Outreach Assessment FAQ_v1.docx

a. Outreach Assessment –Amendment Approximately how many other brands should we expect to evaluate?

1) Can the Service share previous assessments and evaluations.? The Service is aware that assessments on aquatic invasive species prevention and outreach have been previously performed; focuses of these evaluations have included brand recognition, level of awareness, and delivery method preferences. The list below provides examples of these assessments and is not inclusive. It is the expectation that proposals submitted will build upon previous assessments and evaluate aspects of the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! campaign, Clean Drain Dry Initiative™, and PlayCleanGo campaign to determine what messages and delivery strategies are most effective to achieve desired behavioral changes.

· Cimino SA, Strecker AL (2018). Boater knowledge and behavior regarding aquatic invasive species at a boat wash station. Northwest Science 92:224-233.

· Cole, E., Keller, R. P., & Garbach, K. (2016). Assessing the success of invasive species prevention efforts at changing the behaviors of recreational boaters. Journal of environmental management, 184, 210-218.

· Gates KK, Guy CS, Zale AV, Horton TB (2009) Angler awareness of aquatic nuisance species and potential transport mechanisms. Fisheries Management and Ecology 16:448-456.

· Jensen, D. A. (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of aquatic invasive species outreach influencing boater behavior in five states.

· Lee, J., O’Keefe, D. A. N., Oh, C., & Han, J. (2015). Improving Public Outreach and Education Programs to Minimize the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS).

· Lauber TB, Connelly NA, Stedman RC (2014) Aquatic invasive species outreach to boaters and anglers in the Lake Ontario basin. HDRU Publ. No. 14-5. Dept. of Nat. Resour., Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 59 pp.

· Lauber, T. B., Connelly, N. A., & Stedman, R. C. (2015). Assessing capacity for aquatic invasive species outreach in recreational communities.

· Lindgren CJ (2006) Angler awareness of aquatic invasive species in Manitoba. Journal of Environmental Management 44: 103-108.

· Nathan, L. R., Jerde, C. L., McVeigh, M., & Mahon, A. R. (2014). An assessment of angler education and bait trade regulations to prevent invasive species introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Management of Biological Invasions, 5(4), 319-326.

· Pradhananga A, Davenport MA, Seekamp E, Bundy D. 2015. Preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species: boater concerns, habits, and future behaviors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: 381-393.

· Seekamp, E., McCreary, A., Mayer, J., Zack, S., Charlebois, P., & Pasternak, L. (2016). Exploring the efficacy of an aquatic invasive species prevention campaign among water recreationists. Biological Invasions, 18(6), 1745-1758.

· Rothlisberger JD, Chadderton WL, McNulty J, Lodge DM (2010) Aquatic invasive species transport via trailered boats: what is being moved, who is moving it, and what can be done. Fisheries 35: 121-132

2) Does the US Fish & Wildlife Service have a preference for an applied or experimental design of effectiveness. The Service does not have a preference for an applied or experimental design of effectiveness. The Review Team will consider any methods that achieve the list of objectives to be addressed under this assessment within a reasonable timeframe.

3) Approximately how many other brands should we expect to evaluate? The focus of this assessment is on the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! campaign, Clean Drain Dry Initiative™, and PlayCleanGo campaigns, the Service is aware that aquatic invasive species campaigns also exist at the state and regional levels (e.g., Move a Mussel, Pull the Plug, Be a Hero Transport Zero). This funding opportunity requests that the assessment "Determine whether other state or regional prevention brands or messages, used singularly or in combination with the national campaigns listed above, help to achieve behavior change among outdoor recreational users to limit the spread of invasive species." It is expected that this information will increase understanding of specific state and regional needs as well as the disadvantage, or advantage, for multiple messages that promote the same outreach goals. There is not a specified number of state or regional brands that are expected for evaluation, but should represent a diversity in location and approach. We are not aware of any existing evaluations for specific state or regional campaigns.