Collaborating to Improve Recreational Fishing Estimates - Marine Recreational Information Program
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Marine Recreational Information Program Collaborating to Improve Recreational Fishing Estimates Strategic Plan: 2017-2022
Contents
The MRIP Strategic Plan—Where We’re Headed and How We’ll Get There 2
Overview 2
Goal 1—Meet Customer Needs 2
Goal 2—Provide Quality Products 2
Goal 3—Increase Understanding 2
Goal 4—Ensure Sound Science 3
Goal 5—Operate Collaboratively 3
Goal 6—Meet Program Resources and Funding Needs 3
Executive Summary 4
Overview 4
The MRIP Strategic Approach 4
MRIP Vision 5
MRIP Mission 5
MRIP Values 6
Integrating the MRIP Strategic Plan with the NOAA Fisheries Science Plan 6
MRIP Progress to Date 6
Implementing the Strategic Plan 8
Tactics, Outcomes, Metrics, and Timeline 9
Appendix A—History of the Marine Recreational Information Program 18
Appendix B—MRIP Strategic Plan Hoshin X Matrix 28
Appendix C—Tactical Implementation Schedule 28
Appendix D—Summary of Responses to Public Input 28
Appendix E—Framework for Addressing the National Academies of Science
Recommendations 28
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 1The MRIP Strategic Plan
Where We’re Headed and How We’ll Get There
Overview survey and data requirements and processes for
reviewing and certifying survey designs to en-
This 2017-2022 strategic plan for the Marine Recre-
sure data comparability, interoperability, and
ational Information Program, or MRIP, defines the
usefulness; provide data that meet regional
Program’s vision, direction, and metrics for suc-
needs; and periodically review and revise estab-
cess; outlines a road map for charting our course;
lished baseline requirements.
and provides a timeline for getting there.
• Establish, maintain, and continuously improve
In this section, we outline the six goals we are driv- an internal control program to provide quality
ing toward, and the strategies and tactics we will assurance and quality control for survey data
undertake to achieve them, including many that and statistics.
are already underway.
• Ensure complete transparency and stakeholder
Goal 1—Meet Customer Needs access for methods, standards, and controls.
Provide recreational catch, effort, and participation • Ensure long-term continuity of comparable
statistics that meet defined, understood, and priori- statistics as new surveys are implemented over
tized needs—including, for example, timeliness of time.
delivery of estimates, spatial and temporal survey
coverage, precision of estimates, and statistics for
special needs fisheries—of identified regional and Goal 3—Increase Understanding
national customers. Strengthen two-way communications with partners
and stakeholders to improve their knowledge of the
How we’ll get there: properties and use limitations of catch statistics, and
• Understand the customers: Be certain that to build confidence in the data.
MRIP has identified its data customers, the How we’ll get there:
manner in which they use MRIP-derived statis-
tics, and their prioritized needs. • Provide communications and outreach products
that meet partner and stakeholder needs.
• Improve customer satisfaction.
• Focus communication and education efforts on
• Work with customers to evaluate feasibility and the key stakeholders most likely to pass infor-
costs of meeting their various needs. mation on to others and influence internal and
external decision-makers.
Goal 2—Provide Quality Products
• Increase key stakeholder, partner, and customer
Achieve consistency, quality, timeliness, accessibility,
comprehension of the characteristics and re-
and transparency in data collection, production of
quirements for surveys and the properties and
estimates, and program operations.
limitations of catch and effort statistics.
How we’ll get there:
• Actively solicit and integrate stakeholder feed-
• In consultation with partners and expert consul- back into outreach and education materials—
tants, develop comprehensive baseline national and into the way information is communicated.
2 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic PlanThis strategic plan
provides a clear and
definitive overview of
MRIP’s vision, direction,
and metrics for success;
a road map for charting
our course; and a
timeline for getting there.
• Use the new MRIP website as a key component How we’ll get there:
of education and outreach.
• Maintain a team-oriented program manage-
• Expand the breadth of communications strate- ment structure that includes partners and key
gies and tools to meet customer needs. stakeholders in deliberations on program de-
sign, management, and implementation.
• Continually assess and evaluate the effectiveness
of MRIP communications efforts and outcomes, • Create and maintain an inventory of, and sup-
and adjust the communications plan as neces- port meeting, partner data needs and priorities
sary. by enabling regional identification of data needs,
preferred methods, and priorities.
Goal 4—Ensure Sound Science • Assess feasibility and costs/benefits of expand-
Maintain a strong science foundation for the pro- ing regional implementation of data collection
gram that includes robustness, integrity, transparen- and data management: field work by states and
cy, and innovation, and that develops and incorpo- off-site telephone/mail/internet survey work,
rates new advancements in survey design and data survey management, frame maintenance, esti-
collection and analysis. mation, and quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) done by Regional Implementation
How we’ll get there:
Teams (e.g., Fisheries Information Networks
• Maintain program capability and funding to (FINs) and ad-hoc teams like the Western Pacif-
conduct research and development of new/ ic Fishery Data Collection and Research Com-
improved survey, estimation, and information mittee).
management methods. Improved methods will
address independent review recommendations, Goal 6—Meet Program Resources
known sources of bias, and specific needs, and and Funding Needs
will incorporate state-of-the-art developments Ensure that the program’s value and funding needs
in survey design, and in data collection and are well documented and communicated; resources
management. are utilized efficiently; opportunities to expand ca-
pability through leveraging partner resources are
• Build and utilize expertise in survey design and fully explored; and actions are taken as authorized
estimation among staff, partners, and indepen- to ensure sufficient funding to support the needs of
dent expert consultants. the program (federal and state support).
• Maintain best practices and best available sur- How we’ll get there:
vey and estimation methods developed for pro-
gram use. • Identify and maintain a prioritized inventory
of essential program needs, including means to
Goal 5—Operate Collaboratively establish consistent, equitable, and cost-effective
priorities across regions.
Maintain effective collaborations with state, inter-
state, regional, and national partners for cost effec- • Effectively and regularly communicate MRIP
tive and responsive recreational data collection and resource needs and priorities to NOAA Fisher-
catch estimation. ies leadership, partners, and stakeholders.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 3Executive Summary Strategic Plan Definitions
Overview Throughout the plan, there are references to
customers, partners, and stakeholders, which are
The Marine Recreational Information Program,
defined as follows:
or MRIP, is the state-regional-federal partnership
responsible for developing, improving, and imple- • Customer: An entity that is the direct recipient
menting surveys that measure how many trips salt- and user of MRIP data to produce products that
water anglers take and how many fish they catch. supports its mission. Examples include: NOAA
The coordinated regional data collection programs Fisheries and state stock assessors; NOAA
that make up MRIP operate with consistent stan- Fisheries and state fishery management staff;
dards and sufficient flexibility to meet national, re- Regional Fishery Management Council staff and
Scientific and Statistical Committees; NOAA
gional, and state needs.
Fisheries social scientists and economists.
The vital information about recreational fishing • Partner: An entity that actively collaborates
collected through these data collection programs with NOAA Fisheries in the design and conduct
—combined with other data, such as commercial of recreational catch and effort surveys. Ex-
catch and biological research—enables scientists amples include: NOAA Fisheries Science Center
and managers to assess and maintain sustainable and Regional Office data collection programs;
U.S. fish stocks. This strategic plan is intended to state marine fishery data collection programs;
provide vision, direction, and metrics for success Fishery Information Networks; Regional Fishery
for the next phase of MRIP implementation and Management Council staff.
growth. • Stakeholder: An entity that is affected by and/
or has an interest in MRIP data. Customers
The MRIP Strategic Approach and partners may also be stakeholders. Other
examples include: NOAA Fisheries/NOAA/DOC
Initial MRIP priorities were established in response
leadership; NOAA FIsheries Regional Offices;
to an independent review of our methods commis-
Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions; Re-
sioned by NOAA Fisheries and conducted by the gional Fishery Management Councils; recre-
National Academies of Sciences in 2006. ational anglers and businesses; commercial
To address the National Academies recommenda- fisheries; state and federal legislative bodies.
tions, the MRIP collaboration of federal, regional,
state, and stakeholder partners was launched with a Baseline Scope of MRIP and the
three-tiered strategic process for making improve- Strategic Plan
ments to our estimates of saltwater recreational from the Strategic Plan’s Mission Statement:
fishing catch and effort: • National in scope but regionally specific.
• Evaluation of our existing methods to fully un- • Provides information on marine recreational
derstand what’s working well, what needs im- fisheries for: catch of marine fin fish; effort; and
provement, and the tradeoffs inherent in mak- participation.
ing changes to our surveys. • Recreational Fisheries: Defined consistently
with the NOAA Fisheries National Recreational
• Innovation aimed at developing new approach- Fisheries Policy: “non-commercial activities of
es and using emerging technologies to improve fishermen who fish for sport or pleasure, as set
our surveys and the systems and processes that out in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conser-
support them. vation and Management Act definition of rec-
• Implementation of new methods at the regional reational fishing, whether retaining (e.g., con-
level, working with partners to ensure a smooth suming, sharing) or releasing their catches...”
transition between approaches. make adjustments as necessary. In addition, after
This three-phase process was established as an on- addressing fundamental design issues, we have be-
going cycle. As improved surveys are implemented gun to focus on enhancing precision, timeliness,
in the field, we evaluate their performance and and coverage.
4 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic PlanCreating a Comprehensive Strategic MRIP Mission
Plan To carry out a collaborative, multi-institutional
effort to develop and implement a national recre-
The need for an overarching strategic plan build-
ational fisheries statistics program. The program
ing on the three-phase process came into focus as
is a system of surveys that provides the best pos-
MRIP evolved more fully into the implementation
sible scientific information on recreational catch
stage. Specifically, a 2015 Government Account-
of marine fish, effort, and participation for use in
ability Office (GAO) report conducted at the re-
management of the nation’s marine recreational
quest of Congress recommended the development
fisheries. Due to the dynamic nature of fisheries
of a comprehensive strategic plan. This plan will
and fisheries management practices, MRIP must
guide our ongoing efforts to build trust among key
be:
stakeholders, strengthen and expand relationships
among partners and stakeholders, and clearly ar- • Flexible and responsive to ensure that surveys
ticulate specific goals and milestones in our work are capable of being updated, modified, expand-
to continuously improve recreational fisheries data ed, or contracted to meet specific regional or lo-
collection, estimation, and reporting. cal informational needs;
The development of this strategic plan was guided • Robust enough to provide the most timely,
by MRIP’s vision, mission, and values, as articu- high-quality, precise, and least-biased informa-
lated by our Executive Steering Committee (ESC), tion possible;
the entity that provides management and guidance
• Based on sound, robust scientific methods and
for the program.
practices that incorporate scientific integrity,
independent peer review, innovation, and pro-
MRIP Vision cesses for continuous improvement;
MRIP will become the trusted source of U.S.
• National in scope but regionally specific, rec-
marine recreational catch and effort statistics.
ognizing that each region (Atlantic Coast, Gulf
NOAA Fisheries envisions MRIP as a program that
Coast, Pacific Coast, Pacific Islands, Alaska, and
is part of the best and most trusted marine data
the Caribbean) has unique informational needs
collection system available—one in which people
and data collection issues; and
are confident in the integrity of the information
they receive, and one in which stakeholders are en- • Inclusive and transparent, providing timely and
gaged and empowered partners in the data collec- open access to survey methods and products to
tion process. We want to ensure that the profound partners, customers, and stakeholders, and pro-
debates that take place about U.S. ocean policies viding scientists, managers, and stakeholders
center on the substance of the management deci- opportunities to participate in its development
sions, not the quality of the data. and use.
MRIP Executive Steering Committee (ESC)
Chaired by the director of NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Science and Technology, the ESC oversees MRIP, providing:
• Assistance on strategic decisions and program management issues;
• A connection between MRIP and the federal and state marine fisheries agencies, Interstate Fisheries Com-
missions, and Regional Fishery Management Councils to ensure that user needs are being met;
• A means of accountability for MRIP’s senior leadership; and
• Representation for MRIP in meetings of agencies and organizations outside of NOAA.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 5MRIP Values With the completion of the MRIP Strategic Plan in
2017, annual implementation plans charting prog-
• Collaboration and partnership.
ress and annual priorities will be prepared over the
• Commitment to meeting needs for high-quality next five years as part of the overall annual NOAA
data. Fisheries and OST planning. A new strategic plan
• Transparency by providing open access to prod- will then be developed in 2022, though the tactical
ucts, tools, and processes for all partners, cus- timeline for this plan projects actions into 2023.
tomers, and stakeholders.
• Commitment to scientific robustness, integrity,
MRIP Progress to Date
and innovation. An updated National Academies review pub-
lished in 2017 determined that MRIP has made
Integrating the MRIP Strategic Plan significant strides in addressing the 2006 National
Academies recommendations and improving rec-
with the NOAA Fisheries Science Plan reational fishery-dependent data. The Strategic
The MRIP Strategic Plan is intended to be fully Plan will optimize utilization of and build from the
integrated into the overall Office of Science and following key accomplishments and milestones,
Technology’s (OST) implementation of the NOAA which include:
Fisheries Science Plan process. In January 2013,
NOAA Fisheries began a systematic peer review • National Saltwater Angler Registry—
process at all six regional science centers and the Launched in 2010, the National Saltwater An-
OST. Internal and external experts examine the gler Registry works in tandem with state-level
science programs on a five-year peer review cycle, licensing and registration systems to provide a
with the goals of improving integration and iden- national directory for fishing effort surveys. Un-
tifying best practices. The review process incorpo- der this collaborative system, states have critical
rates input and involvement from Regional Fishery information they need to manage their resourc-
Management Councils, Interstate Marine Fisher- es effectively, while federal record-keeping and
ies Commissions, the fishing industry, and other administrative resources needed are significant-
stakeholders. ly reduced.
MRIP PROGRESS TO DATE
Marine Recreational Information Program
Regional MRIP
Benchmarking of Implementation strategic
New Magnuson- MRIP
National Saltwater Launch of new
new mail survey Plans planning
Stevens Act Angler Registry angler catch
established with existing developed process
mandates launched survey protocols
phone survey
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
National Re-estimation of National
Research and Develop new mail National
Research Council historic catch based Academies
pilot projects effort survey Academies
(NRC) findings on improved review of
begin based on pilot issues
released methodology MRIP progress
studies final report
Completed
Completed in response to NRC guidance
Underway in response to NRC guidance (in progress)
6 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic Plan• Re-Estimation—Among the specific observa- • For-Hire Electronic Reportin g (ER)—Ad-
tions in the 2006 National Academies review dressing the National Academies recommenda-
was identifying a “mismatch” between the way tion to move to mandatory logbook reporting
we were gathering catch data, and the methods in the for-hire sector, we are working with our
we were using to generate estimates from that partners to develop methods to replace random
data. In 2011, the MRIP team developed a new sampling of charter vessels with a complete
estimation method and then re-estimated all census of all for-hire trips, including validation
recreational catch dating back to 2004 to correct sampling. Several pilot studies have been com-
for this mismatch. pleted to test hardware, software, and reporting
and validation protocols. In 2016, we released
• Access Point Angler Intercept Survey
a comprehensive road map for developing and
(APAIS)—On the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, an-
certifying survey designs for validated, census-
gler catch per trip is measured using the APAIS,
based for-hire ER.
which entails conducting in-person interviews
with anglers at public-access fishing sites at the • Regional Survey Reviews and Supplemental
conclusion of their fishing trips. Samplers weigh, Surveys for Specialized Needs—We have also
measure, and record the species of all landed worked with partners, stakeholders, and inde-
fish, as well as ask and record information about pendent experts to review sampling methods in
discards. (For further information, an APAIS- the Pacific, Caribbean (the U.S. Virgin Islands
At-a-Glance fact sheet is available online.) An and Puerto Rico), and Hawaii, and for Atlantic
overhaul of APAIS to remove biases identified highly migratory species. Additionally, MRIP
in its design was completed in 2013, with ongo- has developed methods for providing more
ing adjustments for continued enhancement of timely and precise estimates of overall catch for
the survey. Because the new survey protocols specialized needs, including red snapper in the
produced different estimates, an interim calibra- Gulf of Mexico, and continues to work collab-
tion method was developed to accurately com- oratively with the regional FINs, Councils and
pare estimates across the historic time series. A Commissions, state agencies, and other partners
final calibration method is expected to be imple- to apply best practices and lessons learned for
mented in 2018. other species.
• Fishing Effort Survey (FES)—To measure • Regional Implementation—In 2013, MRIP’s
recreational saltwater fishing effort of shore ESC recommended to NOAA Fisheries that a
and private boat anglers on the Atlantic and hybrid approach to MRIP implementation be
Gulf coasts, as well as in Hawaii and Puerto established, whereby NOAA Fisheries (through
Rico, MRIP uses the Coastal Household Tele- MRIP) would maintain a central role in devel-
phone Survey (CHTS), a random-digit dialing oping and certifying survey methods and in
phone survey of coastal households. However, establishing national standards and best prac-
the CHTS design is prone to several potential tices, and regions (through the regional FINs or
sources of error, particularly as landline use and equivalent) would have responsibility for select-
the overall efficacy of telephone surveys have de- ing survey methods and managing data collec-
clined. After several pilot studies, MRIP began tion.
side-by-side testing of the CHTS with the FES, a By 2016, MRIP Regional Implementation Teams
mail-based survey that makes several improve- had been established for the regions, including
ments over the CHTS. With calibration and the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Pro-
conversion efforts underway to ensure histori- gram, the Gulf FIN Program, and the Pacific
cal CHTS estimates are appropriately converted RecFIN Program, as well as ad hoc Regional
for accurate comparability to the new FES esti- Implementation Teams for the Caribbean, the
mates, the program is on track to fully transition Western Pacific Islands, and for Atlantic Highly
to the FES by 2018. For further information, see Migratory Species. Each Regional Implemen-
the FES Transition Plan. tation Team includes representatives of the in-
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 7volved state and territorial governments, the MRIP had made substantial progress in address-
Regional Fishery Management Council(s), the ing the recommendations from the initial 2006
Interstate Marine Fisheries Commission, the National Academies review. Therefore, NOAA
NOAA Fisheries Regional Office and Fisheries Fisheries requested a follow-up independent as-
Science Center, and the NOAA Fisheries Head- sessment of the current status and direction of
quarters Office. Each of these Regional Imple- MRIP. NOAA also asked the National Academies
mentation Teams has begun the work of prepar- to identify any further improvements to ensure
ing its own unique implementation strategy, and that MRIP continues to provide our partners
determining which survey standards/baseline and stakeholders with the best available data.
requirements and survey methods best suit its
science and management needs. Their Regional The National Academies issued its findings in
Implementation Plans are expected to be com- January 2017. The National Academies recog-
pleted by the end of fiscal year 2017. nized the agency for making “impressive prog-
ress” over the past 10 years, including “major
• GAO Review—In response to a Congressional improvements” to MRIP survey designs. The
request, the GAO commenced a review of MRIP review also highlighted some remaining chal-
in July 2014, with the final report published in lenges and offered a series of recommendations
December 2015. The report focused on “(1) chal- for continued improvements to MRIP surveys.
lenges that have been identified with the agen- More details of the updated review are available
cy’s data collection efforts for managing marine
in Appendix A.
recreational fisheries and (2) steps the agency
has taken to improve data collection and chal-
lenges that remain.” The report recommended Implementing the Strategic Plan
that NOAA develop a comprehensive strategy MRIP is committed to a multi-faceted, collab-
to guide the continued MRIP implementation orative approach in fully implementing this plan.
process, a recommendation with which NOAA If you are interested in learning more or engag-
concurred and has addressed through this doc- ing with the program, please visit our web site,
ument. www.countmyfish.noaa.gov for updates, detailed
information, and opportunities for involvement.
• Updated National Academies of Sciences Re
view—With the 2015 initiation of the new FES,
8 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic PlanTactics, Outcomes, Metrics,
and Timeline
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 9Goal 1—Meet Customer Needs 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Strategy—Understand the customers: Be certain that MRIP has identified its data customers, the manner in which they use MRIP-derived statistics, and their prioritized needs.
Tactics:
¾¾ Identify primary customers.
¾¾ Identify customer needs at intervals of not more than five years, in conjunction with reviews of
Regional Implementation Plan updates.
Strategy—Improve customer satisfaction.
Tactic:
¾¾ Assess customer satisfaction at intervals of two to three years.
Strategy—Work with customers to evaluate feasibility and costs of meeting their various needs.
Tactics:
¾¾ Working collaboratively with customers, evaluate feasibility and costs of meeting different customer
needs through regional implementation planning process and customer needs assessments (per
the preceding tactic).
¾¾ Modify survey designs, and properties and delivery of catch statistics, to improve customer
satisfaction in ways that are both feasible and cost-effective.
Outcome—Customers report that their needs (estimate products, timeliness, precision, coverage, etc.) are met.
Metric—Measure of customer satisfaction with survey products as determined via customer satisfaction assessment.
10 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic PlanGoal 2—Provide Quality Products 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Strategy—In consultation with partners and expert consultants, develop comprehensive baseline national survey and data requirements and processes for reviewing and certifying survey
designs to ensure data comparability, interoperability, and usefulness; provide data that meet regional needs; and periodically review and revise established baseline requirements.
Tactics:
¾¾ Create clear and concise baseline requirements for data collection, statistical estimation, access,
and information management, and for providing measures of precision and sources of bias in:
• Data collection
• Statistical estimation
• Access and information management
• Measures of precision and sources of bias
¾¾ Collect data (i.e., conduct surveys) consistent with baseline requirements.
¾¾ Establish baseline quality (precision and absence of bias) standards for survey statistics provided to
the public.
¾¾ Seek periodic independent reviews of program, (i.e., OST five-year Science Plan reviews).
Strategy—Establish, maintain, and continuously improve an internal control program to provide quality assurance and quality control for survey data and statistics.
Tactic:
¾¾ Create and support regional bodies to monitor the consistency and quality of the data
being generated and to assure continuous improvement of data quality (as part of regional
implementation teams).
¾¾ Document the major elements of MRIP program management, policy and procedures (e.g.,
Organizational Governance, Planning and Implementation, Certification/Transition, Budget
Processes).
Strategy—Ensure complete transparency and stakeholder access for methods, standards, and controls.
Tactics:
¾¾ Develop complete documentation of survey and estimation protocols, quality assurance procedures,
and data quality control procedures.
¾¾ Maintain public website with comprehensive documentation of methods, sample frames, and
statistics.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 11Goal 2—Provide Quality Products (continued) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Strategy—Ensure long-term continuity of comparable statistics as new surveys are implemented over time.
Tactics:
¾¾ Develop and execute transition plans that outline a process and timeline for implementing new and/
or improved survey designs.
¾¾ Assess need for development and use of tools that convert statistics produced by surveys into
common currency across all surveys and develop as necessary.
Outcome—Established baseline requirements are met.
Metric—Proportion of established requirements met by current surveys OR number of surveys that do not meet established requirements (number will be
reduced as surveys meet requirements).
12 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic PlanGoal 3—Increase Understanding 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Strategy—Provide communications and outreach products that meet partner and stakeholder needs.
Tactics:
¾¾ Conduct an internal annual assessment of partner and stakeholder communication and outreach
needs, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of current communications products.
¾¾ Develop outreach materials to provide consistent messaging regarding recreational fishing data
improvement efforts among internal and external partners.
Strategy—Focus communication and education efforts on the key stakeholders most likely to pass information on to others and influence internal and external decision-makers.
Tactics:
¾¾ Identify and maintain contact with key stakeholders (e.g., Social Network Analysis).
¾¾ Conduct a formal external MRIP communications and outreach feedback and needs assessment
every three to five years.
¾¾ Establish an MRIP onboarding process(es) for key stakeholders and primary customers (may be
different processes).
Strategy—Increase key stakeholder, partner, and customer comprehension of the characteristics and requirements for surveys and the properties and limitations of catch and effort
statistics.
Tactics:
¾¾ Develop targeted outreach materials and tactics to inform stakeholders on the importance of
various survey components and limitations.
¾¾ Periodically evaluate stakeholder understanding of MRIP and adjust communications strategies, as
needed.
¾¾ Host primary customer workshop to train participants to effectively access, analyze, and/or use
data tools, including, for example, custom domain estimation; assess results and determine
benefits of repeating.
Strategy—Actively solicit and integrate stakeholder feedback into outreach and education materials—and into the way information is communicated.
Tactics:
¾¾ Expand Communications and Education Team to include members of partner education and
outreach programs.
¾¾ Pursue inclusion of MRIP in curricula for Marine Resources Education Program (MREP) and new
Council member trainings.
¾¾ Provide support to a NOAA Fisheries recreational fisheries outreach and education initiative.
¾¾ Provide our partners with the tools and coordination necessary to enable consistent
communications about recreational data collection methods, uses, and limitations.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 13Goal 3—Increase Understanding (continued) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Strategy—Use the new MRIP website as a key component of education and outreach.
Tactics:
¾¾ Maintain current content on website, updating as necessary.
¾¾ Assess web analytics to improve web content and usage.
Strategy—Expand the breadth of communications strategies and tools to meet customer needs.
Tactics:
¾¾ Increase use of public relations; social and digital media.
¾¾ Provide content for inclusion in stakeholder outreach products and publications (e.g., fishing
magazines, blogs).
Strategy—Continually assess and evaluate the effectiveness of MRIP communications efforts and outcomes, and adjust the communications plan as necessary.
Tactics:
¾¾ Revise/expand the MRIP Strategic Communications Plan to include the recommendations in the
2017 MRIP Review by the National Academies of Sciences, including measures to enhance two-
way dialogue with key stakeholders and effective outreach to anglers.
¾¾ Adopt and execute communications plans for high-profile MRIP implementation actions (e.g., FES
Transition).
Outcome—The general level of understanding/awareness of MRIP methods and properties/use limitations of estimates among customers and stakeholders is
increased over time.
Metric—Feedback from Needs Assessment interviews on proportion of uninformed/skeptical contacts.
14 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic PlanGoal 4—Ensure Sound Science 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Strategy—Maintain program capability and funding to conduct research and development of new/improved survey, estimation, and information management methods. Improved methods
will address independent review recommendations, known sources of bias, and specific needs, and will incorporate state-of-the-art developments in survey design, and in data collection and
management.
Tactics:
¾¾ Support research aimed at designing, testing, and implementing new and/or improved recreational
fisheries surveys that address independent review recommendations and specific partner needs
(e.g., private access, discards).
¾¾ Evaluate the potential application of new electronic technologies into the program.
¾¾ Develop an analytical tool that enables optimization of sample allocation within and among surveys
to address desired levels of precision for varying purposes, as identified in Regional Implementation
Plans.
¾¾ Develop a plan for prioritizing and addressing the survey design improvement recommendations in
the 2017 MRIP Review by the National Academies of Sciences.
Strategy—Build and utilize expertise in survey design and estimation among staff, partners, and independent expert consultants.
Tactics:
¾¾ Provide technical support for the program through hiring staff highly qualified in survey and
mathematical statistics disciplines, and maintain peer-accepted external consultants.
¾¾ Increase staff expertise in survey statistics, survey operations, statistical software, new
technologies, and survey management through trainings and other development opportunities.
¾¾ Publish research results in peer-reviewed journals and organize and/or participate in scientific
symposia.
Strategy—Maintain best practices and best available survey and estimation methods developed for program use.
Tactics:
¾¾ Seek independent reviews of current and proposed survey designs, estimation methods, and data
collection technologies that are on the MRIP Certification Track.
¾¾ Conduct periodic regional reviews of data programs to identify potential sources of bias and errors.
Outcome—Survey designs in use and desired by partners are certified.
Metric—Number of survey designs in use or identified by partners for use that are not certified by MRIP (number will be reduced as surveys become certified).
Outcome—Statistics produced from MRIP surveys are accepted for use in stock assessments with a minimum level of associated scientific uncertainty.
Metric—Number of fisheries stock assessments that accept/utilize MRIP catch statistics.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 15Goal 5—Operate Collaboratively 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Strategy—Maintain a team-oriented program management structure that includes partners and key stakeholders in deliberations on program design, management, and implementation.
Tactics:
¾¾ Conduct periodic reviews to ensure that partners are adequately represented and actively
participating on the various MRIP Teams.
¾¾ Assess partners’ sense of ownership in MRIP (i.e., do partners consider themselves partners?).
¾¾ Periodically review management structure to address evolving program functions and priorities.
¾¾ Evaluate options to enhance recreational fisheries stakeholders’ participation in MRIP advisory
structure.
¾¾ Expand MRIP collaborations, including adding additional experts in survey design and
communications to MRIP consultant team.
¾¾ Revise program management and team structure periodically to assure full partner engagement,
based on results of Strategy 5.1 reviews and provisions of Regional Implementation Plans.
Strategy—Create and maintain an inventory of, and support meeting, partner data needs and priorities by enabling regional identification of data needs, preferred methods, and priorities.
Tactics:
¾¾ Develop Regional Implementation Plans that include R&D priorities for developing and certifying
new methods that address partner needs.
¾¾ Attend and actively participate in FINs and FIN partner meetings when data needs are being
discussed.
¾¾ In regions that do not have a FIN, create and maintain ad hoc regional implementation teams.
¾¾ Annually specify national priority-setting criteria for providing support for needs identified in the
Regional Implementation Plans.
Strategy—Assess feasibility and costs/benefits of expanding regional implementation of data collection and data management: field work by states and off-site telephone/mail/internet
survey work, survey management, frame maintenance, estimation, and QA/QC done by Regional Implementation Teams (e.g., FINs and ad-hoc teams like the Western Pacific Fishery Data
Collection and Research Committee).
Tactics:
¾¾ Evaluate and, as appropriate, support and enable delegating responsibility of survey operations to
regions, based on (yet to be established) standards to maintain data consistency and comparability.
¾¾ Conduct evaluation of costs/benefits of centralized vs. regionalized catch and effort estimation.
Outcome—Regional partner needs and priorities are fully documented.
Metric—Number of Regions with up-to-date MRIP Regional Implementation Plans.
Outcome—State and regional partners are fully engaged with MRIP in the program and are willing to undertake data collection and estimation tasks, and to
invest partner resources.
Metric—Number of states, FINs actively engaged with MRIP in survey operations.
16 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic PlanGoal 6—Meet Program Resources and Funding Needs 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Strategy—Identify and maintain a prioritized inventory of essential program needs, including means to establish consistent, equitable, and cost-effective priorities across regions.
Tactics:
¾¾ Develop and share criteria for priority-setting and decision-making on funding allocation to
research and survey implementation.
¾¾ Use Regional Implementation Plans to develop a national inventory of partner needs and associated
costs (see Regional Implementation Plan tactic in goal 5).
¾¾ Explore opportunities to expand program support through leveraging funding and capability of
partner and stakeholder programs, including NOAA programs.
Strategy—Effectively and regularly communicate MRIP resource needs and priorities to NOAA Fisheries leadership, partners, and stakeholders.
Tactics:
¾¾ Provide a cost-benefit analysis of funding level options for primary stakeholders (i.e., NOAA/NOAA
Fisheries).
¾¾ Advocate for meeting funding needs during annual DOC/NOAA budget opportunities.
¾¾ Utilize relationships with Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions to help identify resources for
recreational data collection.
¾¾ Document partner contributions for funding data collection efforts.
¾¾ Create a compelling narrative on MRIP and partner success stories to share with key stakeholders.
Outcome—NOAA and state/regional partner leadership are aware of program’s value and resources needs and priorities.
Metric—Number of partner leaders confirming understanding of program’s value, resource needs, and funding priorities.
Outcome—All high-priority program funding needs are met to the extent practicable.
Metric—Number of high-priority funding needs that are not met each year.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 17Appendix A
History of the Marine Recreational Information Program
Introduction and Background the MSA, NOAA Fisheries established MRIP to
develop and implement an improved recreational
Origin of MRIP
fisheries statistics program. Ultimately, MRIP was
Under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and designed to become a national system of coordi-
Management Act of 1976, the Marine Recreational nated regional data collection programs that would
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) was initiated address specific needs for recreational fishing in-
in 1979 to collect information about recreational formation.
fisheries on a regional scale to meet the manage-
ment needs of the time. In the ensuing decades, At the core of MRIP implementation was a collab-
fisheries management programs grew in complex- orative and ongoing three-tiered strategic process
ity. Where it was once believed that fisheries could to improve estimates of saltwater recreational fish-
be effectively managed on a stock-by-stock basis, it ing catch and effort:
became clear that management decisions needed to • Evaluation of our existing methods to fully un-
be made in a broader context, which required data derstand what’s working well, what needs im-
at a much finer scale than what the programs under provement, and the tradeoffs inherent in mak-
the MRFSS could provide. ing changes to our surveys.
In response to constituents’ concerns about the • Innovation aimed at developing new approach-
quality of recreational fishing information being es and using emerging technologies to improve
used in management, NOAA Fisheries requested our surveys and the systems and processes that
an independent review of existing recreational data support them.
collection programs by the National Academies of
Sciences in 2004. The National Academies report- • Implementation of new methods at the regional
ed its findings in 2006 and made extensive recom- level, working with partners to ensure a smooth
mendations for improving data collection and sta- transition between approaches.
tistical analysis. It also recommended establishing As improved surveys are implemented, they are
a national registry of saltwater anglers to serve as again evaluated for any necessary adjustments,
the basis for future sampling programs. Reautho- and are ultimately scaled up to enhance precision,
rization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conser- timeliness, and coverage.
vation and Management Act (MSA), signed into
law in 2007, required NOAA Fisheries to fulfill the Additionally, there was—and continues to be—a
recommendations in the National Academies re- strong emphasis on communicating with and in-
port to the maximum extent practicable, including volving the public in our activities. To guide these
development of a program to support registering efforts, we adopted a leadership and governance
saltwater anglers, by January 1, 2009. structure to help facilitate open, two-way commu-
nications with managers, stock assessment scien-
MRIP Launched tists, and other constituents to ensure that the needs
Within the context of the 2006 National Academies of those who collect, use, and are impacted by the
recommendations and the enabling legislation of data were understood, documented, and consid-
18 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic Planered as the program advanced. MRIP brought to-
gether federal, state, and interstate partners and ESC Members
constituents who are experts in fisheries manage- Ned Cyr, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science & Technology
ment, survey design, statistics, and outreach to im- (chair)
prove recreational fishing data collection. Gordon Colvin, Contractor, NOAA Fisheries, Office of
Science & Technology (executive secretary)
An Executive Steering Committee (ESC) oversees
Robert Beal, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
MRIP. Chaired by the director of NOAA Fisheries’
Office of Science and Technology (OST), the ESC Dave Donaldson, Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission
provides:
Randy Fisher, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
• Assistance on strategic decisions and program
Doug Mecum, NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Regional Office
management issues;
Emily Menashes, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Sustainable
• A connection between MRIP and the federal Fisheries
and state marine fisheries agencies, Interstate Bonnie Ponwith, NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries
Marine Fisheries Commissions, and Regional Science Center
Fishery Management Councils to ensure that
Russ Dunn, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Assistant
user needs are being met; Administrator
• A means of accountability for MRIP’s senior
ESC Participants
leadership; and
Dick Brame, Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee and
• Representation for MRIP in meetings of agen- Coastal Conservation Association
cies and organizations outside of NOAA. Miguel Rolon, Caribbean Fishery Management Council
Initially, the ESC established three leadership com- Kitty Simonds, Western Pacific Fishery Management
mittees—Operations, Angler Registry, and Com- Council
munications—which later evolved into the current
structure of five leadership teams:
sign process and kept well-informed of MRIP’s
• Operations—Designs, tests, and recommends progress, along with building awareness and
improvements to NOAA Fisheries’ recreational
support for the program and trust in the data.
fishing data collection programs.
• Information Management—Supports the na-
• Registry—Develops and maintains the federal
tional-level processing and management of
National Saltwater Angler Registry, along with
the program that manages exemptions to the recreational saltwater fishing data by ensuring
Registry for states that develop and share data the comparability and compatibility of statistics
from their own saltwater licensing or registra- among regional data collection programs.
tion systems. • Transition—Manages the multifaceted process
• Communications and Education—Carries out of transitioning to improved survey methods by
strategic communications to ensure partners working together with Councils, Commissions,
and stakeholders are engaged in the survey rede- and NOAA Fisheries regions.
Stakeholder-inclusive governance and team leadership
Executive Steering Committee
Communications Information
Operations Registry Transition
& Education Management
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 19Addressing the 2006 National estimated all recreational catch dating back to 2004
to correct for this mismatch. The new method ad-
Academies Recommendations dressed potential biases in the estimates by proper-
National Saltwater Angler Registry ly accounting for things like possible differences in
Among the initial steps MRIP took to address the catch rates at high-activity and low-activity fishing
2006 National Academies recommendations was sites, or the amount of fishing occurring at different
the development and launch of the National Salt- times of the day. When the process was completed,
water Angler Registry. The impetus for the Registry there were no across-the-board trends in either the
was the National Academies finding that marine size or direction of change in the new estimates
recreational fishing effort surveys relying on ran- relative to the previous estimates. On a species-
dom telephone contacts of coastal county residents by-species basis, some estimates went down, some
were both inefficient, since relatively few coastal went up, and others remained about the same. In
households include active anglers, and prone to all cases, however, the numbers became more ac-
undercoverage, because many active anglers were curate.
unreachable, including those who do not reside in
Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS)
coastal counties or who don’t have landlines. To
resolve these significant sources of potential bias, On the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, angler catch per
the National Academies recommended the devel- trip is measured using APAIS, which entails con-
opment of, and eventual sampling from, a compre- ducting in-person interviews with anglers at pub-
hensive National Saltwater Angler Registry. lic-access fishing sites at the conclusion of their
fishing trips. Samplers weigh, measure, and record
We set out guidelines in December 2008 through the species of all landed fish, as well as ask and
the federal rulemaking process for individual en- record information about discards. (For further
rollment in the Registry, as well as for the stan- information, an APAIS-At-a-Glance fact sheet is
dards and process by which states could apply for available online.) An overhaul of APAIS to remove
exempted designation based on use of state-level li- biases identified in its design was completed in
censing or registration systems. The National Salt- 2013. Improvements included: removing the lati-
water Angler Registry was launched at the begin- tude samplers have in choosing which sites to sam-
ning of 2010, with the majority of states ultimately ple; sampling during all parts of the day, including
qualifying for exempted state designation. Today, trips that conclude at night; and creating a rigorous
all coastal states and territories, with the exceptions protocol for determining which sites to sample, for
of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, how long, and in what order.
are designated as Exempted States. Under formal
agreements with NOAA, the Exempted States pro- Because the new survey protocols produced differ-
vide lists of their licensed anglers and for-hire ves- ent estimates, an interim calibration method was
sel operators (Atlantic and Gulf Coast states) or developed to accurately compare estimates across
catch and effort data via a regional data collection the historic time series. A final calibration method
program (Pacific Coast states and Island territo- is expected to be implemented in 2018.
ries). Under this collaborative system, states have Adjustments for continued enhancement of the sur-
critical information they need to manage their re- vey are ongoing. Beginning in 2016, management
sources effectively, while federal record-keeping of the onsite surveys shifted from federal contrac-
and administrative resources needed are signifi- tors to the marine fisheries management agency of
cantly reduced. each state. This move will help build stronger re-
lationships with anglers through closer interaction
Re-Estimation
with their state agency, and will improve collabora-
Among the specific observations in the 2006 Na- tion and information-sharing between NOAA, the
tional Academies review was that there was a “mis- states, and recreational fishermen.
match” between the way we were gathering catch
data, and the methods we were using to generate Fishing Effort Survey (FES)
estimates from that data. In 2011, the MRIP team To measure recreational saltwater fishing effort of
developed a new estimation method, then re- shore and private boat anglers on the Atlantic and
20 2017-2022 MRIP Strategic PlanGulf coasts, as well as in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, For-Hire Electronic Reporting (ER)
MRIP uses the Coastal Household Telephone Sur- Addressing the National Academies recommenda-
vey (CHTS), a random-digit dialing phone survey tion to move to mandatory logbook reporting in
of coastal households. However, the CHTS design the for-hire sector, we are working with our part-
is prone to several potential sources of error, in- ners to develop methods to replace random sam-
cluding undercoverage (many saltwater anglers ei- pling of charter vessels with a complete census of
ther do not live in coastal counties, or do not have a all for-hire trips, including validation sampling.
landline); nonresponse (many people will not pick Creating effective systems to be used instead of
up the phone and answer questions, an issue com- paper logbooks is a key element of this transition.
mon to all telephone surveys, regardless of sub- Several pilot studies have been completed to test
ject); measurement (anglers may not remember all hardware, software, and reporting and validation
their fishing activity when asked over the phone); protocols. In 2016, we released a comprehensive
and inefficiency (since many calls go to non-angler road map for developing and certifying survey de-
households). signs for validated, census-based for-hire ER.
Over the past several years, we have conducted a The road map was developed together with for-hire
series of pilot studies to develop a better method operators, state partners, fisheries managers, inde-
for fishing estimates that minimizes these potential pendent statisticians, and others. It details work
sources of error. The FES makes several improve- completed to date, along with the requirements,
ments over the CHTS, and will eventually replace process, and timeline for designing and certify-
the phone-based survey. Instead of limiting sur- ing census-based electronic trip reporting systems.
veys to residents of coastal counties, the FES has These systems can then be implemented by region-
the potential to reach all saltwater anglers by us- al data collection partners—following necessary
ing two sample frames—the National Saltwater transition planning, benchmarking, and calibra-
Angler Registry, which was developed to provide tion—according to each Regional Implementation
Plan.
a national directory for surveying anglers, and data
from the U.S. Postal Service, which allows the FES Pacific, Western Pacific, and Caribbean Surveys
to sample potential anglers who are not required Review and Improvement
to register (such as seniors and children). The FES We have also worked with partners, stakeholders,
will also replace the phone-based survey with a and independent experts to provide review of sam-
mail survey, as research has found that response pling methods in the Pacific, Caribbean (the U.S.
rates are much higher for mail surveys, and may Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico), and the Western
result in more accurate reports of fishing activity Pacific (Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the
than telephone surveys provided. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).
To provide for a smooth transition between the In the Caribbean, projects have included the 2013
two surveys, the new mail-based survey is being initiation of a multi-year project in the U.S. Virgin
conducted alongside the current telephone survey. Islands to establish baseline data on the recreation-
Side-by-side benchmarking of the surveys will con- al fishery, and pilot studies of the queen conch and
tinue through 2017, along with the development of spiny lobster recreational fishery in Puerto Rico.
a calibration model to ensure that historical CHTS In the Western Pacific, work has included a review
estimates are appropriately converted for accurate of the Hawaii Marine Recreational Fishing Survey
comparability with the new FES estimates. Once (HMRFS), with the development of a pilot study to
this conversion is completed, revised catch statis- apply the APAIS redesign to the state’s surveys of
tics will be incorporated into stock assessments private boat fishing and the unique characteristics
and ultimately used in setting annual catch limits of Hawaii’s recreational fisheries. MRIP also fund-
and other management actions. Currently, the pro- ed a pilot study to document the effect of pulse/
gram is on track to fully transition to the FES by rare event fisheries, and to quantify catch generated
2018. For further information, see the FES Transi- from fishing methods not generally accounted for
tion Plan. with the current creel survey in American Samoa,
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 21You can also read
