ASSE_SS 082511 part A

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
ALASKA SALTWATER SPORT FISHING ECONOMIC SURVEY
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-XXXX

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
This request is for a new information collection.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the agency responsible for collecting and
analyzing scientific data on the nation’s living marine resources, including Alaska halibut.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (see Section 303),
Executive Order 12962 (Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics, Section 1(h)) and Executive
Order 12866 (Section 1(b)(6)), NMFS is required to provide economic analyses of Federal
management actions and policies to improve the nation’s fisheries. This data collection project
will meet these statutory and administrative requirements by providing resource managers with
the information necessary to understand the likely future impacts of management actions on the
Alaska halibut sport fishery.
The halibut sport fishery in Alaska is quite large. During 2009, for instance, over 440,000
halibut were harvested by sport anglers in the state. 1 In recent years, several regulatory changes
have occurred and more have been proposed that could significantly impact the sport fishery. In
February 2011, a program was implemented to limit entry into the saltwater charter boat
recreational fishery in Alaska (75 FR 554). This policy sets a limit on the number of charter
vessels that may participate in the guided sport halibut fishery in United States (U.S.) waters off
Alaska. The limited entry program is separate from other policies intended to regulate harvest of
halibut by the guided fishing sector, such as the guideline harvest limit (GHL) policy established
in 2003 that sets an acceptable limit on the amount of halibut that can be harvested by the
recreational charter fishery during a year and establishes a process for the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) to initiate harvest restrictions in the event that the limit is met or
exceeded. At present, numerous harvest restrictions have been adopted by the Council to address
exceedances of the GHL that have occurred in recent years. These restrictions have primarily
been aimed at fishing in the charter boat industry, such as restrictions on client or crew fishing
behavior (e.g., bag and size limits). This year, maximum size limits for halibut caught on charter
boat fishing trips were adopted. Moreover, NMFS and the Council are currently assessing a plan
to implement a catch sharing plan to allocate halibut between the recreational and commercial
sectors that would replace the GHL system (76 FR 14300). To assess the impacts of pending and
potential regulatory changes on sport angler behavior, it is necessary to have estimates of the
baseline demand for halibut fishing trips and an understanding of the factors that affect it.

1

From Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Statewide Harvest Survey website:
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/sportfishingsurvey/index.cfm?ADFG=region.home. Accessed June 28, 2011.

1

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.
Information from this collection will be used by NMFS economists in the Alaska Fisheries
Science Center (AFSC) and Alaska Regional Office, and by staff at the NPFMC, to address
issues discussed in Question 1, and others that may arise. Using these data, econometric and
statistical models will be estimated to describe the demand for, and value of, halibut and other
saltwater fishing trips by sport anglers in Alaska, and assess the effects of regulatory changes in
support of efforts to develop, implement, and monitor fishery management plans.
The information collection consists of conducting a mail survey using a sample of individuals
who hold a sport fishing license in Alaska. For this implementation, we will mail questionnaires
to members of the sample, followed by follow-ups to encourage response. Among the follow-up
efforts will be a postcard reminder, a telephone contact with non-responding license holders for
whom we have telephone numbers to encourage response and gather data for assessing nonresponse behavior, and a full second mailing. Since an earlier survey with similar survey
instruments and implementation protocols was successfully completed (“Alaska Saltwater Sport
Fishing Economic Survey” conducted under OMB Control No. 0648-0535 and described in Lew,
Lee, and Larson [2010]) in 2007, we do not anticipate needing to conduct a formal pretest to test
the mail survey instrument. 2
There are three survey instruments, one for non-residents, one for Southeast Alaska residents,
and another for all other Alaska residents. Since the majority of non-Southeast Alaska residents
live in South Central Alaska, we refer to the non-Southeast Alaska resident survey version as the
South Central (SC) Alaska resident version. Every respondent will receive a map insert showing
two regions in Alaska where the vast majority of Alaska saltwater sport fishing occurs. The
survey versions and the follow-up telephone interview script are described below.
All three mail questionnaires collect information about respondents’ behavior and preferences
for saltwater fishing in Alaska, which include fishing for halibut 3. The questionnaire is divided
into five sections. The following is a discussion of how particular questions in the questionnaire
will be used.
Mail Questionnaires for Non-Residents and Residents
The non-resident (NR) mail survey will be sent to sport anglers who do not live in Alaska, while
the resident versions of the survey will be sent to anglers who are residents of Southeast Alaska
(SE) and other areas of Alaska (SC). 4 A separate survey instrument is needed for non-residents
due to key differences in recreational travel behavior and constraints faced by non-resident
2

In addition, the timing of collecting data from Alaska saltwater anglers is critical and the window for the collection
is small given recall issues and when the sampling frame is complete and available. Conducting a full formal pretest
would push the full implementation back a season and issues currently in front of the Council and NMFS require
understanding the information this data collection intends to provide.
3
Saltwater sport anglers who catch halibut sometimes catch or target other species on the same trip, such as salmon,
lingcod, and rockfish. Since these species potentially act as substitute target fish species for halibut, it is important
to collect information about the demand for these species as well.
4
As discussed in Part B, Alaska residents are divided into two groups, Southeast Alaska residents and all other (nonSoutheast) Alaska residents.

2

anglers compared to resident anglers, as well as possible differences in preferences for saltwater
fishing. This requires asking several questions in the NR version that are different from the
resident (SE and SC) versions. However, all survey versions are similar in structure and most
questions are identical. The following will discuss the features common to the surveys and point
out the differences where appropriate.
Section A
In all versions, Section A collects general participation information about the respondent’s sport
fishing activities in Alaska. Both provide instructions and definitions for freshwater and
saltwater fishing to be used in the survey. The SE and SC versions include instructions to
exclude subsistence fishing activities, which apply only to residents, in the survey. Questions in
this section are used to determine basic experience and participation in fishing activities in
Alaska. Question A1 asks whether the individual has fished in Alaska before 2011 (under the
maintained assumption that the survey is implemented in 2012). This will be used to determine
whether respondents have previous experience fishing in Alaska. Basic information about
overall fishing effort, both in freshwater and saltwater, for the previous season is collected in A2
in the SE and SC versions and A3 in the NR version. Responses to this question will be used to
determine participation rates for freshwater and saltwater fishing and as covariates in statistical
models. In addition, a question is asked to determine in what areas of Alaska the individual
fished (A3 in the resident versions, A4 in the NR version). This question is principally used to
familiarize individuals with the regions in Alaska that will be used throughout the survey. The
final question in the section (A4 in the resident versions, A5 in the NR version) is used to
identify individuals who have fished in saltwater in Alaska during the previous season.
Individuals who have not fished in saltwater for halibut and other saltwater species are directed
to skip to Section D. The remaining respondents will fill out Sections B and C, which request
information about their saltwater fishing activities in the recent past. Question A2 in the NR
version asks respondents how many different visits were taken to Alaska during 2011. This
information provides the context for fishing trip behavior by non-resident anglers provided in
later sections.
Section B
Only individuals who have saltwater-fished during the past season for halibut and other saltwater
species will fill out Sections B and C. For non-residents who must travel to Alaska to fish, and
who generally visit the state for a long vacation and participate in more than fishing activities,
Section B gathers basic information about their most recent visit to Alaska that included
saltwater sport fishing. For these respondents, information in Section B provides the building
blocks for calculating travel costs that are the basis for the recreation demand modeling of these
types of anglers. In the SE and SC survey versions, Section B collects detailed information
about the respondent’s saltwater fishing activities during the past season. Responses from this
section form the basic data needed to estimate the seasonal demand models for fishing trips to
sites in Alaska and assess changes to demand resulting from potential regulatory changes.
Non-resident version:
Non-residents must travel to Alaska before they can fish in Alaska. While visiting Alaska, they
may take more than one fishing trip. If they are visiting the state for non-fishing reasons, not all
3

of the travel costs they accrue are appropriate for inclusion in the fishing trip cost used in the
recreation demand modeling. As a result, this version asks respondents for details of their most
recent visit to Alaska during 2011 that can be used to calculate the appropriate portion of their
costs associated with saltwater fishing activities on that visit.
•

•

•
•

•

•

•

B1 provides information on how important saltwater sport fishing is to the most recent visit
to Alaska. In combination with B2, which asks whether the visit to Alaska would have been
taken if saltwater fishing was not part of the visit, B1 is used to evaluate how essential
saltwater fishing was for the visit to Alaska. If saltwater fishing is not an important reason
for visiting Alaska, the costs of traveling to Alaska would not influence the respondent’s
fishing activities decisions.
B3 and B4 provide information on when and how long the respondent’s most recent visit to
Alaska was, while B5 collects information on the total number of days the respondent spent
saltwater fishing in Alaska on this visit. This information provides basic information about
the time period and length of the overall trip, which can be used to characterize the fishing
done on the Alaska visit.
B6 collects information on the number of people that traveled with the respondent to Alaska.
B7 and B8 collect information about transportation used by the respondent to travel to
Alaska. There are two primary ways of entering Alaska—by air and water. In B7, for
respondents who took an airplane into the state, the arrival city is asked for, which is
necessary to calculate in-state travel costs. B8 is specific to individuals who traveled to
Alaska on a cruise ship.
B9 asks if the respondent stayed at a fishing lodge, which provide (usually) all-inclusive
experiences. If they say yes, they are asked how much time it took them to travel to the
fishing lodge from their point of entry into the state, which is critical information for
calculating fishing-related transportation costs for these individuals.
B10 collects detailed information on the expenses accrued on fishing and non-fishing
activities, as well as on transportation, for this visit to Alaska. This information can be used
in economic impact models to evaluate the impact of angler expenditures on the regional
economy.
B11 identifies the number of persons for which the expenses reported in B10 apply.

SE and SC versions:
The SE and SC versions ask nearly identical questions in Section B that only differ in terms of
the fishing locations asked about. Lew, Lee, and Larson (2010) found that very little saltwater
sport fishing occurs outside of a resident’s home region. That is, Southeast Alaska resident
anglers generally do not fish in South Central Alaska, and non-Southeast Alaska resident anglers
do not generally fish in Southeast Alaska. Thus, the fishing locations listed in the SE version are
only those in Southeast Alaska, while the SC version only lists fishing locations in South Central
Alaska.
•
•
•

B1 collects information about the number of within-Alaska fishing trips taken to each of
several different fishing sites and the number of days spent fishing by mode.
B2 asks for the total number of fish that were caught at each site during the past season, and
B3 collects information about the frequency with which respondents released fish they
caught.
B4 collects information about the type of transportation the respondent used on fishing trips
4

•

and will be used to help determine the respondent’s travel costs to fishing sites.
B5 is used to determine access to private boat fishing. Responses will be used to assess
differential private boat fishing opportunities for residents in different regions in Alaska.

Section C
In all versions, Section C collects basic behavioral information necessary to model recent
saltwater fishing behavior.
Non-resident version:
As noted above, calculating travel costs associated with fishing for non-resident anglers is a
challenge that requires getting details about their Alaska visit (Section B), as well as information
about the fishing activities engaged in and travel taken within the state to fishing locations. To
further refine cost calculations, C1 in the NR version asks a question to help identify the type of
fishing trip the respondent took, C6 asks for the location in Alaska the non-resident respondent
considered their starting point for saltwater fishing while in Alaska, and C7 collects information
on the time spent traveling from this starting point to the location where fishing occurred. Other
questions in the section collect information about the fishing that was done including the
locations in Alaska and number of days spent saltwater fishing (C2), the number of days fished
by mode (C3), the number of fish by species that were targeted, caught, and kept (C4) on this
fishing trip, and the amount of actual time spent fishing (with a fishing pole in the water) (C5).
Resident version:
For resident anglers, Section C elicits information about the most recent Alaska saltwater fishing,
including the expenditures the respondent made related to the trip. This trip-specific approach is
necessary to gather detailed trip information that respondents generally cannot reliably recall for
an entire season, especially avid anglers who fish frequently. Asking for detailed expenditure
information for the whole season, for instance, is cognitively too difficult. Information about the
most recent trip will allow separate estimation of a recreation demand model that focuses on the
most recent trip in addition to a seasonal demand model using information from Section B. In
addition, detailed trip expenditure information can be used to evaluate the economic impact of
recreational fishing activity within regional economic impact models.
Both the SE and SC versions ask respondents to describe their most recent saltwater fishing trip
in Alaska. This includes questions to elicit information about where fishing occurred, how many
days of fishing occurred, and what fishing modes were employed (C1); when the trip occurred
and its length (C2 and C3), how many people went on the trip (C4), what types of transportation
were used (C5), the total fish targeted, caught, and kept by species (C6), how much time was
spent actively fishing (with a fishing pole in the water) (C7), and whether the trip was principally
to saltwater fish (C8). C9 and C10 collect information on trip expenses and the number of
people the expenses were spent on.
Section D
Section D collects stated preference response information needed to understand respondents’
preferences for saltwater fishing trips in Alaska. The section begins with a set of questions to get
5

the respondent thinking about the types of Alaska fishing trips they prefer and the factors
affecting these trips. These questions introduce the respondent to factors that are used to
describe different types of fishing trips in subsequent stated preference questions. Differences in
this section between the SE, SC, and NR versions are minor, with the major difference being an
additional question in the SE and SC versions that ask about the respondent’s preference for
private versus charter boat saltwater fishing (D2 in those versions). In the NR version, D2 asks
whether the respondent has a preference for fishing in a particular region of Alaska, a question
not asked in the resident angler versions.
Following these introductory questions are directions for the stated preference questions and a
budget reminder. Responses to the stated preference questions will be used to identify
respondent preferences for characteristics of fishing trips that affect saltwater fishing trip
experiences. This information will be used to understand how changes to fishing trip
characteristics will affect participation in saltwater fishing. The stated preference questions (D4,
D5, D6, and D7) are in a choice experiment, or stated choice, framework (Hanley, Wright, and
Adamowicz, 1998; Alpizar, Carlsson, and Martinsson, 2001; Hanley, Mourato, and Wright,
2001). 5
In each stated preference question, respondents are confronted with three choices. The first two
choices, Choice A and Choice B, are fishing trips that differ in how much they cost, where they
are taken (NR version only), whether fishing is by private boat or by charter boat, how long the
trips are, and regulations applicable on the trips, among other attributes. The third choice,
Choice C, is an opt-out alternative that can be chosen by the individual if other activities are
preferred to Choices A and B. Responses to these questions will be analyzed within a random
utility-based discrete choice econometric model.
The last question in the section (D8) identifies how confident respondents are about their
answers to the stated preference questions. Respondents stating they are “not at all confident” in
their answers may be excluded from the estimation since these individuals, for whatever reason,
are uncertain that their answers reflect how they feel.
Section E: About You and Your Household
The final section is identical across versions and consists of questions about the respondent and
the respondent’s household to be used as explanatory variables in the stated preference and
demand models, for comparing respondents to non-respondents (non-response bias), and for
informing resource managers of the characteristics of the population.
Socioeconomic and demographic information collected includes gender, age, household size,
number of workers in the household, education, ethnicity, race, employment status, hours
worked per week, wage, and income. Respondents are also asked to indicate the number of
years they have been fishing. This provides a measure of fishing experience that can be
incorporated into the recreation demand models. Additionally, respondents are asked to provide
more detailed information about their work time constraints, specifically whether they would
5

The first application of the choice experiment method in non-market valuation was a study by Adamowicz,
Louviere, and Williams (1994) of recreational opportunities in Canada. The approach has since been used in a
number of studies to estimate use values and participation for activities like hunting (Adamowicz, et al., 1997;
Bullock, Elston, and Chalmers, 1998) and climbing (Hanley, Wright, and Koop, 2002).

6

prefer to work fewer, the same, or more hours than they currently are. This information is
needed to better understand their time constraints and opportunities for participating in sport
fishing and other leisure activities and will be incorporated into the recreation demand model.
Telephone Follow-Up
Following the initial mailing and postcard reminder, we will contact non-respondents by
telephone to encourage them to complete the mail survey and to collect limited information from
those who decide not to participate in the mail survey at all. 6 The information provided by these
non-respondents can be compared with that from respondents to address issues concerning nonresponse bias. Selected socioeconomic and demographic questions, along with a few key
behavioral questions, are asked to statistically test whether non-respondents differ from
respondents with respect to these characteristics. The behavioral questions include versions of
questions from Section A of the mail questionnaire to identify basic fishing behavior and an
additional question to identify respondents who have fished for halibut during the year of
interest. This information can be used to evaluate and adjust the results for potential nonresponse bias among sample members.
It is anticipated that the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to
support publicly disseminated information. As explained above, the information gathered has
utility. NOAA 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 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.
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 survey data collection does not utilize any specialized information technology.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
The information collected in this survey is not collected by other Federal, state, or local agencies.
To date, the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (now called the Marine
Recreational Information Program, or MRIP) and its add-ons have not been conducted in Alaska.
We have informed the Council, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission about this project. None of these entities have conducted or are
conducting similar economic data collections. Although there is no economic content, the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game regularly conducts a survey that collects effort and catch
data of Alaska sport fisheries, including saltwater recreational fisheries.

6

In the telephone follow-up, a limited amount of information may also be collected from those agreeing to return
the mail survey.

7

Studies conducted in 1997 and 2003 provide an incomplete picture of the demand for halibut
sport fishing trips. The 1997 study concentrated on trips taken to the Kenai Peninsula in South
Central Alaska, which accounts for about half of the fishery’s harvest (Lee, et al., 1999). Since
halibut fishing opportunities in other areas of Alaska are different from those offered in this area,
it is difficult to rely on these results to make inferences about halibut fishing behavior elsewhere
in Alaska. A 2003 NMFS study collected information about halibut sport fishing from all Alaska
sport anglers. This study was the first effort to characterize the demand for the entire Alaskan
sport halibut fishery, and consequently, it was recognized that a follow-up survey would be
necessary to update the estimates. Moreover, the study did not collect detailed information about
actual fishing behavior, focusing instead on understanding angler preferences for trip attributes
that affect the demand for halibut fishing. As a result, demand models based on observed fishing
behavior in Alaska could not be estimated from that data.
The proposed data collection described herein is an update of a NMFS survey conducted in 2007
that collected information on angler behavior during the 2006 season (Lew, Lee, and Larson,
2010). That data collection updated the 2003 NMFS survey and addressed changes in the
variables that affect the economic value of marine recreational fishing trips (particularly halibut
fishing trips), utilized improved methodologies, and improved welfare estimates of trip value.
The current updated survey will assist NMFS in understanding trends in preferences and
behavior that cannot be discerned with a single, cross-sectional study, as well as provide
information on preferences for recent and proposed fishing regulations that were not on the table
when the 2007 survey was conducted.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
The collection does not involve small businesses or other small entities.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
If the data collection is not conducted, the Council and NMFS will not have information on
angler preferences and values associated with recent and proposed changes in fishing
regulations. In addition, no information will be available about changes to fishing values under
current conditions and regulations, which the 2007 survey data alone cannot inform. As a result,
it will not be possible to monitor the impact of existing or proposed regulatory programs on
demand for Alaska halibut sport fishing.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
The collection is consistent with OMB guidelines.

8

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 June 3, 2011 (76 FR 32142) solicited comments on the
information collection.
Several comments were received by e-mail. One expressed some general opinions about
government spending on economic surveys during these trying economic times. No action was
taken in response to this comment. A few comments were received requesting more information
about the purpose and type of data collected, as well as copies of the survey instruments.
Answers to these questions and pdf files of the survey instruments were provided in e-mail
responses. The remaining comments were from charter boat operators from the Alaska sport
charter boat fishery who expressed a variety concerns about the current policies and the state of
the charter boat industry, while also requesting materials. Requested materials were provided by
e-mail.
Several individuals outside NMFS were consulted about elements of the survey, availability of
existing data, data to collect, and other aspects of the project. These included staff at the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game with experience conducting recreational angler surveys in Alaska.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
To encourage participation in the mail survey, a token honorarium of $1 will be given to
participants in the initial mailing. Inclusion of an incentive acts as a sign of goodwill on the part
of the study sponsors and encourages reciprocity of that goodwill by the respondent. Singer
(2002) provides a comprehensive review of the use of incentives in surveys. She notes that
giving respondents a small financial incentive (even a token amount) in the first mailing
increases response rates in mail-based surveys and are cost-effective. Such prepaid incentives
are more effective than larger promised incentives that are contingent on completion of the
questionnaire. In tests conducted by Lesser, et al. (1999), including a $2 incentive in a mailing
with four contact points was shown to increase response rates by an additional 19 to 31
percentage points. Thus, even a small upfront incentive typically is more cost effective than
additional follow-up steps that are often considered.
There are several reasons why we believe inclusion of both a financial incentive and follow-up
contacts will be needed to reach desired response rates. A principal reason is because a $1
incentive was provided in the 2007 survey, which achieved an overall response rate of 57%
(Lew, et al. 2010). Given the similarity of survey protocols and survey materials, we anticipate a
similar response rate for this data collection. Second, the 2003 NMFS survey achieved an
overall response rate of 49.6% without an incentive, which is lower than what was achieved in
the 2007 survey that included a $1 token incentive. Third, although every attempt is being made
to ensure the survey is easy to read, understand, and complete, the amount of information it
9

needs to present and the number of questions it needs to ask contribute to a 16 page survey
requiring more respondent attention than some surveys. For these reasons, we expect both
incentives and follow-up contacts will be required to obtain a suitable response rate and to
evaluate potential non-response biases.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
In the cover letter accompanying each mailing, respondents will be told that their responses are
voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 and in accordance with NOAA
Administrative Order 216-100. The initial mailing letter and the follow-up mailing cover letter
will also include the following statement:
“Your name and address will be kept separate from your responses, and only responses will
be delivered to researchers for analysis.”
Following completion of the data collection, the survey firm (ICF Macro) will delete any
information identifying individuals (i.e., name and addresses) before any data file is delivered to
NMFS or any other participating researchers and agencies.
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.
There are no questions of a sensitive nature asked in the survey.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
The survey will be sent to a random sample of approximately 4,600 Alaska sport fishing license
holders drawn from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fish License Data file, which
contains the names and addresses of all individuals who have purchased a license to sport fish in
Alaska. Based on previous experience, up to 10% of addresses in these samples can be expected
to be bad or unusable, which means the number of license holders receiving the survey will be
approximately 4,140. We expect a final response rate of 55 percent (of the valid sample),
leading to 2,277 responding license holders returning completed surveys. For the purpose of
computing burden hours, 2,004 completed from the initial mailing and postcard reminder 7 and
273 completed following contact via phone and the second full mailing. The cover letter will
solicit the participation of the individual license holder to complete the survey. While our
experience has been that respondents typically complete the survey in 25 minutes, we assume 30
minutes to conservatively compute the potential burden hours. As a result, those ultimately
completing the mail survey are expected to contribute up to 1,139 hours to the overall hour
burden.

7

The number of returns here are based on the 2007 survey’s response rates for the corresponding stage of
approximately 38% of the total completes from the first mailing and 50% of total completes being returned
following the postcard reminder.

10

We expect 2,004 respondents to have returned a completed survey following the initial mailing
and postcard reminder. Of the remaining valid sample (those who had not returned a completed
survey) (4,140 – 2,004 = 2,136), we expect approximately 28% or 598 license holders to have
telephone numbers available, based on the 2007 survey’s telephone matching rate. These 598
license holders that have not responded after the initial mailing and postcard reminder will be
contacted by telephone and encouraged to complete and return the survey or asked to answer a
few questions if they indicate they will not be returning the survey. Thus, the telephone followup serves the dual purpose of increasing the number of mail responses and gathering information
by telephone needed to estimate the impact of non-response. The phone interview is expected to
take 6 minutes on average to complete, and assuming 25% of the 598 individuals for which there
is a phone number are reached and complete interviews, the contribution of the phone interview
to the total time burden totals approximately 15 hours. 8 Following the phone interviews, the
second full mailing will be sent out to all individuals who have not returned a completed survey
to date. As noted above, we expect a total of 273 individuals to have returned completed surveys
following the phone interviews and second full mailing. Thus, totaling the time contribution of
the 2,277 completed mail surveys (1,139 hours) with the time from the phone interviews (15
hours) yields a total of 1,154 hours.
The total number of unique respondents to all contacts in the survey implementation will be
2,277 (mail survey respondents) + 150 (phone respondents) – 30 (phone respondents who also
returned the mail survey based on ~20% rate from 2007 survey) = 2,397. This number consists
of respondents who return the questionnaire (2,277 respondents) and respondents who do not
return the questionnaire but do provide some survey information during the telephone contact
(120 respondents).
Survey instrument

Mail survey (from
initial mailing,
postcard reminder)
Follow-up phone
survey
Mail survey (second
full mailing)
Totals

Estimated number of
respondents
2,004

Estimated time per
respondent
(minutes)
30

Estimated total
annual burden hours
(hours)
1,002

150a

6

15

273

30

137

2,397b

1,154

a

Number of successful phone contacts of license holders that have not returned completed surveys following initial
mailing and postcard reminder.
b
Total unique respondents reflect the total license holders who complete the mail survey or phone interview only
(accounts for individuals who completed both).

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in Question
12 above).
No additional cost burden will be imposed on respondents aside from the burden hours indicated
above.
8

The actual success rate for completing the telephone interview in the 2007 survey was ~25%.

11

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
Annual cost to the Federal government is approximately $70,000 divided as follows: $55,000 in
contract award money and $15,000 in staff time and resources. Contractor services include
conducting the cognitive interviews (completed) and final survey implementation, entering and
cleaning the data, and preparing a report that documents the survey procedures and response
rates.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
This is a new collection.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
A report describing the sampling methods, experimental design, response rates, and descriptive
statistics of data collected will be prepared similar to Lew, et al. (2010). A separate paper
describing economic models used to analyze the data and the results from estimating these
models will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal (e.g., see Lew and Seung [2010]).
Statistical data summaries in tabular form will be made available at the Alaska Fisheries Science
Center web site.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not Applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification.
Not Applicable.

12