RECREATIONAL

FISHERIES 

MANAGEMENT

The National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Should Develop a 

Comprehensive 

Strategy to Guide Its 

Data Collection Efforts

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 2015

GAO-16-131

United States Government Accountability Office

Accessible Version
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-131, a report to 

congressional requesters

December 2015

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The National Marine Fisheries Service Should 

Develop a Comprehensive Strategy to Guide Its Data 

Collection Efforts

Why GAO Did This Study

Almost 11 million anglers made nearly 

71 million marine recreational fishing 

trips in the continental United States in 

2013. Pressure on many fish stocks 

from fishing has increased demand for 

quality and timely data that can be 

used to assess the status of various 

fish stocks as part of managing marine 

recreational fisheries. The many 

modes of marine recreational fishing—

in which anglers fish from private boats 

or boats with guides, the shoreline, 

private property, and public docks—

make collecting the data needed to 

effectively manage recreational 

fisheries both complex and 

challenging.

GAO was asked to review NMFS’ 

marine recreational fisheries data 

collection program. This report 

examines (1) challenges that have 

been identified with the agency’s data 

collection efforts for managing marine 

recreational fisheries and (2) steps the 

agency has taken to improve data 

collection and challenges that remain. 

GAO reviewed laws, policies, and 

guidance related to federal and state 

recreational fisheries data collection 

methods; reviewed NMFS and other 

documents on recreational fisheries 

data collection; and interviewed a 

nongeneralizable sample of federal 

and state recreational fisheries officials 

and other stakeholders, selected to 

provide geographic representation, 

among other things, to obtain their 

views on NMFS’ data collection efforts. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NMFS develop 

a comprehensive strategy to guide its 

data collection efforts. The agency 

agreed with GAO’s recommendation.

What GAO Found

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of 

Commerce faces several challenges related to fisheries data collection, 

according to reports GAO reviewed and NMFS officials and stakeholders GAO 

interviewed. These challenges include collecting quality recreational fishing data 

that are timely for managing marine recreational fisheries and communicating 

with stakeholders. Regarding the collection of quality data, for example, NMFS 

faces a challenge identifying the universe of anglers from which to collect 

information about their marine recreational fishing activity. NMFS relies in part on 

state registries to identify anglers, but some states exempt certain anglers from 

registering, and therefore NMFS does not have a complete list of recreational 

anglers. NMFS officials and other stakeholders have also identified challenges in 

communicating with stakeholders in collecting recreational fisheries data. For 

example, several stakeholders told GAO that NMFS has not always 

communicated with the public about its activities, creating concerns about a lack 

of transparency regarding NMFS’ fisheries management decisions. Reflecting 

this challenge, in 2014, Louisiana withdrew from the federal fisheries data 

collection program and implemented its own program because of concerns about 

federal recreational fisheries data, according to a Louisiana fisheries official.

NMFS has taken several steps aimed at improving data collection to manage 

marine recreational fisheries and addressing challenges related to 

communicating with stakeholders. For example, to help improve the quality of the 

state data it relies on to identify the universe of anglers, NMFS made 

recommendations to states on improving their recreational angler databases and 

provided funds to the states to support data quality improvement projects, 

according to NMFS documents. NMFS has also taken steps to improve 

communication, including working with Louisiana to perform a side-by-side 

comparison of federal data with Louisiana’s data to determine whether 

Louisiana’s data can be used as an alternative to federal data. However, some 

challenges persist, including challenges in validating data the NMFS collects and 

communicating about upcoming NMFS initiatives. More broadly, the agency does 

not have a comprehensive strategy to guide its efforts to improve recreational 

fisheries data collection. Such a strategy is consistent with the framework of 

leading practices in federal strategic planning, as described in the Government 

Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, Office of Management 

and Budget guidance, and practices GAO has identified. Based on GAO’s 

discussions with NMFS officials and review of NMFS documents, the agency has 

not developed a comprehensive strategy because it has been focused on other 

priorities such as improving its data collection methods. NMFS officials told GAO 

that NMFS recognizes the need to enhance its strategic planning but did not 

provide information about how, or whether, they plan to develop a 

comprehensive strategy. Without a comprehensive strategy that articulates 

NMFS’ goals to improve data collection and methods for measuring progress 

toward the goals, NMFS may have difficulty ensuring that the various steps it is 

taking to improve data collection are prioritized so that the most important steps 

are undertaken first, and it may find it difficult to determine the extent to which 

these steps will help it address the challenges it faces. 

View GAO-16-131. For more information, contact 

Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or 

fennella@gao.gov.
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Background 4

Several Challenges with NMFS’ Fisheries Data Collection Efforts 

Have Been Identified 12

NMFS Has Taken Steps Aimed at Improving Data Collection, but 

Some Challenges Persist and NMFS Does Not Have a 

Comprehensive Strategy to Guide Improvement Efforts 18

Conclusions 29

Recommendation for Executive Action 30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce 36

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

GAO Contact 40

Staff Acknowledgments 40

Appendix IV: Accessible Data 41

Agency Comment Letter 41

Data Tables 45

Figures

Figure 1: Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics and Locations of 

Highest Fishing Activity 5

Figure 2: Key Stakeholders in Marine Recreational Fisheries Data 

Collection and Management 8

Figure 3: Estimating Total Marine Recreational Fisheries Catch 9

Figure 4: Timeline of Key Events in Marine Recreational Fisheries 

Data Collection and Management 12

Figure 5: Timeline of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

Planned Transition to Fishing Effort Survey 20

Figure 6: Examples of Recreational Fisheries Electronic 

Monitoring and Reporting Technologies 21

Figure 7: Timeline of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

Implementation of Red Snapper Specialized Survey 

Methods 23

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Abbreviations

MRIP Marine Recreational Information Program

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Page iii GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 8, 2015

Congressional Requesters

Saltwater recreational fishing in the United States makes significant 

contributions to local and regional economies and is an important social 

activity for individuals, families, and communities. Almost 11 million 

anglers made nearly 71 million marine recreational fishing trips in the 

continental United States in 2013, according to National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) statistics. NMFS, within the Department of Commerce’s 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), acts as a 

steward of living marine resources through science-based conservation 

and management. Much of this work occurs under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which sets forth 

standards for the conservation and management of fisheries resources.1

NMFS collaborates with stakeholders, such as states and interstate 

marine fisheries commissions, primarily through its Marine Recreational 

Information Program (MRIP) to collect and analyze marine recreational

fisheries data. Several states, such as Louisiana and Texas, also manage 

their own marine recreational fisheries data collection programs. In 

addition, NMFS and its partners collect other types of data, such as 

information on commercial fishing activity and data on the total size of fish 

stock populations.2 The various data that are collected and analyzed are 

used to estimate fishing activity, understand fish biology, and determine 

fish stock abundance. This information is used to support the 

development of annual catch limits and other accountability measures to 

prevent overfishing and support rebuilding plans for overfished stocks in 

federal waters.

Pressure on many fish stocks from fishing has increased the demand for 

high-quality and timely data that can be used to assess the status of 

various fish stocks as part of managing marine recreational fisheries. 

 

1Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 

1851(a)(1)-(10).

2A “fish stock” refers to either one species or a complex of comparable species managed 

as an entity in a geographic area. Throughout this report, the term fish stock is used to 

mean one fish species or a fish stock complex.

Letter
However, in contrast to commercial fisheries, which have standard 

mechanisms for data collection, the many modes of marine recreational 

fishing—in which anglers fish from private boats or boats with guides, 

from the shoreline, from private property, and from public docks—make 

collecting the data needed to effectively manage recreational fisheries 

complex and challenging. Designing marine recreational fishing surveys 

that provide high-quality and timely data at an acceptable cost was 

identified as one of several challenges facing NMFS by a 2006 National 

Research Council report on NMFS’ marine recreational fisheries data 

collection methods.

Page 2 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

3

You asked us to examine NMFS’ marine recreational fisheries data 

collection program. This report examines (1) the challenges that have 

been identified with NMFS’ data collection efforts for managing marine 

recreational fisheries and (2) the steps NMFS has taken to improve data 

collection and challenges that remain.

To conduct our work, we reviewed and analyzed relevant laws, agency 

policies, guidance, and other documentation related to fisheries data 

collection, including specific federal and state marine recreational 

fisheries data collection projects. To determine the challenges that have 

been identified with NMFS’ data collection efforts, we first reviewed 

reports and evaluations of NMFS’ data collection programs since 2006, 

including reports from the National Research Council and NMFS, among 

others. We also interviewed officials from NMFS headquarters and 

NMFS’ Northeast, Northwest, and Southeast regional Fisheries Science 

Centers; representatives of the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Councils; officials from the Atlantic, Gulf, and 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commissions; and officials from state 

fisheries agencies in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington. We selected federal and

state agencies and regional organizations to interview based on such 

factors as geographic representation, locations of large volumes of 

recreational fishing, and representation from key data collection and 

management stakeholders. In addition, we interviewed selected marine 

recreational fisheries stakeholders, such as recreational anglers, to 

gather information on recreational fisheries data collection methods, 

 

3National Research Council, Ocean Studies Board, Committee on the Review of 

Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey 

Methods (Washington, D.C.: 2006).
associated challenges, and steps taken to address those challenges. 

These stakeholders represented various geographic locations and 

different recreational fishing sectors. We determined that the selection of 

these entities and individuals was appropriate for our design and 

objectives, and that the selection would generate valid and reliable 

evidence to support our work. The results of our interviews cannot be 

generalized to all stakeholders or data collection activities, but they 

provide examples of different recreational fisheries data collection efforts 

and challenges. Because the NMFS statistical surveys cover a wide 

range of methods, apply to a wide diversity of locations, and often entail 

in-depth technical knowledge about fisheries data collection, we did not 

conduct a technical evaluation of these challenges or assess their 

technical validity.

To determine the steps NMFS has taken to improve data collection and 

challenges that remain, we conducted interviews as described above and 

reviewed NMFS reports and other documents. Specifically, we reviewed 

NMFS’ strategic plans, recreational fisheries planning documents, and 

recreational fisheries data collection program documents. We compared 

this information with the framework of leading practices in federal 

strategic planning contained in the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization 

Act of 2010, and Office of Management and Budget guidance. We also 

compared this information to key practices related to communication we 

identified in previous reports.

Page 3 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

4 Consistent with our approach to the 

previous objective, we did not conduct a technical evaluation of NMFS’

steps to improve data collection or assess the appropriateness of those 

steps in light of the challenges NMFS faces. Appendix I contains a more 

detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to December 2015 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

 

4See GAO, Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy, Interagency Coordination, and 

Operational Improvements Would Bolster Current Efforts, GAO-09-192 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 17, 2009) and Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 

Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 

2003).
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

NMFS’ mission is to act as a steward of the nation’s ocean resources and 

their habitats. This includes responsibility for managing recreational 

fisheries in federal waters. These waters generally include the United 

States Exclusive Economic Zone, which typically begins approximately 3 

geographical miles from land and extends 200 nautical miles from land. 

Coastal states generally maintain responsibility for managing fisheries in 

waters that extend approximately 3 geographical miles from their 

coastlines. The extent of recreational fishing varies by region, with the 

greatest amount of marine recreational fishing taking place in the Gulf of 

Mexico, followed by the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic, according to 

NMFS statistics. Figure 1 shows NMFS statistics about the extent of 

marine recreational fishing activity overall and the locations of the highest 

levels of marine recreational fishing activity.

Page 4 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Background
Figure 1: Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics and Locations of Highest Fishing Activity

Page 5 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

The 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, as amended, governs marine fisheries management in federal 

waters, including both commercial and recreational fishing. In the original 

act of 1976, Congress found that international fishery agreements had not 

been effective in preventing or terminating overfishing. To manage 

fisheries and promote conservation, the act created eight Regional 

Fishery Management Councils, which include representatives from 

member states and NMFS. The act was amended in 1996 to rebuild 
overfished fisheries, protect essential fish habitat, and reduce bycatch,

Page 6 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

5

among other things. The 1996 act included requirements for NMFS and 

the councils to develop fisheries management plans for fish stocks and to 

establish required time frames for rebuilding fish stocks that are 

overfished. A reauthorization of the act was passed in 2006 and 

established further legal requirements to guide fisheries data collection 

and management, including mandates on the use of science-based 

annual catch limits. Under NMFS guidelines, plans should include 

accountability measures to prevent catch from exceeding the annual 

catch limit. These measures can include fishing season closures, 

closures of specific areas, changes in bag limits, or other appropriate 

management controls.

The marine recreational fishing sector is divided between private anglers 

and the for-hire sector. Private anglers primarily access marine 

recreational fisheries by using private boats or by fishing from sites on 

shore. The for-hire sector includes both charter boats and “head boats.”

Charter boats are chartered or contracted by anglers for a fishing trip for a 

flat fee regardless of the number of anglers on the boat.6“Head boats”

are usually large capacity multipassenger vessels that charge each 

angler a per person fee for a fishing trip.

 

5According to the act, bycatch means fish that are harvested in a fishery, but are not sold 

or kept for personal use, and includes economic and regulatory discards. Economic 

discards are fish that are not kept because the harvester does not want them. Regulatory 

discards are fish required by regulation to be released after they are caught, or to be kept 

but not sold. Bycatch does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and 

release fishery management program. For the purposes of this report, we refer to bycatch 

as discards.

6

In addition to the more common six-passenger charter boats, there are small boats that 

carry only one or two anglers (sometimes referred to as “guide boats”) and very large 

multipassenger charter boats.

Recreational Anglers Use Different Modes 

to Fish

Private boats and shoreside

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. | GAO-16-131

Private recreational anglers use private boats 

and sites on shore, such as public docks or 

private boat clubs, to access marine 

recreational fisheries.

For-hire fleet

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. | 

GAO-16-131

Private recreational anglers also rely on the 

for-hire sector, which consists of charter boats 

and “head boats.” Charter boats commonly 

carry six or fewer passengers who purchase 

the services of a boat and crew. “Head boats”

carry more than six passengers, with each 

individual angler paying a fee to go fishing.
NMFS has overall responsibility for collecting data to manage federal 

fisheries. It has several offices involved in fisheries data collection and 

management, including the Office of Science and Technology, six

regional Fisheries Science Centers, and five regional offices. NMFS has 

numerous partners for collecting data to manage recreational fisheries, 

including coastal states and three interstate marine fisheries 

commissions.

Page 7 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

7

In addition, NMFS and these partners collaborate with 

regional fisheries information networks, such as the Gulf Fisheries 

Information Network and the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics 

Program, to collect and manage fisheries data.8 NMFS also collaborates 

with eight Regional Fishery Management Councils that are responsible 

for fisheries conservation and management in specific geographic regions 

of the country. In addition, NMFS collaborates with numerous other 

stakeholders, such as private anglers, charter boat operators, seafood 

dealers, nongovernmental organizations, and recreational fisheries 

associations, to gather input about fisheries data collection programs and 

management. Figure 2 shows key stakeholders involved in recreational 

fisheries data collection.

 

7

In the 1940s, 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. The commissions were originally authorized 

only to make fisheries management recommendations to state officials and to recommend 

coordination among state management efforts. In 1984, the migratory Atlantic striped bass 

crisis prompted legislation that gave the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

some independent regulatory authority over that species. This authority was broadened in 

1993 to encompass other migratory species.

8The regional fisheries information networks 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 engage in cooperative 

programs to collect, aggregate, and manage state and federal fisheries data to support 

fishery managers and associated agencies. The regional networks also serve as liaisons 

for identifying state and regional data needs. 

Entities Involved in 

Recreational Fisheries 

Data Collection
Figure 2: Key Stakeholders in Marine Recreational Fisheries Data Collection and 

Page 8 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Management

NMFS and its stakeholders collect several types of data for use in 

recreational fisheries management. For example, information is collected 

on recreational fishing effort and catch rates. Effort measures the number 

of angler trips, while catch rates measure the average number and size of 

fish, by species, that are brought to shore, caught and used as bait, or 

discarded (i.e., caught but then released alive or dead). These data are 

used to estimate the total recreational fishing catch to determine the 

Collection and Use of 

Recreational Fisheries Data
impact of recreational fishing activity on fish stock mortality and the 

changes that are occurring to the fish stock over time. Figure 3 shows 

how these data are used to estimate total catch.

Page 9 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

9

Figure 3: Estimating Total Marine Recreational Fisheries Catch

According to NMFS documentation, data on catch and discards are 

generally collected through shoreside interviews of anglers at public 

access fishing sites, primarily through NMFS’ MRIP Access Point Angler 

Intercept Survey, which covers the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from 

Louisiana to Maine, or through state survey programs. These data may 

also be collected through the use of onboard observers, typically on 

charter boats or head boats. Data on fishing effort are collected through 

MRIP or state programs, using methods such as phone or mail surveys, 

shoreside interviews, onboard observers, logbooks, boat and boat trailer 

counts, and electronic monitoring or electronic reporting tools. Given the 

involvement of the interstate fisheries commissions and states in data 

collection efforts, methods for collecting data on recreational fishing vary 

among states and regions.

In addition, according to NMFS documentation, biological samples of fish 

specimens are collected for scientific analysis to provide information on 

the health and biology of fish stocks. For example, data are collected on 

the lengths, weights, and ages of fish samples. These samples are often 

 

9NMFS also calculates the catch per unit of effort to provide an index of the relative 

abundance of fish stocks over time in certain locations.
collected during NMFS’ shoreside interviews of recreational anglers or by 

tagging fish to track after they are caught and released. Academic 

programs and cooperative research with the fishing industry are other 

sources of biological sampling data.

In addition to collecting data on marine recreational fisheries, NMFS and 

its stakeholders, such as states, collect other types of data including data 

on commercial fisheries. Unlike recreational fisheries data, however, 

commercial fisheries data are collected through a census of the weight 

and value of all fish species sold to seafood dealers using a network of 

cooperative agreements with states. According to NMFS documentation, 

in some regions, state fishery agencies are the primary collectors of 

commercial fisheries data that they receive from seafood dealers who 

submit periodic reports on the amount and value of the various fish 

species they purchase. In addition, independently from recreational or 

commercial fishing data collection efforts, NMFS and its stakeholders also 

collect information on the abundance of fish stocks and environmental 

conditions in fish habitats, such as seafloors, open ocean water, and 

natural and artificial reefs. These data are used to determine the size, age 

composition, and distribution of fish stocks, and allow NMFS to track the 

total abundance of fish stocks over time. NMFS officials told us NMFS 

relies on its own research vessels or contracted commercial fishing 

vessels to collect abundance data.

NMFS uses these various types of data to conduct fish stock 

assessments that estimate, among other things, the population of fish 

stocks, fish stock productivity, and biological reference points for 

sustainable fisheries. NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management 

Councils in turn use the fish stock assessments to examine the effects of 

fishing activities on the fish stocks and make determinations such as 

whether stocks are overfished and whether overfishing is occurring.

Page 10 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

10

According to NMFS documentation, the data are also used to support 

management decisions, such as setting limits on how many fish can be 

caught annually or determining the need to close a recreational fishery for 

a particular fish stock during an open fishing season, called an in-season 

closure, when annual catch limits are anticipated to be exceeded.

 

10We previously reported on NMFS’ fish stock assessments; see, for example, GAO, Fish 

Stock Assessments: Prioritization and Funding, GAO-14-794R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

19, 2014).
In 2006, the National Research Council issued a report that reviewed 

NMFS’ marine recreational fisheries data collection programs and made 

numerous general and specific recommendations to address 

weaknesses. Among other things, the council recommended the redesign 

of all marine recreational fishing surveys funded by NMFS.

Page 11 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

11 In addition, 

the council recommended that NMFS improve its survey coverage by 

either developing a national registration of all saltwater anglers or by 

using new or existing state saltwater license programs that would provide 

appropriate contact information for all anglers fishing in all marine waters, 

both state and federal. The 2007 reauthorization of the MagnusonStevens Act included requirements for NMFS to take into consideration 

and, to the extent feasible, implement the recommendations in the 

National Research Council report.

Subsequently, in October 2008, NMFS began implementing MRIP, 

managed in NMFS’ Office of Science and Technology, to collect 

recreational fisheries effort and catch data and develop estimates for use 

in fisheries management. MRIP was intended to coordinate collaborative 

efforts among NMFS and its various stakeholders to develop and 

implement an improved recreational fisheries statistics program. MRIP 

consists of a system of regional surveys that provide effort and catch 

statistics for use in the assessment and management of federal 

recreational fisheries. According to NMFS officials, because counting 

every recreational angler or observing every fishing trip is not possible, 

NMFS relies upon statistical sampling to estimate the number of fishing 

trips recreational anglers take and what they catch. The data gathered 

from the regional surveys are compiled to provide regional and national 

estimates. Under MRIP, certain states, including California, Oregon, and 

Washington, have implemented recreational fisheries data collection 

programs funded, in part, by NMFS; these data are also used to inform 

fisheries management. Also, some states have developed and 

implemented other recreational fisheries data collection programs funded, 

in part, through mechanisms such as fee-based fishery programs in those 

states. Figure 4 provides a timeline of key legislative and other events 

related to marine recreational fisheries data collection and management.

 

11This included surveys under NMFS’ Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, 

which was established in 1979 to provide data for estimating the impact of recreational 

fishing.

National Research Council 

Findings and NMFS’

Implementation of MRIP
Figure 4: Timeline of Key Events in Marine Recreational Fisheries Data Collection and Management

Page 12 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Since the 2006 National Research Council report, NMFS and some state 

officials have identified several challenges related to collecting data to 

manage marine recreational fisheries, such as obtaining quality 

recreational fishing data to inform scientific analyses and produce 

credible effort and catch estimates. NMFS and some state officials also 

identified challenges with collecting recreational fisheries data in a timely 

manner to support certain recreational fisheries management decisions. 

In addition, NMFS and some state officials, as well as some other 

stakeholders such as private recreational anglers, identified challenges 

regarding how NMFS communicates with stakeholders about its marine 

recreational fisheries data collection efforts.

Examples of NMFS’ challenges in obtaining quality recreational fishing 

data through MRIP to inform scientific analyses and produce credible 

effort and catch estimates include:

Several Challenges with 

NMFS’ Fisheries Data 

Collection Efforts Have 

Been Identified
· Identifying the universe of recreational anglers. NMFS faces a 

challenge in obtaining complete information on the universe of 

recreational anglers. According to NMFS officials, MRIP created a 

national saltwater angler registry to obtain more complete information 

about recreational anglers. However, this registry does not include 

anglers if they are registered in states bordering the Atlantic Ocean 

and Gulf of Mexico because NMFS granted those states exemptions 

from the national registry.

Page 13 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

12 According to NMFS officials, NMFS relies 

on state angler registries to identify the universe of recreational 

anglers in those exempted states. However, some state angler 

registries offer exemptions from fishing permit requirements, such as 

for individuals under or over certain ages, and NMFS officials noted 

that not all anglers comply with state licensing and registration 

requirements. Therefore, these anglers do not appear on state angler 

registries. As a result, NMFS does not have a complete list of 

recreational anglers.

· Obtaining sufficient coverage in effort surveys. According to some 

state officials, NMFS faces challenges in ensuring that it covers the 

full range of anglers among the participants it selects to participate in 

fishing effort surveys so that they are representative of the overall 

angler population. For example, NMFS has relied on its Coastal 

Household Telephone Survey, which randomly selects participants 

from all potential household telephone numbers in coastal counties, to 

obtain information about shoreside and private boat fishing effort in 

the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast. As a result, the survey does 

not capture recreational anglers from noncoastal states that travel to 

fish in the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic coast, or coastal resident anglers 

in households that do not have a landline phone. NMFS officials 

acknowledged this limitation with the Coastal Household Telephone 

Survey.

· Targeting a representative sample in shoreside surveys.

According to NMFS officials, NMFS faces challenges in collecting 

data on a portion of the recreational fishing sector since it generally 

does not collect data on private property or at private-access fishing 

sites. According to NMFS officials and other governmental 

 

12Section 401(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

requires NMFS to establish a registry program for recreational fishermen. The law 

exempts licensed anglers in states that provide data suitable for NMFS’ use. Under 

Memoranda of Understanding with NMFS, each of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast states are 

providing lists of anglers to NMFS from their saltwater fishing license databases, while 

Pacific Coast states and island territories are providing survey data to NMFS.
stakeholders, this is an issue in states that have many private-access 

sites, such as California and Florida, because there may be a 

significant portion of the recreational fishing sector that is not being 

surveyed. As a result of this limitation, according to NMFS officials 

and some state officials, NMFS relies on untested assumptions about, 

for example, catch and discard rates for anglers that use privateaccess fishing sites to develop recreational catch estimates. However, 

NMFS officials noted that survey data on fishing effort are collected 

from anglers regardless of whether they fish from public or privateaccess fishing sites. In addition, according to one state official, NMFS’

standard protocols for determining when and where to assign 

shoreside observers to conduct interviews may not take into account 

local fishing patterns and, therefore, observers may not be located in 

the right places at the right times to collect the most representative 

data. For example, according to this official, NMFS’ protocols for 

assigning shoreside observers do not account for the length of time 

anglers would typically take to reach federal waters and return from 

their trip. As a result, observers may not be at the shoreside when 

anglers return.

· Obtaining a sufficient number of survey responses and 

biological samples. According to NMFS and some state officials, 

NMFS faces the challenge of collecting a sufficient number of survey 

responses and samples in its effort and catch surveys. For example, 

some NMFS and state officials told us Coastal Household Telephone 

Survey response rates have been declining, and a 2014 report 

prepared for NMFS noted that response rates to the survey had 

“declined considerably” in the previous decade, which could increase 

the potential for bias in the data collected on recreational angler 

fishing effort.

Page 14 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

13 Also, one state official told us he does not believe 

NMFS assigns enough shoreside observers to collect the recreational 

angler catch and discard data needed to develop precise recreational 

catch estimates. In addition, another state official told us that the lack 

of shoreside observers has contributed to an insufficient amount of 

biological samples collected to adequately address scientific needs. 

Consistent with these views, in 2013 NMFS’ Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center identified a need for more fish tissue samples in its 

region to aid in assessing fish stock reproduction.

 

13National Marine Fisheries Service, Development and Testing of Recreational Fishing 

Effort Surveys: Testing a Mail Survey Design, Final Report, July 31, 2014. The report did 

not cite specific response rates.
· Obtaining valid survey responses. According to some state and 

NMFS officials, obtaining valid survey responses can be challenging 

because they depend on anglers’ recollections of prior fishing events. 

NMFS officials told us that the accuracy of self-reported data (i.e., 

data that rely on participants providing responses based on personal 

observations) depends on the angler’s ability to recall events or to 

distinguish between different fish species. However, anglers may not 

be able to accurately recall details about fish they caught and then 

discarded, especially as time elapses or because of limited knowledge 

about fish species, and without independent validation or verification, 

that data may be inaccurate. According to NMFS officials, these 

challenges affect the Coastal Household Telephone Survey because 

the survey asks anglers how many saltwater fishing trips were taken 

in the previous 2 months, but it does not use observers or other 

mechanisms to independently validate and verify this self-reported 

data.

· Obtaining key recreational fisheries data. According to NMFS and 

some state officials, NMFS faces a challenge in collecting complete 

data on discards—that is, fish that are caught but then released—

because of the difficulty of validating and verifying self-reported data 

as previously discussed. In light of this difficulty, Louisiana does not 

collect recreational angler discard data as part of its own recreational 

fisheries data collection program because of concerns about the 

quality of angler self-reported data, according to a state official. Even 

given the uncertainty in identifying the exact amount of discards, the 

number of discards can be substantial—for example, according to 

NMFS statistics, the majority of fish caught by marine recreational 

fishermen in 2013 were discarded. NMFS officials told us that 

discarded fish that have to return to great depths often experience 

high mortality rates due to barotrauma.

Page 15 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

14 As a result of limited 

information about the number of discarded fish and their mortality 

rates, according to NMFS officials, NMFS relies on assumptions about 

the mortality rates of discarded fish to produce or adjust recreational 

catch estimates.

NMFS also faces challenges in collecting timely marine recreational 

fishing data to support certain fisheries management decisions, according 

 

14According to NMFS documentation, barotrauma is a condition experienced by some 

deepwater fish that are brought quickly to the surface. Fish experiencing barotrauma often 

sustain serious injuries and, upon release, are unable to swim or dive back to deep water. 

Therefore, the survival rates of caught and released deepwater fish are generally low.
to NMFS and some state officials we interviewed. According to NMFS 

officials, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 

implemented new requirements that have greatly expanded the pressures 

on fisheries managers to rely on timely data to make decisions.

Page 16 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

15

However, according to NMFS and some state officials, NMFS’ data 

collection systems have not evolved quickly enough to support 

management decision making. For example, it takes 2 months to conduct 

the Coastal Household Telephone Survey, which collects data on 

recreational fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast, and 

about 45 days to analyze the data and produce recreational fishing 

estimates. According to NMFS and some state officials, as a result of 

these timing issues, NMFS managers do not have enough information to 

make informed decisions about whether to initiate in-season closures for 

certain fish stocks with annual catch limits in order to prevent anglers 

from exceeding those limits. State officials frequently highlighted this as a 

concern in managing the Gulf of Mexico red snapper, which is susceptible 

to in-season closures because of concerns about overfishing. According 

to NMFS documentation, this fishery has been subject to shortened 

federal fishing seasons over the last few years—including seasons of 9 

days in 2014 and 10 days in 2015, compared with 75 days in 2009 and 42 

days in 2013.

NMFS, some state officials, and some other stakeholders, such as private 

recreational anglers, have also identified challenges in how NMFS 

communicates with stakeholders about its fisheries data collection efforts. 

For example, a fisheries official from Texas said that, although Texas 

provides NMFS with marine recreational fisheries data, NMFS does not 

clearly communicate how or if it uses those data. Some private 

recreational anglers also told us that NMFS has not always sufficiently 

communicated with the public about its activities, creating concerns about 

a lack of transparency regarding NMFS’ fisheries management decisions. 

For example, some private anglers told us they are confused because 

NMFS has not explained why it continues to shorten the Gulf of Mexico 

red snapper fishing season even though the red snapper population has 

increased. NMFS officials acknowledged that NMFS has not always 

clearly communicated with regional stakeholders to explain its decision-

 

15The act requires NMFS to report annually to Congress and the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils on the status of fisheries within each council’s geographical area of 

authority and identify those fisheries that are overfished or are approaching a condition of 

being overfished.
making processes, stating that this has contributed to the public’s 

misperceptions.

As a result of the challenges that have been identified with collecting 

fisheries data, NMFS officials told us they face a lack of public confidence 

and trust in their ability to provide the data needed for managing 

recreational fisheries. For example, according to a Texas fisheries official, 

Texas withdrew from NMFS’ recreational data collection program and 

implemented its own data collection program in the late 1970s because it 

did not believe that NMFS’ data collection methods suited Texas’ needs 

for managing recreational fisheries. Similarly, in 2014, Louisiana withdrew 

from MRIP and implemented its own recreational fisheries data collection 

program, called LA Creel, because of concerns about MRIP data being 

able to support Louisiana’s needs for managing recreational fisheries, 

according to a Louisiana fisheries official. Similarly, according to state 

officials, Mississippi and Alabama have also independently initiated 

efforts to collect data on the abundance of certain fish, including red 

snapper, in artificial reefs off the coasts of these states because of 

concerns that NMFS’ current data collection methods underestimate the 

abundance of these fish stocks. Citing dissatisfaction with NMFS’

management of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, the states 

bordering the Gulf of Mexico released a proposal in March 2015 to 

transfer the responsibility for managing Gulf of Mexico red snapper from 

NMFS to these states.

Page 17 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

16

 

16The proposal was signed by officials from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas. Two bills (S. 105 and H. R. 3094) pending in Congress would amend the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to transfer to the Gulf 

Coast states, under certain conditions, the authority to manage red snapper fisheries in 

the Gulf of Mexico.
NMFS has taken several steps aimed at improving data collection to 

manage marine recreational fisheries and addressing challenges related 

to communicating with stakeholders. However, some data collection 

challenges persist, and NMFS does not have a comprehensive strategy 

to guide its efforts to improve recreational fisheries data collection.

Page 18 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

NMFS has taken steps to address some of the challenges it faces in 

collecting data for managing marine recreational fisheries, including steps 

aimed at collecting quality data to support scientific analyses and 

producing credible effort and catch estimates, improving the timeliness of 

data collection, and improving communication with stakeholders. 

However, even with the various steps NMFS has taken, agency officials 

said that some challenges persist. In April 2015, NMFS requested that the 

National Research Council review MRIP to determine the extent to which 

NMFS has addressed the recommendations in the 2006 National 

Research Council report. A NMFS official told us the National Research 

Council has initiated the review process, and NMFS expects the review to 

be completed in 2017.

NMFS has taken several steps to address the challenges it faces in 

collecting quality data. To address the challenge of identifying the 

universe of recreational anglers, NMFS documents indicate that by 

October 2011 NMFS had entered into memoranda of agreement with 

states and United States territories that were exempt from the national 

registry requirements, whereby these states and territories agreed to 

submit their data on marine recreational fishing participants to NMFS for 

inclusion into the national registry.17 In 2011 and 2012, NMFS provided 

 

17Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands have not entered into 

memoranda of agreement.

NMFS Has Taken Steps 

Aimed at Improving 

Data Collection, but 

Some Challenges 

Persist and NMFS 

Does Not Have a 

Comprehensive 

Strategy to Guide 

Improvement Efforts

NMFS Has Taken Steps 

Aimed at Improving 

Recreational Fisheries 

Data Collection, but Some 

Challenges Persist

Addressing Challenges in 

Collecting Quality Data
approximately 20 grants to states through the interstate marine fisheries 

commissions to support initial data quality improvement projects. 

Subsequently, in 2012 and 2013, NMFS received state angler registry 

data from each of the exempted Atlantic and Gulf Coast states and 

entered the data into the national registry database. During this same 

period, NMFS made recommendations to the states on improving their 

recreational angler databases. NMFS also continued to provide funds to 

the states through the commissions to support the initial data quality 

improvement projects, according to NMFS documents.

To address both regional and national needs for effort and catch data, 

NMFS has supported the redesign of state and federally managed 

surveys in all regions. For example, in 2009, NMFS initiated a series of 

pilot studies to address declining participation rates in telephone 

recreational fishing effort surveys and potential gaps in the data that could 

skew survey results due to limitations in reaching coastal residences. 

NMFS conducted these pilot studies to determine whether mail survey 

methods for collecting recreational fishing effort data would improve 

estimates. In a July 2014 report, NMFS stated that the findings from the 

study indicated that mail survey response rates were nearly three times 

higher than the telephone survey response rates.

Page 19 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

18 Given these results, in 

May 2015, NMFS issued a plan for transitioning from the current Coastal 

Household Telephone Survey to a newly designed mail-based survey, 

referred to as the Fishing Effort Survey. According to NMFS 

documentation, NMFS expects the Fishing Effort Survey to be fully 

implemented by January 2018, as shown in figure 5.

 

18National Marine Fisheries Service, Development and Testing of Recreational Fishing 

Effort Surveys: Testing a Mail Survey Design, Final Report, July 31, 2014.
Figure 5: Timeline of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Planned Transition to 

Page 20 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Fishing Effort Survey

In 2013, NMFS also issued new protocols for the Access Point Angler 

Intercept Survey. Under these new protocols, NMFS assigns shoreside 

observers to specific locations at precise times to address potential data 

gaps related to where and when the data are collected. According to 

NMFS officials, the new peer-reviewed survey design is intended to 

provide complete coverage of fishing trips ending at public access sites 

with representative sampling of trips ending at different times of day.

Also in 2013, NMFS initiated a science program review to help provide a 

systematic peer review of its fisheries data collection programs at its six 

regional Fisheries Science Centers and Office of Science and 

Technology. As part of this effort, peer review panels evaluated NMFS’

data collection and management programs in 2013, subsequently issuing 

a report identifying a number of crosscutting national challenges and 

making several recommendations to address them. For example, the 

report recommended that NMFS develop a plan for providing the data 

necessary for conducting fish stock assessments. 

NMFS has also initiated efforts to evaluate the potential of electronic 

monitoring and reporting to address quality of data challenges. For 

example, according to NMFS officials, as of October 2015, NMFS was 

working with stakeholders in Florida to test the use of a smartphone- and 
Internet-based electronic reporting tool called iAngler to collect and report 

data on recreational effort and catch. NMFS is also working with Texas on 

an electronic reporting tool called iSnapper to test the collection of selfreported catch data, according to NMFS officials. In addition, NMFS 

issued a policy directive in May 2013 to provide guidance on the adoption 

of electronic technologies to complement or improve existing fishery data 

collection programs. In 2013, NMFS began working with its regional 

Fisheries Science Centers to develop regional plans to identify, evaluate, 

and prioritize the implementation of electronic monitoring and reporting 

technologies. According to NMFS documents, each of NMFS’ regional 

offices, in consultation with the Fisheries Science Centers, issued 

implementation plans in January and February 2015 that include a focus 

on using electronic technologies to improve the quality of recreational 

fishing data and data timeliness. Figure 6 shows examples of electronic 

monitoring and reporting technologies.

Figure 6: Examples of Recreational Fisheries Electronic Monitoring and Reporting 

Page 21 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Technologies
However, even with the various steps NMFS has taken, agency officials 

said that some challenges persist. For example, according to NMFS 

officials we interviewed, NMFS uses independent checks to either 

validate self-reported data or estimate a reporting error that can be used 

to produce unbiased estimates, but the agency faces challenges in 

independently validating and verifying self-reported angler data. In 

addition, NMFS officials told us the 2006 National Research Council 

report contains recommendations that the agency has not yet addressed, 

including developing methods for improving the accuracy of estimates for 

the number of discarded fish and addressing the potential bias resulting 

from the exclusion of private access sites from shoreside surveys. NMFS 

officials agreed that additional effort should be undertaken through MRIP 

to evaluate alternative methods for obtaining and verifying discard data. 

According to NMFS officials, they initiated a process in October 2015 for 

developing strategies to address these challenges.

NMFS has begun taking steps to improve the timeliness of its recreational 

fisheries data to support certain fisheries management decisions but, 

according to NMFS officials and stakeholders, this data timeliness 

challenge has not been fully addressed. For example, according to NMFS 

documentation, in fiscal year 2015, NMFS began studying the feasibility 

of moving from a 2-month survey period to a 1-month survey period—that 

is, conducting the survey each month to collect data on the previous 

month’s fishing activity—in its new mail-based Fishing Effort Survey as a 

way to help reduce recall errors and improve the precision and timeliness 

of recreational fishing effort estimates. However, some stakeholders told 

us that NMFS’ new mail-based Fishing Effort Survey will still not provide 

enough timely data to inform in-season closure decisions for federal Gulf 

of Mexico red snapper seasons. NMFS officials acknowledged limitations 

with its approach, noting that in-season closure decisions are based on 

the previous year’s recreational fishing catch estimates. According to 

NMFS officials, beginning in 2013, NMFS coordinated a series of MRIP 

workshops with fisheries officials from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas to discuss options for improving the timeliness of 

data to support Gulf of Mexico red snapper in-season closure decisions. 

NMFS officials told us that they will continue to collaborate with their Gulf 

state partners to develop supplemental surveys focused on red snapper 

that can be integrated with the more general MRIP survey approach. 

According to NMFS officials, NMFS and the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries 

Information Network recently developed a timeline that describes the 

process and timing for making key decisions about future red snapper 

specialized survey methods, as shown in figure 7. NMFS officials told us 

as of October 2015 the states concurred with the timeline.

Page 22 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Addressing Data Timeliness 

Challenges
Figure 7: Timeline of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Implementation of Red 

Page 23 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Snapper Specialized Survey Methods

According to NMFS and a state official, addressing some of the data 

collection challenges related to quality and timeliness entails making 

trade-offs. For example, according to NMFS officials, NMFS also held a 

workshop in March 2011 with several recreational fishing stakeholders, 

such as states and councils, to address the need for more timely and 

precise updates in a short-season fishery. NMFS officials told us the 

workshop identified several ways in which improvements could be made, 

but they concluded that more resources beyond what MRIP could afford 

would be needed to implement those improvements. NMFS’ new Fishing 

Effort Survey collects data on recreational fishing effort that targets many 

fish stocks, including some that do not need timely data necessary to 

make fishery management decisions within a shortened federal fishing 
season. However, according to NMFS officials and a state official, to 

implement a separate survey that specifically targets Gulf of Mexico red 

snapper would likely entail adding additional resources to this effort that 

would need to be taken from other surveys, such as the Fishing Effort 

Survey. According to NMFS officials, trade-offs also are often necessary 

to balance the competing needs of state and federal fisheries 

management and, as a result, NMFS prioritizes among competing 

demands for data. NMFS has attempted to address the need to 

understand the trade-offs involved in data collection; according to NMFS 

documentation, tools intended to help evaluate possible resource 

allocation trade-offs were expected to be available for use in 2014. 

However, according to NMFS officials, the tools were not in place as of 

October 2015, and NMFS has not determined when the tools will be 

available. The officials said that the tools were being developed in 

collaboration with academia, but the project stalled because the project 

leader left the academic institution, and the institution has not yet found a 

replacement.

NMFS has also taken steps to improve communication with recreational 

fisheries stakeholders about recreational data collection. NMFS has 

worked with its MRIP Executive Steering Committee to address priority 

communication initiatives through various MRIP teams. For example, the 

MRIP communications and education team plans to implement a 

communications strategy—entailing various communication activities 

such as webinars—to support the transition from the Coastal Household 

Telephone Survey to MRIP’s new mail-based Fishing Effort Survey.

According to NMFS officials, the agency is developing an MRIP strategic 

communications plan to guide its transition to the Fishing Effort Survey 

that was expected to be finalized by the end of October 2015. To further 

enhance MRIP communications, in 2014, the MRIP communications and 

education team began restructuring its communications network by 

developing MRIP communication teams at the regional level.

Some of NMFS’ steps to improve communication have resulted in 

increased collaboration with recreational fisheries stakeholders, according 

to NMFS and state officials. For example, according to a state fisheries 

official, NMFS coordinated with the state to provide state officials greater 

input in determining observer assignment schedules and locations as part 

of the new protocols for the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey. NMFS 

officials told us that they are also working collaboratively with Louisiana to 

perform a side-by-side comparison of MRIP data with data collected 

under Louisiana’s LA Creel data collection program, to determine whether 

LA Creel can be used as an alternative to MRIP surveys. According to 

Page 24 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Addressing Challenges in 

Communication
NMFS officials, in early 2016, NMFS and Louisiana plan to evaluate the 

results of the side-by-side comparison to determine next steps. Regarding 

stakeholder concerns about NMFS’ lack of data on fish stock abundance 

in reef habitats, NMFS officials told us that NMFS plans to use data 

collected by academic partners on red snapper abundance on artificial 

reefs in its Gulf of Mexico red snapper fish stock assessment. NMFS also 

has worked with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the 

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program to transition from a 

NMFS-led data collection system to a state-led data collection approach. 

In 2016, according to a NMFS official, the Atlantic Coast states will 

assume responsibility for conducting the Access Point Angler Intercept 

Survey shoreside interviews to collect marine recreational fishing data 

from anglers, and NMFS’ role will be to review, certify, and provide funds 

to support these data collection efforts.

NMFS is also placing renewed emphasis on collaborating with its regional 

partners to determine future data collection needs and priorities for 

improving recreational fisheries effort and catch surveys, according to 

NMFS documents. For example, NMFS’ 2013-2014 MRIP implementation 

plan recommended establishing a hybrid approach to MRIP data 

collection.

Page 25 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

19 Under this approach, NMFS is to maintain a central role in 

developing and certifying survey methods and establishing national 

standards and best practices for data collection, while regions—through 

the regional fishery information networks or their equivalent—are to be 

responsible for selecting survey methods and managing data collection. 

According to NMFS officials and NMFS documentation, NMFS staff 

participated in a workshop in July 2013 to discuss the initial planning 

stages for developing this new regional approach to recreational fisheries 

data collection. According to NMFS officials, NMFS is developing MRIP 

Regional Implementation Plans to address regional data collection needs 

 

19An initial MRIP implementation plan was issued in October 2008. Since then, NMFS has 

issued several MRIP implementation plan status updates that describe various MRIP 

initiatives and contain information on program accomplishments and priorities. 
and priorities.

Page 26 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

20 The NMFS officials said that the West Coast region is 

scheduled to have a Regional Implementation Plan in early 2016. The 

officials said the Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions support the new 

approach to data collection and plan to complete their respective MRIP 

Regional Implementation Plans in 2016. As part of the new hybrid MRIP 

data collection approach, NMFS is in the process of identifying regional 

recreational fisheries data collection funding priorities.

Challenges related to how NMFS communicates with stakeholders, 

however, persist. For example, some Gulf Coast state fisheries officials 

expressed concerns that NMFS has not provided sufficient information to 

improve communication regarding its recreational fisheries data collection 

activities. One state fisheries official said that NMFS has made some 

progress working with stakeholders to identify MRIP initiatives to improve 

recreational fisheries data collection, but it has not adequately 

communicated how it intends to coordinate and collaborate with its 

stakeholders to implement MRIP initiatives. Some stakeholders continue 

to express concerns that NMFS is not adequately communicating its 

process for developing Gulf of Mexico red snapper catch and effort 

estimates. For example, some stakeholders cited the presence of larger 

and more numerous red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and do not 

understand the need for continued catch limits and fishing restrictions. 

NMFS officials told us that, although the Gulf red snapper population is 

rebounding, and the average weight of red snapper that are caught by 

anglers has increased, NMFS’ most recent stock assessment confirms 

that Gulf red snapper continue to be overfished. Therefore, as required by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, red snapper continue to be managed under a 

stock rebuilding plan. According to these officials, annual catch limits for 

red snapper are being reached more quickly due to several factors, 

including higher catch rates and more fishing effort being directed at the 

more abundant rebuilding stock. This has required even shorter fishing 

seasons despite increasing stock abundance, as well as corresponding 

increases to annual catch limits. NMFS officials stated that, in response to 

 

20According to NMFS documentation, MRIP Regional Implementation Plans are to include 

descriptions of regional needs for recreational fishing statistics, including needs for 

coverage, precision, and timeliness of survey estimates; a baseline assessment of current 

data collection programs, including assessing the extent to which current programs satisfy 

needs and identifying data collection gaps; recommendations and justification for a 

sequential, prioritized approach for implementing improved methods that address national 

and regional needs that are currently unmet; and estimated costs overall and for individual 

survey components.
a history of exceedance of annual red snapper catch limits and litigation, 

NMFS is now setting the length of the red snapper fishing season based 

on a recommendation by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

to use a buffer of 20 percent of the annual catch limit.

Page 27 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

21 This buffer is 

intended to account for uncertainty resulting from the difficulty of obtaining 

timely and precise catch estimates, as well as uncertainty stemming from 

state regulations that provide for longer seasons in state waters. NMFS 

officials acknowledged that achieving stakeholder understanding of this 

complex process is an ongoing concern, but they told us they plan to 

continue communicating with stakeholders to help convey the rationale 

behind NMFS’ fisheries management decisions.

NMFS has taken steps aimed at addressing several data collection 

challenges, but it does not have a comprehensive strategy to guide its 

efforts to improve recreational fisheries data collection. The Government 

Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 requires, among 

other things, that federal agencies develop long-term strategic plans that 

include agency-wide goals and strategies for achieving those goals.22 Our 

body of work has shown that these requirements also can serve as 

leading practices at lower levels within federal agencies, such as at 

NMFS, to assist with planning for individual programs or initiatives that 

are particularly challenging.23 Taken together, the strategic planning 

elements established under the act and associated Office of Management 

and Budget guidance, and practices we have identified, provide a 

framework of leading practices in federal strategic planning and 

 

21The council requested that NMFS set the length of the fishing season based on an 

“annual catch target” that is 80 percent of the overall recreational quota for red snapper.

The remaining 20 percent constitutes a buffer to reduce the likelihood of the quota being 

exceeded.

22Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-

352, § 2, 124 Stat. 3866, 3866-67 (2011).

23For example, see GAO-09-192 and GAO, Pipeline Safety: Management of the Office of 

Pipeline Safety’s Enforcement Program Needs Further Strengthening, GAO-04-801

(Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2004). 

NMFS Does Not Have a 

Comprehensive Strategy 

to Guide Its Data 

Collection Improvement 

Efforts
characteristics of good performance measures.

Page 28 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

24 These practices include 

defining a program’s or initiative’s goals, defining strategies and 

identifying the resources needed to achieve the goals, and developing 

time frames and using performance measures to track progress in 

achieving them and inform management decision making. Furthermore, 

key practices related to communication call for communicating 

information early and often and developing a clear and consistent 

communications strategy to help develop an understanding about the 

purpose of planned changes, build trust among stakeholders and the 

public, cultivate strong relationships, and enhance ownership for 

transition or transformation.25

According to a NMFS official, the initial 2008 MRIP implementation plan 

and the subsequent updates are the key documents used to guide NMFS’

recreational fisheries data collection efforts. However, based on our 

review, NMFS’ MRIP implementation plans do not constitute a 

comprehensive strategy for improving recreational fisheries data 

collection consistent with the framework previously discussed. For 

example, the implementation plans do not consistently and clearly define 

NMFS’ goals, identify the resources needed to achieve the goals, or 

develop time frames or performance measures to track progress in 

achieving them.

Based on our analysis, NMFS does not have a comprehensive strategy 

because it has been focused primarily on implementing the 

recommendations of the 2006 National Research Council report. A NMFS 

official confirmed that MRIP initially focused on implementing the 

recommendations in the 2006 National Research Council report and 

meeting the requirements to improve recreational fisheries data collection 

as described in the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act that was 

passed in 2006. According to NMFS officials, the agency’s first priority 

was to address the recreational fisheries survey design issues identified 

 

24For example, see GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 

Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996); Tax 

Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance 

Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002); Managing for Results: 

Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for Management Decision Making, 

GAO-05-927 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005); and Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget (2015).

25See GAO-09-192 and GAO-03-669. 
in the 2006 National Research Council report. Specifically, NMFS 

determined that it would first design, test, review, certify, and implement 

new survey designs, such as the new mail-based Fishing Effort Survey. 

As previously discussed, NMFS intends to transition to a regional data 

collection approach whereby the agency will collaborate with regional 

stakeholders, such as states, to identify regional data collection needs. 

NMFS officials told us that, in hindsight, NMFS could have benefited from 

a more robust strategic planning approach to MRIP implementation and 

stated that NMFS recognizes the need to enhance its strategic planning 

as it begins to transition to a regional data collection approach. NMFS 

officials told us that NMFS intends to develop strategic planning 

documents to guide future individual initiatives, using NMFS’ experiences 

with the transition to the new mail-based Fishing Effort Survey as a 

template, but they did not provide information about how, or whether, they 

planned to integrate these documents into a comprehensive strategy or 

how they would communicate such a strategy to NMFS’ stakeholders. 

Without a comprehensive strategy, NMFS may have difficulty ensuring 

that the variety of steps it is taking to improve data collection are 

prioritized so that the most important steps are undertaken first and may 

find it difficult to determine the extent to which these steps will help 

address challenges. Further, without communicating the strategy and 

NMFS’ progress in implementing it, NMFS may have difficulty building 

trust among its stakeholders, and these stakeholders may have difficulty 

tracking the agency’s efforts.

Recognizing the importance of collecting quality and timely data at an 

acceptable cost to guide recreational fisheries management and conduct 

fish stock assessments, NMFS has taken many steps to improve its data 

collection, such as funding several pilot programs to test alternative data 

collection methods. NMFS has also initiated a fundamental shift in its data 

collection approach, envisioning a standard-setting and oversight role for 

NMFS rather than actual data collection, which is to be carried out by 

partners. However, NMFS does not have a comprehensive strategy to 

guide the implementation of its various efforts. Without a comprehensive 

strategy and associated performance measures to assess progress, 

NMFS may have difficulty ensuring that the variety of steps it is taking to 

help address the challenges it faces are prioritized so that the most 

important steps are undertaken first. Likewise, NMFS may have difficulty 

determining the extent to which these steps will help address challenges 

or if a different approach may be needed. Moreover, without clearly 

communicating the strategy to its stakeholders, NMFS may find it difficult 

Page 29 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Conclusions
to build trust, potentially limiting its ability to effectively implement MRIP 

improvement initiatives that rely on data collection partners.

To improve NMFS’ ability to capitalize on its efforts to improve fisheries 

data collection for managing marine recreational fisheries, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct NOAA’s Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries to develop a comprehensive strategy to guide 

NMFS’ implementation of its marine recreational fisheries data collection 

program efforts, including a means to measure progress in implementing 

this strategy and to communicate information to stakeholders. As part of 

this strategy, NMFS should clearly identify and communicate 

programmatic goals, determine the program activities and resources 

needed to accomplish the goals, and establish time frames and 

performance measures to track progress in implementing the strategy 

and accomplishing goals.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce for 

comment. In its written comments (reproduced in app. II), NOAA, 

providing comments on behalf of Commerce, agreed with our 

recommendation that NMFS develop a comprehensive strategy to guide 

the implementation of its marine recreational fisheries data collection 

program efforts. NOAA stated that it agrees that transitioning from a 

primarily research and development focused program to one that is more 

focused on implementing improvements to recreational fisheries data 

collection presents an opportunity to engage in strategic planning. 

Specifically, NOAA stated it will work with its regional stakeholders over 

the next year to develop MRIP implementation plans that include 

milestones, timelines, performance metrics, and resource needs. In 

addition, NOAA stated that a new National Research Council review of its 

recreational fisheries data collection program will help to inform its 

strategic planning effort.

NOAA also provided three general comments. First, NOAA stated that our 

report disproportionally included interviewees from the Gulf Coast, which 

may weigh the report’s conclusions differently than if other regions were 

more fully represented. As noted in our scope and methodology appendix 

(app. I), we selected federal and state agencies and regional 

organizations to interview based on such factors as geographic 

representation and locations of large volumes of recreational fishing. 

According to NMFS statistics, the largest volumes of recreational fishing 

are in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, we believe that our selection of

Page 30 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
agencies and organizations, while not nationally representative, 

nevertheless provides an appropriate set of perspectives on recreational 

fisheries management. Second, NOAA stated that it interpreted our 

statement that we did not conduct a technical evaluation to mean that we 

are suggesting that a technical evaluation is needed to determine whether

NMFS has appropriately prioritized its recreational fisheries data 

collection challenges. We did not conduct a technical evaluation because 

it was not within the scope of our review, and it was not our intent to 

suggest that a technical evaluation is needed. Third, NOAA stated that, 

while the report identifies several unaddressed recreational fisheries data 

collection challenges, it does not mention that the challenges require 

funding levels above the current MRIP budget. Addressing whether 

NMFS funding levels are sufficient to address the data collection 

challenges it faces was not within the scope of our review. We do, 

however, note in our report the importance of making trade-offs in 

addressing challenges and allocating resources. NOAA also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretary of Commerce, the NOAA 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix III.

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Page 31 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection
List of Requesters

The Honorable Marco Rubio

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

United States Senate

The Honorable Jeff Sessions

United States Senate

The Honorable Richard Shelby

United States Senate

The Honorable David Vitter

United States Senate

The Honorable Roger F. Wicker

United States Senate

Page 32 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Our objectives were to examine (1) the challenges that have been 

identified with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) data 

collection efforts for managing marine recreational fisheries and (2) the 

steps NMFS has taken to improve data collection and challenges that 

remain.

To conduct our work, we reviewed and analyzed relevant laws, agency 

policies, guidance, and other documentation related to fisheries data 

collection, including documentation related to specific federal and state 

marine recreational fisheries data collection projects.

Page 33 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

1 We also reviewed 

previous GAO work related to fisheries management.2 To determine the 

challenges that have been identified with NMFS’ data collection efforts, 

we first reviewed reports and evaluations of NMFS’ data collection 

programs issued since 2006 from the National Research Council, the 

Department of Commerce Inspector General, NMFS, states, and 

independent consultants and assessed the extent to which they 

discussed data collection challenges.3 Of these reports, we relied 

primarily on the findings of the National Research Council and NMFS to 

identify data collection challenges. To obtain insights into the challenges 

identified in these documents, as well as to obtain information on any 

additional challenges, we interviewed officials from NMFS headquarters 

and three of NMFS’ six regional Fisheries Science Centers (Northeast, 

Northwest, and Southeast); representatives of three of the eight Regional 

Fishery Management Councils (Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and South 

Atlantic) and all three interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions (Atlantic, 

Gulf, and Pacific States); and officials from state fisheries agencies in 

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Rhode Island, 

Texas, and Washington. We selected federal and state agencies and 

regional organizations to interview based on such factors as geographic 

representation, locations of large volumes of recreational fishing, and 

representation from key data collection and management stakeholders.4

The views of representatives from the agencies and organizations we 

 

1See, for example, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

2See, for example, GAO-14-794R.

3See, for example, National Research Council, Ocean Studies Board, Committee on the 

Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, Review of Recreational Fisheries 

Survey Methods (Washington, D.C.: 2006).

4According to NMFS statistics, the largest volumes of recreational fishing are in the Gulf of

Mexico, followed by the South Atlantic, and then the mid-Atlantic regions.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

contacted are not generalizable to other agencies and organizations, but 

they provided various perspectives on recreational fisheries management. 

In addition, to obtain additional information about data collected by the 

recreational fishing sector and challenges associated with data collection, 

as well as to obtain views on recreational fisheries data collection 

generally, we interviewed 22 nongovernmental marine recreational 

fisheries stakeholders. Of these stakeholders, 17 had expressed interest 

in, or concerns about, NMFS’ recreational fisheries data collection to 

congressional staff. These stakeholders added to the geographic 

variation and the recreational fishing sectors represented in our review, 

but their views do not represent the views of NMFS stakeholders 

generally. To supplement views on recreational fisheries data collection, 

we interviewed 5 additional stakeholders, including 4 stakeholders 

identified by NMFS and 1 stakeholder we identified through our previous 

work on fisheries management.

Page 34 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

5 The 22 stakeholders we interviewed 

included charter boat owners, private recreational anglers, members of 

academia, and advocacy groups, among others, and represented various 

geographic locations and different recreational fishing sectors. The NMFS 

statistical surveys used to collect data for managing recreational fisheries 

cover a wide range of methods, apply to a wide diversity of locations and 

often entail in-depth technical knowledge about fisheries data collection. 

For these reasons, we did not conduct a technical evaluation of these 

challenges or assess their technical validity.

To determine the steps NMFS has taken to improve data collection and 

challenges that remain, we conducted interviews as described above and 

reviewed NMFS’ reports and other documents. Specifically, we reviewed 

NMFS’ strategic plans, recreational fisheries planning documents, and 

recreational fisheries data collection program documents.6 We compared 

this information with the framework of leading practices in federal 

strategic planning contained in the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization 

Act of 2010, and Office of Management and Budget guidance. We also 

compared this information to key practices related to communication we 

 

5GAO-14-794R.

6See, for example, National Marine Fisheries Service, Development and Testing of 

Recreational Fishing Effort Surveys: Testing a Mail Survey Design, Final Report, July 31, 

2014.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

identified in previous reports.

Page 35 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

7 Consistent with our approach to the 

previous objective, we did not conduct a technical evaluation of NMFS’

steps to improve data collection or assess the appropriateness of those 

steps in light of the challenges NMFS faces.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to December 2015 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

7See, for example, GAO-09-192 and GAO-03-669.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 36 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 37 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 38 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 39 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty (Assistant 

Director), Steve Secrist (Assistant Director), Leo Acosta (Analyst-inCharge), Mark Braza, Joseph Capuano, Elizabeth Curda, John Delicath, 

Richard Johnson, Jerry Leverich, Jeanette Soares, and Sara Sullivan 

made contributions to this report.

Page 40 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

(361597)
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Page 41 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

November 19, 2015

Ms. Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment U.S, Government 

Accountability Office

441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548

Dear Ms, Fennell:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the 

Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report titled 

Recreational Fisheries Management: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service Should Develop a Comprehensive Strategy to 

Guide Its Data Collection Efforts (GAO-16-131). Enclosed are the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's programmatic 

comments to the draft report.

If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim Stowers, Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at 

(202) 482-3663.

Bruce H. Andrews

Deputy Secretary of Commerce

Enclosure

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Response to the GAO 

Draft Report Entitled

Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Agency Comment 

Letter

Text of Appendix II: 

Comments from the 

Department of Commerce

Page 1

Page 2
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Recreational Fisheries Management: The National Marine Fisheries 

Service Should Develop a Comprehensive Strategy to Guide Its Data 

Collection Efforts

(GAO-16-131, December 2015)

General Comments

The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) appreciates the opportunity to review the 

Governmental Accountability Office’s (GAO) draft report on recreational 

fisheries management. Please see our comments below, specifically 

prepared by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

1. The GAO report examines challenges that have been identified with 

the agency’s data collection efforts for managing marine recreational 

fisheries, examines steps taken by the agency to improve data 

collection, and identifies challenges that remain. To support its 

analyses, the report relies on laws, agency policies, and guidance 

related to Federal and State recreational fisheries data collection 

methods; NMFS’ and external documents on recreational fisheries 

data collection; and, interviews to obtain views on NMFS’ data 

collection efforts from Federal and State recreational fisheries officials 

and other stakeholders selected to provide geographic 

representation.

Interviews were conducted with the following partner organizations: 

State officials

· FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX – all five Gulf States NC and RI – two of 15 

Atlantic States

· WA – one of three Pacific States

· Regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs)

· Gulf of Mexico FMC, South Atlantic FMC, and Pacific FMC – three of 

eight regional councils

· Interstate Marine Fishery Commissions/Fishery Information Networks 

(FINs)

All three commissions, but only two of the three FINs (Gulf FIN and 

Pacific FIN, but not the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics 

Program)

On pages 2-3 of the report, GAO states, “We determined that the 

selection of these entities and individuals was appropriate for our 

design and objectives, and that the selection would generate valid and 

reliable evidence to support our work.”

Page 42 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Comment: 

The disproportionate representation of Gulf Coast partners may weigh the 

report’s conclusions differently than if other regions were better 

represented through the interview process. No interviews were conducted 

with key partners in the western Pacific, Caribbean, or Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species partner communities. Both the Atlantic and

Pacific Coasts appear underrepresented. Accordingly, the report states 

on page 3 that “The results of our interviews cannot be generalized to all 

stakeholders or data collection activities, but they provide examples of 

different recreational fisheries data collection efforts and challenges.” We 

agree with this statement and suggest that a more representative group 

of partner interviews might have resulted in additional or differently 

weighted conclusions about our challenges and Marine Recreational 

Information Program’s (MRIP) progress in addressing these challenges.

2. On page 3, the report states “...we did not conduct a technical 

evaluation of these challenges or assess their technical validity.” On 

the same page, the report also states “Consistent with our approach 

to the previous objective, we did not conduct a technical evaluation of 

NMFS’ steps to improve data collection or assess the appropriateness 

of those steps in light of the challenges NMFS faces.” These are 

important points because they suggest that an additional technical 

evaluation is needed to determine whether NMFS has appropriately 

prioritized MRIP’s challenges.

3. The report identifies several unaddressed challenges, but fails to 

address that such challenges require funding levels above the current 

MRIP budget. For example, on page 14 in the section “Obtaining a 

sufficient number of survey responses and biological samples,” the 

report indicates that State officials informed GAO that NMFS does not 

allocate sufficient levels of sampling for catch data and biological data 

on catch. Another example is on page 16, where the report notes that 

NMFS and State officials told GAO, “NMFS’ data collection systems 

have not evolved quickly enough to support management decision 

making. It may help the reader’s interpretation of examples such as 

these if the report acknowledged that a substantial increase in funding 

would be needed to implement the increased sampling levels that 

would be necessary to provide more frequent in-season tracking of 

recreational catches with well-designed statistical surveys.

Page 43 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Page 3
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

NOAA’s Response to GAO Recommendation

The draft GAO report states, “To improve NMFS’ ability to capitalize on its 

efforts to improve fisheries data collection for managing marine 

recreational fisheries, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce 

direct the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries:”

Recommendation 1: 

“To develop a comprehensive strategy to guide NMFS’ implementation of 

its marine recreational fisheries data collection program efforts, including 

a means to measure progress in implementing this strategy and to 

communicate information to stakeholders. As part of this strategy, NMFS 

should clearly identify and communicate programmatic goals, determine 

the program activities and resources needed to accomplish the goals, and 

establish timeframes and performance measures to track progress in 

implementing the strategy and accomplishing goals.”

NOAA Response: 

NOAA concurs with this recommendation. As articulated in the October 

2008 Implementation Plan, MRIP has followed a strategy that sequenced 

its priorities as:

· First, address the fundamental design issues raised by the 2006 

National Research Council (NRC) review (e.g., improperly weighted 

data used in estimation, potential bias in shoreside survey design, and 

potential bias in telephone survey).

· Design, test, peer review, and certify new and improved survey 

designs.

· Implement improvements that address the fundamental design 

issues.

· Then, scale up data collection to address regional needs for improved 

precision, timeliness, coverage, and special needs.

As of 2015, substantial progress has been made in implementing 

improved survey designs that address the fundamental design issues 

raised by the NRC Panel. NMFS agrees that transitioning from a primarily 

research and development focused program to one that is more focused 

on implementing survey improvements, as discussed at pages 25-26 of 

the report, presents an opportunity to engage in strategic planning. This 

will help us develop an enhanced approach to managing the program.

Page 44 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Page 4
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

The current initiatives to develop MRIP Regional Implementation Plans 

and initiate a new NRC review of the program’s progress to date, 

represent important milestones on the path to developing a 

comprehensive strategic plan. Over the next year, we will work with our 

regional partners to develop MRIP Regional Implementation Plans that 

include milestones, timelines, appropriate performance metrics, and 

resource needs. We will simultaneously work to develop national-level 

strategic planning that will set overall programmatic goals, strategies, and 

priorities; provide ongoing guidance to the regional planning efforts; and 

lay out a schedule for addressing remaining overall needs for improving 

the designs of the surveys (e.g., developing methods for assessing 

private access catch, evaluating accuracy of released catch data, etc.).

This effort will be further informed by the findings and recommendations 

of the NRC in its review of MRIP.

NMFS will initiate this strategic planning effort in the second quarter of FY 

2016, to be completed within 6 months of receipt of the new NRC review, 

so that the NRC’s findings and recommendations can be incorporated 

into the MRIP program.

Data Table for Figure 1: Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics and Locations of 

Page 45 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Highest Fishing Activity

Map showing the continental US, with shading for the states waters, the 

Exclusive Economic Zone, and the region with the highest level of fishing 

activity offshore. The Gulf of Mexico as the highest, the South Atlantic 

second, and the Mid-Atlantic third).

· 11 million - Number of anglers that made 71 million marine 

recreational fishing trips in 2013 in the continental United States.

· $24.5 billion - Estimated dollars spent by marine recreational anglers 

on fishing trips and equipment in the United States in 2012.

· 430 million - Number of fish caught by marine recreational anglers in 

2013 in the continental United States. Approximately 10% of the catch 

came from the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

· 61% - Percentage of fish caught by marine recreational anglers in 

2013 in the continental United States that were released after they 

were caught.

Data Tables
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Legend: 

State territorial seas (generally extending up to 3 geographical miles from 

the coastline)

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally from up to 200 nautical miles 

from shore)

Gulf of Mexico - highest levels of marine recreational fishing activity

South Atlantic - second highest levels of marine recreational fishing 

activity

Mid-Atlantic - third highest levels of marine recreational fishing activity

Note: These statistics are approximate and do not include Alaska.

Data Table for Figure 2: Key Stakeholders in Marine Recreational Fisheries Data 

Page 46 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Collection and Management

NMFS

· Office of Science and Technology

· Marine Recreational Information Program 

· Regional Fisheries Science Centers (6): Alaska, Northeast, 

Northwest, Pacific Islands, Southeast and Caribbean, and Southwest

· Regional Offices (5): Alaska, Greater Atlantic, Pacific Islands, 

Southeast, and West Coast

Other Governmental Stakeholders:

· Regional Fishery Management Councils (8): Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, New England, North Pacific, Pacific, South 

Atlantic, Western Pacific

· Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions (3): Atlantic states, Gulf 

states, and Pacific states 

· Fishery Information Networks (4): Atlantic Coastal Cooperative 

Statistics Program, Gulf Fisheries Information Network, Pacific 

Recreational Fisheries Information Network, and Western Pacific 

Fisheries Information Network

· Coastal states and U.S. territories

Other Key Stakeholders:

· Private Anglers
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

· Charter boat/Head-boat Owners and Operators

· Recreational Fisheries Associations

· Nongovernmental Organizations and Environmental Groups

Data Table for Figure 3: Estimating Total Marine Recreational Fisheries Catch

Page 47 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

Three illustrations showing:

1. Effort: Estimated number of angler trips

2. Catch Rate: Estimated number of fish caught per angler trip

3. Total Catch: Estimated fish mortality related to marine recreational 

fishing activity

Data Table for Figure 4: Timeline of Key Events in Marine Recreational Fisheries 

Data Collection and Management

Timeline noting the following events:

· 1976 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act passed

· 1996 – Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act amended

· 2006 – Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act passed

· 1979 – NMFS implements Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics 

Survey

· 2004 – NMFS requests a National Research Council review of its 

marine recreational fisheries data collection program

· 2006 – 2006 – National Research Council issues report with 

recommendations to address weaknesses in NMFS’ marine 

recreational fisheries data collection methods

· 2008 – NMFS establishes the Marine Recreational Information 

Program in response to the recommendations of the National 

Research Council review and the requirements of the 2006 

Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act

Data Table for Figure 5: Timeline of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Planned 

Transition to Fishing Effort Survey

Timeline and tabular text

· January 2015 to December 2017 – Side-by-side benchmarking of the 

Coastal Household Telephone Survey and Fishing Effort Survey to 

identify and account for factors leading to differences in the estimates. 
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

· September 2015 – early 2017 – Develop calibration model to enable 

an “apples-to-apples” comparison between the Coastal Household 

Telephone Survey and Fishing Effort Survey estimates. 

· Late April – November 2017 – Re-estimation of historical catch to 

generate a time series of recreational catch statistics. 

· July - December 2017 – Incorporate new estimates into fish stock 

assessments.

· November 2017 – New estimates will be used to inform fisheries 

management decisions, such as annual catch limits.

Note: Effort is the number of angler trips taken, while catch is the number 

and size of fish, by species, that are brought to shore, caught and used 

as bait, or discarded (i.e., caught but then released alive or dead).

Data Table for Figure 6: Examples of Recreational Fisheries Electronic Monitoring 

Page 48 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection

and Reporting Technologies

Two illustrations.

1. 1

st illustration of a boat receiving satellite information.

· Electronic monitoring in the for-hire recreational fishing sector 

includes global positioning system receivers that track vessel 

locations and pinpoint fishing times to help collect fishing effort data 

and compliance with fishing restrictions.

2. 2

nd Illustration of a computer

· Private anglers and for-hire fishing vessels can use electronic 

logbooks to report effort and catch data, and certain biological data, 

such as fish length and species. 

Note: Effort is the number of angler trips taken, while catch is the number 

and size of fish, by species that are brought to shore, caught and used as 

bait, or discarded (i.e., caught but then released alive or dead).

Data Table for Figure 7: Timeline of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

Implementation of Red Snapper Specialized Survey Methods

Timeline with tabular text

The Gulf Coast states, through partnerships with NMFS, the Gulf States 

Marine Fisheries Commission, and state agencies are pilot testing survey 

methods for estimating recreational fishing catch for red snapper and 

other species. 
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Completion dates for data collection pilot surveys

1. Alabama: July 2015

2. Florida: 2016

3. Mississippi: October 2015

4. Texas: October 2015

States expected to declare interest in implementing new survey 

methods

1. Alabama: December 2015

2. Florida: December 2016

3. Mississippi: March 2016

4. Texas: March 2016

States expected to declare interest in implementing new survey 

methods

1. Alabama, Mississippi, Texas: by March 2016

2. Florida: by 2017

Independent review of pilot survey results (Jan to May 2016)

· For states seeking to implement their survey designs, review of state 

submitted documentation completed by May 2016 (except Florida, 

which is conducting a multiyear study)

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Information Network annual meeting (Oct 

2015 to Jan. 2016)

· Begin discussions among state and federal partners to develop a 

coordinated process for consolidation and standardization of 

approved survey methods that were approved in independent reviews 

and identify other data needs

Complete the Marine Recreational Information Program Survey 

Methods Review and Certification Process (May 2016 to Oct 2016)

Illustration Notes: 

· According to NMFS, in addition to the specialized surveys for Gulf of 

Mexico red snapper, in 2015, Louisiana conducted its own LA Creel 

survey in tandem with NMFS’ Access Point Angler Intercept Survey 

Page 49 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

for comparison purposes. In addition, in 2015, NMFS reviewed the LA 

Creel survey design to determine whether it met NMFS’ survey data 

certification standards and will make a certification decision by the 

end of calendar year 2015, according to NMFS officials.

· NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service.

Page 50 GAO-16-131 Fisheries Data Collection
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, Waste, 

and Abuse in Federal 

Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.