SWAK ss Part A 022307

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
REGIONAL ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM
FOR SOUTHWEST ALASKA
OMB CONTROL NO.: 0648-xxxx

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
Regional or community economic analysis of proposed fishery management policies is required
by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization Act of
2006 (MSA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Executive Order 12866, among
others. To satisfy these mandates and inform policymakers and the public of the likely regional
economic impacts associated with fishery management policies, appropriate economic models
and the data to implement these models are needed.
Much of the data required for regional economic analysis associated with Southwest Alaska
fisheries are either unavailable or unreliable. Accurate fishery-level data on employment, labor
income, and expenditures in the Southwest Alaska fishery and related industries are not currently
available but are needed to estimate the effects of fisheries on the economy of Southwest Alaska.
To remedy this information gap, this information collection will gather data from industry
sources (i.e., commercial fishing vessel owners, local businesses) on these important regional
economic variables needed to develop models that will provide more reliable estimates and
significantly improve policy-makers’ ability to assess policy effects on fishery-dependent
communities in Southwest Alaska.
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 information collected will be summarized and used by the economists conducting the data
collection program [an Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) economist and a contractor at
the University of Alaska, Fairbanks(UAF)] to revise the deficient fishery data in IMpact analysis
for PLANning, Minnesota IMPLAN Group (IMPLAN) which is a commercially available
regional economic data set. After revision of the IMPLAN data is completed, the revised
IMPLAN data will be used to develop regional economic models for fisheries in Southwest
Alaska, including models such as input-output (IO) models and computable general equilibrium
(CGE) models. The resulting regional economic models will be used to estimate the impacts of
fisheries resulting from changes in fishery management policies for Southwest Alaska fisheries,
and thus provide policy-makers with additional information to aid in decision making.
In this project, two different data collection methods will be used: (1) a mail survey of vessel
owners and (2) telephone interviews with local businesses including fish processors. The mail
survey will be used for three different vessel classes – small, medium, and large vessels. The
Small vessel class includes all vessels 32 ft and smaller. The Medium vessel class includes all
vessels that are larger than 32 ft, but equal to or smaller than 90 ft. The Large vessel class
1

includes all vessels larger than 90 ft. 1 Two different versions of the mail survey were developed,
one for the small vessel sector and the other for medium and large vessel sectors. Attachment A
contains the two different versions of the survey. Telephone interviews with local businesses
and fish processors will also be conducted. The phone scripts for interviews with these
businesses are found in Attachment B. Each of these two data collection methods is described
below. Attachment C contains (a) an advance letter for the mail survey, (b) an initial mailing
letter (or cover letter) for the mail survey, (c) a postcard reminder for the mail survey, (d) a
follow-up phone call script for the mail survey, and (e) an advance letter that will be sent to local
businesses contacted for the phone interview.
Mail Surveys for Vessel Owners
The surveys for the fishers are structured to gather a limited amount of information related to
specific IMPLAN data requirements for employment and specific components of personal
income and value added. This includes questions about numbers of crew members and skippers,
crew share, ownership, and participation of owners in fishing activities to identify labor and
capital income components of owner’s fishing income. Additional questions are targeted to
identify specific fisheries-related crew, skipper, and ownership shares of income from ex-vessel
value. The resulting information will provide a complete set of IMPLAN data for use in
constructing three fishing vessel sectors in Southwest Alaska, specifically the components of
value added and employment.
The following is a discussion of specific questions in the small vessel survey (Attachment A).
Since the questions in the large/medium vessel survey are the same as those in the small
vessel survey except that the small vessel survey has an additional question (Question 6),
discussion of the questions in the large/medium vessel survey will not be provided. The

1

IMPLAN data provides only aggregate information on harvesting activity; there is only one single harvesting
sector in IMPLAN data. To estimate the potential impacts of fishery management actions on individual harvesting
sub-sectors, it is necessary to disaggregate the whole harvesting sector into different sub-sectors. Since Alaska
fisheries are very complicated, there are many different ways of dividing the harvesting sector into sub-sectors.
There is no ideal, clear-cut way of dividing the harvesting sector. In this project, the Southwest harvesting sector is
divided into three vessel classes depending on various factors such as (1) sizes of the vessels, (2) species caught, (3)
geographic distribution of the economic impacts, (4) other factors. This division of vessel classes was supported by
Alaska fisheries experts as well as University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) economists familiar with Southwest
fisheries. The following is the rationale used to divide the harvesting sector into three different vessel classes.

Small vessel class: The 32 ft upper limit is set because it is the size limit on drift netters in Bristol Bay which catch
mostly salmon. This class includes the bulk of the vessels in Southwest region (1,479 vessels). Furthermore, the
majority of processing plants in Southwest is in Bristol Bay, and will serve only that vessel class. This means that
the economic impacts (expenditures and income) associated with small vessel fisheries occur mostly within the
Bristol Bay area. Originally the size class was considered to be inclusive of seiners (>60 ft), but that scheme was
dropped due to differences in operation of the size classes.
Medium and large vessel class: It is generally accepted that 90 ft is the limit for safe operation on the high seas.
Operation of sub-90 ft vessels (medium vessels) is generally more local than over-90 ft vessels (large vessels).
Therefore, medium vessels’ local spending per unit of output is higher than that of large vessels which transit from
home port (located mostly in Washington or Oregon) to fishing grounds. Medium vessels’ activity will thus likely
have most of their economic impacts on Southwest region while large vessels’ activity are more likely to have multiregional impacts on both Southwest Alaska and West Coast. Most of the fish species caught by large vessels is
groundfish while those by medium vessels are various.
2

explanation of each question relates the purpose of the question to the data needs of the
regional economic model for Southwest Alaska.
Questions on Vessel Information: Question 1 is intended to determine the accuracy of data
that is already in the possession of the researchers. Determination of accuracy is critical to the
cost engineering component of the study which will be conducted to impute operating costs
after the data collection is completed 2 .
Questions on Skipper and Crew Payment and Employment Information: The first three
questions (Questions 2 to 4) ask about employment of skippers, crew, and owners. Question
5 obtains information on the residency of crew, skipper(s), and owners who provided labor in
harvesting fish. Question 6 obtains information on fishery-based employment for fisheries
that are not year round. Question 7 is used to estimate payments to the crew and skipper.
More detailed explanation of each question is given below.
•
•

•

•

•

•

Question 2 provides the gross employment numbers to be used in the IMPLAN model.
Question 3 provides information on how many months in the calendar year the survey
respondent was an owner of the vessel. If the owner owned the vessel for less than a
full year, the information from this question could be used with the data from Question
7 to approximate the annual income to crew and skipper(s).
Question 4 is the most complex and provides information needed to determine
employment by fishery, and to provide information which will be needed to estimate
employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income when
combined with answers to questions that follow.
Question 5 will account for regional (Southwest Alaska) employment of crew,
skipper(s), and owners (by species).
Since Principal and Interest (P&I) payments only occur during the active season,
information from Question 6 will allow us to calculate fishery-based employment for
fisheries that are not year around. For the large/medium vessel survey, this question is
not included, as the large/medium vessel owners that we spoke to indicated that it
would not be appropriate for them.
Question 7 will allow the estimation of crew and skipper payments. This information

2

The cost engineering study will rely on this vessel information to specify an average vessel for determination of
operating, maintenance, and depreciation costs associated with each vessel class. For more details and examples
of this type of study, see:

Cross, T. 1998. "Machinery Cost Calculation Methods." Agricultural Extension Service, University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture, AE&RD No. 13.
Patterson, P. and R. Smathers. 2006. "Custom Rates for Idaho Agricultural Operations, 2005-06." University of
Idaho College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Bul 729.
http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/pdf/BUL/BUL0729.pdf
Pacific Northwest Cooperative Extension. 1998 (revised in 2001). “Costs of Owning and Operating Farm
Machinery in the Pacific Northwest” PNW0346.
http://cru84.cahe.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/PNW0346.html

3

contributes to the research goal of determining employee compensation and proprietor
income.
The survey concludes with space for respondents to comment on the survey or the general study.
Telephone Interviews with Local Businesses
The objective of conducting telephone interviews with local businesses is to gain information on
what amount (in dollars) of the intermediate inputs were sold by local businesses to each vessel
class. Since each local business typically sells goods and services in a single North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) sector and the NAICS sector that the business is in will
be known from the Alaska Division of Community Advocacy
(http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm), interviews with businesses in
Southwest Alaska will be based on only a few questions. Attachment B has the phone scripts
with the detailed questions. Several days before phone calls are made to local businesses, an
advance letter will be sent to them informing them of the purpose of the study, indicating that
they will soon be called to participate in the study, and letting them know what type of questions
will be asked. The advance letter is contained in Attachment C. Once the information on input
sales to the vessel classes is obtained, it will be mapped into IMPLAN sectors, and be used to
revise IMPLAN data. The interviews with local businesses will gain a very limited piece of
information from each business that will be used to construct the Southwest Alaska production
function in IMPLAN.
Telephone Interviews with Fish Processors
Because fish processors are the most important local businesses for the fleet, their interactions
with the fleet are very important in the Southwest Alaska regional economic models. The
questions that are asked of them will be slightly more complicated because they are a multicommodity and multi-service provider to individual vessels. Their activities are limited mainly
to selling the following to the fleet(s): fuel and lubricants, groceries, fishing gear, vessel
mechanical parts, vessel equipment, repair services, and bait. Extensive interviews with
processors provided guidelines in terms of how to ask these questions. In the phone interview
with fish processors, we will ask them about their sales of the above goods and services to each
of the three vessel classes. Attachment B contains the phone scripts with the detailed questions
for fish processors. Since the investigators have already established personal relationships with
the principal fish processors and they know that they will be contacted, no advance letter needs
to be sent. Once the information on fish processors’ sales to the vessel classes is obtained, it will
be used to revise the IMPLAN data and the production functions in the data.
As explained in the preceding paragraphs explaining the two methods of data collection, the
information to be gathered has utility. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (Fisheries) 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 Item #10 below 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,
results may be used in scientific, management, technical or general informational publications.
4

Should NOAA, Fisheries 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. 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 information collection does not involve use of any of the above information technology
techniques.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
An extensive search was conducted to find studies that collect regional economic information for
the study region, but did not yield any applicable studies. However, several other data collection
efforts for other regions in Alaska are noteworthy. One study collected regional economic
information for Southeast Alaska from 1995-96 (for year 1994) 3 . Another study that tried to
collect regional economic information in Alaska is a study related to the snow crab fishery in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region 4 . Thus, the present project represents the first regional
economic data collection project for the study region and covers all fisheries instead of focusing
solely on a subset of fisheries.

5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Telephone interviews with small local businesses (suppliers) in Southwest Alaska will be used to
obtain information about vessel expenditures on groceries and other goods and services provided
to commercial fishermen. To minimize the burden, only a few questions will be asked of them
and the phone call per business entity will be less than 15 minutes. The survey of vessel owners
was constructed so as to minimize the amount of time required to answer questions. For
example, questions on vessel expenditures are omitted from the survey to minimize burden.
Also, characteristics specific to the vessel are pre-printed in each individual survey so that the
respondent does not have to spend time on recalling or looking them up. This will also
contribute to minimizing burden. Questions are limited in number and scope, thereby
minimizing the burden to each respondent.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
No other entity is likely to collect the information needed for resolving the IMPLAN
deficiencies. Therefore, if the data collection is not conducted by us, the deficiencies in the
3

Hartman, J. 2002. Economic Impact Analysis of the Seafood Industry in Southeast Alaska: Importance, Personal
Income, and Employment in 1994. Regional Information Report No. 5J02-07. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
4
Herrmann, M., J. Greenberg, C. Hamel, and H. Geier. 2004. Regional Economic Impact Assessment of the Alaska
Snow Crab Fishery Integrated with an International Snow Crab Market Model. University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
School of Management Working Series Report 2004-001.
5

IMPLAN data will not be fixed, and therefore, the mandates of MSA, NEPA, and Executive
Order 12866 described in Item #1 above will not be satisfied.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
None.
8. Provide a copy of 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.
During the public notice period, two individuals asked for copies of the mail survey forms. In
response to the requests, we provided the forms to them. After that (but before the public
comment period was over), one of them asked about the population and sample sizes of the
surveys. We replied with answers to the questions.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
We do not have any plan to provide any payments or other gifts to the respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
On the first page of the survey, we provided a confidentiality statement as follows:
CONFIDENTIALITY: Per Section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, et
seq.), all individual surveys will be held by only a limited number of researchers at UAF who
will enter or work with the data. After the data are entered in an electronic format, only these
researchers will have password-protected access to the data. After data from the surveys have
been entered into an electronic format, the hard copies will be kept in a locked metal cabinet.
These individual surveys will be destroyed upon completion of the study. Your name, vessel
identification and address will be used only for mailing and survey administration purposes.
Only summary results will be reported to the public. NMFS and other agencies will receive only
aggregate results in summary form.
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.
6

12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information
The estimated number of respondents is 623. The estimated total annual burden hours are 207.
These numbers are derived as follows. According to the Southwest Alaska region vessel revenue
data for year 2005 (Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission), the population size (the total
number of harvesting vessels that landed fish at Southwest ports) is 2,117. This population
consists of three subpopulations – small vessels (1,479), medium vessels (421), and large vessels
(217). The optimal sample size 5 for each subpopulation is calculated using the sampling
procedures described in Attachment D assuming a ±10% error in the estimate of population
totals of interest and an alpha of 0.05. The resulting optimal sample sizes are 270, 124, and 90
for the small, medium, and large vessel sectors, respectively. Therefore, a total of 484 vessels
must complete surveys for the analysis to yield the precision desired. To achieve this number
(484) of respondents, a total of 880 surveys need to be mailed out, assuming a 55% response
rate. Regarding the number of respondents from telephone interviews, all the units in the
population (213) will be contacted. Assuming a 65% response rate 6 , the estimated number of
respondents will be about 139 (112 local businesses and 27 fish processors). Therefore, the total
number of respondents from mail survey and telephone interviews is estimated to be 623. Since
it is estimated that about 20, 15, and 40 minutes will be taken to conduct vessel owner survey,
local business phone interview, and fish processor phone interview, respectively, the estimated
total annual burden hours are 207. See the table below for details.

5

Optimal sample size as used here is the number of vessels needed for analysis to achieve the level of precision
desired given an allowed error of population estimate and an alpha.

6

We assume a 65% response rate based on previous studies which show that, on average, about 65% response rate
was achieved for phone interviews with local businesses and fish processors. These studies include:

Herrmann, M., J. Greenberg, C. Hamel, and H. Geier, March 4, 2004. “Regional Economic Impact Assessment of
the Alaska Snow Crab Fishery Integrated with an International Snow Crab Market Model.” University of Alaska
Fairbanks School of Management Working Series Report 2004-001.
Greenberg, J., M. Herrmann, H. Geier, and C. Hamel, January 2002. “Wild Salmon Risk Management in Bristol Bay
Alaska: Draft Final Report.” University of Alaska Fairbanks. Report to the United States Department of Agriculture.
Herrmann, M., S.T. Lee, C. Hamel, K. Criddle, H. Geier, J. Greenberg, and C. Lewis. June 2000. An Economic
Assessment of the Marine Sport Fisheries for Halibut, and Chinook and Coho Salmon in Lower Cook Inlet.@ OCS
Study Minerals Management Service 2000-046. Annual Report No. 6. Coastal Marine Institute, University of
Alaska.
7

Estimated
hours
(responses
multiplied by
time per
response)

Number of
respondents

Responses per
respondent

Estimated
time per
response

Small Vessel
mail survey

270

1

20 minutes

90.0

Medium Vessel
mail survey

124

1

20 minutes

41.3

Large Vessels
mail survey

90

1

20 minutes

30.0

Local business
phone
interviews
Fish processor
phone
interviews

112

1

15 minutes

28.0

27

1

40 minutes

18.0

TOTALS

623

Information
Collection

207.3

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 #12
above).
The estimated total annual cost to public is $0.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The total cost of this data collection project is estimated to be $54,947, which covers (a)
compensation for labor used to develop the survey, (b) travel cost associated with survey
development, (c) labor cost for implementing the survey, (d) mailing costs (for mail surveys,
advance letters, and postcard reminder) and telephone calls for interviews. Since this project will
take two years, the annualized cost is $27,474.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
There have been no program changes or adjustments.

8

16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
The data collected will be used to revise IMPLAN data for the study region. The collection of
data is expected to be implemented in June 2007. The revision of IMPLAN data and generation
of a balanced social accounting matrix (SAM) will be completed by December 2007. Summary
results of data collection will be published in a project report, but will not be made available on
the Alaska Fisheries Science Center’s website. Results from regional economic models to be
developed using the data will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.
The expiration date will be displayed.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.
There are no exceptions.

9