6
Degree of Coordination
INTRODUCTION
The multijurisdictional nature of marine fisheries management, which in most regions of the country involves not only the regional fisheries management councils but also multiple states and institutions, presents myriad coordination challenges to data collection, data management, stock assessment, and ultimately fisheries management. To collect recreational fisheries data that meet required standards for assessment and management in this complex, multijurisdictional system, Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) surveys are conducted in cooperation with a variety of regional and state agencies and with the assistance of other institutional partners. The National Research Council’s (NRC’s) 2006 report recommended that a greater degree of standardization among state surveys, and between state surveys and the central Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), should be achieved. Implicit in this recommendation is the need for a greater degree of cooperation and coordination among the managers of the various surveys. This chapter evaluates whether the degree of coordination among federal, state, and territorial survey programs conducted under the MRIP umbrella is sufficient to support implementation of survey methodologies that address the diversity of regional and state needs while maintaining a clear, cohesive perspective on the nation’s marine recreational fisheries (Task 4 of the committee’s statement of task).
UNIQUE NEEDS AT REGIONAL AND STATE LEVELS
U.S. marine recreational fisheries show wide-ranging differences across regions and often within regions. These differences can be attributed to inter--
regional variability of several factors, including the length and shape of the coastline and other ocean features, biogeographic patterns in species diversity, and socioeconomic and demographic factors. For example, the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions have high species diversity, as well as broad, shallow continental shelves and several estuaries, which help to explain their dominance in the magnitude of marine recreational fishing trips nationwide.
The relative importance of individual recreational fishing modes (i.e., private/rental boat, shore-based, and charter/for-hire) also varies widely among U.S. regions. Thus, some regions and states can have survey needs that are specific to stocks. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, red snapper have relatively short recreational fishing seasons, which present significant challenges to the MRIP, both in estimating catch and effort as well as in monitoring landings. Other stocks may represent “rare-event species” that occur sporadically in the catch and are not properly estimated by the standard MRIP survey approach. In some cases, the proportions of fishing modes may vary significantly across a region. For example, areas with marked differences in the proportion of private anglers versus the charter/for-hire sector require the implementation of more customized MRIP sampling draws so that data collection across the region can reflect these intra-regional differences. Accommodating these regional differences requires the MRIP to adopt a regional implementation approach that is flexible enough to address these unique regional and state needs while maintaining the standardization and national-level cohesion recommended by the 2006 NRC report.
HAS THE MRIP BEEN ADDRESSING REGIONAL AND STATE NEEDS?
Despite the lingering public perception of a centralized, top-down implementation approach the MRIP has, by and large, been responsive to regional and state needs. The 2015-2016 MRIP Implementation Plan Update1 describes the program as a collaborative, multi-institutional effort focused on developing and implementing a system of surveys that provides the best possible scientific information for use in the management of the nation’s marine recreational fisheries. The plan also states that, given the dynamic nature of fisheries and fisheries management practices, the MRIP must be
- Flexible enough to be updated, modified, expanded, or contracted to meet specific regional or local informational needs;
- Robust enough to provide the most precise and least biased information possible;
___________________
1 See http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/recreational/pdf/FINAL-updated-implementationplan-3.22.16.pdf.
- National in scope but regionally specific, recognizing that each region has unique informational needs and data-collection issues; and
- Inclusive and transparent, providing scientists, managers, and stakeholders an opportunity to participate in its development and use.
Our review of the MRIP Implementation Plan, as well as input from and discussions with multiple MRIP regional and state partners, indicate the program has made robust progress in achieving these goals. In particular, the MRIP has made great progress in expanding and strengthening the coordination and provision of logistical and technical support to state partners through regional Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions and their associated Fisheries Information Networks (FINs), as well as the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP). Development, coordination, and implementation of regional- and state-specific recreational fisheries surveys conducted under the MRIP umbrella have been largely accomplished through the regional FINs and the ACCSP, often through the establishment of MRIP Regional Implementation Teams. Each Regional Implementation Team is responsible for identifying regional needs and developing a plan to implement improved data-collection designs that address both regional and national needs. Regional MRIP Implementation Plans, which are reviewed and approved by the MRIP Operations Team and the Executive Steering Committee, provide estimated implementation costs and attempt to reach consensus among regional partners with respect to regional needs and implementation priorities.
The growth in the number of state fish and wildlife agencies that conduct the APAIS survey as contractors under MRIP protocols has enhanced coordination between the MRIP and the states as well as expanded opportunities to adjust the survey to address specific regional and state needs. For example, during the past several years, the MRIP and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, working closely with the five Gulf of Mexico states, conducted a series of workshops that led to the development and implementation of coordinated pilot studies to evaluate several survey methodologies and approaches for estimating catch and effort for Gulf red snapper, a fishery characterized by short federal fishing seasons (e.g., in 2016 the season was 9 days for private anglers and 46 days for the charter/for-hire sector) and unlikely to be properly sampled by the standard MRIP survey protocols. Likewise, territorial governments conduct recreational fishing surveys in the Western Pacific Territories with support from the Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. In Hawaii and Puerto Rico, the MRIP has coordinated with the state fish and wildlife agencies to develop an enhanced survey design to meet the unique needs of the Caribbean Region and island fisheries.
Challenges remain, however. Some state needs—e.g., development and implementation of recreational fisheries catch and effort estimates at small spatial
scales to assess or manage state-managed species, or in-season monitoring of compliance with Annual Catch Limits (ACLs)—have been difficult to address. This is particularly true when these needs require a disproportionate increase in sampling effort and become cost prohibitive, or are so specialized (i.e., focused on addressing nontraditional, very specific needs) that their integration into the standard MRIP may affect general survey implementation or compromise the estimation process. For example, fish and wildlife agencies in Alaska and Texas administer marine recreational fishing surveys outside of the MRIP framework, because they judge (1) that the MRIP survey—or family of surveys—cannot provide the estimates of recreational fisheries catch and effort that are needed for assessment and management at smaller temporal and spatial scales; (2) the MRIP surveys cannot address some unique, highly specialized fisheries; or (3) the existing pre-MRFSS/MRIP surveys already in place were sufficient to meet their data needs and implementation of a completely new survey protocol was unnecessary. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has also been implementing an independent saltwater recreational fisheries survey called LA Creel2 since 2013. However, they have coordinated with MRIP consultants since then and have applied for MRIP certification, with the objective of ensuring that LA Creel data are compatible with the MRIP and other regional data for stock assessment and management purposes.
However, the committee highlights the importance for alternative surveys, both under the auspices of the MRIP and those of individual states, to be statistically sound. It became apparent during some public testimony to the committee and the committee’s internal review that surveys in some areas are not designed to provide estimates with either the precision assumed or the unbiased nature presumed. As such, management of broad-ranging species may be compromised.
Programs in different parts of the country are in different stages of evolution. For example, the MRIP has been working with the Pacific Coast states (Washington, Oregon, and California) to evaluate and test modified survey methodologies that can lead to MRIP certification. However, continued coordination, technical support, and integration of Pacific Coast state surveys into the MRIP framework are warranted. Despite noticeable progress on regional coordination, Pacific Coast states still perceive the MRIP as only a partial solution to their long-term recreational data-collection needs. Furthermore, the base funding from the MRIP to the Pacific Coast states has been flat for many years, representing less than 50 percent of the overall costs of their marine recreational angling surveys. Flat or reduced funding has made implementation of recommended survey improvements difficult and in some cases impossible for the states to accomplish. If this problem persists, any meaningful gains to the states’ sampling program through the MRIP certification process are potentially at risk.
___________________
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the MRIP was developed primarily to provide estimates of recreational fishing catch and effort for fisheries stock assessment and management at the regional scale (i.e., at the Regional Fisheries Management Council and Interstate Marine Fisheries Commission jurisdictional scales). Development of estimates at smaller geographic scales, although in many cases possible and warranted, might require additional investments at the state or local levels. It is our perception that the increased provision of logistical and technical support by the MRIP, as well as the MRIP certification process, facilitate better coordination and integration of new, more specialized surveys into the MRIP survey framework and that regional and state partners are, by and large, satisfied with the level of support and coordination provided.
OTHER SURVEY PROGRAMS
The NMFS, states, and territorial survey programs conduct several more specialized surveys that fall outside of the MRIP umbrella but require close coordination with the MRIP. This is particularly true when these other surveys (1) address specific fisheries species not likely to be well sampled by the MRIP, (2) are implemented in states where the MRIP does not operate, or (3) are critical complementary components to the MRIP because they focus on specific recreational fisheries sectors. The sections below provide a brief description of these surveys and a discussion of their coordination with the MRIP aimed at providing a clear, national perspective on marine recreational fisheries.
Large Pelagics Survey
Large pelagic and highly migratory species (HMS) such as tunas, billfishes, and some sharks present a special challenge for recreational fisheries surveys. Many of these species are part of “rare event” or “pulse” fisheries—that is, they are caught on a small proportion of all fishing trips and their activity often happens in bursts, as opposed to over a longer season. This necessitates the use of a separate, dedicated survey that both focuses on the characteristics of large pelagic and HMS fisheries and coordinates with the MRIP. On the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Virginia, NMFS uses the Large Pelagics Survey (LPS) to measure the total recreational catch of these species. The LPS includes two complementary survey components. The Large Pelagics Intercept Survey interviews randomly selected anglers and for-hire captains returning from fishing trips targeting large pelagic fishes and measures average catch per trip, average size of kept fish, and number of fish released alive. The Large Pelagics Telephone Survey interviews randomly selected recreational anglers and for-hire captains who hold permits to fish for HMS. It produces the estimates of fishing effort, or the total number of trips taken for large pelagic species during a given time period. Additional biological information is gathered through the Large Pelagics Biological Survey.
This supplemental dockside survey is used primarily for recreationally landed bluefin tuna, targeting both private and for-hire boats. The survey collects length, weight, and body part samples for use by scientists in studies of fish populations and stock assessments. NMFS administers all of these surveys, with input from the HMS Advisory Panel to the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries and under close coordination and oversight by the MRIP.
Southeast Headboat Survey
The Southeast Headboat Survey is a logbook and port sampling program designed and operated by NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort Laboratory, North Carolina. It includes monthly logbook submission of trip-level reports of marine recreational fishing on headboats that target reef fishes and a dockside biological data-collection program for targeted species. The MRIP has supported several pilot projects to improve the documentation and estimation for this program, and it is currently coordinating a pilot test for an electronic data-capture platform for headboat logbook data submission.
Alaska
Four programs funded and fielded by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Sport Fish, provide the recreational fishing catch and effort data, and biological data (age, size, and sex composition), necessary to support the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and NMFS (Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Alaska Region) for federal and international management, primarily of halibut and groundfish. All management of recreational salmon fishing in Alaska is delegated to the state of Alaska through the NPFMC and Pacific Salmon Treaty authorities and regulatory processes.
The U.S.-Canada International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) is responsible for conservation of halibut. Harvest biomass and biological characteristics of Pacific halibut by the recreational sector in Alaska and the Pacific Coast are used by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, NPFMC, and IPHC to assess the coast-wide abundance of Pacific halibut and to allocate Pacific halibut harvests between the recreational for-hire and commercial sectors in IPHC areas 2C and 3A in Alaska and to all users on the Pacific Coast. Independent anglers in Alaska are subject to less restrictive individual angler catch measures, as well as the lack of total catch restriction. The catch and biological data are transmitted to the IPHC each October in the form of a memo that is incorporated into the halibut stock assessment and the Fishery Removals section of the Report of Assessment and Research Activity, as well as to the NPFMC in the form of an oral report and accompanying tables.
Data on harvest biomass and release mortality biomass of demersal shelf rockfish (DSRs) reported by the recreational fishery in the Outside District of
southeast Alaska are integrated into the stock assessment of DSRs in this area. These data are transmitted via email to the ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division each October for development of the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report for this stock.
The ADF&G salmon surveys not only provide salmon catch, effort, and biological data, but also produce data on recovery of coded-wire tags for estimating hatchery and wild stock contributions of salmon.
Alaska has not traditionally participated in MRFSS or MRIP activities. In large measure, this is because of a perception that management of resources in this area was restricted to concerns solely within the state and because the methodology used to estimate recreational catch has been well developed for some time (see Mills, 1979; Mills et al., 1986). The methodology used is similar to that of the MRIP—a mail survey to estimate fishing effort and an intercept survey for catch per unit effort. Enhancements over time have included mandatory charter logbook regulations and electronic reporting. In this sense, the Alaska program anticipated the methodology currently used by the MRIP. The committee believes that examination of Alaska’s estimation methodology by the MRIP’s statistical consultants would be of value, particularly concerning the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS). Staff from the MRIP and ADF&G are in contact to harmonize recreational catch accounting between the two bodies.
Texas
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) manages and administers the Texas Marine Sport Harvest Monitoring Program, which includes an access-point angler intercept survey and roving counts of boats and trailers to produce estimates of private and charter boat fishing landings of finfishes. The year runs in two 6-month seasons from May 15 to May 14, and estimates are produced for each of the two 6-month periods. Annual estimates are available 6 months after year end.
The TPWD survey began 5 years before the MRFSS and was never integrated into the MRFSS/MRIP survey framework. Survey data and estimates are provided to the Gulf RecFIN database and are available to data users upon request, but they are not loaded into the regional website for data queries of marine recreational fishing catch and effort.
Unfortunately, no comparison of results between the Texas survey and the MRIP exist. Texas chose not to become part of MRFSS/MRIP because its survey was already in place when the MRFSS started, it prefers roving counts over telephone surveys for effort estimation, and its survey allows bay-specific estimates that can be used for assessment and management of state-managed species.
A full review of the Texas Marine Sport Harvest Monitoring Program is beyond the scope of this report. However, based on a presentation to the committee about the survey and on discussions with regional partners and stakeholders it is
questionable whether the estimates produced by Texas are comparable to those of the MRIP. At the very least, it is highly advisable that the Texas survey be reviewed by an independent panel so that its applicability to regional fisheries assessment and management can be objectively assessed.
HUMAN DIMENSIONS
The 2006 NRC review of recreational survey methods (NRC, 2006) paid considerable attention to examining human dimension aspects of marine recreational surveys and data. That report recommended, among other things, that an independent national trip survey to support social and economic research and the continuation of add-on surveys should be developed, but designed in a way that recognizes the differences between socioeconomic and biological data to better meet management and data needs. There is a clear need for human dimension data such as demographics, angler attitudes and perceptions, expenditures, and motivations. Discussion of an independent survey to support human dimension research falls beyond the scope of this report. Human dimension add-on surveys could introduce further data-collection challenges related to such things as increased respondent burden, increased nonresponse, and item nonresponse rates that might impact stock assessment accuracy and validity. Therefore, such add-on surveys require careful consideration and, if included, should be designed to minimize data-collection problems, while meeting the need for human dimension data. Expanding the survey should be considered at length keeping in mind that such an expansion could threaten the potential reliability and validity of both types of data (e.g., effort and human dimensions). Given these challenges, further research would be needed to explore aspects of add-on survey design that will adequately address these potential issues.
CONTINUED NEED FOR A “NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE” (CONSISTENT AND COMPARABLE DATA)
Despite a deliberate focus on implementing an approach that incorporates the flexibility required to address regional and state needs, the MRIP seems to have been conscious of the overarching need for a “national perspective” for the nation’s recreational fisheries surveys. Such a national view is explicitly called for in the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Sec. 301(a)). National standards ensure consistently high data quality that can be uniformly trusted, thereby ensuring the provision for equity among states. However, regional implementation ensures that the specific data needs of different parts of the country, each with its unique fisheries, management concerns, and priorities, can be effectively and efficiently met. As the MRIP team certifies new methods, it works with regional and state partners and stakeholders to determine how best to incorporate these methods into practice at
the local level. Specifically, priority for the MRIP’s support for the development and implementation of regional or state surveys is based upon the extent to which surveys, alone or in combination, can address the following criteria:
- Use MRIP-certified survey designs or methodologies;
- Achieve MRIP standards for survey coverage and basic data elements, as well as any future standards adopted by the program;
- Provide recreational catch estimates for fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act—including Atlantic Highly Migratory Species—or jointly by the states and NMFS that are sufficient to
- Contribute to reliable stock assessments;
- Support development of Acceptable Biological Catch recommendations, ACLs, and accountability measures that meet Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act requirements;
- Support development of recreational regulations that minimize triggering of accountability measures; and
- Allow reasonably precise tracking of recreational catch against ACLs.
Therefore, this national perspective is reflected in the application of main guiding principles to survey implementation and estimation procedures. In other words, surveys that address regional and state needs might have variances or adjustments warranted by differences in regional stocks or particular fisheries, but they are structured with the same component parts (i.e., APAIS + FES) and must be based on statistically valid sampling protocols and robust estimation procedures. Adoption of these national standards ensures that, regardless of the specific decisions made by each region with respect to data-collection priorities and implementation, all recreational fisheries survey and estimation methods will withstand a rigorous independent peer review, and the resultant fisheries statistics will meet a baseline (best available science) for quality sufficient for stock assessment and fisheries management. Furthermore, implementation of the “MRIP certification” process (see Chapter 5) for acceptance of regional- or state-specific surveys provides a framework for evaluating whether these regional and state efforts meet the needed standards.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion: The management landscape has changed significantly since the 2006 National Research Council report with the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which mandated catch limits for all managed species. The implementation of Annual Catch Limits together with accountability measures that are enforced if the catch limits are exceeded has created additional tension in many fisheries, but particularly in recreational fisheries. Analysts, managers, and stake-
holders have expressed concerns over the use of data from the MRIP to estimate catch limits and to determine whether they have been exceeded.
Recommendation: Evaluate whether the design of the MRIP for the purposes of stock assessment and determination of stock management reference points is compatible with the needs of in-season management of Annual Catch Limits. If these needs are incompatible, then the evaluation should determine an alternative method for in-season management.
Conclusion: MRIP coordination with regional and state partners has improved substantially since the National Research Council’s 2006 report. In particular, substantial progress has been achieved in expanding and strengthening coordination and provision of financial, logistical, and technical support (including access to consultants) to state partners through regional Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions and their associated Fisheries Information Networks, and the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program. The timeliness of this support could be improved but is dependent on capacity and funding.
Conclusion: Increased communication and coordination with the Regional Fishery Management Councils and their Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) has high potential to provide increased opportunities to identify and address data needs for stock assessment and management at the regional level. Furthermore, closer coordination with the SSCs would provide the MRIP with additional resources for communication and coordination with the councils.
Recommendation: The MRIP should continue and expand its investments to coordinate with, and provide financial, logistical, and technical support to, regional Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions and state partners.
Conclusion: The MRIP has adopted a regional implementation approach that incorporates the flexibility required to address unique regional data needs. Thus, the program has evolved to become a compilation of regionally based data-collection programs and is better prepared to address data needs at regional and state levels. Continued coordination, technical support, and integration of Pacific Coast state surveys (Washington, Oregon, and California) into the MRIP framework are warranted. Despite noticeable progress on regional coordination, Pacific Coast states still perceive the MRIP as only a partial solution to their long-term recreational data-collection needs. Furthermore, flat or reduced funding has made implementation of recommended survey improvements difficult and in some cases impossible for Pacific Coast states to accomplish. If this problem persists, any meaningful gains to the states’ sampling programs through the MRIP certification process are potentially at risk.
Recommendation: The MRIP should continue to support effective communication and coordination with Pacific Coast states. Coordination should be focused not only on continued logistical and technical support for survey improvements and subsequent MRIP certification, but also on better articulation of the benefits of a flexible regional approach to data collection, and interstate survey coordination for broad-scale stock assessment and fisheries management.
Conclusion: The MRIP has continued to maintain a national perspective for development and implementation of recreational fisheries data collection by establishing and maintaining a certification process for acceptance of regional- or state-specific surveys. This certification process provides a framework for evaluating how the regional and state efforts meet the basic MRIP requirements and produce outputs suitable for stock assessment and management advice.
Recommendation: The MRIP should increase efforts to clearly articulate to regional and state partners, as well as anglers and other user groups, the meaning, significance, and importance of the current approach to implement its national perspective on recreational fishing surveys. The MRIP should also be clear that this national approach incorporates the appropriate amount of flexibility required to meet unique regional and state needs. The benefits of a cohesive, integrated, and statistically robust recreational fisheries survey framework to stock assessments and regional fisheries management should be made clear.
