GRNMS_SS_2-17 Part A

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
SOCIOECONOMICS OF USERS AND NON-USERS OF
GRAYS REEF NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
OMB CONTROL No. 0648-xxxx
Revised 2-6-2011

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, 11th floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Contact: Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy
(301) 713-7261
[email protected]

1

Table of Contents
Page Number
Justification
Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary…………. 6
Explain how, by whom, how frequently and for what purpose the information
will be used……………………………………………………………………………… 6
How and Purpose: …………………………………………………………………… 7
Users of GRNMS via Private Household Boats…………………………………… 7
Section1: Opinions about Ocean & Coastal Resources Protection and Management. 8
Section 2: Attitudes about GRNMS Current Management Strategies and
Regulations……………………………………………………………… 10
Section 3: Sources of Information on Ocean & Coastal Resources and
GRNMS ………………………………………………………………… 10
Section 4: Status and Condition of the Resources in GRNMS .……..……………... 10
Section 5: Activities in Ocean & Coastal Areas in and around Georgia and in
GRNMS………………………………………………………………… 11
Section 6: Activity Specialization …………………………………………………. 12
Section 7: Ways Users Value Ocean & Coastal Resources/Marine Environment… 12
Section 8: Information about the User……………………………………………… 12
Non-users of GRNMS from Georgia’s General Population…………………………13
For-hire Recreational Diving Operations…………………….…………………… 13
Part 1: General Information, Economic Information, and Person-days and Trip
Costs…………………………………..…………………………………… 14
General Information:………………..………………………………………….. 14
Economic Information………………..………………………………………………. 14
Person-days and Trip Costs………………..…………………………………… 14
Part 2: Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management Strategies
and Regulations……………………………………..……………………… 15
For-hire Recreational Fishing Operations…………………………………………. 15
Part 1: General Information, Economic Information, and Person-days and Trip
Costs……………………………………………………………………..… 15
General Information………………..…………………………………………… 15
Economic Information……………………..…………………………………………. 15
Person-days and Trip Costs……………………………………………………... 15
Part 2: Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management Strategies
and Regulations 11…………………………………………………………. 16
By Whom………………………………………………………………………….. 16
How Frequently…………………………………………………………………… 16
How Collection Complies with NOAA Information Quality Guidelines………… 16
Utility………………………………………………………………………... 16
Integrity……………………………………………………………………… 17
Objectivity…………………………………………………………………… 17
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

2

information technology…………………………………………………………………. 17
Describe efforts to identify duplication…………………………………………………. 17
If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden……………………………………………………. 18
Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or conducted less frequently……………………………………………… 18
Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner
inconsistent with OMB guidelines……………………………………………………….. 19
PRA Federal Register Notification comments…………………………………………….19
Explain any decision to provide payments or gifts to respondents other than remuneration
of contractors or grantees………………………………………………………………….19
Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy…………………………………………19
Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and any other matters that are commonly
considered private……………………………………………………………………….. 20
Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information……………..20
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)………………… 23
Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government………………………... 23
Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items
13 or 14 of OMB 83-I………………………………………………………………….. 23
For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication……………………………………………………………………………… 23
If seeking approval to not display the expiration date fro OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate……..

24

Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in item 19 of the
OMB 83-I………………………………………………………………………………

24

3

Table of Contents (continued)
Page Number
Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods…………………………….. 24
Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any
sampling or other respondent selection method used………………………………….

24

Describe the procedures for the collection, including: the statistical methodology for
stratification and sample selection; the estimation procedure; the degree of accuracy
needed for the purposes described in the justification; any unusual problems requiring
specialized sampling procedures; and any use of periodic (less frequent than annual)
data collection cycles to reduce burden……………………………………………….. 27
Describe the methods used to maximize response rates and to deal with non-response.. 30
Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken…………………………. 32
Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on the statistical
aspects of the design, and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or
other person(s) who will actually collect and/or analyze the information for the agency..32
References…………………………………………………………………………………… 33

4

List of Tables
Table Number

Description

Page Number

1

Information and Survey Times for Different Versions of User
And Non User Surveys……………………………………………..

8

2

Burden Hours Calculations………………………………………… 22

3

Total Project Cost to the Federal Government…………………….. 23

4

Populations, Sample Sizes, and Expected Response Rates………… 26

5

Required Sample Sizes for Desired Precision of Estimates………… 30

5

A. JUSTFICATION
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
This request is for a new collection of information.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC 1431, et seq.) (NMSA) authorizes the use of
research and monitoring within National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) as does (16 USC 1431, et
seq). In 1981, the Grays Reef National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS) was added to the system of
NMS.
The NMSA specifies that each NMS should revise their management plans on a five-year cycle.
The GRNMS last revised their plan in 2006 and has begun the management plan review process.
The NMSA also allows for the creation of Sanctuary Advisory Councils (SACs). SACs are
comprised of representatives of all NMS stakeholders. Management Plan Review (MPR) is a
public process and the SACs, along with a series of public meetings, are used to help scope out
issues in revising the management plans and regulations. SAC Working Groups are often used
to evaluate management or regulatory alternatives. In the current MPR for the GRNMS, two
major issues have emerged: prohibition of spear fishing and establishment of a research-only
area. The spear fishing regulation was published in the Federal Register February 19, 2010
(FR/Vol. 75, No. 33, 7361-7367) and went into effect March 22, 2010. The preferred alternative
has been selected for the “research only area” and is currently going through regulatory review
and clearance process.
To address each one these issues, the GRNMS Management and SAC or SAC Working Group is
provided a socioeconomic panel to develop information and tools to assess the socioeconomic
impacts of management strategies and regulatory alternatives. Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy,
the Office of the National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) Chief Economist, leads the
socioeconomic panel, which can include other social scientists from other agencies or from
universities. The information and tools developed in this process also provide the necessary
information for meeting agency requirements for socioeconomic impact analyses under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12086 (Regulatory Impact
Review) and an Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (impacts on small businesses).
The ONMS and GRNMS also have in place socioeconomic monitoring to test whether projected
socioeconomic impacts of regulations actually occur and to inform an adaptive management
process in review of management plan strategies and regulations. The surveys proposed here are
designed to address the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of both Grays Reef Users and Nonusers as to the GRNMS’s management strategies and regulations. In the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, ONMS has a mandate to balance both conservation (direct uses of Sanctuary
resources) and preservation (non use or passive economic use i.e. people have value for simply
knowing the resources are protected in a certain condition even though they don’t directly use it).

6

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.

How and Purpose
This information request involves compiling socioeconomic information for users and non-users
of GRNMS. Users include those who access GRNMS via private household boats and for-hire
recreational dive operations and for-hire recreational fishing operations (charter and party/head
boat operations). Non-users will include random sample of Georgia households stratified
between coastal and non-coastal counties. Socioeconomic information includes
socioeconomic/demographic profiles (e.g. age, race/ethnicity, income, and household/family
size), costs-and-earnings of business operation, spatial use patterns, and knowledge, attitudes,
and perceptions (KAP) of GRNMS existing and proposed management strategies and
regulations.
The purpose of the information collection is to obtain the necessary information to monitor and
assess the socioeconomic impacts of management strategies and regulations and inform the
adaptive management process in revising management strategies and regulations. In addition,
information is obtained to support education & outreach efforts to better understand GRNMS
stakeholders and to communicate effectively with them.
USERS VIA PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD BOATS
For the users that access GRNMS via private household boats, the survey includes information
that can be described in eight separate sections or modules of questions. To reduce respondent
burden and increase response rates to the survey, the survey has been divided into two versions
of the questionnaire that will be implemented to the same sample of users, but spaced over a twoyear period.
Version 1 of the survey includes sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, while Version 2 includes sections 1,
3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 (See Table 1). Table 1 also includes the estimated time for completion of each
section/module of questions in each version and the total estimated time of completion for each
version of the survey questionnaire. Within each version of the questionnaires, the section
numbers don’t correspond to those in Table 1 as they are organized numerically in a continuous
manner for clarity. Section descriptions are used as headings for each section within the survey
questionnaires.
Section 1 obtains information on user’s opinions about ocean & coastal resources protection.
Section 2 obtains information on user’s attitudes about GRNMS’s current management strategies
and regulations. Section 3 obtains information on what sources of information users’ use and
trust for issues related to ocean & coastal resources and GRNMS and ways users prefer to
receive information about GRNMS. Section 4 obtains information on users perceptions of the
status and condition of resources in GRNMS. Section 5 obtains information on the recreation

7

activities and use of ocean & coastal resources in and around Georgia and in the GRNMS.
Section 6 obtains information on user’s main or primary activity in ocean & coastal areas and
information to classify users according to how specialized they are in their activities. Section 7
obtains information on the ways users’ value ocean & coastal resources/marine environment.
Finally, Section 8 obtains information on socioeconomic/demographic information of users.
Table 1. Information and Survey Times for Different Versions of User and Nonuser Surveys
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Users
Nonusers
Version 1 Version 2 Version 1 Version 2
Section Section Description
(Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
1
Opinions about Ocean & Coastal Resources
Protection and Management
20
20
2
Attitudes about GRNMS Current Management
Strategies and Regulations
15
15
3
Sources of Information on Ocean & Coastal
Resources and GRNMS
5
5
5
2
4
Status and Conditions of the Resources in
GRNMS
2
2
5
Activities in Ocean & Coastal Areas in and
around Georgia and in the GRNMS
6
6
3
3
6
Activity Specialization
5
7
Ways you Value Ocean & Coastal Resources/
Marine Environment
2
2
8
Information about Yourself
3
3
3
3
All
36
38
26
30
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Graphical, Visual and Symbolic Language Design. Throughout the questionnaires for users and
non users, which are self-administered mail surveys, we have followed design principles found
in Morrison et al (2010), Dillman et al (2005), Christian and Dillman (2004), Redline et al
(2001) and Stern et al (2007). For questions using five-point Likert scale type responses, we
have labeled each score on the five-point scale based on an OMB directive rather than the polar
point method of labeling responses as found in Christian and Dillman (2004, figure 2, pg. 73)
and in Stern et al (2007, page 126).
Section 1: Opinions about Ocean & Coastal Resources Protection and Management. This
section contains 13 questions. First a definition of ocean & coastal areas is provided along with
a map of coastal and ocean areas in Georgia and GRNMS. Questions 1 and 2 focus on user’s
greatest concerns about the health of ocean & coastal resources both in and around Georgia
(Question 1) and in the GRNMS (Question 2). There are 14 items (labeled a to n) in each
question where users are asked to score on a scale of one (1) to five (5) with 1=No Concern at
All, 2=Not Very Concerned, 3=Neutral, 4=Somewhat Concerned and 5=Extremely Concerned
The questions used here have been adapted from the “Ocean Project” using the polar point
concern scale, except that we have changed to the use of a five point Likert scale versus the 0 to

8

100 scale with a number response used by the “Ocean Project” based on the findings from
Christian and Dillman (2004) and Stern et al (2007).
Questions 3 and 4 are general questions about the support for ocean & coastal protection both in
and around Georgia and outside GRNMS (Question 3 and in GRNMS (Question 4). Again, a 1
to 5 scale is used with 1=No Support at All, 2=Somewhat Against, 3=Neutral, 4=Somewhat
Support, 5=Strongly Support. This question sets the stage for pursuing more specific forms of
protection in questions 5 through 11.
Questions 5 through 11 addresses more specific forms of management strategies and regulations.
Each type of management strategy or regulation is preceded by a short description of the
problem or context and a definition of the management strategy or regulation using bulleted
sentences. Support for the general management strategy of marine zoning is asked in Question 5
with a simple yes/no response. A skip pattern is employed here so users that do not support the
general management strategy are not asked about specific forms of the marine zoning strategy.
For those who answer “yes” to Question 5, Questions 6 through 9 are asked, while for those who
say “no”, they are asked to skip to question 12.
Questions 6 and 7 address the marine zoning strategy of “marine reserves” or “no-take areas”.
Question 6 does this for areas in Georgia outside GRNMS, while Question 7 asks this for areas
inside GRNMS. A definition of marine reserves is first provided using six bulleted sentences,
then, Questions 6 and 7 ask users to score their support for the use of marine reserves in Georgia
ocean & coastal areas outside GRNMS and inside GRNMS. Again the scale used is 1 to 5 with
1=No Support at All, 2=Somewhat Against, 3=Neutral, 4=Somewhat Support, and 5=Strongly
Support.
Question 8 is a follow on to Question 7 to ask about users opinions on the amount of
displacement which they find acceptable for activities that would be displaced by marine
reserves/no-take areas. Even though in our experience users understand the term
“displacement”, we have replaced it with the simple term “impact” with bulleted information
using the terms social and economic impacts. Users are first reminded of the activities that
involve taking of resources will be impacted and that the amount of potential impact would be
based on the size of the area placed in marine reserve/no-take status. Users are asked to provide
the percent of acceptable impact on each of nine activities (labeled a to i) potentially impacted by
the marine reserves zoning strategy.
Questions 9 through 11 address the marine zoning concept of “research only areas”. First a
definition is provided of “research only areas” to describe what activities are and are not allowed
and the general purpose of “research only areas” using four bulleted sentences. Questions 9 and
10 ask users to rate their support for this type of management strategy using the 1 to 5 scale for
use of “research only areas” in Georgia ocean & coastal areas outside GRNMS (Question 9) and
inside GRNMS (Question 10). Question 11 follows up on Question 10 what percent of impact is
acceptable to them on each of 11 activities (labeled a to k) that will be potentially impacted by
‘research only areas”.

9

Question 12 and 13 focus on a management strategy currently being used and expanded upon
under the new Ocean Action Plan called ecosystem-based management. There are two forms of
ecosystem-based management evaluated here. One form of ecosystem-based management is
more limited and restricted to fishery management. The other is called full ecosystem-based
management and involves the balancing of all human uses incorporating humans fully into the
ecosystem. Question 12 addresses the change in fishery management from single species
management to multiple species management. Users are asked to rate their support for the
fishery management change from species specific to the ecosystem-based multiple species
management using the 1 to 5 scale with 1=No Support at All, 2=Somewhat Against, 3=Neutral,
4=Somewhat Support, and 5=Strongly Support. Question 13 does the same thing for the full
ecosystem-based management approach.
Section 2: Attitudes about GRNMS Current Management Strategies and Regulations.
The
questions are similar to those submitted under OMB Control Number 0648-0597, Expiration
Date: 11/30/2012 for the for-hire diving and fishing operations in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico
in support of the Flower Gardens Bank National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS). The questions
have been modified to the issues in the GRBNMS, but follow the same general format.
This section contains 17 questions or 17 items to be scored.. All questions (items) in this section
use a five-point Likert scale on agreement with statements about GRNMS management strategies
and regulations, the processes used to create the strategies and regulations, and the enforcement
of regulations. The five point scale is on the agreement scale with 1=Strongly Agree,
2=Moderately Agree, 3=Neutral, 4=Moderately Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree. A Don’t Know
(DK) response is also allowed and is placed to the right of the five point scale.
Section 3: Sources of Information on Ocean & Coastal Resources and GRNMS. This section
contains five questions. The first two questions are about information sources used and level of
trust of those sources. The third question asks about respondent’s preferences on how they like
to receive information. We pursue both formal and informal sources of information. The next
two questions are knowledge related questions as to knowledge of management/regulatory
agencies and level of familiarity with GRNMS regulations. All information in this section is
designed to assist in the GRNMS education and outreach program.
The second question in this section asks users to rate each source they use (determined in the
first question in this section) as to their level of trust. Our research in other National Marine
Sanctuaries finds that the most used sources are not always the most trusted. Level of trust is
rated on a five-point Likert scale where 1=No Trust at All, 2=Very little Trust, 3=Neutral,
4=Trust very Much, and 5=Completely Trust. The third question that asks for user’s preferences
for how they would like to receive information and users are asked to check all that apply.
The fourth question in this section asks users if they know who sets policy/management for
National Marine Sanctuaries and for fisheries in ocean and coastal areas. Users are asked to
name the agencies. Question five in this section simply asks users their familiarity with GRNMS
regulations. Respondents are asked to check only one from the choices of “Very familiar”,
“Somewhat familiar”, and “I am not familiar with any of the rules or regulations”.

10

Section 4: Status and Conditions of the Resources in GRNMS. Again, the questions are
similar to those submitted under OMB Control Number 0648-0597, Expiration Date:
11/30/2012 for the for-hire diving and fishing operations in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico in
support of the Flower Gardens Bank National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS). The questions
have been modified to the issues in the GRBNMS, but follow the same general format.
There is one question with eleven items (labeled a to k) in this section with the items
corresponding to eleven different resources. Users are asked to rate conditions on a five-point
Likert scale where 1=Getting a lot Better, 2=Getting Somewhat Better, 3=Same, 4=Getting
Somewhat Worse, 5=Getting a lot Worse. A “Don’t Know” response is also allowed for and is
provided to the right of the five point scale for each item.
Section 5: Activities in Ocean & Coastal Area in and around Georgia and in GRNMS. In this
section, we focus on the recreation activities users engage in both in the ocean & coastal areas
off Georgia and in GRNMS. The list of recreation activities was expanded to include activities
that don’t take place in GRNMS, but which take place in Georgia. We obtain information on
activities done both inside GRNMS and Georgia in general to assess the extent of substitution
between Georgia in general and GRNMS. Also, this type of information has been used to
explain people’s attitudes and preferences for ocean and coastal resource protection.
There are six questions in this section. The first question asks about which activities people
engage in both ocean & coastal waters off Georgia and in GRNMS. Simple check boxes are
used for eight specified activity types known to be done both off Georgia and in GRNMS. For
an additional five activities that take place off Georgia, but not in GRNMS, we provide check
boxes only for Georgia. The second question addresses intensity of use asking for the number of
days by type of activity for 2010. Days in Georgia and days in GRNMS are asked. A special
instruction in bold type is provided explaining that “if all days were in GRNMS, then code all
your days in Georgia and GRNMS.
The third question asks for further break downs of the days of activities in GRNMS by type of
boat access (e.g. private, charter or party). Even though the survey is of those who we know
accessed the GRNMS via private household boat, there is the possibility that some of these users
also access the GRNMS via other boat modes.
The fourth question asks for how many people are usually with the respondent when they are out
on their private boat. Currently we have estimates of the total number of private boats that
access GRNMS, but we have to use estimates from other surveys off Georgia for the average
number of people aboard private household boats. We will be able to test if our estimate is
significantly different and if it significantly alters our estimates of total activity.
We know that many fishing tournaments take place in GRNMS. The fifth question asks
respondents if they participate in fishing tournaments in GRNMS. Check boxes are used for
three possible responses “Yes”, “No”, and “Don’t fish”. When combined with the answer to the
first two questions in this section, this question obtains information on how many of those who
fish in tournaments access the GRNMS via private household boats.

11

The sixth and final question is this section will allow us to better understand GRNMS users as to
what factors influence their choice of GRNMS over other sites. Again, adds further information
to help assess the issue of substitution. Ten factors (labeled a to j) are listed and respondents are
asked to answer each item by circling the appropriate response from the choice of “Yes”,
“Somewhat”, or “Not at all”.
Section 6: Activity Specialization. The literature in Human Dimensions of resource
management has found that classifying users according to their main or primary activity and how
specialized they are in that activity is a good predictor of how different groups respond to
management strategies, rules and regulations.
This section includes eight questions. The answers to any one question alone have very little
meaning. The use of the answers to all the questions in this section is used to classify users, by
main or primary activity, according to their level of specialization in the activity.
The first question is this section identifies the “main” or “primary” activity of the respondent in
coastal & ocean areas off the coast of Georgia, including activities in the GRNMS. The next
four questions have listed responses with check boxes next to each response and the respondent
is asked to check one box for each question. The next question asks for a dollar amount response
on what it would cost to replace their current equipment used in their main or primary activity.
The seventh question in this section asks again about use of information obtained on their
primary activity. Eleven sources of information are listed and the respondent is asked to rate the
level of use on a five point scale with 1=No Use, 2=Almost No Use, 3=A little Use, 4=Moderate
Use, and 5=A lot of Use. The eighth and final question in this section provides a list of reasons
why people engage in recreation activities. Twelve reasons are listed (labeled a to l) and
respondents are asked how important each of these reasons are for participating in their primary
activity. A five point scale is used with 1=Not at all Important, 2=Slightly Important,
3=Moderately Important, 4=Very Important, and 5=Extremely Important.
Section 7: Ways Users Value Oceans & Coastal Resources/Marine Environment. This is not
an attempt to derive dollar values of users’ economic value for ocean & coastal resources, but
instead simply addresses people’s relative preferences for different goods and services derived
from ocean & coastal resources and what actions users would take to ensure ocean & coastal
resources would be sustainable so future generations could enjoy them.
There are just two questions in this section. The first question asks users to score their value for
each of the ten uses of ocean & coastal resources on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=No Value, 2=Low
Value, 3=Medium Value, 4=High Value, and 5=Extremely High Value. The second question
identifies nine actions and a place for other (specify) which users might take and ask them to
score them on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1=”Would not do” ,2=”Would Do Very Little, 3=”Would do
Some, 4=”Would do a Lot” and 5=”Would do the Maximum.
Section 8: Information about the User: In this final section of the survey, we ask for
socioeconomic/demographic information and for questions commonly asked in the U.S. Census
of population, we use consistent response categories so that general comparisons can be made

12

between general Georgia residents and GRNMS users. From past research, we know that these
individual characteristics are statistically significant factors in explaining activity participation
and use or in knowledge, attitudes and perceptions.
There are 13 questions in this section. Questions include socioeconomic/demographic
characteristics such as ethnicity, race, sex, age, level of education, household income, household
size, household type, employment status, and occupation. Additional information is asked on
boat ownership and memberships in groups or clubs. Place of residence is not needed since this
information is already available through users known mail address, which will be used to create
data base variables on zip code, city and county of residence.
For one item (employment status), we depart from that used in the U.S. Bureau of Census, “the
American Community Survey”. We don’t have the same objective as that intended for by the
Census in achieving consistent estimates for calculating unemployment rates. Our categories are
consistent with other research we have done relating categories to explaining different behaviors.
Here we use the “check all that apply” format to our categories, since people can be classified in
multiple categories.
NON-USERS OF GRNMS FROM GEORGIA’S GENERAL POPULATION
For the non-users of GRNMS from the general population of Georgia, the survey is divided into
two versions to reduce burden on respondents with the objective of keeping surveys within an
estimated time of completion of 30 minutes. Since subject matter will be of less salience to non
users, we have designed the survey to meet the requirement of taking, on average, 30 minutes of
less to complete. Version 1 includes sections (discussed above for users) 2, 3, 5 & 8 and is
estimated to take 26 minutes to complete. Version 2 includes sections 1, 3, 5, 7 & 8 and is
estimated to take 30 minutes to complete. It is important to note that for non users sections 4 and
6 as we did with users since non users would not be expected to know the status of conditions of
GRNMS (section 4) or would we need section 6 (Activity Specialization) to help us predict how
they would respond to regulations in the GRNMS. Eliminating these two sections allows us to
minimize burden and increase response rates. In addition, sections 3 (Sources of Information)
and section 5 (Activities in Ocean & Coastal Areas in and around Georgia and in the GRNMS)
are shortened for non users. We expect non users will use much fewer sources of information
and thus won’t have to rate many for trust of the sources and since they don’t use GRNMS,
section 5 is much shorter. See Table 1 for the sections included in each version and the estimated
times for completion of the survey by respondents.
FOR-HIRE RECREATIONAL DIVING OPERATIONS
The questionnaire for the for-hire recreational diving operations is divided into two parts. Part 1
obtains basic socioeconomic/demographic information, costs-and-earnings, and spatial
distribution of use. Part 2 obtains knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of existing and proposed
management strategies and regulations. Past research and advice from members of the SAC
representing the dive industry informed us that dive operations also take people out for
recreational fishing and wildlife observation tours (e.g. whale watching, bird watching, etc.).
The questionnaire was modified to account for this practice.

13

The survey is administered in the office of the business establishment or home if it is a home
based business by a team contracted by NOAA. Part 1 of the survey is largely a records-based
approach where the business operation provides records from which the team fills in the
questionnaire. Part 2 of the survey includes attitudes and perceptions and the team usually reads
the questions to the respondent and codes the responses. The respondent is provided a copy of
the questionnaire to see the codes for the proper response.
Part 1: General Information, Economic Information and Person-days and Trip Costs. The
questions are similar to those approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0597, for the for-hire
diving and fishing operations in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico in support of the Flower Gardens
Bank National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS). The questions have been slightly modified to fit
the GRNMS.
General Information: This section obtains information to develop socioeconomic/demographic
profiles and support analyses of socioeconomic impacts.
Economic Information: This section addresses costs-and-earnings of the dive operation. This
section was designed to conform to other studies being conducted on the economics of the Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic recreational for-hire fishing operations, but modified to take into
account the differences for diving and wildlife observation activities (see answer to Question 4
below on Duplication of Effort). Questions 14 thru 17 focus on the operations capacity for
number of passengers on all their vessels, by type of activity. Question 18 asks for the number
of employees by classification (e.g. full, part-time, or seasonal). Questions 19 and 20 focus on
the replacement value of current equipment and gear and the balance of any loans for vessels and
equipment. This information will help assess the return on capital and equity. Question 21
focuses on other overhead expenses, while Question 22 addresses trip related expenses.
Questions 21 and 22 ask for annual expenses for the past year. This is the recommendation of
NOAA Fisheries economists doing similar work on for-hire recreational fishing operations in the
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, so we are maintaining consistency of information collection
across different efforts.
Questions 23 and 24 focus on total dive operation revenues for the past year and the distribution
by major spatial units inside an outside GRNMS. This information will establish dependency on
the different areas for dive operation revenues.
Person-days and Trip Costs: Question 25 provides control totals for each major area by type of
activity. Person-days are the best measurement of use for recreational activities. A definition is
provided which says a person-day is one person doing an activity for a whole day or any part of
the day. This measurement corresponds generally to what the operations record in their log
books as the number of passengers taken to a specific location on a specific day. There is some
potential for double-counting across activities, so totals across activities is asked and it is not
required that the sum by activity equal the total.
Question 26 provides detailed costs per day of operation by type of activity. This information
will provide the basis of estimating the economic impacts on a dive operation from different

14

management strategies or regulations that affect the amount of activity.
Question 27 takes a different approach in obtaining detailed spatial resolution of “expected
person-days”. The purpose of this information is to assess the potential impacts of boundary
expansion of research only areas or other kind of zoning regulation. This is by its nature forward
looking, thus past spatial distribution of effort may not be good representation of future impact.
Dive owners/operators will be asked to provide the percent distribution of where they expect to
undertake their future effort by type of activity at spatial resolutions of 1-minute by 1-minute of
one nautical square mile grid cells. Detailed maps will be provided with NOAA Nautical chart
layers with latitude and longitude lines and key reference point such as different weather buoys
and the key bottom bank structures and depth contours. The person-day totals provided in
Question 25 will provide the information to weight percentage distributions across dive
operations when extrapolating to population totals by spatial unit.
Part 2: Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management Strategies and
Regulations. The questions are similar to those submitted under OMB Control Number 06480597, Expiration Date: 11/30/2012 for the for-hire diving and fishing operations in the
Northwest Gulf of Mexico in support of the Flower Gardens Bank National Marine Sanctuary
(FGBNMS). . The questions have been modified to the issues in the GRNMS, but follow the
same general format.
This module contains 27 questions.
FOR-HIRE RECREATIONAL FISHING OPERATIONS
As with the for-hire recreational diving operations, the questionnaire for the for-hire recreational
fishing operations is divided into two parts. Part 1 obtains basic socioeconomic/demographic
information, costs-and-earnings, and spatial distribution of use. Part 2 obtains knowledge,
attitudes and perceptions of existing and proposed management strategies and regulations.
Part 1: General Information, Economic Information, and Person-days and Trip Costs. The
questions are similar as those approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0597, for the for-hire
diving and fishing operations in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico in support of the Flower Gardens
Bank National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS). The questions have been slightly modified to fit
the GRNMS.
General Information: This section obtains information to develop socioeconomic/demographic
profiles and support analyses of socioeconomic impacts. Information in this section is the same
as in the for-hire diving operations questionnaire with slight modifications for the for-hire
recreational fishing operations.
Economic Information: This section addresses costs-and-earnings of the fishing operation.
Again, this section is similar to that for the for-hire diving operations with only slight
modifications.

15

Person-days and Trip Costs: Questions 23 and 24 provide control totals for each major area, and
again this section is similar to that used for the for-hire diving operations with slight
modifications.
Part 2: Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management Strategies and
Regulations. The questions are similar to those submitted under OMB Control Number 06480597, Expiration Date: 11/30/2012 for the for-hire diving and fishing operations in the
Northwest Gulf of Mexico in support of the Flower Gardens Bank National Marine Sanctuary
(FGBNMS). . The questions have been modified to the issues in the GRNMS, but follow the
same general format.
This module contains the same 27 questions used for the for-hire diving operations. Question 15
was modified to focus on charter/party boat (for-hire fishing) operators.
By Whom
At this time we have not selected a contractor to implement the survey. Dr. Vernon R. (Bob)
Leeworthy is the Chief Economist for the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and
will lead the overall effort. Bob will be the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative
(COTR) on any contract to implement the survey. Bob and ONMS Senior Economist, Rod
Ehler, will develop geographic information system (GIS) tools and socioeconomic models for
estimating socioeconomic impacts of management strategies and regulatory alternatives.
How Frequently
This is a one-time application for the current submission. Some of the elements of this
submission will be replicated to support socioeconomic monitoring. However, it is ONMS
policy to work with NMS stakeholders in designing socioeconomic research and monitoring
programs, which would determine whether and how often to replicate measurements.

How Collection Complies with NOAA Information Quality Guidelines
Utility: Completing this information collection will give GRNMS stakeholders fair
representation in the design of management strategies and regulations by providing information
to support the assessment of socioeconomic impacts of management strategy and regulatory
alternatives.
Education and outreach is an important management tool in the GRNMS. The information
provided in this project will be an overwhelming boon to the Education and Outreach Program of
the GRNMS. Knowledge of who are the users of the GRNMS, their knowledge, attitudes and
perceptions of Sanctuary management strategies and regulations and, how users get their
information are all important in designing effective education and outreach efforts.
Integrity: The information in these surveys will be treated as sensitive. For the surveys of users
who access GRNMS from private household boats and non users of GRNMS, the NOAA

16

contractor will remove all personal identification information from all databases upon the
completion of the data collection and before the databases are sent to NOAA. or distributed to
the public (note: we will follow the “Rule of 10”; that is, where there are fewer than 10
respondents in one geographic unit (county or zip code) that meet a certain description, then the
data is masked by eliminating that geographic unit information). Each individual is assigned a
database identification number in the database so the data from different portions of the survey
can be linked for analysis, while maintaining anonymity of the survey respondent.
For surveys of "for hire" diving and fishing business establishments, the information in these
surveys will be treated as sensitive and protected to the extent that it satisfies the criteria for
exemption under the Freedom of Information ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, and the Trade Secrets
Act, 18 U.S.C. §1905. In addition, the NOAA contractor will remove all personal identification
of each individual business from all databases before the databases are sent to NOAA or
distributed to the public (see note above regarding the “Rule of 10”). Each individual business is
assigned a database identification number in the database so different portions of the survey can
be linked for analysis.
All project reports are converted to Read-Only in portable document format (pdf) before being
placed on the NOAA Web site for public dissemination.
Objectivity: All analyses and reports developed in this project will be peer reviewed before
release to the public. This is the NOAA standard for socioeconomic information under the
Information Quality Act. All survey modules of questions included in this project have all been
through peer review as well (see list of reviewers below). Most of the survey questions have
been tested and analyzed in previous applications. New modules of questions have been peer
reviewed.
Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions

Dr. Robert Ditton (deceased)
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77840-2258 USA
Telephone: 979-845-9841
E-mail: (w) [email protected]

Dr. William Heyman

17

Texas A & M University
CSA 205 D
College Station, TX 77843-3147
telephone: (979) 458-3030
e-mail: [email protected]

David K. Loomis
Institute for Coastal Science and Policy
250 Flanagan Building
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858-4353
252-737-4263 office
252-328-4265 fax
[email protected]

Thomas J. Murray
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
P.O. Box 1083
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
telephone: (804) 684-7190
e-mail: [email protected]
Manoj Shivlani
Center for Independent Experts (CIE) Lead Coordinator
Northern Taiga Ventures, Inc. (NTVI)
10600 SW 131st Court

18

Miami, Florida 33186
Office: 305-383-4229
Cell: 305-968-7136
Fax: 305-386-3529
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Website: www.ciereviews.org

Daniel Suman
University of Miami
Rosenstiel School of Marine And Atmospheric Science
(305) 421-4681

Costs-and Earnings

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fishery Science Center
(see contact information in answer to Part B Question 5).

James Waters
Juan Agar
David Carter
Christopher Liese

Opinions about Ocean & Coastal Resources Protection and Management and Ways
you value Ocean & Coastal Resources/Marine Environment

19

Chris Ellis
NOAA/NOS/Coastal Services Center
2234 South Hobson Ave
Charleston, SC 29405-2413
telephone: (843)740-1195
e-mail: [email protected]

Theresa L. Goedeke
NOAA/NOS/ National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, 8th floor
Silver spring, MD 20910
telephone: (301) 713-3028 ext. 237

Susan Lovelace
NOAA/NOS/Hollings Marine Lab
331 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: (843)762-8933
E-Mail: [email protected]

As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. NOAA will
retain control over the information and safeguard it from improper access, modification, and
destruction, consistent with NOAA standards for, 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

20

information quality guidelines. Prior to dissemination, the information will be subjected to
quality control measures and a 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.
No automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological or other forms of information
technology are being used. All surveys are conducted by mail or face-to-face and recorded on
paper forms.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
In March 2009, an Economic Workshop, organized by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission, was held in New Orleans, Louisiana. The purpose of the workshop was to
assemble all researchers currently planning economic or socioeconomic studies on Gulf of
Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries and share details of each proposed research design
to avoid duplication of effort and consistency across applications. Further consultation with
economists at NOAA’s Fisheries Service, Southeast Fishery Science Center, which oversees all
socioeconomic work in the fisheries for the Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were made to
ensure consistency and avoidance of duplication. It was determined that the proposed work here
is unique and a valuable addition. Further, efforts are made in this submission to achieve
consistency in measurement of similar information (i.e. costs-and-earnings categories for
commercial and recreational fishing operations). This will allow for direct comparisons across
similar populations throughout the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Bob Leeworthy has also conducted a literature review to determine if and to what extent existing
information might meet the needs for the GRNMS. The main thrust of this effort is to establish
baselines for future monitoring efforts. Each user group was consulted on each component of the
information collection to ensure we were not duplicating efforts and that user group members
would comply with the information request.
Duke University (Bird et al 2001) conducted and analysis of recreational fishers’ activities and
attitudes in a survey implemented in April 2001. The survey only included 60 members of the
Southern Kingfish Association using a mail survey. The mail survey got a response rate of 91
percent. Although an important user group, this survey is limited in representation of the
population that accesses GRNMS via private household boats.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
All the business entities in this information collection request can be classified as small
businesses. Our approach is not to send out questionnaires to be filled out by these respondents.
Instead, we send out an information collection team to the home or office of the business

21

owner/operator and the information collection team works with the respondent to complete the
information collection.
In arranging information collection interviews, our contractor (to be determined) contacts the
business operation by mail (pre-notification letter), telephone and/or e-mail. The contractor
explains the types of information we will be asking for in order for the respondent to prepare to
make records available to the team. For cost-and-earnings, financial records will be needed. For
spatial use information or catch information, access to log-books will be requested. In past
applications, business operations want us to send copies of the questionnaires to see what
specifically we are asking for so they can assemble the necessary information for the collection
team. Appointments are then made for the collection team (contractor) to visit the home or
business to compile the information in our forms.
We just completed such an effort under OMB Control Number 0648-0597 for recreational for
hire dive operations in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico in support of our Flower Gardens Bank
National Marine Sanctuary. We got a 100% response rate and no item non-response. We have a
tremendous amount of experience with these types of user groups and we know what kinds of
records they keep. It is also important that representatives on our Sanctuary Advisory Council
contact the groups they represent to tell them of the importance of our effort and encourage them
to cooperate.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
NOAA and the managers of the GRNMS, with the advice and consent from the GRNMS SAC,
have agreed to build the necessary information and tools to allow for the assessment of
socioeconomic impacts in the design of management strategies and regulations. The information
collection proposed here is in response to the issues identified by the user groups as necessary
elements of a socioeconomic impact analyses. The past management plan implementation is
well underway and management plan review has begun in the GRNMS and the information
collection proposed here is critical to meeting the needs of GRNMS stakeholders. In addition,
many federal agencies that manage natural resources have been tasked by the National Academy
of Sciences to adopt adaptive management practices. Adaptive management requires research
and monitoring, both ecological and socioeconomic, to be able to assess what is happening to
both the natural resources and the humans that depend upon those resources. The GRNMS has
taken important steps along these lines and is living up to their compact with the stakeholders
who are participating in the management plan implementation and revision process. Not
completing these data collections would leave NOAA and the GRNMS in violation of these
agreements.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
NA.

22

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 March 22, 2010 (75 FR 13485) solicited public comment
on this collection. None was received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy
The information in this survey will be treated as sensitive and protected to the extent that it
satisfies the criteria for exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552,
and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §1905. Any identifying information (name, name of
business, address and telephone number) will be viewed only by the contractor while collecting
and compiling the data. The contractor will destroy the identifying information when the
databases are transmitted to NOAA.
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 questions will be asked.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
For users from private household boats, our source is a list of 500 users observed in the GRNMS
by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, which randomly boards boats in GRNMS, not
necessarily in relation to violations of rules/regulations, and obtains boat registration numbers
and names and addresses of the boat owners. Two versions of the questionnaire were designed
to minimize burden per respondent. Since the users are not likely to change significantly from
year to year, we will have to survey the same users twice. The two versions will be implemented
over a two-year period. We will send mail surveys to this list of users, with an expected
response rate to be between 40 and 70 percent or 200 -350 completed interviews per version.
We estimate Version 1 will require an estimated 36 minutes to complete for each respondent or
a total burden hour requirement of between 120 to 210 hours, while Version 2 will require an
estimated time per respondent of 38 minutes with a total burden hour requirement of 126.66 to

23

221.66 hours. When annualized over the three-year approval period, the estimates of burden
hours are estimated at 40 to 70 hours for Version 1 and 42.22 to 73.89 hours for Version 2.
For non-users in the general population of the State of Georgia, we will randomly select 500
households from the U.S. Post Office database of deliverable household addresses and mail them
the surveys. Samples will actually be purchased from either INFO USA or Survey Sampling,
Inc., two firms that specialize in providing samples for mail surveys. As with the user’s surveys,
we will implement two versions of the non user’s survey to minimize burden per respondent.
Unlike users, we will select separate samples of non users for each survey version and implement
both versions in year one. We expect a response rate between 40 and 70 percent yielding
between 200 and 350 completed surveys for each version. For version 1, we estimate an average
time per respondent to complete the survey of 26 minutes, while version 2 is estimated to take 30
minutes per respondent. Total burden hours for version 1 are estimated to be 86.66 to 151.66
hours, while version 2 is estimated at 100 to 175 hours. When annualized over the three-year
approval period, the estimates for version 1 are 28.89 to 50.55 hours, while version 2 is estimated
at 33.33 to 58.33 hours.
We estimate that there are approximately 20 to 30 for-hire recreational operations that take
people out for fishing and diving. About a third accommodates both activities in GRNMS. This
information was obtained through previous surveys. For the For-hire Recreational Diving
Operations, we have identified a population of 10 operations through past research using
telephone yellow pages, Georgia Sea Grant publications, and personal visits to coastal Georgia.
We expect to get a 100% response rate or a census. The representative for the dive industry on
the GRNMS SAC has assured us that all of their members are highly supportive of the effort and
we should expect full cooperation. Again, we expect that, on average, the interview and
compilation of information time will be three (3) hours, for a total of 30 hours.
For the For-hire Recreational Fishing Operations, we have identified an additional population of
20 to 30 operations. The number of for-hire recreational fishing operations, includes guides,
which fluctuate from year-to-year. Again, we expect to get a 100% response rate or a census.
The representatives for the recreational fishing industry have assured us that their members are
highly supportive of the effort and we should expect full cooperation. Again, we expect that, on
average, the interview and compilation of information time will be three (3) hours, for a total of
60 hours.
The total burden hour estimate across all four groups is estimated to be between 532.32
and 878.32 hours. If this estimate is annualized over three years, the estimate is between
174.44 and 292.77 hours per year.

24

Table 2. Estimate of Burden Hours
_________________________________________________________________________
1

Annualized
Total
_________________________________________________________________________
Estimated Number of Respondents
Users from private household boats
Version 1
200 - 350
66.66 - 116.66
Version 2
200 - 350
66.66 - 116.67
Non users from Georgia's resident population
Version 1
200 - 350
66.66 - 116.66
Version 2
200- 350
66.66 - 116.67
For hire recreational diving operations
10
3.33
For hire recreational fishing operations
20 - 30
6.66 - 10.0
Total
830 - 1,440
276.66 - 480
Estimated time per Respondent
Users from private household boats
Version 1
Version 2
Non users from Georgia's resident population
Version 1
Version 2
For hire recreational diving operations
For hire recreational fishing operations

36 minutes
38 minutes
26 minutes
30 minutes
3 hours
3 hours

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours
Users from private household boats
Version 1
120 - 210
40 - 70
Version 2
126.66 - 221.66 42.22 - 73.89
Non users from Georgia's resident population
Version 1
86.66 - 151.66
28.89 - 50.55
Version 2
100 - 175
33.33 - 58.33
For hire recreational diving operations
30
10
For hire recreational fishing operations
60 - 90
20 - 30
Total
523.32 - 878.32 174.44 - 292.77
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Annualized by dividing total by three.

25

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).
There will be no cost to respondents beyond burden hours.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.

Table 3. Total Project Cost to the Federal Government (Costs over three years):
________________________________________________________________________
Socioeconomics of Commercial Fishers and For-hire Recreational Diving and Fishing
Operations in the Flower Gardens Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Contracts for Data Collectors/Mail samples/Graphic Design…………….$30,000
NOAA Staff time in developing questionnaires, maps, contracts and tools:
a.
Development and oversight………………………………………$42,000
1.
ZP-04 Economist 300 hours * $80/hour………..... $24,000
2.
ZP-04 Economist 300 hours * $62/hour……….… $18,600
b.

Travel…………………………………………………………… $24,000

Total Cost to Federal Government……………………………………….$96,600
________________________________________________________________________
Annualized Cost to Federal Government (Total Project Costs to the Federal government divided
by three years): $32,200.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported.
This is a new collection.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
All reports will be peer reviewed per the NOAA standard under the Information Quality Act and
posted on the ONMS Socioeconomic web site:
http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/socioeconomic. A new page(s) will be set up on this web site
for the GRNMS.
All data and documentation will be put on CD-ROM and will be made available to the general
public, subject to any masking of the data required to protect privacy.

26

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.
NA.

27