0648-0744 Supporting Statement Part A

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Resident Perceptions of Offshore Wind Energy Development
off the Oregon Coast and Gulf of Mexico

OMB Control No. 0648-0744

SUPPORTING STATEMENT PART A

Abstract

The National Ocean Service (NOS) proposes to collect data on the opinions, values, attitudes, and behaviors of coastal residents in regions of the United States relative to offshore wind energy development. This information will be used by BOEM, NOAA, and others to understand what is important to communities; understand how differing values and perceptions across communities influence local receptivity to proposed development; and improve communication efforts targeted to residents, enabling agencies to more effectively and efficiently direct outreach and community inclusion activities. Additionally, NOAA has a vested interest in offshore wind energy development, from many perspectives, including as it relates to the resilience, well-being, and sustainability of coastal communities. This is a request for a renewal of an information collection with change. This information collection request focuses on two US regions -- coastal Oregon (already approved and underway) and the Gulf of Mexico -- and includes the use of focus groups that help to guide any survey revisions.

Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

This request is for a renewal and revision with change to directly support decision-makers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) Office of Renewable Energy Programs (OREP), and various state and local governments.

NOAA has direct authority to regulate and sustain marine fisheries and their ecosystems, protect endangered marine and anadromous species, protect and restore habitats and ecosystems, conserve marine sanctuaries and other protected places, respond to environmental emergencies, and aid in disaster recovery. NOAA is directly responsible for the management of numerous National Marine Sanctuaries and is a collaborating partner for oversight of other coastal and marine management units, such as National Estuarine Research Reserves and Habitat Focus Areas. Generally, NOAA is tasked with reducing the vulnerability of communities and ecological systems in the short-term, while helping society avoid or adapt to potential long-term environmental, social, and economic changes. Additionally, NOAA has a vested interest in offshore wind energy development, from many perspectives, including as it relates to the resilience, well-being, and sustainability of coastal communities.

OREP oversees development of offshore renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). BOEM’s responsibilities include determining and evaluating the effects of OCS activities on natural, historical, and human resources and the appropriate monitoring and mitigating of those effects. Within OREP, BOEM's Environmental Studies Program develops, conducts, and oversees world-class scientific research specifically to inform policy decisions regarding development of OCS energy and mineral resources. Research covers physical oceanography, atmospheric sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and economics, submerged cultural resources, and environmental fates and effects. BOEM is a leading contributor to the growing body of scientific knowledge about the nation’s marine and coastal environment.

Per the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. § 1331–1356), BOEM is responsible for the exploration and development of minerals along the OCS of the United States; however, BOEM is also required to identify, monitor, and mitigate negative impacts that manifest as a result of such development projects. NOAA’s mission is to provide science, service and stewardship for, among other activities, management of the nation’s oceans and coasts. NOAA supports “comprehensive ocean and coastal planning and management” in order to facilitate use of oceans and coasts, while also ensuring “continued access to coastal areas, sustained ecosystems, maintained cultural heritage, and limited cumulative impacts.”¹ NOAA is subject to and supports mandates of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. § 1452 (303)(2)(D)), which encourages the wise use of coastal resources, including energy activity. The CZMA also encourages the inclusion and participation of the public in carrying out the tenets of the act (16 U.S.C. § 1452 (303)(4)). Further, the act requires inclusion of “a description of the economic, environmental, and social consequences of energy activity affecting the coastal zone” in the CZM biennial reports (16 U.S.C. § 1462 (316)(a)(10)). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 C.F.R. § 1502.6) mandates federal agencies to use social science data to assess the impacts of federal actions on the human environment. Consequently, up-to-date sociological data are needed to support federal agency obligations under each of these acts.

Both NOAA and BOEM are responding to Executive Orders 13707, 13985, and 14008. Executive Order 13707, Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People, requests federal agencies to, among other actions: “identify policies, programs, and operations where applying behavioral science insights may yield substantial improvements in public welfare, program outcomes, and program cost effectiveness” and “develop strategies for applying behavioral science insights to programs and, where possible, rigorously test and evaluate the impact of these insights.”² Executive Order 13985, On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, requires the federal government to allocate resources “in a manner that increases investment in underserved communities, as well as individuals from those communities.”³ Executive Order 14008, On Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, states that the Administration will “organize and deploy the full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis to implement a Government-wide approach that reduces climate pollution…increases resilience…delivers environmental justice…and spurs well-paying union jobs and economic growth, especially through innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure. Successfully meeting these challenges will require the Federal Government to pursue such a coordinated approach from planning to implementation, coupled with substantive engagement by stakeholders.”⁴ Further, these proposed studies also respond to the Department of Commerce’s Department Administrative Order 216-22, Addressing the Climate Crisis, which “establishes the policy for the Department of Commerce (Department-wide) to integrate climate considerations into its policies, strategic planning, and programs.”⁵

The studies outlined in this collection are needed by NOAA and BOEM to describe the social systems of coastal residents, and characterize and monitor the complex interactions between social systems and activities impacted by and associated with the offshore energy industries. Data are also required by NOAA to meet its objectives related to ocean and coastal planning and management in support of resilient coastal communities and economies. Finally, information collected will benefit state and local officials.

As a result, the National Ocean Service (NOS) proposes to collect data on the opinions, values, attitudes, and behaviors of U.S. coastal residents relative to offshore wind energy development. This information will be used by BOEM, NOAA, and others to understand what is important to communities; understand how differing values and perceptions across communities influence local receptivity to proposed development; and improve communication efforts targeted to residents, enabling agencies to more effectively and efficiently direct outreach and community inclusion activities.

Oregon:

Respondents (age 18 years and older) will be randomly sampled from households in seven coastal counties. BOEM has identified two Call Areas on the Oregon Coast comprising areas identified as Coos Bay and Brookings and recently reviewed and qualified nominations received in response to the Call. BOEM has funded numerous studies to collect information about the marine environment to support their decision. BOEM is also currently engaging with stakeholders through their BOEM Oregon Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force. However, there is a gap in information related to the potential social impact of offshore wind energy development on coastal communities, which is crucial to the success of this process.

Gulf of Mexico:

Respondents (age 18 years and older) will be randomly sampled from households in thirty-nine coastal counties. BOEM has announced five finalized Wind Energy Areas Call Areas off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana comprising Options I, J, K, L, and N and one Lease Area, OCS-G37334, awarded to RWE Offshore US Gulf, LLC. BOEM is also currently engaging with stakeholders through their BOEM Gulf of Mexico Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force and BOEM Offshore Wind Gulf of Mexico Roundtable. However, there is a gap in information related to the potential social impact of offshore wind energy development on coastal communities, which is crucial to the success of this process.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

1. How will this information be used?

The process for identifying potential Call Areas, Wind Energy Areas, and Lease Areas focuses primarily on understanding wind energy potential, technical feasibility, and potential impacts to wildlife, habitats, and existing ocean uses. While visual simulations are sometimes incorporated to explore potential effects on the human environment, other potential concerns of coastal communities, including vulnerable populations, are often inadequately addressed. Outside of official public engagement forums, specific preferences relating to offshore wind energy development remain relatively unknown for members of the general public and other groups who may not perceive themselves as stakeholders or who may not choose to engage in public forums or calls for public comment. Failure to gain these perspectives regarding potential benefits or impacts of offshore wind energy development is problematic, particularly when relevant stakeholders emerge late in the planning process for local projects.

A study, “Resident Perceptions of Local Offshore Wind Energy Development: Support Level and Intended Action in Coastal North and South Carolina”, was completed in May 2019 by the NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science to determine an approach for understanding what is important to communities, broadly, and how differing values and perceptions within communities influence support and action for offshore wind energy development in areas targeted for these projects (Fleming et al., 2022; Gonyo et al., 2021; Goedeke et al., 2019). The results of that BOEM-funded study showed that those who attend BOEM stakeholder engagement efforts are likely not representative of the population as a whole. Findings from the proposed research would help BOEM identify different stakeholder groups, how they vary by region, and how to engage with them. Therefore, the proposed work would be complementary to BOEM’s existing stakeholder engagement processes and not duplicative. It is especially important to involve local communities to avoid potential conflicts that may complicate and delay projects. Therefore, spatially explicit data on the social values people hold for coastal and marine resources and habitats, as well as the perceptions and opinions they have about them, needs to be collected to inform the planning process for offshore wind energy leasing in US federal waters.

2. Who will use this information?

The primary users of this information will be NOAA and BOEM, but the data collected and derived products have the potential for use by regional and local natural resource managers and policy-makers as well.

3. How frequently will this information be used?

This is a one-time information collection for each listed region (Oregon and Gulf of Mexico (TX and LA)), although the collection may be deployed to other regions in the future. Data and derived informational products will be provided to relevant officials with NOAA and BOEM at the conclusion of each full project period. It is anticipated that these data and derived products will be used by NOAA and BOEM on an as-needed basis, such as for impact assessments.

4. For what purpose will the information be used?

Activity related to offshore wind energy development in US federal waters requires an assessment of potential environmental, human, and social impacts by BOEM. BOEM’s responsibilities include determining and evaluating the effects of OCS activities on natural, historical, and human resources, and the appropriate monitoring and mitigating of those effects. BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program (ESP), established by the OCSLA, as amended in 1978, with the intent to provide information for sound decision-making and management, collects information to be used in impact assessments. BOEM is partnering with Federal agencies, including NOAA, to acquire the information to meet this mandate. BOEM's decision-making process is subject to environmental review under NEPA. When performing environmental reviews, BOEM uses publicly-available information, such as the results of the studies proposed in this information collection request.

NOAA is tasked with reducing the vulnerability of communities and ecological systems in the short-term, while helping society avoid or adapt to potential long-term environmental, social, and economic changes. NOAA has direct authority to regulate and sustain marine fisheries and their ecosystems, protect endangered marine and anadromous species, protect and restore habitats and ecosystems, and conserve marine sanctuaries and other protected places, in addition to being directly responsible for the management and/or oversight of National Marine Sanctuaries and other coastal and marine management units, such as National Estuarine Research Reserves and Habitat Focus Areas. Finally, data and derived products from this collection will be used to inform management activities relative to jurisdictional assets in US federal waters. Information collected may improve communication, outreach, and education efforts targeted to residents who are most likely to be concerned about offshore wind energy development in their area.

5. Summary of Survey Questions

The survey items are designed to understand the following concepts related to offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast and Gulf of Mexico, respectively:

• Awareness, knowledge, and level of support;

• Perceptions of impact to quality of life factors;

• Social action/civic engagement, including motivations and barriers to participation; and

• Sociodemographic information

Below are summaries and justifications for questions included on the two survey instruments (see Appendix A for the Oregon Coast survey and Appendix B for the Gulf of Mexico survey).

• Before today, had you heard about the potential for offshore wind energy off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

This question measures respondent awareness of offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, respectively. Research is inconclusive on the relationship between awareness and support level for utility development projects (Gonyo et al., 2021). This information will allow researchers to assess the relationship between awareness and support level.

• How knowledgeable do you feel about offshore wind energy?

This question measures respondent self-assessed knowledge of offshore wind energy development. Research has suggested that people who are less knowledgeable about a given topic may be less likely to participate in social action/civic engagement (Fleming et al., 2022; Marullo, 1988). This information will allow researchers to assess the relationship between self-assessed knowledge and social action/civic engagement. Additionally, researchers will assess differences in self-assess knowledge between subpopulations within the study area.

• Given what you currently know about offshore wind energy, have you formed an opinion about its potential development off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

• Even though you have not yet made up your mind about offshore wind energy off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico, which way are you leaning?

These questions measure respondent support level for offshore wind energy development (outcome variable). Those who have formed an opinion and would not change their mind (Q7/Q8) are identified as having “firm opinions.” Those who have formed an opinion, but would change their mind are identified as having "soft opinions." Finally, those who have not made up their minds are identified as "leaners." (Firestone et al., 2007). This information will allow researchers to categorize respondents’ support levels for analyses.

Research recommends providing an “I don’t know” instead of focusing respondents to choose an option when respondents are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the survey topic, not expected to have formed their opinion about the topic, under strong social desirability pressures, and/or likely to show satisficing behavior (Chyung et al., 2017).

• What potential impact do you think oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico has on these items? [Gulf of Mexico only]

Due to the history of oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, this question asks for respondents’ perceived impacts of oil and gas production on quality of life items. While public opinion of offshore oil and gas drilling has been examined (e.g., Mukherjee and Rahman 2016), little is known about how these perceptions compare to offshore wind impacts within this geography. When combined with the next question below, this item’s inclusion will allow researchers to assess relative perceived impacts and benefits.

• Given what you currently know about offshore wind energy,

  1. What potential impact do you think offshore wind energy production in the Gulf of Mexico will have on these same items? [Gulf of Mexico only]

  2. Do you think offshore wind energy off the Oregon Coast will have an impact on the following items for your community? [Oregon only]

This question measures respondents’ perceived impacts of offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico, respectively, on quality of life items. Research has shown that public attitudes related to energy sources are shaped by perceived environmental harm and economic benefits (Gonyo et al., 2021; Jessup, 2010; Ansolabehere and Knosky, 2009). This information will allow researchers to assess the relationships between perceived impacts to quality of life items and support level.

• Looking at the same list of items, please tell us how important each item is to you in terms of your quality of life off the Oregon Coast. [Oregon only]

• Next, please tell us how important these same items are to you in terms of your quality of life in the Gulf of Mexico region. [Gulf of Mexico only]

This question measures respondent importance of the same quality of life items included in the question(s) above. This information will allow researchers to further assess the relationships between perceived impacts to quality of life items and support level by incorporating level of importance.

• How important do you think it is to pursue offshore wind energy off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

This question measures how important respondents believe it is to pursue offshore wind energy. Research has suggested that people are less likely to participate in social action/civic engagement if the issue is less important to them (Fleming et al., 2022; van Bezouw and Kutlaca, 2019). This information will allow researchers to assess the relationship between importance and social action/civic engagement participation.

• How important is it for electricity produced by offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico to…

This question measures respondents’ importance for conditional intentions of the electricity generated by offshore wind (i.e., geographical bounds, user groups, replacement of non-renewable sources). Conditional preferences have been shown to impact support level because while ‘qualified supporters’ support wind energy, their support requires specific circumstances or caveats (Clarke et al., 2016; Boudet et al., 2014; Bell et al., 2013). This question collects suspected conditional preferences, informed by partner knowledge, and researchers will test if these preferences influence support level.

• Which of the following sources would you prefer to produce electricity/energy for Oregon/your state? (select one response for each item)

This question measures respondent preferences for fuel sources. This information will allow researchers to assess if preferences for electricity generation align with Oregon’s current profile and if preferences for energy production align with the profiles of Texas and Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico region, respectively.

• Do you believe that climate change is happening?

• Do you believe climate change is mainly caused by human activities or natural forces?

• Do you believe offshore wind energy could be an effective way to reduce climate change?

This question set measures respondent opinions related to the existence and cause of climate change. Research has shown that the social bases of support for renewable energy development resemble those for concern about climate change (Hamilton et al., 2018). This information will allow researchers to assess the relationship between climate change opinions and support level.

• In the last 12 months, have you done any of the following in response to either any environmental issue or offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

• In the next 12 months, how likely are you to do any of the following in response to offshore wind energy off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

These questions measure respondents’ past and intended engagement in social action/civic engagement (outcome variable). This information will allow researchers to assess the degree to which respondents participate in some form of social action/civic engagement and whether they intend to continue to participate.

• How important is it for members of the public to provide input on offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

This question measures respondent perceptions of the importance of the public providing input on offshore wind energy, as research has shown that procedural fairness and inclusion may affect participation in social action/civic engagement (Fleming et al., 2022; Firestone et al., 2012). This information will allow researchers to assess the relationships between participation importance and participation in social action/civic engagement. Additionally, researchers will assess differences in participation importance between subpopulations within each study area.

• How influential do you think public input is on offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

This question measures respondents’ perceived influence of public participation on offshore wind energy off the Oregon Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, respectively, as research has shown this may affect participation in social action/civic engagement (Fleming et al., 2022; Firestone et al., 2012; Innes and Booher, 2004). This information will allow researchers to assess the relationships between perceived influence and participation in social action/civic engagement. Additionally, researchers will assess differences in perceived influence between subpopulations within the study area.

• How important to you are the following goals of public participation? (select one response for each item)

This question measures the importance of several public participation goals to respondents. Research has shown that inconsistencies among goals held by participants may lead to conflict or dissatisfaction with participatory processes (Bidwell and Schweizer, 2020). This information will allow researchers to assess the relationships between goals and participation in social action/civic engagement, as well as which goals are most important. Additionally, researchers will assess differences in public participation goals between subpopulations within each study area.

• How influential do you think the results of this survey will be on offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

This question measures respondents’ perceived influence of this survey on offshore wind energy off the Oregon Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, respectively. This information will allow researchers to assess the perceived benefits of completing the survey as well as a potential dimension of non-response bias. Additionally, researchers will assess differences in perceived influence between subpopulations within each study area.

• Are you aware that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has hosted public meetings or asked for public comments related to offshore wind energy development off the Oregon Coast/in the Gulf of Mexico?

This question measures respondent awareness of BOEM public participation opportunities as research suggests that awareness of opportunities precedes participation (Fleming et al., 2022; Gonyo et al., 2021). This information will allow researchers to assess respondent awareness, as well as differences between subpopulations within each study area.

• What is your gender?

• What is your race and/or ethnicity?

• In what year were you born?

• Is English your primary language?

• What is the highest level of education you have completed? (select only one)

• Are you a seasonal or year-round resident of the Oregon Coast/Gulf of Mexico region?

• How many years have you been a resident of the Oregon Coast/Gulf of Mexico region?

• Do you own or rent this residence (where this survey was mailed to)?

• How many people, including yourself, live in your household?

• How many of these people are at least 18 years old?

• Do you or does anyone in your household currently hold a saltwater fishing license? [Gulf of Mexico only]

• Which best describes your current employment status? (select all that apply)

• Are you or anyone in your household currently employed in one of the following industries? (select all that apply)

• What was your annual household income in 202X?

These questions measure standard sociodemographic information. This information will be used in three ways. First, to ensure the sample is representative of the target populations and, if not, it will allow researchers to develop sampling weights to adjust for potential non-response bias. Second, it will allow researchers to develop estimates for specific sub-populations in each study area, such as minority groups, as these groups are often increasingly dependent on coastal ecosystems yet underrepresented in analysis and planning processes. Third, it will allow researchers to assess the relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and other survey variables, including support level and social action/civic engagement.

Personal Characteristics

Q18-23, Q30-34

Personal Use

Q3

vi. Compliance with Information Quality Guidelines

It is anticipated that the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support publicly disseminated information. NOAA National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

Survey respondents will be given the option to complete the survey online. Advantages of an online survey include ease of data gathering, minimal costs, and automation in data input and handling. Disadvantages include the absence of an interviewer and inability to reach challenging populations. According to the US Census Bureau, in 2018, an estimated 87.9% (±0.3%) of the households in Oregon, 84.5%(±0.2%) of the households in Texas, and 78.1%(±0.5%) of the households in Louisiana had a broadband internet subscription (US Census Bureau, 2021). As such, the researchers believe that online administration will be a satisfactory method for surveying coastal residents of both Oregon and Gulf of Mexico (see Part B, Section 3 for more information on maximizing response rates and dealing with nonresponse.)

With the assistance of a contract vendor having expertise in online survey administration, the survey administration tool will be developed to minimize burden for respondents and response bias, while maximizing response rate and data quality, based on best practices for online survey research. There will be an option available for respondents to complete the survey via paper (mail-back) or to request an alternative means for completing the survey.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2

Researchers reviewed scholarship and consulted with local partners to identify any duplication of effort.

BOEM began efforts to solicit and gather public comments on possible interest in offshore wind developments in the Gulf of Mexico in November 2021 and in Oregon in April 2022. The agency facilitated public information outreach and public comment opportunities. Materials and products from these activities were reviewed by the project team in preparation for this study.

Researchers conducted a thorough review of research studies at the national, regional, and local level focused on public knowledge, opinions, values, attitudes, and behaviors related to wind energy development, both terrestrial and offshore. Additionally, researchers reviewed studies published specific to the Oregon context (e.g., Sierman et al., 2022; Steele et al., 2015; Stefanovich, 2011; Pierce et al., 2009) as well as the Gulf of Mexico context (e.g., Jepson et al., 2012; Swofford & Slattery, 2010). This scholarship was used to appropriately avoid duplication of effort, both in terms of research methods and data collection. We are aware of an ongoing effort of BOEM to collect information on cultural heritage and traditional knowledge of vulnerable coastal communities in Oregon and the Gulf of Mexico. The focus of these collections is not on the off-shore wind energy, specifically, and thus there is no duplication of efforts. Scientists from other research teams working in this substantive area of study were also consulted to learn of possible duplication of effort or investigative synergies. Institutions consulted for Oregon study included: Oregon State University, Rhode Island University, the University of Delaware, and Bowling Green State University. Similarly, institutions consulted for Gulf of Mexico study included: Louisiana State University - Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University - Center for Energy Studies, and Texas A&M University - Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management.

Finally, researchers participated in informational meetings with federal officials to inform them of the study, and learn of possible synergies or duplication of effort. Agencies and organizations consulted for the Oregon study included: NOAA Office of Coastal Management - West Coast, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, and local tribal governments (through BOEM’s Pacific Region Tribal Liaison). Similarly, agencies and organizations consulted for the Gulf of Mexico study included: NOAA Office of Coastal Management - Gulf of Mexico Region, NOAA National Sea Grant Program, Texas Sea Grant - TAMU, Louisiana Sea Grant - Louisiana State University, NOAA NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center - Southeast Regional Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Department of Energy - Wind Energy Technologies Office.

No duplication of research effort or activity was identified.

We have also formed partnerships with ongoing and planned research efforts so that we can leverage resources and provide complementary information about marine spatial planning in the study region.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

This collection involves residents. It does not involve small businesses or other small entities.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

If this collection is not conducted, relevant agencies will have reduced data and information to meet evaluative requirements set forth by NEPA and CZMA relative to wind energy development activities in Oregon and the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, without this collection, residents of both regions will lack a collective voice regarding the possible benefits or detriments to their environment and community as a result of wind energy development. Thus, their collective participation in the decision-making process will be reduced. Finally, should this collection not proceed, NOAA will fail to fulfill its contractual obligations established with BOEM under Interagency Agreement M22PG00022.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

Data collection will be consistent with OMB guidelines.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

A Federal Register Notice published on October 3, 2022 (87 FR 59781) solicited public comments for the Oregon collection only.

1. Summary of Comments Received

Both the Midwater Trawlers Cooperative (MTC) and the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) provided public comments. MTC indicated BOEM has already been provided input related to offshore wind energy development, making this survey duplicative. However, given that the purpose of this study is to understand opinions, values, attitudes, and behaviors from the region as a whole, especially from those who have not participated in public engagement processes or are unlikely to do so, generally, we do not believe this information will be duplicative. They also recommended the survey questions not be leading, and that the survey instrument should be reviewed by public advisors and Oregon State University prior to administration. The research team has training and expertise in questionnaire design and several researchers from Oregon State University, as well as other experts, have reviewed the survey.

RODA indicated a concern for the practical utility of the information given BOEM’s stated timeline for developing offshore wind off Oregon. However, BOEM’s stated purpose of this study is to not inform siting efforts, but to inform their stakeholder engagement process and their Environmental Impact Statement and/or Environmental Assessment. RODA also recommended the survey questions not be leading and recommended questions related to residents’ perceptions of the local commercial fishing industry or the preference for locally harvested seafood, as well as questions asking residents how their perceptions of offshore wind would change if large-scale wind farms were found to have negative impacts on the marine ecosystem, protected species, and/or food security. The survey instrument currently includes questions asking about the importance of and perceived impacts to both access to fishing grounds and fisheries jobs. Additionally, the survey instrument includes questions asking if support levels would change if offshore wind energy off the Oregon Coast were found to have a series of both positive and negative impacts, including marine life, fisheries jobs, and access to fishing grounds.

A Federal Register Notice published on December 27, 2023 (88 FR 89407) solicited public comments for both collections.

2. Summary of Comments Received

No comments were received.

Consultation

As a part of project scoping and development, individuals from the following institutions were consulted for their views on the data collection in terms of priority elements; best survey practices for surveying the public on wind and other energy issues; survey design and proposed implementation; and possible duplication of research effort or collaborative opportunities: BOEM, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon State University, Bowling Green State University, the University of Rhode Island, University of Delaware, Louisiana State University, and Texas A&M University. From these individuals, we received review relative to: survey length; appropriate mode of survey administration (i.e., mail-back versus online administration); problematic survey items in terms of utility, clarity, etc.; item order on the survey instrument; item format and presentation; and opportunities to leverage this survey with previous or existing research efforts. Comments and suggestions provided from this group were used to revise and improve the survey instrument, primarily.

Individuals from local and regional groups were consulted on the need for the collection as well as regarding important contextual or site considerations: NOAA Office of Coastal Management - West Coast, NOAA Office of Coastal Management - Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana State University - Center for Energy Studies, the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, American Seafoods Group, and the Midwater Trawlers Cooperative. Feedback from these consultations was used to better understand, anecdotally, public sentiment regarding the issues as well as the type of data already available on relevant topics, along with data needs from the perspective of local and regional agencies. Information from these consultations was used during project scoping and development.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

A $2 incentive will be provided with a follow-up letter for those who do not complete the survey after initial contact. A substantial literature has shown that monetary pre-incentives (as opposed to promises of money or gifts following participation) are effective at increasing overall response rates. We anticipate this incentive will increase response rates by at least 10%. A more detailed review of the literature and justification for the inclusion of the incentive is contained in Question 3 of Part B.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

Information gathered from respondents will remain confidential. Access to any raw data collected will be restricted to project managers and lead analysts. In final datasets and products that are released, data provided by individual respondents will remain confidential and will be aggregated where appropriate to ensure confidentiality.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

No questions of a sensitive nature will be asked during this data collection.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

The table below provides an estimate of burden hours by data collection phase (see Part B.1 for more details).

Oregon:

We estimate a maximum of 48 focus group members and for each focus group to take up to an hour. We estimate a maximum of 1,024 respondents for the pre-test and 3,545 respondents for the full survey implementation and for each survey to take approximately 20 minutes, including time for reading the instructions, reviewing the questions, and completing the survey instrument. These estimates are based on the type of questions asked, length of the survey instrument, and the researchers’ experience conducting similar surveys.

Gulf:

We estimate a maximum of 64 focus group members and for each focus group to take up to an hour. We estimate a maximum of 2,419 respondents for the pre-test and 2,506 respondents for the full survey implementation and for each survey to take approximately 20 minutes, including time for reading the instructions, reviewing the questions, and completing the survey instrument. These estimates are based on the type of questions asked, length of the survey instrument, and the researchers’ experience conducting similar surveys.

Information Collection	Location	Type of Respondent (e.g., Occupational Title)	# of Respondents/ year (a)	Annual # of Responses / Respondent (b)	Total # of Annual Responses (c) = (a) x (b)	Burden Hrs / Response (d)	Total Annual Burden Hrs (e) = (c) x (d)	Hourly Wage Rate (for Type of Respondent) (f)	Total Annual Wage Burden Costs (g) = (e) x (f)
Focus Groups	Oregon	Individuals	48	1	48	1.00	48.00	$27.34	$1,312.32
	Gulf of Mexico	Individuals	64	1	64	1.00	64.00	$26.02	$1,665.28
Pretest	Oregon	Individuals	1,024	1	1,024	0.33	341.33	$27.34	$9,332.05
	Gulf of Mexico	Individuals	2,419	1	2,419	0.33	806.33	$26.02	$20,980.71
Full Implementation	Oregon	Individuals	3,545	1	3,545	0.33	1,181.67	$27.34	$32,306.77
	Gulf of Mexico	Individuals	2,506	1	2,506	0.33	835.33	$26.02	$21,735.28
Totals					9,606		3,277		$87,332.41

*The mean average for All Professions on the BLS 2020 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates was used in order to encompass the broad range of occupations in the respondent pool. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this information collection. No additional cost burden will be incurred by respondents beyond response time.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Cost Descriptions	Location	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight
Federal Positions	Oregon	–	–	--		60,000
	Gulf of Mexico					60,000
Contractor Cost
Survey Vendor	Oregon		275,000	N/A		275,000
	Gulf of Mexico		300,000	N/A		300,000
Contractor Positions	Oregon		50,000			50,000
	Gulf of Mexico		34,000			34,000
Travel
Other Costs:
TOTAL						779,000

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

This is a request for revision of an information collection. This information collection will be expanded to include a two-state region (Texas and Louisiana) in the Gulf of Mexico.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Survey data will be collected by a contract vendor and analyzed by the research team. Findings from both collections will be presented in a variety of formats, including tables, graphs and maps. Upon completion, the research team will produce a final report that will be provided to BOEM and other partners. Research findings may be presented at professional conferences and published in peer reviewed social science or multidisciplinary journals.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The agency plans to display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection on all instruments.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

The agency certifies compliance with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Program Planning and Integration. NOAA’s Next‐Generation Strategic Plan. December 2010, 48 p.p. Available at: http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/NOAA_NGSP.pdf.

2 Executive Order for Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People. 9 Sept 15. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american.

3 Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. 20 Jan 2021. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/.

4 Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. 27 Jan 2021. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/

5 Department of Commerce, Department Administrative Order 216-22, Addressing the Climate Crisis. Available at: https://osec.doc.gov/opog/dmp/daos/dao216_22.html

Page | PAGE 13