0559 SS 072911 rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
VIRGINIA MODIFIED POUND NET LEADER INSPECTION PROGRAM
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0559

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
This request is for extension of this information collection.
On June 23, 2006, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final rule (71 FR 36024), amending regulations for parts of
50 CFR 222 and 223 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.)
requiring that, during the period of May 6 through July 15, any offshore pound net leader in the
Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay, south of 37 19.0' N. lat. and west of 76 13.0'
W. long., and all waters south of 37 13.0' N. lat. to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel at the
mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the James and York Rivers downstream of the first bridge in
each tributary (referred to as “Pound Net Regulated Area I”), meet the definition of a modified
pound net leader.
A modified pound net leader is a pound net leader that is affixed to or resting on the sea floor and
made of a lower portion of mesh and an upper portion of only vertical lines such that: the mesh
size is equal to or less than 8 inches stretched mesh; at any particular point along the leader the
height of the mesh from the seafloor to the top of the mesh must be no more than one-third the
depth of the water at mean lower low water (average low water point during the lowest of two
low tidal cycles) directly above that particular point; the mesh is held in place by vertical lines
that extend from the top of the mesh up to a top line, which is a line that forms the uppermost
part of the pound net leader; the vertical lines are equal to or greater than 5/16 inch in diameter
and strung vertically at a minimum of every 2 feet; and the vertical lines are hard lay lines with a
level of stiffness equivalent to the stiffness of a 5/16 inch diameter line composed of polyester
wrapped around a blend of polypropylene and polyethylene and containing approximately 42
visible twists of strands per foot of line.
Without this final rule, existing regulations would have continued to prohibit all offshore pound
net leaders in that area during that time frame. While restrictions promulgated in 2004 on pound
net leaders in the Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay outside the aforementioned area remain
in effect (referred to as “Pound Net Regulated Area II”; May 5, 2004, 69 FR 24997), this final
rule created an exception to those restrictions by allowing the use of modified pound net leaders
in this area.
After the 2006 final rule was published, NMFS determined that an onshore inspection program
that checked a modified leader ready for deployment against the regulatory definition would help
ensure the protection of sea turtles, while limiting the difficulties of and potential costs to
fishermen associated with post-deployment inspections at sea. For example, most of the pound
net leader is typically set under the water, the water clarity in the Chesapeake Bay is generally
poor, and there may be debris in the water that could endanger the inspector. In addition, if a
1

fisherman was asked to haul the leader for an inspection once it was deployed, there would be a
loss in fishing time. The modified leader configuration was developed to protect sea turtles, and
it is important that the leaders deployed in this fishery meet the standards embodied in the
regulations. NMFS proposes to continue the inspection program that would: (1) provide
fishermen with the assurance that their leaders meet the definition of a modified pound net leader
before setting their gear, thereby limiting the costs associated with having to: (a) to haul their
gear during the fishing season, (b) fix any parts of the leader determined by an authorized officer
during an at-sea inspection to be non-compliant with the regulation, and (c) reset the gear;
(2) provide managers with the knowledge that the offshore leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area
I are configured in a “turtle-safe” manner; and (3) aid in enforcement efforts. The final rule
establishing the inspection program was published on November 18, 2008 (73 FR 68348), with
information collection component approved on August 26, 2008.
If a pound net fisherman is to use a modified pound net leader anywhere in Pound Net Regulated
Area I or Pound Net Regulated Area II at any time during the period from May 6 through July
15, he or she must adhere to the following requirements of the inspection program.
First, the pound net fisherman, or his/her representative, must call NMFS at (757) 414-0128 at
least 72 hours before the modified leaders are to be deployed. During this call, the fisherman or
representative and NMFS will discuss a meeting date, time, and location, as well as the
fisherman’s plans for setting his/her gear. While NMFS realizes that setting pound net gear is
dependent upon weather conditions, allotting a window of 72 hours or more enables the
fishermen and NMFS to arrange a mutually agreeable meeting time to examine the modified
leaders.
The second component of the inspection program involves NMFS meeting the fisherman at the
dock, or another mutually agreeable place, to examine the gear for compliance with the
definition of a modified pound net leader. During the inspection, NMFS will ascertain whether
the leader meets the following four criteria taken from the modified leader definition: (1) the
lower portion of the leader is mesh and the upper portion consists of only vertical lines; (2) the
mesh size is equal to or less than 8 inches stretched mesh; (3) the vertical lines are equal to or
greater than 5/16 inch in diameter and strung vertically at least every 2 feet; and (4) the vertical
lines are hard lay lines with a level of stiffness equivalent to the stiffness of a 5/16 inch diameter
line composed of polyester wrapped around a blend of polypropylene and polyethylene and
containing approximately 42 visible twists of strands per foot of line. NMFS will also measure
the height of the mesh in relation to the height of the entire leader.
During the inspection, the fisherman must provide accurate and specific latitude and longitude
coordinates of the location at which the leader will be deployed. If the fisherman does not know
his or her modified pound net leader latitude and longitude coordinates prior to the inspection,
NMFS will have a detailed nautical chart available during the inspection for the fisherman to
ascertain the specific coordinates of the gear.
During the inspection, the fisherman must also provide NMFS with information on the low water
depth at each end of the modified leader. If the leader meets the four criteria previously
described, the measurement of the height of the mesh in relation to the total height of the leader
is recorded, and the low water depth and the latitude and longitude coordinates of the specific
2

location at which the leader will be deployed are provided and recorded, the leader will pass
inspection.
If the leader passes inspection, NMFS will tag the leader with one or more tamper-proof tags
(supplied by NMFS), each of which will be marked with a unique identification number.
Additionally, the fisherman will receive a letter from NMFS noting that the leader has been
inspected, the date of the inspection, the license holder’s name, the tag number(s) of the attached
tag(s), information on the modified leader as collected during the inspection, and the low water
depth and latitude and longitude coordinates for the specific location at which the inspected
leader will be deployed. This letter must be retained on the vessel tending the inspected leader at
all times it is deployed. The fisherman may set the inspected leader only after passing the
inspection; the tags must remain on the gear. After tagging by NMFS, the tags may not be
tampered with or removed. If a tag is damaged, destroyed, or lost due to any cause, the
fisherman must call NMFS at (757) 414-0128 within 48 hours of discovery to report this
incident.
If the onshore inspection indicates that the leader does not meet one or more of the four criteria,
NMFS will tell the fisherman how to modify his or her gear in order to meet the criteria. Pound
net fishermen are required to have their modified leaders inspected annually, even if the tags
from the preceding year remain on the gear.
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
The obtained information will be shared with NMFS staff, including law enforcement agents and
protected resources staff, to ensure compliance with the previously established regulations and to
ensure sea turtles are being adequately protected. It is estimated that the information will be
obtained one time per modified leader per season, likely occurring before May 6 of each year.
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. NMFS will retain
control over the information and safeguard it from improper access, modification, and
destruction, consistent with NOAA standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic
information. See response 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, general results on modified leader use may be used in
scientific, management, technical or general informational publications. Should NOAA NMFS
Northeast Region (NER) 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

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.
The collection of information in question involves the public entity setting up a meeting with
NMFS via a telephone call. This method of communication consists of the most effective means
to collect the information on a meeting date, time and location. While the meeting specifics
could be arranged via electronic mail, it is believed that Virginia pound net fishermen will more
easily set up the meeting via a telephone call. Furthermore, it is unknown how many Virginia
fishermen have computer access. The second part of the information collection involves a
meeting between NMFS and the pound net fisherman, which does not involve any automated,
electronic, mechanical or other technological techniques.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
NMFS does not believe this information collection represents a duplication of other efforts.
While fishermen may know if their modified leaders meet the definition as included in the
regulations, no one is specifically collecting this information. The Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (VMRC) has promulgated similar inspection regulations, but their regulations are
intended to be congruent with, and not duplicative of, the Federal regulations. NMFS and
VMRC will work together on the inspection program and to ensure there is no duplication of
effort, should the potential exist.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
This information collection will not have a significant impact on small entities. This collection
of information does involve small entities (Virginia pound net fishermen), but the impacts are
minimized by the relatively infrequent nature of the reporting (e.g., only one time per leader per
year, with a possibility of additional reporting if a tag is lost) and type of reporting (e.g.,
telephone call and meeting at a mutually agreeable location).
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
If this information is not collected, the evaluation and effectiveness of the June 2006 regulations
(71 FR 36024) will be compromised. It will be difficult to determine if fishermen are complying
with the regulations regarding modified pound net leaders, and the regulations were developed to
reduce sea turtle mortality. Without this collection (or some other alternative plan that has yet to
be developed), the effectiveness of sea turtle protection measures in Virginia cannot be
established. The NMFS NER and Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) have dedicated a
significant amount of funding and staff time to evaluate and reduce spring sea turtle mortality in
Virginia, and the previously established regulations are essential to protect sea turtles in the
Chesapeake Bay. Conducting the information collection less frequently would be the same as
not conducting it at all, and the same concerns apply. Fishermen are only required to contact
NMFS before they set their modified leader (likely one time per year), and it is unknown how
reporting less than one time a year would assist in sea turtle recovery efforts. Acquiring this
4

information to fulfill the aforementioned objectives is an important aspect of the NMFS
Northeast sea turtle program.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
The information collection will not be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
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 March 9, 2011 (76 FR 12941) solicited public
comments. No comments were received.
During the establishment of the inspection program, public comment on the information
collection was solicited in the proposed rule, RIN 0648-AU98 (72 FR 9297, March 1, 2007). No
comments were specifically received on the information collection portion of the proposed rule.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments or gifts will be provided to respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
No assurance of confidentiality is given. Personal identifiers and any commercial information
will be kept confidential to the extent permitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5
U.S.C. 552), the Department of Commerce FOIA regulations (15 CFR Section 4, Subpart A), the
Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), and NOAA Administrative Order 216-100.
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.
This collection of information does not involve any questions of a sensitive nature.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
The collection of information involves two parts: 1) the fisherman must call NMFS at least 72
hours before deploying his or her modified pound net leader to set up a meeting time, date and
5

location, and 2) the fisherman must meet NMFS at a mutually agreeable location, so that NMFS
may inspect the modified leader.
Based upon information obtained from the VMRC on 2009 pound net license holders, there are
52 licensed pound net fishermen in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay. Additional information
obtained from VMRC found that the average number of pound net fishermen fishing in Pound
net Regulated Areas I and II from May 6-July 15 2005-2009 was 19, with a range of 17 (in 2007)
to 22 (in 2005) fishermen. This represents the best available information on the number of
fishermen during the regulated period and area. Of these 19 fishermen and during the time frame
of the regulations (May 6 – July 15), an average of 12 fishermen from 2005-2009 reported
landings from the upper part of the Bay while an average of 7 fishermen from 2005-2009
reported landings from the lower portion of the Bay. As mentioned, only fishermen in a portion
of the lower Bay are required to use modified pound net leaders, if they set a leader, from May 6
to July 15. Fishermen in the upper Bay may use a modified leader if they so choose, but they are
not required to do so. While the specific number of fishermen that may be affected by this
collection of information is dependent upon whether they switch their leader voluntarily, there is
the option for every licensed Virginia pound net fisherman (n=52) to use a modified leader.
However, fishermen are required to arrange a meeting with NMFS only if they are planning to
set a modified leader during the regulated period (May 6 to July 15). Thus, a total of 19
fishermen (12 in upper and 7 in lower Bay) may be affected by this collection of
information.
In 2004 (still the best available data), during the regulated time period, fishermen in the upper
Bay fished an average of 1.8 pound nets. This results in 22 pound nets in the upper Bay (12
fishermen * 1.8 pounds/fisherman). Monitoring and characterization efforts were conducted by
NMFS from May to July 2010 in the lower Bay only. These observations found 41 nets set in
the lower Bay. Based on these data, the information collection will apply to a total of 63 pound
net leaders (22+41). The actual burden will most likely be on much fewer leaders (and
fishermen) as it is unlikely that every Virginia pound net fisherman will switch to a modified
leader in each of his or her nets and then be required to call NMFS to arrange an inspection.
Based on actual inspection results from 2010, it is more likely that the information collection
requirement will fall upon approximately 17 offshore nets in the lower Bay, and approximately 7
fishermen. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the maximum number of respondents and
applicable nets must be considered.
The hourly burden for the first part of the information collection was calculated by assuming a
phone call to NMFS to set up an inspection meeting will last for a maximum of 5 minutes.
Therefore, if each fisherman makes one call per each net, there would be a total of 63 calls
lasting 5 minutes per call. The maximum hourly burden for this portion of the information
collection would be 315 minutes, or 5.25 hours, although it is likely to be less than this amount,
because fishermen will likely call NMFS to arrange meeting specifics for more than one of their
nets at a time, instead of making one call per one net.
The hourly burden for the second part of the information collection was calculated by assuming
the gear compliance meeting between NMFS and the pound net fisherman will last for a
maximum of 1 hour per net. For 63 pound net leaders, the hourly burden for this portion of the
information collection would be 63 hours.
6

As noted previously, if a tag placed on the leader during inspection is damaged, destroyed or lost
by debris, vessel traffic, marine life, or any other cause, the fisherman must call NMFS within 48
hours of discovery to report this incident, resulting in an additional hourly burden on the
fisherman. It is unknown how many tags will be damaged, destroyed or lost in the course of one
year; thus, NMFS is estimating 10% of tags will be affected. This is likely an overestimate;
since the first year of the inspection program (2009), no tags have been reported as lost,
destroyed, or damaged. Of 63 pound net leaders, each leader would have 3 tags, for a maximum
total of 189 tags placed on all pound net leaders; 10% of these would be 18.9 (19) tags,
necessitating 19 notification calls to NMFS. Assuming each call would last a maximum of 5
minutes, this would result in an additional hourly burden of 95 minutes (or 1 hour, 30 minutes)
for all Virginia pound net fishermen.
For the 19 respondents, total responses would be 145: 63 calls, 63 meetings, and 19
additional notification calls. Total hourly burden would be 70 hours, with approximately
3.7 hours per fisherman.
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).
The cost burden was obtained by using the information on anticipated numbers of reports as
presented in Question 12 and the following information: an estimated initial 63 calls to set up
meetings are anticipated to be conducted annually. The cost of a 5-minute call was estimated to
be $1.25 per call ($0.25 per minute). This cost estimate was determined to be $78.75 for all
Virginia pound net fishermen annually. If a tag placed on the leader during inspection is lost,
damaged, or destroyed, the notification to NMFS would result in an additional 19 calls at $1.25,
resulting in an additional $23.75. Therefore, a total annual cost estimate was determined to
be $102.50 ($78.75 + $23.75).
NMFS does not foresee any cost burden to fishermen from participating in the inspection
meeting or the actual tagging of their gear. NMFS will meet the fishermen at their place of
choice, so it is very likely that they will not travel for this meeting. NMFS will also purchase the
tags for the modified leaders.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The estimate dcost to the Federal government will be in terms of staff hours, tag purchases, and
mileage and gas to travel to the meeting location. An anticipated 63 calls will take place, and
each call is expected to last a maximum of 5 minutes. NMFS staff will be able to compile any
notes during this phone call. As such, the hourly burden on NMFS for this portion of the
information collection would be 315 minutes, or 5.25 hours. For the second portion of the
information collection, the inspection meeting, each gear check would last approximately 1 hour.
For 63 pound net leaders, the hourly burden for this portion of the information collection would
be 63 hours. It may take an additional 15 minutes per net to prepare a summary of the inspection
meeting, resulting in an additional 15.75 hours of NMFS staff time. If a tag placed on the leader
during inspection is lost, damaged, or destroyed, the notification to NMFS would result in an
7

additional 19 calls. Assuming each call would last a maximum of 5 minutes, this would result in
an additional hourly burden of 95 minutes (or 1.58 hours) of NMFS staff time. The total hourly
burden would be 85.58 (86) hours for NMFS staff (5.25 + 63 + 15.75 + 1.58).
The financial burden would depend upon the pay band level of the party answering the phone
call and participating in the inspection meeting. As the staff fielding these calls likely will be
pay band level III (with an approximate of $37.54 per hour), approximately 86 hours of work
(about 2 weeks) would cost the Federal government approximately $3,228.
NMFS has purchased the tamper-proof tags to be placed on each modified pound net leader that
passes the inspection. The tags that will be used are tamper-proof plastic truck seal tags, as those
have been found to be successfully deployed in other fisheries. NMFS estimates that 3 tags will
be placed on each modified leader (resulting in a maximum of 189 tags needed annually (63
leaders * 3 tags)). Tags come in multiples of 1000, with 1000 being the minimum order, and
each tag is $0.16. The previous cost for 1000 tags was approximately $160. Since 1000 tags
were already ordered and only 116 tags have been deployed as of April 25, 2011, there is no
need to order more tags for the next three years and no additional expense to the Federal
government.
NMFS staff must travel to the meeting location. The meeting location has not yet been
determined, and could vary with each fisherman. However, it is 28 miles from the NMFS
inspector’s home to Cape Charles (where most of the pound net fishermen are located).
Assuming an average of $3.75/gallon (in Cape Charles on April 25, 2011), a round trip mileage
of 56 miles, and use of 4 gallons of gas per round trip, the cost of gas would be $15 for each trip
down to Cape Charles. While it is highly unlikely that NMFS would make a separate trip for
each pound net leader inspection, the number of trips could vary each year and it would be
difficult to predict the exact number of trips to be completed each year. Thus, this analysis
considers the maximum number of trips that NMFS may take (n=63). For 63 inspections and 63
separate round trips, the total amount for gas would be $945.
The total annualized cost to the Federal government would be $3,228 + $945, or $4,173.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
The number of respondents has decreased from 21 to 19, the total annual responses have
increased from 106 to 145 and the total annual hours requested has increased from 51 to 70. The
reasons from these changes are that updated information is available on the number of pound net
fishermen (respondents) fishing in the regulated area and time period. The updated numbers are
more reflective of the actual fishing activity as they are averages from the most recent 5 years of
available data. Further, the increase in responses and requested hours is reflective of the number
of pound nets set in the regulated area and time period. The estimated number of pound nets
increased largely based on a 2010 NMFS survey of pound net gear in the lower Bay, which
recorded more pound nets set in the area and represents an improvement on the previously
available information. There were minor related changes to costs, a $4.00 increase.

8

16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
The results of this information collection are not anticipated to be published.
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.
Not Applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement.
Not Applicable.

B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

This information collection request does not employ statistical methods.

9