PPPF SS 042811 Part B rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
PROFILES OF FISH PROCESSING
PLANTS IN ALASKA
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-xxxx
B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any
sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number of entities
(e.g. establishments, State and local governmental units, households, or persons) in the
universe and the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form. The tabulation
must also include expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection has
been conducted before, provide the actual response rate achieved.
The potential respondent universe includes plant managers from the 186 shore-based fish
processing facilities (located in 64 Alaskan communities) which filed Intent to Operate
paperwork in the year 2010. These fish processing facilities include plants with the following
Alaska Department of Fish and Game processor and buyer codes: SBPR (Shorebased Processor),
EXBY (Buyer/Exporter), IBYO (Independent Buyer), and IFSP (Inshore Floating Stationary
Processor). These codes were chosen in order to ensure that all fish processing facilities based in
Alaskan communities are included in the respondent pool.
Due to the low number of processing plants, a census of the population will be attempted. A
census is also necessary in order to obtain the same set of unique information about each fish
processing plant for use in revising the 2005 community profiles (Sepez et al. 2005).
Potential respondents are identified as the processing plant managers for each fish processing
facility. Respondents will be called on the phone to complete the survey. The data collected will
be supplemented with internet sources, including the associated fish processing company
websites and the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute’s website.
According to Bourque and Fielder (2003: 15), non-commercial telephone surveys that are
rigorously conducted have achieved response rates above 70%; whereas some marketing firms
have reported response rates for commercial surveys at a rate as low as 12%. Bernard (2006:
261) states that with phone surveys, a refusal rate of 30% to 40% can be expected. A level of
response on the higher end (similar to that given by Bernard and given for rigorously conducted
surveys by Bourque and Fielder) for the proposed data collection is expected because the sample
for this survey includes targeted businesses rather than members of the general public. Also, an
organized shore-based fish processing association, Pacific Seafood Processors Association
(PSPA) has offered to encourage their member processing plants to take part in the survey. PSPA
members include 26 of the largest shore-based plants included in the respondent population.
Based on the specific nature of the sample population for this study and the fact that we have
received buy-in from members of that population, we expect a final response rate of up to 70%,
leading to a maximum of 130 surveys being completed.

1

2. 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 purpose 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.
The survey instrument submitted for approval with this supporting statement was finalized in
January 2011 after significant input from survey design experts and cognitive interviews with
processing industry representatives. The survey was developed and revised through extensive
collaboration with PSPA.
Implementation of the survey will follow a modified version of the phone survey administration
method described by Rea and Parker (1997: 70-74), Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (Dillman
2009: 234-271) when deemed appropriate for phone surveys, and methods suggested by
members of the processing sector that were consulted in the design of the survey (i.e., Q8-Q10 in
the survey may require plant managers to consult their records and it was suggested that AFSC
social scientists should offer another phone call at a later time to gather the information). Rea
and Parker focus specifically on the methods of telephone surveys/interviews and they describe
specifics about such topics as interviewer training, minimizing interviewer bias, collecting
answers to questions, dealing with busy phone lines, and missing answers to questions (1997: 7074).
The modified process which will be used includes an advance letter to respondents that will be
contacted to take part in the survey, an initial telephone call (during which the survey will be
conducted if convenient for the participant), a secondary telephone call (if the respondent is not
available to complete the questionnaire during the initial call), a third telephone call (if
necessary, to complete questions Q8-Q10), and a follow-up call (if necessary, to fill in gaps).
The survey will be a census of 186 shore-based fish processing plants, as described in Part B
Question 1, above. A statistical methodology for sample selection was not needed given that a
census of the population is being attempted.
The method of data collection will be a questionnaire which will be administered for the most
part over the telephone, but will be administered in person in the site-visit communities of Kenai,
Petersburg, and Cordova. The phone numbers and addresses of processing plants will be
obtained from publicly available Intent to Operate listings from the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game.
The full survey implementation procedures are as follows:
Phone Survey
1. An advance letter will be mailed to participants that will be recruited to take part in
the phone survey portion. This will be the first contact with the respondent pool.
2. A telephone recruitment call will be made 5-7 days after the advance letter is sent to
conduct the survey over the phone or make arrangements to complete the survey in
the following few days. The survey will be completed at the time of the recruitment

2

call if convenient for the participant or an alternate time will be scheduled for
completion of the survey over the phone. Where necessary, only questions that do not
require the consultation of ones records to answer (Q1-Q7) will be completed during
the original call and the remainder of the survey will be completed at an alternate
time over the phone or provided over email to AFSC social scientists. This step will
be completed a total of 3 times before the phone number is classified as “nonresponse.” Another telephone recruitment call will be made at another time if the
respondent is not available at the time of the first call.
3. A second telephone call will be made at a scheduled time set with the respondent to
conduct the survey (in some cases this may be the first contact, with the survey taking
place if the respondent is available at this time and willing to participate).
4. A third telephone call, if necessary to complete the remainder of the survey
questions that might require participants’ consultation of records.
5. A follow-up telephone call immediately after the survey is completed, if necessary.
This phone call will fill in gaps caused by missed questions, unclear open-ended
responses, and general legibility.
Site-Visit Survey
1. A telephone recruitment call will be made to plant managers 3-4 weeks before the
desired site-visit date to recruit respondents and arrange a time to conduct the survey
in person.
2. An in person survey will be conducted at a scheduled time with the respondent.
This collection of information will be gathered only once; however, it is likely that this collection
will be completed again in the year 2020 (as explained above in Part A, Question 2).
3. Describe the methods used to maximize response rates and to deal with non-response.
The accuracy and reliability of the information collected must be shown to be adequate for
the intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be
provided if they will not yield "reliable" data that can be generalized to the universe
studied.
Numerous steps have been, and will be, taken to maximize response rates and deal with nonresponse behavior. These efforts are described below.
Maximizing Response Rates
The first step in achieving a high response rate is to develop a survey instrument that is easy for
respondents to complete. Significant effort has been spent on developing a good survey
instrument. Experts in survey design and who work with Alaskan fishing communities on a
regular basis were asked to review the draft survey instrument and provide comments on the
wording of questions, additional questions to include, question order effects, question structure
and response categories. The current survey instrument also benefited from input on earlier
versions provided in two cognitive interviews as well as from input provided from PSPA who
chose to present the survey to three of their member organizations who provided comments on

3

the survey. Cognitive (one-on-one) interviews were used to ensure the survey instrument used
words and terms people could understand, and was a comfortable length and easy to answer.
The implementation techniques that will be employed are consistent with methods that maximize
response rates. As described in Part B, Question 2 above, implementation of the phone survey
will follow a modified version of the phone survey administration methods described by Rea and
Parker (1997) and Dillman et al. (2009), as well as methods suggested by fish processing
industry members. Methods for the site-visit surveys include calling 3-4 weeks beforehand to
arrange a time to conduct the survey in person. This will be done in order to ensure that the time
of the visit will correspond with a time that does not interfere with processing activities.
The importance and benefits of this data collection project will be emphasized in the advance
letter and telephone contacts. In these letters and phone contacts, the investigators will state that
the community profiles (in which the processor profiles will be included) continue to be
important sources of information for fisheries managers when making important decisions that
could affect the processing plants. Making a clear link between the survey, their participation,
and the importance of the community profiles is expected to help increase the response rate even
further. Also, PSPA will encourage their member organizations to take part in the survey. PSPA
members include some of the largest processing facilities in Alaska and it is a very influential
organization in the industry. It is estimated that with their support and backing, the response rate
will increase for their member organizations and also perhaps for those facilities that are not
members of PSPA, but which may be more inclined to participate because PSPA has expressed
support for the survey.
Non-response
To better understand why some respondents are not willing to complete the survey and to
determine if there are systematic differences between those processing plants that choose to
participate in the survey and those that do not, a list of those which do not choose to take part in
the survey will be kept and any reasons given for why they do not wish to take part in the survey
will be recorded. A demographic comparison will also be completed by examining the size of
fish processing plants using total fish landings as a proxy for size of fish processing plant (since
the number of employees is not available).
4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Tests are encouraged as
effective means to refine collections, but if ten or more test respondents are involved OMB
must give prior approval.
A formal pretest of procedures and methods was not undertaken for this project, given the small
number of respondents in the population and because a census will be undertaken during the full
survey implementation. However, the survey instrument was evaluated and revised using input
from cognitive interviews conducted with the Vice President of PSPA (who chose to present the
draft survey to three of their member organizations who also evaluated the survey and presented
suggested edits), as well as with another potential respondent at processing facility, a member of
Icicle Seafoods. The survey design and implementation plan have also benefited from review by

4

individuals with expertise in socio-economic survey design and implementation in fishing
communities.
5. 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.
An internal peer review of the survey instruments was conducted which included grammatical,
clarity, design, and statistical review. NMFS federal staff that reviewed the survey instruments
includes:
Dr. Amber Himes-Cornell
Social Scientist - Alaska Fisheries Science Center
(206) 526-4221
Dr. Dan Lew
Economist - Alaska Fisheries Science Center
(530) 752-1746
[email protected]
Dr. Jennifer Sepez
Anthropologist - Alaska Fisheries Science Center
(206) 526-6546
Christina Package
Contractor at Alaska Fisheries Science Center
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
(206) 526-6683
The individuals who will ultimately collect and analyze the information are Christina Package
and PSMFC Contractor; Dr. Amber Himes-Cornell, AFSC Social Scientist; and an additional
contractor for the project, if necessary.

5

References
Bernard, H. R. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. 4th ed. Lanham: Altamira Press.
Bourque, L. and E. Fielder. 2003. The Survey Kit: How to Conduct Telephone Surveys. 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dillman, D., J.Smyth, and L.Christian. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The
Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hall-Arber, M., C. Dyer, J. Poggie, J. McNally, and R. Gagne. 2001. New England’s Fishing
Communities. Revised version of the final report for Northeast MARFIN grant #NA87FF0547.
Rea, L. and R. Parker. 2005. Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive
Guide. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sepez, J. A., B. D. Tilt, C. L. Package, H. M. Lazrus, and I. Vaccaro. 2005. Community Profiles
for North Pacific Fisheries - Alaska. U. S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC160, 552 p.
Warren J. and J. Hadland. “Employment in Alaska’s Seafood Industry”. Alaska Economic
Trends. November 2009.

6