7

Communication and Outreach with Stakeholders

INTRODUCTION

In its 2006 report, the National Research Council (NRC) recommended several improvements to outreach and communication of the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), including incorporating the views of anglers and angler organizations into the survey design and data-collection procedures and inviting them to participate in survey advisory groups. As the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) developed the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) to replace the MRFSS, it specifically tried to address as many of the NRC’s 2006 recommendations as possible. Therefore, in its request for the current study, the NMFS asked for an evaluation of “the communication of information on survey method development, survey method descriptions, and survey results to stakeholders and application of stakeholder input in the design and implementation of new sampling and estimation procedures” (committee statement of task). This chapter provides that evaluation.

WHAT SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED AND TO WHOM

The multijurisdictional nature of combined federal and state fisheries management (see Chapter 1), which in some regions of the country necessarily involves multiple states, presents challenges to data collection, data management, assessment, and ultimately catch allocation. For example, management of summer flounder, an important recreational species along the U.S. northeast coast from Virginia to Massachusetts, necessarily involves NMFS and seven state jurisdictions that cooperate within the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC, 2015). In contrast, fisheries for Pacific rockfishes on the West

Coast involve no more than three state agencies and one federal agency (PFMC, 2016). This differential complexity in the management of recreational fisheries is inherent to our nation’s geography, but it should not be ignored in trying to understand why some recreational fisheries present greater challenges than others.

It is necessary to know specific areas of authority and responsibility within the fisheries management process to understand what should be communicated and to whom it should be communicated. The complexity of fisheries management depicted in Figure 1.2 requires that the MRIP be a component, but not the entirety of any plan for communicating fisheries management issues. Therefore, any communication plan must reflect this complexity.

There has been a substantial response by NMFS to the previous NRC report (2006), which has greatly improved the theoretical underpinnings and implementation of the elements of the MRIP. Here, we assess whether similar improvements have occurred with MRIP communication capacity and planning. The committee sought to determine to what extent the MRIP communication plan clearly identifies appropriate audiences and messaging. This assessment includes the important idea that communication is at least a bilateral endeavor involving communicating to and listening to the targeted audience.

THE MRIP STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

To assist its deliberations, the committee reviewed the MRIP Strategic Communications Plan (NMFS, 2016b), copies of the MRIP’s scientific and public presentations, copies of its newsletter “Newscast,” and several unpublished, internal documents (NMFS, 2012a, 2012b). In addition, the committee evaluated content on the MRIP website that clearly targets an external audience. Here we focus on the 2016 MRIP Strategic Communications Plan, produced by the MRIP Communication and Education Team (CET), as it provides a comprehensive overview of current and planned activities. An earlier 2008 Communications Plan (referred to in the Sharpe and Bard presentation to the committee) was not made available to the committee, which sought to respond directly to the 2006 NRC report. Under that 2008 plan, the MRIP developed tutorial videos and a MRIP Newscast newsletter, and held several regional “road shows” (NMFS, 2012a, 2012b). In 2014, the MRIP “rebooted” its communications (Sharpe and Bard, 2016) and a new 2016 plan was developed (NMFS, 2016b).

Three aspects of the new 2016 plan are striking. First, the plan is very clear that NMFS views the MRIP as a combination of state, regional, and federal efforts rather than a monolithic federal program (Chapter 6). This aspect of the plan is appropriate and reflects the reality that the MRIP has multiple partners who play key data-collection roles. However, this begs the question of how communication about the MRIP will be coordinated among the key members of the effort.

Second, the committee was also struck by the lack of a needs assessment to identify and prioritize the current communications challenges. Elements of a

needs analysis are evident in two documents that reflect on lessons learned from specific public outreach efforts (NMFS, 2012a, 2012b). However, an integrated, comprehensive needs analysis appears to be lacking.

Third, the plan is largely a vision of future communication and outreach strategies. It lacks an implementation component, which is essential given the challenge of reaching multiple partners and audiences. A few additional details are provided in the annual implementation plan updates on the MRIP website. However, it is the committee’s perception that a detailed implementation plan remains to be developed, although the committee notes that the 2016 Communications Plan (NMFS, 2016b) does identify metrics for success. It simply lacks details on how and which strategies will be used to attain the metrics. Because the plan lacks important details about implementation, the committee’s evaluation at this stage can only use broad brush strokes.

OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of the plan is

The committee agrees that this overriding objective for the MRIP is appropriate. However, this broad objective focuses on external partners without explicit or full recognition of the complexity of modern fisheries management (see Chapter 1; Figure 1.2), which will require coordinated communications among the multiple partners and stakeholders in the fisheries if understanding is to be aligned with reality over broad issues in fisheries management.

The plan seeks to achieve its overall objective by implementing the following strategies (NMFS, 2016b, p. 4):

• More effectively engage partners and key stakeholders in all aspects of the MRIP program, including priority-setting, resource allocation, and implementation.
• Provide tools and resources that partners can use to more effectively communicate MRIP policies, developments, and accomplishments with their respective audiences, members, and constituents.
• Build greater awareness and understanding of the interconnectedness among data collection, science, and management functions with respect to ensuring sustainable fisheries.

• Increase confidence, enhance internal, partner, and key stakeholder understanding of the MRIP process, how it works, how it is producing more accurate and precise catch statistics, who is involved, how priorities for the program are set, and opportunities for engagement and input.
• Enhance communications, dialogue, and understanding with congressional members and staff tied to recreational data collection and program funding as part of ensuring the sustainability of recreational fishing.
• Broaden angler and for-hire operator understanding of fishing participants in the current regional recreational survey programs and increase interest and participation in those programs; recognizing that the two groups have different understandings, goals, and outreach needs.
• Improve NOAA Fisheries understanding of stakeholder’s perspective on the MRIP.

The plan provides little discussion of how communication will, might, or should be differentiated, although there is a clear recognition that different audiences have different skills, needs, and other attributes. Despite the objective to “engage partners and key stakeholders in all aspects of the MRIP program,” the plan focuses more on communicating to partners and stakeholders than on receiving input from the various audiences. Feedback is essential to help the MRIP effectively prioritize its future investments in human resources and technology to improve time lags between data collection and management response, which have been shown to impact management effectiveness (Sylvia et al., 2016).

AUDIENCES

The MRIP communication plan seeks to concentrate its efforts on several audiences that include internal agency partners, state fisheries agencies, the regional fishery management councils, interstate commissions, the Fisheries Information Networks, Congress, the recreational fishing community, and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NMFS, 2016b). Within this spectrum of audiences, the most effort will be focused on internal and external partners. For other key stakeholders, the CET will focus on communicating to “those that have strong, positive influence and stature among their peers” (NMFS, 2016b, p. 4).

In considering the communication plan, the committee found it easier to think of the specific roles that stakeholders play, rather than the organizations they represent per se. For example, a state fisheries management agency is likely to be both a data provider (agency staff may collect data from intercept interviews as a component of the MRIP) and a data user (agency staff may be involved in stock assessments and Annual Catch Target [ACT] determinations). A communication strategy that does differentiate these separate roles will likely be less effective than one that targets communication to stakeholders based on the role they represent.

Communication with Data-Collection Partners

In terms of regional operations and on-the-ground execution, the suite of surveys conducted under the MRIP umbrella is implemented in close collaboration with state and regional partners, usually by efforts coordinated through the regional Fisheries Information Networks (FINs), each of which serve a regional Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions.¹ The regional FINs (including Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program [ACCSP]) are state-federal cooperative programs in which NMFS participates as a partner with the state fisheries agencies, interstate marine fisheries commissions, regional fishery management councils, and other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These partnerships cooperate in programs to collect, aggregate, and manage state and federal fisheries data to support fishery managers and associated agencies. The regional FINs also serve as liaisons for identifying state and regional data needs and are, therefore, well positioned to serve as coordinating entities for regional MRIP implementation. In this capacity, they effectively function as the main conduit of information and communication between the MRIP and states participating in the survey.

As noted in Chapter 6, the MRIP has made significant progress in expanding and strengthening communication and coordination with regional and state partners, especially from a logistical and survey implementation point of view (Beal, 2016; Crabtree, 2016). For example, the implementation of pilot studies to test concepts and address specific regional needs, training of state agency staff who conduct the survey, and support for database management and data systems maintenance have been successful in large part due to increased and improved communication between the MRIP and regional partners. The MRIP’s broad communications strategy defers much of the communications with individual anglers or angling groups to the states and regional authorities. For example, regional RecFIN programs and state fish and wildlife agencies conduct most of the outreach and education efforts related to the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS), effort surveys, and catch estimates, but apparently without structured and deliberate guidance from the MRIP.

Communication with Data Users

A variety of agencies, institutions, and other user groups use recreational fisheries data collected through MRIP surveys. For the purposes of this review the committee recognizes three broad categories of data customers: stock assessment analysts who use MRIP data to establish management reference points (overfish-

___________________

¹ Between 1942 and 1949, the federal government authorized by statute three interstate compacts, each creating a regional marine fisheries commission to better utilize and protect fisheries within the consenting states’ jurisdiction. The three separate commissions represent the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific states, respectively.

ing limit and the overfished level primarily), Council Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) and Advisor Panels who use MRIP data to help develop catch limits (Acceptable Biological Catch [ABC], Annual Catch Limits [ACLs], and ACT), and Council and NMFS Regional Office staff who use MRIP data to implement catch limits.

Stock Assessment Partners

The primary, direct users of MRIP information are assessment analysts who integrate estimates of catch and sometimes catch per unit effort of recreational anglers into stock assessments (see Figure 1.2). Presentations to the committee and discussions between the committee and stock assessment analysts revealed that the assessment analysts broadly recognize the improvements made to the MRIP since 2006 (e.g., Dick, 2016). Assessment analysts have found MRIP staff to be responsive to requests for the data used to develop catch limits and to be knowledgeable about the underlying data (e.g., Carmichael and Duval, 2016). In these cases, communication is typically one-on-one, often relying on personal relationships developed over years between MRIP staff and assessment analysts.

Overall, the committee encourages the MRIP to continue two-way communication with customers who use data to generate ABCs, ACLs, and ACTs. The benefits accruing to the MRIP from such communication would include improved understanding of how data are used in the assessment process, enhanced effectiveness of survey query tools, and prioritization of design improvements. In addition, the assessment analysts would gain a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the MRIP data. Finally, although this communication will largely continue to be peer-to-peer, the MRIP should seek opportunities to engage assessment analysts in group situations wherever possible.

Partners Who Establish Catch Limits

Since the 2006 report, the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization assigned specific responsibility to the SSCs of each regional management council to set ABCs for management species.² Because they are required to allow for scientific uncertainty in developing their catch recommendations, the SSCs have become an important new user of MRIP information. More so than assessments analysts, who may need to limit the uncertainty in catch estimates to an arbitrary low figure for analytic purposes (e.g., 5 percent for red snapper in SEDAR, 2013; Boreman, 2016), the SSCs must fully consider the uncertainty in catch and catch per unit effort (CPUE) estimates. According to presentations to the committee (Boreman, 2016; Dick, 2016), engagement of the SSCs by the MRIP is in the early stages

___________________

² Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, 16 U.S.C. § 1852(g).

and requires increased emphasis. Groups with responsibilities similar to those of the SSCs also exist within the fishery commissions and sometimes within individual states (Beal, 2016). These groups would also benefit from improved communication with the MRIP.

The bodies that subsequently establish ACLs and ACTs must account for management uncertainty rather than scientific uncertainty. Here, too, improvements in how the MRIP communicates with these bodies would be helpful in aligning the understanding of recreational fisheries with the reality of managing them.

Finally, there is a separate category of data users that regulate transboundary resources, for example, the Pacific Salmon Commission and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). For these bodies, historical transmission of recreational catch data for stock assessment purposes has been through state agencies. Information transfer from the MRIP to these bodies has not occurred for two reasons. First, the major source of information for recreational catch of these species has been the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which has not traditionally participated in the MRIP. Second, the IPHC does not itself conduct any in-season management of recreational halibut catch limits; instead, it relies on agencies of the contracting parties for such management.

Partners Who Set and Enforce Catch Limits

Based on the evidence presented to the committee, the biggest single challenge confronting the MRIP is the use of its data in the management arena—specifically in implementing catch limits (Figure 1.2). This is a new requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. The MRIP collects data at specific sites and times through complex surveys that collectively produce estimates of fishing effort and CPUE. As outlined in Chapter 2, these data collected at specific places and times are aggregated into broader spatial areas and into 2-month waves (Box 2.2). Moreover, for most stock assessment purposes, these data are further aggregated to annual estimates for a single region. For this application of the MRIP, the effects of lags in data entry, data processing, quality assurance and quality control procedures, and reporting inherent in this aggregation are relatively minor, because data used for assessments are typically from the previous complete fishing year (Sylvia et al., 2016). However, in sharp contrast, when MRIP data are used to enforce catch limits, inferences are made for limited spatial areas (e.g., states) and at very specific times (e.g., on what day the ACT was or will be reached). This creates a tension in the fisheries management process in which a survey designed for one purpose is being used for another purpose, for which its design may not be optimal. Moreover, because of the need for regional management councils to avoid overfishing, the uncertainties associated with catch estimates become of critical importance—possibly leading to fisheries closures long before the point

estimate is reached to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded (Baum, 2016). Regional managers also expressed frustration over the timeliness of MRIP estimates for implementing catch limits—particularly when fisheries are pulsed as is the case for many recreational fisheries (Carmichael and Duval, 2016; Crabtree, 2016). There was also concern expressed, and perhaps a lack of understanding, over the estimates of uncertainty (proportional standard errors) that accompany the individual catch estimates (Carmichael and Duval, 2016; Crabtree, 2016).

In general, the committee found that communication challenges continue to exist regarding data users (Baum, 2016; Boreman, 2016; Crabtree, 2016). For example, perceptions of poor communication in the Gulf have generated support for development of a Regional MRIP Communications Committee within the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Council (GSMFC) RecFIN structure, to be populated by a GSMFC staff member plus representatives from each of the five Gulf states.

COMMUNICATION WITH AFFECTED USERS

Effective communication with affected users is clearly essential to ensure maximal cooperation with MRIP survey instruments, compliance with the fishing regulations that are subsequently derived from MRIP estimates, and support for the MRIP program overall. Through oral presentations (Carmichael and Duval, 2016; Crabtree, 2016; Martin et al., 2016; Mumford, 2016) and written submissions, the committee heard that there remains scope for substantial improvements in communications about the MRIP generally, and its role in the overall setting of catch limits and in enforcing catch limits specifically.

Recreational Anglers

The MRIP has indicated that it expects most of the effort to communicate with anglers will be conducted through its state and regional partners (Sharpe and Bard, 2016). Whether it works through partners or directly, a major issue for anglers is the credibility of the MRIP data-gathering process and the data themselves. The most common issues heard by the committee were that many anglers have rarely, if ever, been surveyed, that anglers wonder why the APAIS is conducted at times and places where the fishing is poor or there are few anglers, and that the data reported by the MRIP do not conform to their individual experiences (e.g., Sharpe and Bard, 2016). Anglers also shared that they are catching a lot of fish but that the MRIP is reporting low catch rates, or vice versa. Many possible reasons for these impressions exist—some of which can be explained from a first-principles understanding of the survey. For example, a statistically valid sample of millions of anglers will likely still miss most of the anglers who are actually fishing, giving them the false impression that the survey is inadequate. In addition, an angler’s individual experiences might not match the collective experience of all anglers, leading to the perception that the MRIP data missed that individual angler’s

experience. Although these and other fundamental concerns over the design and implementation of the MRIP may be easily explained, they are real perceptions by recreational anglers that can only be addressed by proactive engagement of these key stakeholders on multiple fronts. The committee heard that communication shortcomings have exacerbated these concerns to the point where some stakeholders question the value of the MRIP in ensuring sustainable management of the nation’s marine living resources (Carmichael and Duval, 2016; Martin et al., 2016). Addressing these concerns is a primary concern. The committee recognizes that an approach coordinated with the states may be most successful in building trust and aligning the understanding of these stakeholders with the reality of how the MRIP is deployed. However, the MRIP must play a leading role in providing the vision and implementation strategies that partners can follow to ensure that affected users regain confidence in the MRIP’s data products.

For-Hire Sector

The for-hire sector, which includes charter boats, headboats, and guided small boats (e.g., flats and skiffs), is in effect a commercial sector, but unlike other commercial fisheries it makes its profits from charging clients rather than selling fish themselves. Many in the for-hire sector hold strong views regarding fisheries management in general, and on the MRIP and its predecessor MRFSS in particular. For-hire captains tend to be better informed about fisheries and fisheries management issues than individual anglers, and often (but not always) are willing to cooperate in data collection. Many are directly involved in the fisheries management process because fishing is not recreation for them, but their livelihoods. They tend to belong to associations, and they tend to have a broader view of their sectors of recreational fisheries than do individual anglers.

The potential for for-hire captains to be fully cooperating partners is likely greater than that for individual anglers. These partners are more likely to be motivated to actively seek out communications from the MRIP. Although the issues of concern to them are similar to those of individual recreational anglers, they often have different experiences and knowledge bases. As a result, the style and content of MRIP communication to this sector should differ from that targeting individual anglers. Currently, the MRIP has communication products aimed directly at this group (e.g., MRIP Angler Catch Surveys: Information for Marinas and For-Hire Operators³). These directed communication efforts should be continued because of both the direct benefits from an engaged for-hire sector and the indirect benefits from the operators’ interactions with clients. Furthermore, the MRIP should provide the for-hire captains with a method to review their own data submittals to provide further quality assurance of these data. The committee recognizes that the

___________________

³ See http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/recreational/pdf/FINAL-2016-Marina-Charter-BoatHandout.pdf.

MRIP must follow federal regulations to maintain data privacy and anonymity. The committee also recognizes that this additional step for data submittal would assuage concerns of an important fishing sector about the quality and accuracy of their own data.

The for-hire sector expressed concerns to the committee about delays in adopting self-reporting of catch through mobile or web-enabled devices (e.g., Brennan, 2016). As noted in Chapter 4, there can be serious statistical design issues for self-reporting, whether by individual anglers or charter captains, related to avidity, reporting bias, and representativeness of reporting that must be addressed. However, the obvious advantages, including timeliness, auditing, and gaining of longitudinal data on variation and characteristics of catch, could improve the management process. Therefore, the committee encourages the MRIP to address the statistical issues associated with self-reported data. Some pilot programs are being conducted to evaluate the feasibility of such options, but the pressure from stakeholders to adopt self-reporting systems can be expected to increase. From a communications viewpoint, this pressure can be mitigated by ensuring that materials that explain the statistical issues associated with self-reported data are a priority in the MRIP communication plan. Though the for-hire sector has expressed a particular interest in the implantation of electronic self-reporting options, individual anglers may also benefit from this material.

Other Recreational Fishing Businesses

Relevant businesses include marinas, bait and tackle and fly-fishing shops, boat-rental operations, fishing piers, general sporting-goods stores, local grocery stores and restaurants, and others. The degree of interest in the MRIP and the potential for involvement as partners both vary depending on the degree to which businesses are directly involved in recreational fishing. Thus, marinas and tackle stores are likely to be more involved than grocery stores and restaurants. However, leveraging of the potential of these commercial operators will require directly tailored communication products.

COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

The MRIP communication strategies continue to evolve. As this occurs, the committee suggests that it will be important to distinguish between passive and interactive communication activities. Passive and one-way activities involve the passing of information from one entity to another and take the form of such media as newsletters, magazines, posters, pamphlets, and websites, to name a few. Because this mode of communication relies on people choosing to engage with the MRIP, it necessitates that communication materials be visually appealing, clearly written, and devoid of jargon. This is particularly important in the case of the MRIP, given the need to convey rather complex scientific and statistical informa-

tion to a generally nonscientific constituency. The materials must be written and presented in a way that piques interest and increases trust in the overall enterprise. Nonetheless, although good, clear passive communications are an essential part of any communications plan, they are not sufficient.

The concepts of active communication and outreach are used almost synonymously throughout the MRIP Communications Plan. The committee does not attempt to distinguish between the concepts here, but instead discusses aspects of communication and outreach that appear to be critically important, whatever they are called. Interactive communications have the intent of reaching a broader audience using communication methods that are two-way and involve more give and take. Activities of this form include presentations at public events, workshops, and booths at recreational fishing shows, to name a few. In addition, interactive communications are often realized by including interactive features on a website. Thus, for example, the website could invite users to share their thoughts, offer opportunities to partner in data collection, offer opportunities to provide input about the communications plan and other aspects of the MRIP, and so on. The MRIP Communications Plan contains elements of both one-way and two-way communication, but there is little in the way of specifics, particularly with respect to two-way communication. As stated earlier in this chapter, the plan focuses primarily on communication from the MRIP to partners and stakeholders with little to no discussion of efforts regarding collaboration, feedback, and input from the various audiences and methods for engaging with partners and stakeholders more interactively.

Four principal modes of communication can be recognized within the MRIP Communications Plan (NMFS, 2016b).

The MRIP Website

The MRIP website (http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/index, also reachable at http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov) is well laid out, reasonably easy to navigate, and extremely informative. It provides information on survey methods, fishery data collected through the MRIP, documentation, and other aspects of the program. The material is presented under major categories, each with its own drop-down menu. The committee judges the information to be detailed and likely accessible to any interested person. NMFS appears to be developing audience-specific navigation pathways on the website to help users find information at the appropriate level of technical detail. As noted above, the committee also encourages the MRIP to use web-based technologies to stimulate active, two-way communication on its website.

The committee recognizes that the surveys and communication materials have gone through many rounds of changes and improvements. However, the committee has struggled to locate detailed information on the technical basis for current estimations and procedures. This information may not be sought by all

audiences, but groups interested in the technical details of the survey (e.g., state partners, the FINs, ACCSP, as well as some individual anglers and angler groups) would likely benefit from ready access to this information. It also would be helpful to include the date it was produced and whether there is a more recent version currently in use. Thorough documentation of the statistical practices would support continued evaluation and improvements to the system.

The MRIP Newscast

The MRIP Newscast newsletter has been produced since 2008 and is available electronically for interested stakeholders. The Newscast provides a range of topical information related to the MRIP and recreational fisheries generally. The standard and information content of the newsletter is high. Because the newsletter is delivered electronically, the CET plans to use the web (e.g., number of opens, click-through rates, points of origin) to understand and presumably target its audience better (Sharp and Bard, 2016).

Engaging Data-Collection Partners and Data Users

A component of the 2016 MRIP Communications Plan (NMFS, 2016b) calls for engagement of data-collection partners and data users at Council and Commission meetings to build understanding of the changes and improvements to the MRIP. As mainly data-collection partners and constituents who use the MRIP data to enforce ACLs and ACTs, these are appropriate audiences to engage. Details as to how this engagement will occur were largely lacking, and engagement of constituents who use the data to generate reference points and ABCs was not described.

Print and Social Media Products

The 2016 Communications Plan proposes to continue to produce both traditional and social media products to explain forthcoming changes to the MRIP, but few details were provided.

STAFFING THE MRIP CET

The 2016 Communications Plan identifies a two-tiered structure (NMFS, 2016b; Sharpe and Bard, 2016) involving a national team and regional teams. The national team will consist of the MRIP communication staff (two full-time equivalents) and representatives from other National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration offices and regional interstate commissions. Similarly, regional teams will consist of representatives from the states, councils and commissions, and other key regional partners. This structure appears a reasonable one to develop and implement a communication plan that emphasizes regional connec-

tions and differences (NMFS, 2016b). The extent to which the regional teams have been created is unclear.

The committee recognizes the challenge with undertaking the broad portfolio of communications discussed in the 2016 Communications Plan with current staff. The MRIP has made excellent use of statistical consultants to respond to the previous NRC review of recreational fishery surveys. The MRIP has already begun to use a communications consulting firm. Further benefits may accrue if the MRIP works more closely with external communication professionals to help them develop and implement their communication plan moving forward.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion: Fisheries management in state and federal waters is a complex, multidisciplinary, multistakeholder process. Communications about the MRIP must be undertaken in the context of the entire fisheries management process. The MRIP Communications Plan alone cannot be expected to explain to stakeholders all the complexities of fisheries management. The MRIP Communications Plan cannot and should not be expected to communicate to all audiences the comprehensive nature of fisheries management.

Recommendation: NMFS should develop and lead an integrated communications strategy involving state and federal partners to explain and seek support for the management of the nation’s fisheries within which the role of the MRIP is clearly defined. The MRIP Communications Plan should be an element—albeit for species in which removals are dominated by recreational fisheries, an essential component—of such a broader, integrated overall communications plan.

Conclusion: The MRIP Communications Plan lacks a clear needs analysis and an implementation plan. The plan identifies broadly what the MRIP wishes to achieve, but there is little discussion of specific and practical matters that the MRIP and its predecessor, the MRFSS, from which the MRIP must have learned. The plan lacks details about specific and practical matters such as where to place information, what outlets to use for different kinds of information (e.g., newspapers, angling magazines, local television, tackle shops), and how to ascertain what MRIP users and those affected by the MRIP think of the plan and what they would like to learn more about. It is not enough to produce a detailed, extensive, and informative website, no matter how good that website might be.

Recommendation: The MRIP should further develop its communications plan to include a specific needs analysis and develop a specific and detailed implementation plan. Greater emphasis should be placed on interactive (two-way) communication, which may involve spending time in the field with anglers, than is currently in the plan.

Conclusion: The MRIP Communications Plan identifies a hierarchical structure with both national and regional teams. This seems appropriate given the regional-state and federal nature of the MRIP partnership. In response to concerns regarding statistical aspects of the survey expressed by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006), the MRIP established a large team of statistical experts, both in-house and as consultants, to help with the redesign of its sampling methods, analyses, and surveys. A similarly experienced team of experts has not been established to support the MRIP communication and outreach activities.

Recommendation: The MRIP’s success depends to a large degree on clear, accurate, and timely communications, and on engaging all the various stakeholder groups, including anglers. Therefore, whether as permanent full-time equivalents or as consultants, the MRIP should consider expanding its communications team to support the required needs analysis and implementation plans identified by the committee. One way of achieving this expansion would be to partner with national and regional organizations, such as the Sea Grant colleges, that already have communications capacity and expertise and could identify opinion leaders and constituencies.

Conclusion: The MRIP has made significant improvements to its communications and outreach strategy since the National Research Council’s 2006 report. Perhaps the most significant improvements have been to its website and communications with some of its data-collection partners, such as the regional interstate marine fishery commissions and state fishery agencies. Its communications with some other groups, most notably anglers, but also some stock-assessment and management groups, have been less successful. Significant communications challenges remain unaddressed.

Conclusion: There is a need for increased and regular coordination and communication with regional fishery management councils and their scientific and statistical committees, and with the regional stock assessment programs. This increased communication would provide opportunities for identifying and addressing data needs for stock assessment and management at the regional level.

Recommendation: NMFS should develop a system for indexing and cross-referencing documentation of survey methods and statistical analysis. Because of the evolving nature of the program that includes many different elements, maintaining the organization of the technical documents is a challenge. NMFS should increase its efforts to ensure that documentation includes key pieces of information. For example, NMFS should ensure that the statistical basis for the stratified and total estimates of total effort, catch per unit effort, and their variances for all fisheries and areas are readily available and consistent among current documents.

Recommendation: The MRIP should take a more active role in communicating with anglers, whether through its partners or through its own efforts. The committee recognizes that the MRIP defers to the states and regions in communications with anglers. Furthermore, the committee recognizes that an approach coordinated with the states may be most successful in building trust and aligning the understanding of these stakeholders with the reality of how the MRIP is deployed. However, the MRIP should play a leading role in providing the vision and implementation strategies that partners can follow.

Recommendation: The MRIP should provide the for-hire captains with a method to review their own data submittals to provide further quality assurance of these data. The committee recognizes that the MRIP must follow federal regulations to maintain data privacy and anonymity. The committee also recognizes that this additional step for data submittal would assuage concerns of an important fishing sector about the quality and accuracy of their own data.

This page intentionally left blank.