0648-0597 SS 103112 Part A rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

SOCIOECONOMICS OF COMMERCIAL FISHERS AND FOR HIRE DIVING AND FISHING OPERATIONS IN THE FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

OMB CONTROL No. 0648-0597

A. JUSTFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

This is an application for extension of the currently approved project with OMB Control Number 0648-0597, which expires 11/30/2012.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC 1431, et seq.) authorizes the use of research and monitoring within National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS). In 1996, the Flower Gardens Bank National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS) was added to the system of NMS via 15 CFR Part 922, subpart L. In 2001, Stetson Bank was added in a revision of 15 CFR Part 922.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) specifies that each NMS should revise their management plans on a five-year cycle. The FGBNMS 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 FGBNMS, two major issues have emerged: boundary expansion and research-only areas. In addition, several new or modified regulations are being considered to meet specific needs for diver safety and resource protection (no anchoring/mooring buoy use requirement and a more stringent pollution discharge regulation).

To address each one these issues, the FGBNMS 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 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 will also provide the necessary information for meeting agency requirements for socioeconomic impact analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Impact Review) and an Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (impacts on small businesses).

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 three key user groups: commercial fishers, for hire recreational dive operations and for hire recreational fishing operations (charter and party/head boat operations). 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 FGBNMS existing and proposed management strategies and regulations.

The purpose of the information collection is to obtain the necessary information to build tools to assist FGBNMS management and a stakeholder working group in assessing the socioeconomic impacts of management strategies and regulatory alternatives in the design of management strategies and/or regulatory alternatives, rather than simple agency after-the-fact evaluation of alternatives. In addition, the KAP module of questions will be used to establish baselines for future monitoring and evaluation efforts.

Overall, there are three basic populations to be surveyed who operate in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico Study Area (see maps posted as supplemental documents): 1) Commercial fishers, 2) For Hire Recreational Dive Operations, and 3) For Hire Recreational Fishing Operations (Charter and Party/Head boat operations).

In 2010 and 2011, a census of for hire fishing and diving operations was completed by Texas A&M volunteer students under the direction of their Professor Dr. William Heyman and ONMS economists Bob Leeworthy and Rod Ehler. Letters were sent out to all commercial fishers (known population of 76 operations identified by Vessel Monitoring System from NOAA Fisheries) known to fish in the study area. The commercial fisher’s survey was never completed due to students graduating and need for funding.

The for hire recreational fishing and diving industry is dynamic with entry and exit of the industry due to both general economic conditions and poor management typical of many new small businesses. Although we think we had a census in 2011, given the dynamic nature of the business, we are planning for the potential of up to four new businesses.

COMMERCIAL FISHERS

For the commercial fishers, the survey 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 Fishery Specific Catch, Effort and Trip Costs.

General Information: This section obtains information to develop socioeconomic/demographic profiles and support analyses of socioeconomic impacts. The header contains a place to code date and location of the interview. Contact information is obtained in case follow-up efforts are required and for review of information by the respondent before finalizing data. Question 1 obtains information on the age of the owner/operator. Questions 2a and 2b obtain information on race/ethnicity of the owner/operator. Question 3 asks about the number of family members supported by the business. Question 4 asks about membership in organizations that might provide information and support to the business. Question 5 focuses on the association with fish houses. Belonging to a fish house can change the business decision process with fishermen only going out when receiving orders from fish houses. Questions 6 and 7 ask about ports used. Questions 5 through 7 establish the location of where economic impacts of the fishing activity take place. Questions 8 thru 10 address the experience of the commercial fisher in total, in the Gulf of Mexico and the FGBNMS. Questions 11 and 12 address the commercial fisher’s dependency on commercial fishing as a source of income. Question 13 also addresses dependency on commercial fishing by classification of the fishing occupation.

Economic Information: This section addresses costs-and-earnings of the commercial fishing operation. This section was designed to conform to other studies being conducted on the economics of the Gulf of Mexico commercial fisheries (see answer to Question 4 below on Duplication of Effort). Each of the questions ask for information for the last year. Last year will be the year before we implement and will be filled in at the time we implement the information collection. Question 14 and 14a 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 15 focuses on other overhead expenses, while Question 16 addresses trip related expenses. Questions 15 and 16 ask for annual expenses for the past season. This is the recommendation of NOAA Fisheries economists doing similar work in other fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, so we are maintaining consistency of information collection across different efforts.

Questions 17 and 18 focus on total fishing revenues for the past year and the distribution by major spatial units related to areas being considered for boundary expansion of the FGBNMS. For Question 18, we will collect either the revenue for each area or the percent of the total revenue from Question 17 by area. This will establish dependency on the different areas for commercial fishing revenues. Boundary expansion or research only areas could result in displacement of some commercial fishing activities (non hook-and-line fishing in boundary expansion areas and all fishing in research only areas).

Fishery Specific Catch, Effort and Trip Costs: Questions 19 and 20 provide control totals for each major area, Question 19 for pounds and value of catch by species/species groups and Question 20 for days of fishing effort by species/species groups, for which more detailed spatial distributions are to be obtained via Question 22. In Questions 20 and 21, we combined snappers and groupers because they are usually caught with the same gears in the same places and there would be a problem in double-counting days and costs or in separating them out.

Question 21 provides detailed costs per day of fishing by species/species group. This information will provide the basis of estimating the economic impacts on a fishing operation from displacement by either boundary expansion or a research only area.

Also, for Question 21, we designed the format to be consistent with that used by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center’s Stone Crab questionnaire (OMB Control Number 0648-0560, Expiration Date: 6/30/2010). Here we pick up information on the seasonality of different fisheries, since many fishermen engage in multiple fisheries over different seasons, and we get information on gear used. Gear used is important because current regulations in the FGBNMS allow only hook-and-line fishing, so boundary expansion would displace non hook-and-line fishing.

Question 22 takes a different approach in obtaining detailed spatial resolution of “expected catch”. The purpose of this information is to assess the potential impacts of boundary expansion and research only area alternatives. This is by its nature forward looking, thus past spatial distribution of effort may not be good representation of future impact. Commercial fishers will be asked to provide the percent distribution of where they expect to make their future catches by species/species groups 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 oil platforms/rigs and the key bottom bank structures and depth contours. The catch totals provided in Question 19 will provide the information to weight percentage distributions across commercial fishing 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 Approval Number 0648-0534, Expiration Date: 7/31/2009, which is focused on a 10-year replication for three user groups; commercial fishermen, dive shop owners/operators, and members of local environmental groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The questions have been modified to the issues in the FGBNMS, but follow the same general format.

This module contains 37 questions. Question 1 addresses sources where respondents get their information and the usefulness of each source of information. This is extremely important to FGBNMS education and outreach personnel for identifying effective means of communicating with commercial fishers.

Questions 2 thru 8 address commercial fisher’s perceptions of the FGBNMS with respect to the processes and procedures followed in creating and enforcing management strategies and regulations. A 1 to 5 point scale is used, with 1 meaning Strongly Agree to 5 meaning Strongly Disagree.

Questions 9 thru 37 ask questions about the attitudes and perceptions of FGBNMS existing and proposed management strategies and regulations, and if commercial fishers support FGBNMS management. Questions 9 thru 33 and Question 35 use a 1 to 5 point scale, with 1 meaning Strongly Agree to 5 meaning Strongly Disagree. Question 34 asks about commercial fishers’ perceptions of the resource conditions using a 1 to 5 point scale, with 1 meaning Better Condition to 5 meaning a Worse Condition. Questions 36 and 37 are opened ended response questions asking for what areas commercial fisher’s think FGBNMS has been most successful or least successful.

FOR HIRE RECREATIONAL DIVING OPERATIONS

As with the commercial fishers, 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.

Part 1: General Information, Economic Information and Person-days and Trip Costs. The questions are similar to those submitted under OMB Approval Number 0648-0534, Expiration Date: 7/31/2009 for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The questions have been slightly modified to fit the FGBNMS.

General Information: This section obtains information to develop socioeconomic/demographic profiles and support analyses of socioeconomic impacts. Information requested is the same as in the questionnaire for the commercial fishers with minor modifications for adapting to the dive operations.

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 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, 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 related to areas being considered for boundary expansion of the FGBNMS. This will establish dependency on the different areas for dive operation revenues. Boundary expansion or research only areas could result in displacement of some activities (non hook-and-line fishing in boundary expansion areas and all fishing in research only areas).

Person-days and Trip Costs: Questions 25 and 26 provide control totals for each major area, Question 25 for person-days of activity by type of activity and Question 26 for person-days of activity by type of activity for the three banks in the current FGBNMS. 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 27 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 displacement by either boundary expansion or a research only area.

Question 28 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 and research only area alternatives. 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 oil platforms/rigs 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 Approval Number 0648-0534, Expiration Date: 7/31/2009, which is focused on a 10-year replication for three user groups; commercial fishermen, dive shop owners/operators, and members of local environmental groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The questions have been modified to the issues in the FGBNMS, but follow the same general format.

This module contains 38 questions. The questions are the same as used in the commercial fishers questionnaire to allow for comparisons across user groups. Question 23 was modified to address dive operators and an additional question was added (Question 34) to address the requirement of using dive flag.

FOR HIRE RECREATIONAL FISHING OPERATIONS

As with the commercial fishers and 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 to those submitted under OMB Approval Number 0648-0534, Expiration Date: 7/31/2009 for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The questions have been slightly modified to fit the FGBNMS.

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.

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 Approval Number 0648-0534, Expiration Date: 7/31/2009, which is focused on a 10-year replication for three user groups; commercial fishermen, dive shop owners/operators, and members of local environmental groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The questions have been modified to the issues in the FGBNMS, but follow the same general format.

This module contains the same 38 questions used for the for hire diving operations. Question 23 was modified to focus on charter/party boat (for hire fishing) operators.

By Whom

The surveys will be implemented by researchers at Texas A & M University under the direction of Professor William Heyman. 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 may 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

NOAA 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. 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.

Utility: Completing this information collection will give FGBNMS 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 FGBNMS. The information provided in this project will be an overwhelming boon to the Education and Outreach Program of the FGBNMS. Knowledge of who are the users of the FGBNMS, 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: Procedures have been established to protect the proprietary information provided by all respondents to all surveys. All personal identification information is removed from all databases to be sent to NOAA or distributed to the public. 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. Release of proprietary information is further protected by the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 522 (b) (4)) concerning trade secrets or proprietary information, such as commercial business and financial records.

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. In addition, all of the survey questions have been tested and analyzed in previous applications.

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 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. Bob Leeworthy attended and presented what is proposed in this submission. 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 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 FGBNMS. The review indicated that any information was considered outdated. Bob presented what was known to the FGBNMS SAC and commercial fisher, recreational dive operation and recreational fishing operation representatives all thought that new information collection was needed to adequately represent their interests. 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.

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 survey respondents. Instead, we send out an information collection team to the home or office of the business owner/operator (commercial fishers and for hire recreational fishing and diving operations) and the information collection team works with the respondent to complete the information collection. In arranging information collection interviews, our approach is to discuss 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.

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 FGBNMS, with the advice and consent from the FGBNMS 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 management plan review process is well underway in the FGBNMS and the information collection proposed here is critical to meeting the needs of FGBNMS 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 FGBNMS has taken important steps along these lines and is living up to their compact with the stakeholders who are participating in the management plan revision process. Not completing these data collections would leave NOAA and the FGBNMS in violation of these agreements.

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

Data collection will be consistent 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 August 10, 2012 (77 FR 47818) solicited public comment on this collection. None was received.

As described in the introduction to this request, ONMS has a SAC consisting of representatives of each stakeholder group. The SAC helps vet issues that will be considered in management plan review, which includes new management strategies and regulations. The SAC for the FGBNMS has approved the consideration of evaluations of alternatives for both boundary expansion and research only area(s). The Chief Economist of ONMS addressed the SAC on how to build the information and tools to provide socioeconomic evaluation of alternatives. Members of the SAC representing the commercial fishers and for hire recreational and diving were fully supportive of the planned surveys and said they would contact their members to ensure support for the information collection. This process worked for the 2010-2011 collection on the recreational for hire and diving operations, as we achieved a census.

Within the last couple of months, the SAC has begun their outreach again, as they know we now have funding and that Texas A&M professor William Heyman is working on a contract with our National Marine Sanctuary Foundation to get the work started.  SAC members are already recontacting their constituents by whatever means they normally use to inform them that the survey work is going forward. We expect the same results for the commercial fishers and any new recreational for hire fishing and diving operations that have started new businesses since 2011.

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

As stated on the forms, any identifying information (name, name of business, address and telephone number) will be viewed only by the contractor compiling the data, and will be destroyed by the contractor collecting the information at the end of the information collection. In addition, the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 522(b)(4) authorizes non-disclosure by a federal agency of trade secrets or proprietary information, such as commercial business and financial records. All other information will be available for distribution.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

No sensitive questions will be asked.

12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.

We estimate that there are approximately 76 commercial fishing operations in the relevant portions of the Northwest Gulf of Mexico Study Area that would be potentially impacted by FGBNMS boundary expansion or research-only areas. This information was obtained through the use of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) which tracks commercial vessel locations. We expect it will, on average, require three (3) hours of interview/record compilation time for each commercial fishing operation. This time can be rougtly divided into one hour for record compilation/availability for our interviewers and two hours working with our interviewers in filling out and checking the forms completed by the interview team. We also assume we will obtain a 100% response rate or a census, but response rates could go as low as 85%, based on our past applications of the same methods of information collection used in the Florida Keys. In our most recent application in the Florida Keys, which included all of the same types of information, we achieved a 90% response rate.. At the 85% response rate, we would expect 65 completed interviews for 195 hours, but to allow for a 100% response, we are requesting 228 hours.

For the For Hire Recreational Diving Operations, we have identified a population of 10 operations. All of these were completed in 2011. However, this industry is dynamic and the number of firms that exit and enter change, so we expect possibly two (2) more operations could exist. We expect to get a 100% response rate or a census. The representative for the dive industry on the FGBNMS 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 six (6) hours.

For the For Hire Recreational Fishing Operations, we have identified a population of 20 operations. We completed all 20 interviews in 2011. However, this industry is dynamic and the number of firms that exit and enter change, so we expect possibly two (2) more operations could exist. 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 six (6) hours.

The total one-time burden hour estimate across all three groups is estimated to be 240 hours.

Table 1. Estimate of Burden Hours
__________________________________________________________________
	Total
__________________________________________________________________
Estimated Number of Respondents
Commercial fishermen	76
For Hire Recreational Diving Operations	2
For Hire Recreational Fishing Operations	2
Total	80
Estimated time per Respondent
Commercial fishermen	3hrs
Dive Shop Owners/Operators	3hrs
Members of Local Environmental Groups	3hrs
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours
Commercial fishermen	228
Dive Shop Owners/Operators	6
Members of Local Environmental Groups	6
Total	240
__________________________________________________________________

13. 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 in Question 12 above).

There will be no cost to respondents beyond burden hours.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.

Data collection, GIS information and socioeconomic analysis tool development, and basic reports will take about nine months to complete.

Additional costs to the Federal government include the staff time of NOAA employees in developing survey questionnaire, sample designs and support items; developing and overseeing contracts to conduct surveys, do analyses and develop reports; develop data documentation on CD-ROM; post project reports on NOAA web site in pdf; and travel to support use of the GIS and socioeconomic impact analysis tools to evaluate management and regulatory alternatives with stakeholder working groups. Total other costs to the Federal government are estimated at $30,000. So the total project costs to the Federal government are estimated at $96,600 over a three year period. When annualized, the costs are estimated to be $32,200.

Table 2. 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…………………………………………….$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.

The commercial fishing component of this collection was not carried out in the first three years, due to lack of funding. Industry interviews of current businesses were completed, but new businesses will be surveyed. However, the current annualized burden estimate is the same as for the previous submission, with additional commercial fishing interviews balanced by fewer industry interviews.

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 FGBNMS.

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.

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.

14