch data (“mail survey of fishing effort and angler diary” in ROCIS). The survey would
utilize a dual-frame design by sampling from databases of saltwater licensees (frame of
individuals) and a frame of residential addresses (household frame). In addition, the survey
would be a two-stage design; the first stage would "screen" the license frame and residential
address frame to identify active anglers (fished during the previous year) and also collect detailed
information about fishing trips that occurred during the previous 2 months. The second stage
would collect information about catch. The two-stage design was proposed as a means of
increasing efficiency. Specifically, it would be extremely inefficient (and costly) to send a
relatively lengthy catch questionnaire to a sample of residential addresses, the vast majority of
which do not include people who fish. The two-stage approach provided an opportunity to
collect fishing effort data, as well as identify a "panel" of anglers from whom we could collect
catch data.

2

One of the goals of the study was to determine the feasibility of using a mail survey to collect
recreational fishing data. Ultimately, we decided that the sample sizes that would be needed for
the first stage of sampling to collect statistically meaningful catch data in the second stage would
be prohibitively large for a feasibility study. As a result, we modified our request to use the
screener questionnaire only for the residential address frame, and we requested to add a new
questionnaire to collect detailed effort data ("mail survey of fishing effort" in ROCIS). The new
questionnaire would be used as the second stage questionnaire for the address frame and would
be used as a single-stage questionnaire for the license frame (e.g. for the address frame, the
screener questionnaire was used to identify anglers and the main questionnaire was used to
collect detailed fishing effort from those anglers). We determined that it was unnecessary to use
a screener questionnaire for the license frame since individuals who purchased a license were
much more likely to have fished. Both screener questionnaire and "main questionnaire" were
approved by OMB. We also received approval to conduct the "panel study" (“angler diary”) to
collect catch data but did not implement a final questionnaire.
Because the mail survey proved to be feasible, we wish to maintain the approved burden hours
for both the screener questionnaire and the main questionnaire. We also wish to conduct a
follow-up survey to test the feasibility of a panel study for collecting catch data. The panel study
will also utilize a dual-frame (residential address and license frame), two-stage approach. The
screener questionnaire will be similar to the approved screener questionnaire. However, it will
be administered to both an address sample and a license sample, and it will be modified to
include questions about fishing avidity (how often respondents fish) as well to ask if respondents
would be willing to participate in the panel study (i.e. it will be modified to recruit anglers into
the panel study). The benefits of sampling anglers through time in the panel study are two-fold;
1) it will increase the amount of catch data we collect, which will allow us to minimize the size
of the screening sample, and 2) it will allow us to observe changes in fishing behavior through
time.
Screener questionnaire
This information will be collected:
a) Composition of household.
b) Participation in recreational saltwater fishing as well as other recreational activities (the
later added to reduce avidity response bias) for household members. This information
will be used to identify potential panelists.
c) Contact information for follow-up, including cell phone and landline usage and internet
access information. Having accurate, preferred contact information is necessary for
conduct of the panel.
Monthly panel questionnaire
This information will be collected for one year:
a) Total number of recreational fishing trips, number taken on privately owned boats, and
number of shore fishing trips taken each month will be used to estimate fishing effort.
3

b) Characteristics of each fishing trip taken during the month, including the time that each
trip began and ended, and whether trips concluded at publicly accessible location, will be
used to estimate under-coverage of onsite surveys. For example, fishing trips that
concluded during the night or at private-access sites are not likely to be included in the
onsite sample frames.
c) The state, county and specific port where each trip concluded are used to assess fishing
effort and assess the accuracy of sampling weights for onsite sample frames.
d) The type of water body fished (e.g. inland, ocean) and distance from shore are used to
estimate fishing effort by principal management area (e.g. state versus Federal
jurisdictions).
e) Amount of time spent fishing is used to estimate fishing effort in hours. This provides an
estimate of fishing effort that is more comparable to commercial fishery statistics.
f) Targeted species is used to estimate fishing effort directed at particular species. When
combined with catch information, directed fishing effort is used to assess the abundance
of the species.
g) Identification of species and number caught and released is used to estimate the number
of fish landed and released by species. This information is used to track landings for
management purposes, as well as estimate the abundance of fishery stocks.
At a minimum, panelists will be asked to report details about fishing activities at monthly
intervals. More avid anglers (based on screening interview) will be contacted bi-weekly. To
insure the highest quality data, participants will be asked to record trip information as soon as
possible following the completion of a fishing trip. Those assigned to the computer assisted
telephone interview will be asked to record some basic information about the trip in a paper
diary, to aid in their recall during the monthly telephone interview. Those assigned to the webbased data collection will be encouraged to access the online reporting site shortly after they fish.
As a result, response activity will be a function of fishing activity. Previous studies (e.g.,
Pollock, et al, 1994; ) clearly indicate that survey respondents’ ability to recall detailed
information decays rapidly as the gap between the measured behavior and reporting increases,
even for periods as short as two months. The success of the study is contingent upon panelists’
ability to accurately recall specific details about past fishing trips. Increasing the reference
period beyond one month will increase the likelihood of reporting error. In addition, the
approach being proposed has been successfully implemented in a study of anglers in Australia
(Henry and Lyle, 2003) with high response rates and no indications of complaints concerning
respondent burden.
There are no changes to any of the other information collections under this OMB Control
Number (CHTS, ALDS and MRFSS).
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information 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 response to Question 10 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 will be used in scientific, management, technical or
4

general information publications. Should NOAA Fisheries decide to disseminate the
information, it will be subject to the quality control measures and pre-dissemination 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.
One of the goals of this study is to test the feasibility of online reporting of recreational fishing
data. To that end, the survey will utilize a split-sample design in which half of the panelists
will report fishing activity through computer assisted telephone interviews, and half will report
through an online questionnaire. Web panelists who do not submit data through the online
form on schedule will be contacted via telephone and asked to provide data either through the
online form or through a telephone interview.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
Panelists will be recruited through a screening survey that will sample from lists of licensed
anglers, as well as comprehensive lists of residential addresses. Sample frames for ongoing
recreational fishing telephone surveys that use these sample frames will be screened to remove
anglers who are participating in the panel study.
The panel study will collect similar information to the ongoing MRFSS Access-Point Intercept
Survey (APIS). As described above, the APIS does not cover fishing trips that conclude at nonpublicly accessible fishing access sites. This survey will test for bias resulting from undercoverage of APIS sample frames.
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.
Information collected through this study will be used to develop improved surveys of
recreational anglers as mandated by Section 401 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Reauthorization Act. Failure to implement the data collection will delay the
Agencies’ effort to develop and implement the Marine Recreational Information Program.

7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
NA.
5

8. Provide information on 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 April 23, 2010 (75 FR 21231) solicited public
comment on this revision. No comments were received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other
than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
The screening interview to recruit panelists will include a $1.00 cash incentive. The benefits of
cash incentives on mail survey response rates are well documented (e.g., Church, 1993). A small
token of appreciation (e.g., magnet, fishing related information) will be provided to respondents
who participate for the full year in the panel survey.
10. Describe any assurance or confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis
for assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
As stated on the survey instruments, esponses 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 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.
The revised total burden for the MRFSS will be 49,640 hours, a net increase of 2,147 over the
current hours of 47,493. The screener questionnaire will be completed by approximately 5,040
respondents (5,040 x 8 minutes/60 minutes = 672 hours). Of these, approximately 1,260 will
participate in the panel survey (1,260 x 12 months x 10 minutes / 60 minutes = 2,520 hours2).
Total burden attributable to this specific information collection will be approximately 3,192
hours, determined as follows:

6

# Respondents

Responses

Minutes/activity

Total Hours

Screening
Questionnaire

Activity

5,040

5,040

8

672

Angler Diary2

1,260

15,120

10

2,5201

Totals
5,040
20,160
1 Elimination of a previously approved panel study results in a decrease of 1,045 hours.

3,192

2 Respondents to the angler diary survey are a subset of the respondents to the effort questionnaire and do not represent new respondents.

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 Question
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 $300,000 including data collection
and statistical consulting services costs.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
The net increase of 2,147 hours is the result of the following program changes:
1) Elimination of a previously-approved panel study resulted in a reduction of 1,045 hours.
2) Implementation of a screening survey to identify eligible respondents and recruit
panelists resulted in an increase of 672 hours.
3) Implementation of a monthly panel study resulted in an increase of 2,520 hours.
There are no changes to any of the other information collections under this OMB Control
Number.
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.” Findings from
the study will be presented at both appropriate professional meetings (e.g., American Statistical
Association; American Fisheries Society) and will be submitted for publication in an
appropriate statistical or fisheries peer-reviewed journal.

7

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.
NA.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement.
There are no exceptions.

8