0606 SS 072516 Part B

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY RATIONALIZATION SOCIAL STUDY

OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0606

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 respondent universe for this study includes those individuals, partners, businesses, etc., that have any connection to the Pacific Coast Groundfish and Whiting Fisheries. These are the fisheries that have been rationalized. Types of respondents expected include fishermen, vessel owners, vessel operators, former groundfish limited entry permit holders, groundfish quota share permit holders, quota allocation recipients, crew aboard groundfish/whiting vessels, mothership operations, catcher-processor operations, shoreside processors, any other at-sea processors, first receivers/buyers, observers, and other individuals who are stakeholders in the fishery such as partners or spouses. In addition, the survey/interview pool will include any businesses that are directly tied to the groundfish/whiting communities through the supply of commercial items to include, but are not limited to net suppliers, fuel suppliers, equipment suppliers, etc.

The survey will be a census of the groundfish trawl/fixed gear fishery as described; that is, all individuals who meet the descriptions above. The only known numbers are the vessel owners, previous limited entry permit holders, quota allocation recipients, and previous study participants as this is the only information tracked. As a result, all other counts of the number of respondents are estimates. Calculations have been developed to estimate the number of respondents. Values for these calculations come from a combination of published data, previous data collection efforts under this OMB Control No. (2010 & 2012), and information from personal communications. The Northwest Regional Office provides several tables to include IFQ Vessel Accounts which show the vessel names and the vessel owners names, the Quota Share Permit Owners, and a list of IFQ First Receiver Site Licenses which show the processors whom hold those site licenses. Information such as the estimates of how many crew are on vessels came from personal communications during the pilot/study review process with NMFS employees and industry members, continued communication with observers, as well as from participant observation and inquiries during previous data collection efforts. The combination of this information is utilized to estimate the number of crew on participating vessels that will be part of the survey respondent group. This is believed to be the most accurate process to estimate the field of respondents.

Another sector of the study population, processors, is not as clear as the vessel owners and permit holder. Initially these estimates were based primarily on the literature. These new estimates are adjusted and account for experience and observations during the prior data collection efforts. Please note that the processing sector has been, and continues to be, very difficult to access and unwilling to participate in any large number. The Pacific Fishery Management Council documents describe shoreside processors for both the trawl groundfish species and whiting species in the (PFMC and NMFS 2009). The data identified a list of possible processors on the west coast. For this research, the processors were confirmed and assumptions remain that each processor has at least one owner, if not multiple owners. An approach to contact the owner(s) of each processor and conduct a census of the processor owner population will be taken.

Description	No. Companies	No. of Estimated Respondents	Estimated Response Rate 60%
Vessel Owners/ Quota Share Permit Holders		200	128
Prior Permit Owners Only		20*	13
Crew Estimateº		150	45
Shoreside Processors Owners (CA, OR, & WA)†	71	90	27
Shoreside Processors Employees (CA,OR &WA) †	71	50	15
Industry Supply Company Owners and Employees	15	80	48
Misc. Fishermen/Processors – Interviews ONLY		80	48
Observers		92	55
Fishery Related Organizations – Meetings	15	15	9
Misc Others		120	72
Total		897	460

*Some vessels and permits are co-owned, but both owner names are not listed in the permit data, so additional respondents were added to account for vessels with more than one boat owner.

^† As previously indicated, these numbers have been updated based on the response types from the previous data collections and they include a few adjustments for new entries to the fishery.

ºCrew estimates have been adjusted downwards based on knowledge from the prior data collection efforts from 2010, 2012 and including preliminary observations from the 2015/2016 data collection effort. Due to the nature of the program consolidating the fishery, fewer crew are working, there is high turnover in crew, crew are hard to track down for participation, or have a higher rate of decline to participate. Owners are more stable as even if they sell their boats - they still own and lease their quota. Owners are still accessible. Additionally, the requirement of observers on board reduces the number of crew on smaller vessels, reducing the crew count. A new study is currently being designed specifically to target crew.

⁺ An average response rate was calculated as 60%. For the vessel owner/quota share permit holders of the estimated respondents (200) a 64% response rate is estimated. For the crew and processing sector respondents a 30% response rate is estimated. Personal communications and experience during prior data collection efforts suggest access to processor sector personnel and crew is increasing difficult. As a result, a lower response rate is projected from this pool of respondents.

Two sub-populations of the study, where no list of individuals exists, are that of vessel crew and processor employees. Access to these individuals will be sought through various means. First, contact information from previous data collection efforts will be checked to see if it is still current. Crew have a tendency to move and change contact information frequently. Where information has changed or new personnel have entered the fishery, we will initiate previous methodologies to contact crew and processor employees. We will contact vessel owners, quota shareowners, and processor owners and ask for lists of employees and/or for permission to contact their employees. In past data collection efforts we had some success working with the NMFS Observer and Survey programs as key informants to reach crew aboard vessels. We will continue to strengthen this connection, as observers do change over time as well. There are various community organizations related to this fishery; for example, the Newport Fishermen’s Wives, Inc. We will continue to work closely with these organizations to reach members whom are fishermen and processor employees. Working with all these individuals has helped increase participation in our research, knowledge of our research in local communities, and strengthen working relationships with community members as they collaborate with us to support our research efforts. All individuals who complete the survey/interview process will be shown the compiled lists and asked if there are other crew/staff not listed. These methods have increased access to applicable participants in the past and will be pursued in the future.

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.

As previously mentioned in Question B.1, the approach to this study is to conduct a census of the study population. Individuals who meet the study criteria will be provided an opportunity to participate in the research. The sample selection will therefore not contain a random sample or other statistical representation of the study population and their associated statistical analysis. Sample selection will be based solely on the criteria of the individuals’ participation and having an active role in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Fishery, where those expected roles have been previously addressed in Question B.1.

Data collection will occur primarily through in-person survey administration and semi- to unstructured interviews. Researchers will discuss the research with study participants, administer the surveys, be available to answer any questions, code the surveys for anonymity and confidentiality, and collect all the surveys upon completion. In the event individuals are unavailable to meet in person, various options will be available to participate. Hard copy surveys can be provided either in person or via the mail, electronic versions will be available either for distribution via email or accessible over the internet. In the event of any mailing costs to return the survey, postage paid envelopes will be provided as appropriate.

It is expected that a 60% response rate will be sufficient to properly represent the study population. This response rate is based on a similar study conducted by the principal investigator with the same collection methodologies (Russell, et al. 2014; Russell and Schneidler-Ruff 2014) as well as prior data collection efforts in 2010 and 2012 under this OMB Control No. Analysis of the results will be conducted to include the response rate for each question. This is an important aspect of the research as the option to skip questions is being provided as an additional layer of confidentiality. The strength and accuracy each piece of data will therefore be represented through the response rate of the question, in addition to the overall response rates.

Data collection is not planned to be conducted on an annual basis. The first study year was 2010; a supplemental data collection was conducted in 2012, a third data collection was conducted in 2015/2016. Each of these past efforts was directly linked to management actions in the program. The focus of this research is to measure changes in the communities over time. Conducted at specific time increments, it can also link changes to specific management actions. For example, the release of quota shares for trading; that was prohibited upon implementation of the program and implemented in January of 2014. It is not expected that there will be a great advantage to conducting the research in annual increments. Social changes often take longer to ascertain and measure. As management actions continue to be changed, time is need to allow community members to adjust to changes before a clear understanding of impacts can be determined. This program is currently entering the 5-year review process. This will take several years to conclude. Changes that may be implemented post this review may continue to alter the sociocultural dynamics in affected communities. Discussions with various NMFS personnel and academic partners indicated agreement that proceeding to a 3-5-year rotation of data collection will yield the most successful results for future data collection efforts. In addition, this approach, as opposed to an annual approach, will reduce the burden on the research participants significantly.

3. Describe the methods used to maximize response rates and to deal with nonresponse. 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.

Various steps have been, and will continue to be, taken to maximize response rates.

As a reminder, no statistical sampling methodology is intended for this study population, there is no specific sampling frame applied in this case.

The first step to increase response rates has been taken in the form of working with industry members in a pilot study and providing the opportunity for them to review and contribute to the development of the survey tool. Industry members selected are all key participants in various aspects of the industry, to include geographically diverse locations within the fishery, diverse roles within the industry, as well as diverse knowledge of the fishery. Each industry member has been invited to continue to work with the study principal investigator to discuss the best approach to reach study participants. Several of the industry members are committed to serving as key informants, gate keepers, and primary contacts to many others in the industry. These individuals assist in the communication of the research, has access to literature about the study to be distributed to their constituents, assists researchers in the field to coordinate with study participants. The action of working with industry members and including them in the survey design and study and points of contact has increased the response rate dramatically.

Additional efforts to increase response rate include in-person survey administration whenever possible. It has been the experience of other research efforts that conducting the research in person and collecting completed surveys immediately, dramatically increases response rates (Rea and Parker 1997; Robson 2002; Russell and Schneidler-Ruff 2014). In addition, the individuals participating in the research have the opportunity to communicate with the researcher and provide additional information that is of concern to them to be included in the data set.

Contact has also been made with other key members of, NMFS, academia, and industry to better understand the study universe and to work together to collect a more complete data set. Communication with NMFS Northwest Regional Office, NMFS Observer program personnel, NMFS survey program personnel, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center personnel, NMFS SWFSC personnel, other NMFS field personnel, Oregon Sea Grant Personnel, and California Sea Grant personnel are included in collaborative efforts of this research. These efforts have increased the background knowledge available to the researchers, provided additional key informants and gate keepers to the industry, and have provided a support network throughout the west coast to conduct this research. This network of information available to the researchers has contributed to an increased response rate. An example of how this will work is through coordinating our approach of fishermen with observers. This coordination will serve two functions, 1) access to vessel schedules, and 2) gate keeper assistance. The observers work with fishermen on a daily basis, they will have knowledge of the boats schedules, which would direct the researchers to be available to conduct the research at the most appropriate times for the survey respondents. It would reduce the contact burden and extensive scheduling calls, and capture the targeted respondents when they are most available. In addition, the observers know the individuals of research interest personally. Collaborating with the observers and arranging for introductions between researchers and study participations by the observers, will likely increase the willingness of study participants to work with researchers.

Additionally, as this research effort has been underway for multiple years, we have established good relationships with community members by maintaining high levels of communication with them and working with them in their communities. We return to communities with results, participate in workshops requesting feedback of posters and preliminary results, and have increased local community knowledge of our research. As a result, during data collection efforts, community members are willing to participate and further support efforts to recruit other community members for inclusion in the study, increasing participation rates.

Multiple options will be provided to study participants to participate in the research. For individuals who are willing to work with us but don’t want to fill out the survey, researchers will conduct an interview and complete the survey per the participants’ responses. For those who don’t want to complete the entire survey, a section completion guide directs the participants as to which sections are most important to complete for the role the individual plays in the industry, limiting the sections the participant needs to complete. It is also clearly communicated that the individuals can stop their participation at any time, stop the completion of the survey at any time, or skip any questions of concern at any time, without any personal consequence. For those individuals who are not interested in the survey at all but are willing to participate in an interview, researchers will limit their data collection to interviews. If a participant is willing to give us only a few minutes of their time, we will ask the questions outlined in Sections A and B of the survey instrument. These sections are estimated to take approximately 5 minutes to complete. These responses will be used to analyze non-response bias.

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 full review of the study description, the study methodology, and the survey instrument has been undertaken. NMFS personnel, Pacific Fisheries Management Council personnel, and other federal personnel in various regions have reviewed the survey tool and provided comments on both the survey tool and the study. As previously discussed in Question 3, key industry members were provided a description of the research, discussed the research with the principal investigator, and reviewed the survey tool in a pilot study. Communication with reviewers is being maintained to 1) communicate changes to the survey tool as a result of the reviews, and 2) to lay the framework for the deployment of researchers into the field to conduct the research.

Information received from industry members and other NMFS personnel was found to be invaluable to the development and maintenance of the survey tool. As a result, updates of the survey tool were made to improve the tool. Their continued participation in this research is expected to contribute greatly to its success.

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.

The internal NMFS design, development, and review team including statistical analysis included Dr. Karma Norman, social scientist NWFSC (206) 302-2418; Anna Varney, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission researcher at the NWFSC (206) 302-2486, Todd Lee, Economist NWFSC (retired), Carl Lian, Economist, NWFSC (206) 302-2414.

The primary individuals expected to collect the data include Suzanne Russell, social scientist, principal investigator, NWFSC, and others to be identified. The team has typically included three researchers in California, one to two in Oregon, and 3 to 4 based out of Washington but travel to all locations needed to collect data. Individuals who are expected to analyze the data include Suzanne Russell (206) 860-3274 and possible others to be identified.

Cited References

Apostle, Richard, Bonnie McCay, and Knut Mikalsen

2002 Enclosing the Commons: Individual Transferable Quotas in the Nova Scotia Fishery. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Economic Research.

Carothers, Courtney

2013 A survey of US halibut IFQ holders: Market participation, attitudes, and impacts. Marine Policy 38:515-522.

Ecotrust, Ecotrust Canada and

2004 Catch-22: Conservation, Communities and the Privitization of B.C. Fisheries. Vancouver, B.C. : Ecotrust.

Lowe, Marie E., and Courtney Carothers

2008 Enclosing the Fisheries: People, Places, and Power. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

McCay, Bonnie

1995 Social and Ecological Implications of ITQ's: An Overview. Ocean & Coastal Management 28(1-3):3-22.

NRC, National Research Council

1999 Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Indiviudal Fishing Quotas. . Washington D.C. : National Academy Press.

Olson, J.

2011 Understanding and contextualizing social impacts from the privatization of fisheries: An overview. Ocean & Coastal Management 54(5):353-363.

Petursdottir, Gudrun, and Gisli Palsson

1996 Social Implications of Quota Systems in Fisheries. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Rea, Louis M., and Richard A. Parker

1997 Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Robson, Colin

2002 Real World Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Russell, Suzanne M. , et al.

2016 West Coast Communities and Catch Shares: The Early Years of Social Change. Coastal Management In Press.

Russell, Suzanne M., et al.

2014 The Pacific Groundfish Fishery Social Study: An Intial Theme Based Report. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Russell, Suzanne, and Morgan Schneidler-Ruff

2014 The U.S. Whale Watching Industry of Greater Puget Sound: A Description and Baseline Analysis. U.S.D.o. Commerce, ed. NOAA Tech Memo. Seattle, WA: NOAA.



Additional References

Adesoji, A, J. Menzo, and B. McCay. 1998. “Market Power, Industrial Organization and Tradeable Quotas” Review of Industrial Organization 13: 589-601.

Dewees, C.M. 1998. “Effects of Individual Quota Systems on New Zealand and British Columbia Fisheries.” Ecological Applications 8 (1) Supplement: Ecosystem Management for Sustainable Marine Fisheries (Feb., 1998), S133-S138.

Government Accountability Office. 2004. Individual Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protection and New Entry Require Periodic Evaluation. GAO-04-277.

Huppert, D. 2005. “An Overview of Fishing Rights” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15:201-215.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. Socioeconomic Perspectives on Marine Fisheries in the United States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.