Preliminary Case Study Assessing Economic Benefits of Marine Debris Reduction

Forms and Documents

Forms and supporting documents for this ICR

Document	Type	Status	Availability
On-site interview	Form	New	Available
TM_NOS-ORR_46.pdf	Supplementary Document	Uploaded 2017-07-28	Available
ShorelineFieldGuide2012 (1).pdf	Supplementary Document	Uploaded 2017-07-28	Available
Notes for Marine Debris Monitoring Data - OMB July 2017.docx	Supplementary Document	Uploaded 2017-07-28	Available
master-spreadsheet_marine-debris-monitoring-data_OMB-July2017.xls	Supplementary Document	Uploaded 2017-07-28	Available
fulltext (1).pdf	Supplementary Document	Uploaded 2017-07-28	Available
Final Report, Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris.pdf	Supplementary Document	Uploaded 2017-07-28	Available
MDPE 30d FRN 051117_21982.pdf	Supplementary Document	Uploaded 2017-05-11	Available
Marine debris FRN pub 022217_11346.pdf	Supplementary Document	Uploaded 2017-05-11	Available
RESPONSE_MDPE SS Part B 073117_OIRA_clean_nonresponse sentence added_revised 080417_AVU.docx	Supporting Statement B	Uploaded 2017-08-04	Available
RESPONSE_MDPE SS Part A 80217_OIRA_AVU_clean_080417.docx	Supporting Statement A	Uploaded 2017-08-04	Available

IC Document Collections

Information collection document groups

IC ID	Collection	Type	Status	Form
226799	Mail survey	Other-correspondence	New
226798	On-site interview	Form	New

ICR Details

OMB Control No: 0648-0756	ICR Reference No: 201705-0648-005
Status: Historical Active	Previous ICR Reference No:
Agency/Subagency: DOC/NOAA	Agency Tracking No:
Title: Preliminary Case Study Assessing Economic Benefits of Marine Debris Reduction
Type of Information Collection: New collection (Request for a new OMB Control Number)	Common Form ICR:  No
Type of Review Request: Regular
OIRA Conclusion Action: Approved with change	Conclusion Date: 08/04/2017
	Date Received in OIRA: 05/11/2017
Terms of Clearance: This collection is approved for one-time collection of data from Orange County, CA beaches to expand NOAA’s knowledge of user attitudes and knowledge about marine debris and the potential effects on visitor behavior as part of a regional pilot study, “The Economic Impacts of Marine Debris on Tourism-dependent Communities”. Previously, NOAA collected information for a “Pilot Study of Beach Recreation in Orange County” (Leggett et al. 2014) regarding marine debris in Orange County, California . This collection serves as a Pre-test to the proposed Regional Pilot Study previous study and includes additional questions that were not part of Leggett et al. (2014) by presenting visual information to respondents and asking hypothetical behavior questions regarding their last summer beach trips. NOAA requested to conduct pilot studies in the following regions: Northeast (Barnstable (MA), Dukes (MA) and Nantucket (MA)); Mid-Atlantic (Kent (DE), Sussex (DE), Wicomico (MD), Worcester (MD), and Accomack (VA)); Southeast (Horry (SC) and Georgetown (SC)); Gulf of Mexico (Mobile (AL) and Baldwin (AL)); California (Santa Cruz (CA) and Monterey (CA)); Pacific Northwest (Grays Harbor (WA), Pacific (WA), Clatsop (OR), and Tillamook (OR)); and Great Lakes (Lucas (OH), Ottawa (OH), Erie (OH), Lorain (OH), and Cuyahoga (OH)); OMB is not approving one-time collection of data from these regions at this time, pending the results of the Orange County Pre-test that inform the practical utility of this collection and any possible revisions to the regional Pilot Study design including survey questionnaire changes and sampling frame redesign that may flow from the results of the Orange County Pre-test. This is a Pre-test of a Regional Pilot Study to further the research on methods and the results are not appropriate to extrapolate outside the sample of the study. Upon the completion of this Pre-test, NOAA must submit to OMB results of the Pre-test including: (1) overall cumulative response rate using one of the AAPOR definitions; (2) item non-response rates for key questions including all hypothetical behavioral questions; (3) results of probing the respondents on how respondents reacted to the pictures used in the questionnaire including whether they thought the pictures were reasonable, reflective of what they actually saw at the beaches, whether the scale and/or concentration used in the pictures are appropriate (e.g., the actual number of debris/m2 vs. the number of debris shown in unknown physical dimension); (4) results of probing the respondents about how confident they are of their responses to the hypothetical behavior questions; (5) results of probing the respondents about whether they believe the level of marine debris is a problem; (6) results of probing the respondents about whether they believe presence of marine debris is indicative of bad water quality; (7) results of internal scope tests. If OMB approves the extension of the Pre-test into other regions, results of external scope tests should be submitted as site characteristics of the beaches may be used; (8) results of preliminary nonresponse assessments using zip code information should be submitted. If OMB approves the extension of the Pre-test into other regions, NOAA must submit information on their nonresponse bias follow-up study including which key attitudinal questions are used to reweigh the results in addition to the usual demographic variables. If NOAA concludes that a nonresponse bias follow-up study is not warranted due to the preliminary nature of the Regional Pilot Study, NOAA must provide justification for this decision including what information the Regional Pilot Study is likely to produce to inform future agency products and decisions; (9) provide results of the different modeling analysis the researchers conducted; (10) provide justification for the primary econometric model and results chosen including how the model might account for the intensity of use among users, whether the value of marine debris reduction might accrue more to users who live near the beaches (e.g., day trips) rather than users who do not live near the beaches (e.g., overnight trips) if OMB approves the extension of the Pre-test into other regions.

table that charts list comparision

	Inventory as of this Action	Requested	Previously Approved
Expiration Date	08/31/2020	36 Months From Approved
Responses	726	0	0
Time Burden (Hours)	56	0	0
Cost Burden (Dollars)	0	0	0

---

Abstract: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is requesting approval for a new information collection to conduct a mail survey of households in eight coastal locations in the continental United States. The eight locations include the seven coastal communities that are the focus of the study (Table 1) plus Orange County, California, which was the location for the Preliminary Case Study Assessing Economic Benefits of Marine Debris Reduction (OMB Control No. 0648-0681 (IEc 2014). The proposed eight study locations are (1) Northeast; (2) Mid-Atlantic; (3) Southeast; (4) Gulf of Mexico; (5) Great Lakes; (6) Pacific Northeast; and (7) California (2 locations). The survey instrument for this study will combine a selection of questions from the Orange County survey (IEc 2014) with new contingent behavior questions developed specifically for this study. The survey data will be combined with a national model of coastal recreation, which relies on data collected for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill assessment, to estimate the economic impacts of marine debris on tourism-dependent communities. The economic impacts to be evaluated include changes in the number of trips, the value of beach recreation to those who visit the beach, and changes in tourism spending (also called regional economic impacts) associated with an increase or decrease in the number of recreational trips.

---

Authorizing Statute(s): US Code: 33 USC 1951 et seq. Name of Law: Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act of 2006
  

Citations for New Statutory Requirements: None

---

Associated Rulemaking Information
RIN:	Stage of Rulemaking:	Federal Register Citation:	Date:
	Not associated with rulemaking

---

Federal Register Notices & Comments
60-day Notice:	Federal Register Citation:	Citation Date:
	82 FR 11346	02/22/2017
30-day Notice:	Federal Register Citation:	Citation Date:
	82 FR 21982	05/11/2017
Did the Agency receive public comments on this ICR? No

---

Number of Information Collection (IC) in this ICR: 2

table that charts list of burden

IC Title	Form No.	Form Name
On-site interview	NA	On-site interview
Mail survey	NA, NA, NA	Orange County Questionnaire ,   Mail survey ,   Marine Debris Mail Survey

---

ICR Summary of Burden

table that charts list of burden

	Total Approved	Previously Approved	Change Due to New Statute	Change Due to Agency Discretion	Change Due to Adjustment in Estimate	Change Due to Potential Violation of the PRA
Annual Number of Responses	726	0	0	726	0	0
Annual Time Burden (Hours)	56	0	0	56	0	0
Annual Cost Burden (Dollars)	0	0	0	0	0	0

Burden increases because of Program Change due to Agency Discretion: Yes

Burden Increase Due to: Miscellaneous Actions

Burden decreases because of Program Change due to Agency Discretion: No

Burden Reduction Due to:

Short Statement: This is a new information collection.

---

Annual Cost to Federal Government: $342,087

Does this IC contain surveys, censuses, or employ statistical methods? Yes Part B of Supporting Statement

Is the Supporting Statement intended to be a Privacy Impact Assessment required by the E-Government Act of 2002? No

Is this ICR related to the Affordable Care Act [Pub. L. 111-148 & 111-152]? No

Is this ICR related to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, [Pub. L. 111-203]? No

Is this ICR related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)? No

Is this ICR related to the Pandemic Response? Uncollected

---

Common Form ICR:  No

---

On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

(a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

(b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

(c) It reduces burden on small entities;

(d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous language that is understandable to respondents;

(e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

(f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

(g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 (b)(3) about:

(i) Why the information is being collected;

(ii) Use of information;

(iii) Burden estimate;

(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and

(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

(h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected.

(i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology (if applicable); and

(j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.

Certification Date: 05/11/2017

---