sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bycatch

Bycatch Provisions in the Reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act

LEE R. BENAKA, LAURA F. CIMO, and LEKELIA D. JENKINS

Introduction can harm marine ecosystems, 2009a). Such potential losses in fishing reduce biodiversity, and lead to injury or revenues, along with the serious biologi- The United Nations Food and Agri- mortality of protected species. Bycatch cal impacts of bycatch, make bycatch a culture Organization (FAO) estimates also can have severe economic impli- central challenge to address in U.S. and that in recent years the world’s cations for fisheries due to foregone international fisheries. annually discarded 7.3 million metric revenue associated with , Since the creation of fishing nets and tons of (Kelleher, 2005). damage to fishing gear, and increased fishing hooks there has been bycatch in This statistic accounts for just a portion sorting time on deck. fisheries, but efforts to reduce bycatch of the marine life incidentally caught or One example of potential foregone are relatively recent. Records of selec- harmed by fishing gear (i.e., bycatch), fishery revenue associated with discards tive fishing practices date back several because some of these organisms are is the Bering Sea pollock, Theragra centuries, but the science of fishing se- kept for consumption or sale, or are chalcogramma, fishery, which faces lectively did not begin until the end not brought on board fishing vessels hard caps on Chinook salmon, On- of the 19th century. This initial work after encountering gear. Without proper corhynchus tshawytscha, as a result of focused on selecting large sizes of com- measures in place to address bycatch, the final rule to implement Amendment mercial by adjusting the shape and 91 to the Fishery Management Plan size of meshes and placing grids into the for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and codends of trawls (Chopin et al., 1996; Lee R. Benaka is the National Coordinator of the Aleutian Islands Management Area, Prado, 1997). Later research sought to Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program in the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine which published in the Federal Regis- address the issue of separating species Fisheries Service, NOAA, 1315 East–West ter on 30 August 2010 (NOAA, 2010). in multispecies fisheries. Rising public Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Laura F. Cimo is with the Office of International Affairs, Economic analyses in Amendment 91 interest in charismatic species during National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 1315 indicate that total potentially foregone the 1960’s led to the development of East–West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. pollock wholesale gross revenue could capture prevention and escape technol- Lekelia D. Jenkins is with the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of be as much as $453 million if high ogy for marine , sea , Washington, 3707 Brooklyn Avenue NE, Seattle, levels of Chinook salmon bycatch occur and beginning in the 1970’s WA 98105-6715. Corresponding author is Lee R. in the fishery in a given year (NMFS, (Coe, 1984). Most recently, researchers Benaka ([email protected]).

ABSTRACT—Bycatch can harm ma­r- Secretary to identify nations whose vessels nological devices and other conservation ine ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, lead are engaged in the bycatch of protected engineering designed to minimize bycatch, to injury or mortality of protected spe- living marine resources (PLMR’s) under including improvements to bycatch reduc- cies, and have severe economic implica- specified circumstances and to certify that tion devices and excluder devices in tions for fisheries. On 12 January 2007, these nations have 1) adopted regulatory Atlantic and trawl fisheries, President George W. Bush signed the programs for PLMR’s that are compara- gillnets in Northeast fisheries, and trawls Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation ble to U.S. programs, taking into account in Alaska and Pacific Northwest fisheries. and Management Reauthorization Act of different conditions, and 2) established In addition, the international provisions 2006 (MSRA). The MSRA required the management plans for PLMR’s that assist of the MSRA have provided an innovative U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to in the collection of data to support assess- tool through which the United States can establish a Bycatch Reduction Engineering ments and conservation of these resources. address bycatch by foreign nations. How- Program (BREP) to develop technological If a nation fails to take sufficient correc- ever, the inability of the National Marine devices and other conservation engineer- tive action and does not receive a positive Fisheries Service to identify nations whose ing changes designed to minimize bycatch, certification, fishing products from that vessels are engaged in the bycatch of interactions, bycatch mortality, and country may be subject to import prohibi- PLMR’s to date will require the develop- post-release mortality in Federally man- tions into the United States. The BREP has ment of additional approaches to meet this aged fisheries. The MSRA also required the made significant progress to develop tech- mandate.

74(2) 1 are examining the survival of organ- erations and to ensure the safe handling tions, and regulatory actions to monitor isms after interactions with gear (Prado, of all captured sea turtles. and decrease bycatch. 1997; Wilde, 2009). In addition, the Western and Central Many of NMFS’ efforts grew from The bycatch of fishery resources, Pacific Fisheries Commission ad- Congressional mandates to address marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, opted a conservation and management bycatch, especially the Marine and other living marine resources measure in December 2008 requiring Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, the has become a central concern of the commission members, cooperating Act (ESA) of 1973, commercial and recreational fishing nonmembers, and participating Terri- and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery industries, resource managers, conser- tories (CCM’s) to implement the FAO Conservation and Management Act vation organizations, scientists, and the guidelines as appropriate, ensure safe (MSA) of 1976. The MSA restricted public—both nationally and globally. handling of all captured sea turtles to the definition of bycatch to mean “fish Recognizing the negative impact of this improve survival, report on which are harvested in a fishery, but problem, the international community interactions, use proper mitigation which are not sold or kept for personal has called for bycatch levels to be re- techniques, and utilize safe handling and use, and includes economic discards duced in agreements such as the United release equipment, among other things and regulatory discards. Such term does Nations Agreement in (CMM 2008-03). not include fish released alive under a 1995 and several measures in Regional Most recently, the International recreational catch and release fishery Organizations Commission for the Conservation of management program.” (RFMO’s). Atlantic (ICCAT) adopted a Since the original passage of the For example, the Code of Conduct for measure in November 2010 requiring MSA, Congress has twice passed major Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) is an each contracting party, cooperating amendments to this statute. In 1996, international agreement that advocates noncontracting party, entity, or fishing Congress amended the Act with the Sus- the reduction of discards and bycatch. entity to collect and annually report to tainable Fisheries Act (SFA). Among Article 8, paragraph 8.5.1, declares, ICCAT information on the interactions other things, the SFA added three new “States should require that fishing gear, of its fleet with sea turtles in ICCAT National Standards, one of which spe- methods and practices, to the extent fisheries. The United States often has cifically addresses bycatch. National practicable, are sufficiently selective so played a leadership role toward ad- Standard 9 states that “Conservation as to minimise waste, discards, catch of vancing bycatch reduction measures in and management measures shall, to the nontarget species…impacts on associ- international fora. extent practicable, A) minimize bycatch ated or dependent species…” In addi- In addition, the Food and Agriculture and B) to the extent bycatch cannot be tion, Article 7.6.9 asserts, “States should Organization of the United Nations in avoided, minimize the mortality of such take appropriate measures to minimise January 2011 released the first global bycatch.” In 1998, NMFS developed waste, discards, catch by lost or aban- guidelines for bycatch management and a Bycatch Plan that reviewed existing doned gear, catch of nontarget species, the reduction of fishing discards. The bycatch activities, developed national both fish and nonfish species, and nega- guidelines covered bycatch management bycatch objectives, and made recom- tive impacts on associated or dependent planning, improvement of fishing gear, mendations for how to achieve these species, in particular endangered species fisheries closures, economic incen- objectives (NMFS, 1998). In 2003, . . . States and sub-regional or regional tives for adoption of bycatch-reduction NMFS assessed its progress toward fisheries management organisations or measures, monitoring, research and achieving the objectives specified in arrangements should promote, to the development, and capacity-building the Bycatch Plan. The assessment was extent practicable, the development and for developing states to facilitate their part of the National Bycatch Strategy, use of selective and environmentally ability to follow the guidelines. which detailed five additional compo- safe gear and techniques.” The United States was also one of nents for reducing bycatch, including Several RFMO’s have adopted mea- the first nations to address domestic international approaches (Benaka and sures to reduce sea turtle bycatch with bycatch. During the past 37 years, Dobrzynski, 2004). support from the United States. For ex- the National Marine Fisheries Service Also included in the 1996 amend- ample, at its 75th meeting in June 2007, (NMFS); its predecessor, the Bureau ments to the MSA was a requirement the Inter-American Tropical Com- of Commercial Fisheries; and (after that the U.S. Government work toward mission adopted a resolution to mitigate 1976) the regional fishery management securing agreements with other coun- the impact of tuna fishing on sea turtles. councils (hereafter the Councils) have tries to promote bycatch reduction The resolution called on the contracting responded to this concern by taking technologies and techniques that are parties, cooperating nonparties, fishing a variety of actions. The actions have comparable to those found in the United entities, and regional economic integra- included research to develop better States. This amendment, found in Sec- tion organizations to implement the FAO methods for monitoring and reducing tion 202(h)(l) of the MSA, promoted a guidelines to reduce the bycatch, injury, bycatch, outreach programs to explain consistent policy in addressing bycatch, and mortality of sea turtles in fishing op- the bycatch problem and search for solu- as similar provisions are contained in

2 Marine Fisheries Review both the MMPA and ESA. To fulfill Table 1.—Differences in the concept of bycatch between the domestic and international sections of the MSRA. this new requirement, NMFS convened Considered bycatch Considered bycatch Category of resource in domestic in international an International Bycatch Reduction or activity sections of MSRA? sections of MSRA? Task Force (Task Force). The Task Managed fish Yes No (except sharks) Force developed a Plan of Action that Nontarget fish Yes Yes implements a strategy to promote in- Economic and regulatory discards Yes Yes ternational agreements that reduce sea Fish released in catch and release programs No No Mortality to marine resources caused by derelict fishing gear No No turtle bycatch in foreign longline fisher- Sea turtles Yes Yes ies. The Plan of Action also promotes Marine mammals No Yes Seabirds No No the implementation of the Food and Practices other than fishing No Yes Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Reducing Incidental PLMR’s as “1) nontarget fish, sea Summary of Section 316 Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries turtles, or marine mammals that are Section 316 of the MSA contains four and the FAO IPOA for the Conservation protected under U.S. law or interna- sections, which are entitled a) Bycatch and Management of Sharks. tional agreement, including the Marine Reduction Engineering Program, b) On 12 January 2007, President Mammal Protection Act, the Endan- Incentives, c) Coordination on Seabird George W. Bush signed the Magnuson- gered Species Act, the Interactions, and d) Report. These sub- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Prohibition Act, and the Convention on sections are described in the following Management Reauthorization Act of the International Trade in Endangered paragraphs. 2006 (MSRA). Among the amend- Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, but 2) Section 316(a) required the Secretary ments to the MSA were requirements does not include species, except sharks, of Commerce, in cooperation with the to build on and improve current bycatch managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Councils and other affected interests, reduction efforts through establish- Fishery Conservation and Management to establish the BREP by mid January ment of a new program and processes. Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention 2008. According to the MSA, the BREP Specifically, Section 316 of the MSRA Act, or any international fishery man- was to: required the Secretary of Commerce, in agement agreement.” The current draft cooperation with the Councils and other list of PLMR’s contains many species 1) Be regionally based; affected interests, and based upon the of marine mammals, sharks, coral, eel, 2) Be coordinated with projects con- best scientific information available, to and sea turtles. Table 1 contrasts the ducted under the cooperative re- establish a Bycatch Reduction Engineer- concept of bycatch as defined in the search and management program ing Program (BREP), including grants, domestic and international sections of established under MSRA; to develop technological devices and the MSRA. 3) Provide information and outreach other conservation engineering changes In January 2009, NMFS issued the to fishery participants that will designed to minimize bycatch, seabird first annual Report to Congress on its encourage adoption and use of interactions, bycatch mortality, and post- implementation of Section 316 of the technologies developed under the release mortality in Federally managed reauthorized MSA and development of BREP; and fisheries. the BREP (NMFS, 2009b). In January 4) Provide for routine consultation Also, Section 403 of the MSRA 2009 and subsequently in January 2011, with the Councils in order to maxi- requires the Secretary to identify na- NMFS issued its first two biennial Re- mize opportunities to incorporate tions whose vessels are engaged in ports to Congress on implementation of results of the BREP in fishery the bycatch of protected living marine Section 403, which included detailed in- management plans (FMP’s) de- resources (PLMR’s) under specified formation on NOAA’s efforts to address veloped by the Councils. circumstances and to certify that these bycatch globally. This paper discusses nations have 1) adopted regulatory pro- in detail the implementation process for Section 316(b) includes authorization grams for PLMR’s that are comparable Sections 316 and 403 of the reauthorized language stating that any FMP devel- to U.S. programs, taking into account MSA as well as the final regulations for oped by a Council or the Secretary of different conditions, and 2) established these sections. This paper also briefly Commerce may establish a system of management plans for PLMR’s. If a discusses the incentives to reduce total bycatch and nation fails to take sufficient corrective and its implications. seabird interactions, amounts, bycatch action and does not receive a positive rates, and post-release mortality in fish- certification, fishing products from that Bycatch Reduction eries under the Council’s or Secretary’s country may be subject to import prohi- Engineering Program jurisdiction. Such incentives, according bitions into the United States. This section describes Section 316 to Section 316(b), could include: Importantly, the scope of Section of the MSA. This section also describes 1) Measures to incorporate bycatch 403 is quite broad. Section 403 defines how Section 316 has been implemented. into quotas;

74(2) 3 2) Measures to promote the use of bycatch of fish and protected spe- catch, depending on the expertise of the gear with verifiable and monitored cies (including marine mammals, primary representative. According to the low bycatch and seabird interac- seabirds, and sea turtles) as well BREP terms of reference, the regional tions and rates; and as minimize bycatch mortality representatives serve as liaisons between 3) Measures that will reduce bycatch (including post-release mortality).” the BREP and already existing Regional and seabird interactions, bycatch Bycatch Committees and Action Teams, mortality, post-release mortality, According to the BREP terms of ref- to the extent such committees and teams or regulatory discards. erence, the BREP includes a National are active. Coordinator in the NMFS Office of Since its creation, the BREP has met Section 316(c) also includes authori- Sustainable Fisheries. The Office of several times over the phone and from zation language stating that the Secre- Sustainable Fisheries, in consultation 2009 to 2011 met in person on an annual tary of Commerce, in coordination with with the NMFS Offices of Protected basis. These meetings are designed to the Secretary of Interior, is authorized to Resources, Science and Technology, discuss challenges in administering the undertake projects in cooperation with and International Affairs, provides BREP, share developments regarding industry to improve information and policy oversight and overall coordina- BREP research, and plan for future technology to reduce seabird bycatch. tion of activities through the National BREP growth. Such projects could include: Coordinator. National coordination 1) Outreach to industry on new tech- activities include providing staff sup- BREP Projects nologies and methods; port to the BREP, documenting BREP Since the establishment of the BREP 2) Projects to mitigate for seabird activities, managing the annual spend- in 2008, the BREP has funded a wide mortality; and ing plan process, serving as primary range of conservation engineering proj- 3) Actions at appropriate internation- point of contact for the annual BREP ects. Because the BREP was funded at al fishery organizations to reduce Report to Congress, and any other activ- relatively low levels compared to the seabird interactions in fisheries. ity deemed necessary by the BREP or BREP’s “100% requirements” as deter- NMFS leadership. mined by a 2006 informal agency analy- Section 316(d) requires the Secretary In addition to the National Coordina- sis, the BREP did not use its funding to of Commerce to transmit an annual tor, the BREP consists of the following conduct a competitive grant program report to Congress that describes: NMFS program representatives who until 2012. However, the internal funds 1) Funding provided to implement will have expertise in fisheries bycatch, allocated by the BREP have engaged Section 316; protected resources interactions, man- numerous industry, state, academic, and 2) Developments in gear technology agement, and science: environmental group partners through achieved under this section; and • One representative with hands-on contract vehicles and other collabora- 3) Improvements and reduction in bycatch reduction engineering and tive research arrangements. bycatch and seabird interactions post-release injury and mortal- Funding to implement the BREP associated with implementing ity experience from each regional totaled $847,394 in 2008. This funding this section, as well as proposals center/regional came from a NOAA budget line item to address remaining bycatch or office (i.e., six total regional rep- entitled “Reducing Bycatch,” which seabird interaction problems. resentatives); has appeared in the NOAA budget • The NMFS Sea Grant Liaison (or since 2004. Since 2004, $300,000 of Establishment of the BREP other Sea Grant designee); Reducing Bycatch funds has been On 30 April 2007, a NMFS working • The NMFS National Seabird Pro- permanently allocated at the direction group consisting of representatives from gram Coordinator; of NMFS leadership to the Southeast three headquarters offices, three science • One representative each from the Fisheries Science Center (SEC) to centers, and one regional office met in headquarters Offices of Protected fund the gear technology program at its Miami to draft terms of reference for Resources, Science and Technol- Pascagoula, Miss., Laboratory. In addi- the BREP. The terms of reference were ogy, and International Affairs; and tion, approximately $225,000 has been approved in the form of NMFS Policy • One representative from the Highly permanently allocated at the direction of Directive 01-107, signed on 11 January Migratory Species Management NMFS leadership to fund the National 2008 by the NOAA Acting Assistant Division in the Office of Sustain- Seabird Program (NSP), the coordinator Administrator for Fisheries. The mis- able Fisheries. of which is located at the NMFS Alaska sion of the BREP, as stated in the terms Regional Office. Remaining BREP of reference, is: When nominating representatives, the funds have been allocated through an Regional Administrator/Science Center internal agency competitive proposal “to develop technological solutions Director also nominates an alternate rep- process. All BREP funds are accounted and investigate changes in fishing resentative with expertise in protected for through its annual report to Con- practices designed to minimize resources interactions or fisheries by- gress. Funding levels from 2004 to

4 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 1.—NOAA Reducing Bycatch line funding, 2004–12 ($K, NSP perm = National Seabird Program permanent funding, SEC = Southeast Fisheries Science Center permanent funding, and BREP non-perm = Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program competitive funding).

2012 from NOAA’s Reducing Bycatch • Gear modifications to reduce harbor • A pilot study of a bycatch reduc- budget line related to the BREP and , Phocoena phocoena, in- tion device to reduce salmon, On- previous bycatch gear research, as well teractions in the commercial At- corhynchus spp., and rockfish, Se- as the breakdown among SEC, NSP, and lantic gillnet fisheries; bastes spp., bycatch in the Pacific other allocations, is shown in Figure 1. • Conservation engineering to reduce whiting, Merluccius productus, The 2008 BREP projects resulted in trawl bycatch in Alaska fisheries; fishery, which resulted in a 62% several accomplishments to help reduce • Reduction of post-release mortal- reduction in salmon catch; bycatch, including: ity for sharks, • Generation of crab mortality rates • Evaluation of bycatch reduction Alopias vulpinus, captured in the after encounters with Bering Sea devices in trawls; Southern California recreational bottom trawls; • Transfer of fishery; • Testing a new bycatch reduction (TED) and bycatch reduction • Reduction of shark bycatch with device in the Gulf of Mexico device technology in the Southeast electropositive metals in - that resulted in a Region; based fisheries; and 36% reduction in finfish catch with • Evaluation of weaker circle hooks to • Partial funding of a gear technician only a 4% reduction in shrimp release bluefin tuna,Thunnus thyn- at the NMFS Northwest Fisheries catch; nus, in the ,Thunnus Science Center (NMFS, 2009a). • Testing a TED for the flynet fishery albacares, longline fishery; that resulted in a target catch loss • Estimation of seabird bycatch in Funding to implement the BREP of only 6.7% but a reduction in the Northeast commercial fisheries; totaled $1,421,707 in 2009 due to an unwanted catch of , • Seabird bycatch avoidance in West increase of $567,000 in the FY2009 Squalus acanthias, and clearnose groundfish fisheries; President’s budget for NOAA. These skates, Raja eglanteria, of 40% and • Monitoring of seabird distribution BREP projects once again resulted in 63%, respectively; and abundance in the California several accomplishments to help reduce • Experiments to determine the ef-­ Current; bycatch, including: fects of Neodymium/Praseodymi-

74(2) 5 um allows on longline gear, which lantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrin- • Ability of Southern California resulted in a 58% decrease in the chus, bycatch and harbor porpoise deepwater rockfish to survive baro-­ catch rate of unwanted scalloped takes in the Atlantic monkfish, traumas following in-situ recom- hammerhead sharks, Sphyrna Lophius americanus, fishery; pression; lewini; • Post-release survival of large Pa- • Green-stick gear bycatch charac- • Deployment of satellite tags to cific blue marlin, Makaira nigri- terization in the northern Gulf of thresher sharks, which resulted cans, captured in Pacific longline Mexico Atlantic tuna fishery; in determination of a post-release fisheries; • Effectiveness of skimmer trawl mortality rate of 26% for this im- • Effects of trailing gear in the Cali- TED’s in North Carolina inshore portant species; and fornia recreational thresher shark waters; and • The successful completion of fishery; • Methods to monitor seabird bycatch the first NMFS National Seabird • TED’s and bycatch reduction devic- in Northeast commercial fisheries. Workshop, which will help NMFS es for the shrimp trawl fishery; and prioritize its seabird bycatch reduc- • depredation in the In 2012, the U.S. Senate directed tion efforts (NMFS, 2010). California halibut, Paralichthys NMFS to make $2.5M of Reducing californicus, trawl fishery. Bycatch budget line funds available for For 2010, NMFS allocated an ad- competitive grants to non-Federal re- ditional $400,000 to the BREP to fund Funding to implement the BREP to- searchers working with U.S. fishermen projects related to Annual Catch Limit taled $1,963,490 in 2011, and projects on the development of innovative gear (ACL) restrictions due to bycatch. included research on: technologies. This change increased Funding to implement the BREP to- • Acoustic observations of false killer total BREP funding to a little over $3M taled $1,820,648 in 2010, and projects , Pseudorca crassidens, in for FY12 (with the addition of some included research on: the Hawaii-based tuna longline funds for a few internal agency BREP • Turtle bycatch reduction in the Gulf fishery; projects) from almost $2M in FY11. of Mexico bottom longline reef fish • Estimates of snow crab, Chionoece- Although the competitive grants have fishery; tes oplilio, morality as a function of not yet been awarded as of this writing, • Gear modifications to reduce but- weather conditions; the few internal BREP projects in FY12 terfish, Peprilus triacanthus, by- • Selectivity of bottom trawls to reduce focused on the bycatch of sea turtles, catch in the offshore Atlantic squid, bycatch of Pacific halibut, Hip­- Atlantic sturgeon, salmon, false killer Loligo spp. fishery; poglossus stenolepis, in the West whales, sharks, and Pacific halibut. • Gear modifications to reduce At­ Coast groundfish trawl fishery; This change in direction of the BREP from funding internal agency proj- ects to funding grants to non-Federal researchers has severely limited sev- eral regional NMFS bycatch reduction engineering programs that had been developed over the past several years of BREP funding. Figures 2 and 3 show how BREP funds have been generally distrib- uted among projects addressing seabird takes, turtles bycatch/marine mammals takes, and finfish bycatch. The pro- portion of projects addressing finfish bycatch increased to the greatest extent in 2011. The following criteria are used to select BREP projects for funding, whether they are internal agency proj- ects or non-Federal grant projects: • Importance and relevance to Regional and Atlantic Highly Mi- gratory Species Bycatch Imple- mentation Plans, Council research priorities, Endangered Species Figure 2.—2010 BREP funding by subject matter. Act research priorities, and/or

6 Marine Fisheries Review Marine Mammal Protection Act Take Reduction Plan research priorities; • Level of involve- ment; • Whether the projects build upon successful research previously funded by the BREP; and • Project evaluation by NMFS by- catch reduction experts.

Overall, the language in Section 316 of the MSA served to formally recognize various efforts being conducted by parts of NMFS to reduce bycatch since around 2003. By creating a nationally coordi- nated program with an annual report to Congress, Congress ensured that some important NMFS bycatch reduction efforts will be conducted more system- atically and with greater accountability than in the past. Figure 3.—2011 BREP funding by subject matter.

International Bycatch Provisions 1) Discuss the status of international agreement to which the United States is This section summarizes Section 403 living marine resources shared party; (2) of stocks shared of the MSA. This section also describes by the United States or subject to by the United States to which no inter- regulations promulgated to implement treaties or agreements to which the national conservation or management Section 403. United States is a party; measures apply, where the overfishing 2) List nations that have been identi- has adverse impacts on the stocks; or (3) Summary of Section 403 fied for having vessels engaged in fishing activity with adverse impact on Among its provisions, Section 403 illegal, unreported, and unregu- seamounts, hydrothermal vents, or cold- of Title IV of the Magnuson-Stevens lated (IUU) fishing or bycatch of water corals, to which no conservation Fishery Conservation and Management PLMR’s, respectively; and management measures apply. Reauthorization Act of 2006 (P.L. 109- 3) Describe efforts by nations on As required under the Moratorium 479) amends the High Seas Driftnet those lists to take appropriate Protection Act, NMFS published a Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium corrective action and evaluate the definition that reflected these guidelines Protection Act)(P.L. 104-43) by adding progress of those efforts; within 90 days of enactment (NOAA, four sections (sections 607, 608, 609, 4) Describe progress to strengthen 2007a). This definition was later modi- and 610) of new international provi- the efforts of international fishery fied in a final rule establishing identifica- sions. Section 608 to the Moratorium management organizations to end tion and certification procedures under Protection Act requires the Secretary IUU fishing; and the Moratorium Protection Act (50 of Commerce, in consultation with the 5) Discuss efforts by the Secretary C.F.R. §300.201 (2011)). NMFS has Secretary of State and in cooperation to encourage the adoption of in- published a proposed rule that seeks to with relevant regional Councils and any ternational measures comparable further revise this definition consistent relevant advisory committees, to take to those of the United States to with the purposes of the Moratorium actions to improve the effectiveness of reduce impacts of fishing and Protection Act in order to more compre- international fishery management orga- other practices on PLMR’s. hensively address IUU fishing and more nizations in conserving and managing effectively address this problem that stocks under their jurisdiction. Section 609 of the Moratorium threatens the sustainable management Section 607 of the Moratorium Pro- Protection Act addresses IUU fishing of the world’s fisheries (NOAA, 2012). tection Act requires the Secretary to activity. The Act establishes minimum Significantly, Section 609(a) refers submit to Congress a biennial report guidelines for a definition of IUU fish- to IUU fishing activities of “vessels;” describing NOAA’s actions to imple- ing. These guidelines are: (1) fishing thus, a nation must have more than one ment the international provisions of the activities that violate conservation and vessel engaged in IUU fishing activi- reauthorized MSA. Specifically, the management measures required under ties to be identified under Section 609. report must: an international fishery management It also is worth noting that any entity

74(2) 7 other than a “nation” (as recognized A) in waters beyond any na- activities that occur under certain cir- by the U.S. government) cannot be tional jurisdiction that result cumstances. Specifically, nations can identified for having vessels engaged in bycatch of a protected living be identified for fishing activities and in IUU fishing activity for purposes marine resource, or practices that result in the bycatch of of the Moratorium Protection Act. B) beyond the exclusive eco- PLMR’s where the relevant interna- Notably, the conservation measures of nomic zone of the United tional conservation organization has some RFMO’s include provisions for States that result in bycatch failed to implement effective measures reducing bycatch. If a nation’s vessels of a protected living marine to reduce such bycatch or the nation is are fishing in violation of these provi- resource shared by the United not a party to or a cooperating partner sions, then Section 609 can serve as States; with the organization. Another require- another mechanism through which the 2) the relevant international organi- ment for identification is that the nation reauthorized MSA can address interna- zation for the conservation and has not adopted a regulatory program tional bycatch. protection of such resources or governing such fishing practices that is Another key point is that the activ- the relevant or regional fishery comparable to that of the United States, ity must occur during the “preceding organization has failed to imple- taking into account different conditions. two years” from submission of the ment effective measures to end or Bycatch activities that fail to meet biennial report to Congress. Informa- reduce such bycatch, or the nation these criteria cannot form the basis for tion concerning activities outside that is not a party to, or does not main- identification. time period cannot form the basis for tain cooperating status with, such an identification decision. Currently, organization; and Promulgation of Regulations Congress is considering legislation 3) the nation has not adopted a In its implementation of the bycatch that would expand this time period regulatory program governing provisions of the reauthorized MSA, to three years. During the 111th Con- such fishing practices designed to NMFS published an Advance Notice gress, the U.S. House of Representa- end or reduce such bycatch that is of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on tives passed H.R. 1080, the Illegal, comparable to that of the United 11 June 2007 in the Federal Register Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing States, taking into account differ- (NOAA, 2007b) to announce that it was Enforcement Act of 2009, on 22 Sep- ent conditions.” developing certification procedures to tember 2009. The U.S. Senate Com- address IUU fishing and bycatch of mittee on Commerce, Science, and Thus, the identification of nations for PLMR’s pursuant to the Moratorium Transportation reported S. 2870, the bycatch activities can be based only on Protection Act. In addition to soliciting International Fisheries Stewardship current activities of fishing vessels of written comments on the ANPR, NMFS and Enforcement Act, on 24 March that nation, or activities in which those held three public input sessions around 2010. The House bill was reintroduced vessels have been engaged during the the country. NMFS also hosted a meet- during the 112th Congress as H.R. preceding calendar year from develop- ing of representatives from foreign 4100, and the Senate bill was reintro- ment of the biennial report to Congress. embassies. These meetings provided duced as S. 52. Activities outside that time frame cannot valuable opportunities for NMFS to ex- Congress has taken several steps form the basis for identification. As plain the ANPR, respond to questions, toward enactment of this legislation. mentioned previously, two bills before and receive feedback from the public. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wild- the 112th Congress (H.R. 4100 and S. Taking into consideration the com- life, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held 52) would expand this time frame to ments from the ANPR, NMFS drafted a hearing on H.R. 4100 in June 2012 three years. Further, the reauthorized a proposed rule and published it on 14 and discharged the bill to the House MSA specifies that the bycatch must January 2009 in the Federal Register Committee on Natural Resources for occur on the high seas or affect a PLMR (NOAA, 2009). In addition to solicit- consideration. The Senate Commerce that is shared with the United States. ing written comments on the proposed Committee reported S. 52 out of Com- The identification criteria are critical rule, NMFS held six public hearings mittee in January 2012, and the bill is because the bycatch of certain species around the country. NMFS prepared awaiting consideration by the Senate. is excluded from consideration under a draft Environmental Assessment to Section 610 of the Moratorium these provisions. accompany this proposed rule, which Protection Act addresses international For example, the bycatch of species includes a Regulatory Impact Review bycatch of PLMR’s and requires that the that solely exist within coastal waters of and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analy- Secretary identify a nation for bycatch another nation, such as the endangered sis (NMFS, 2009c). The regulations, activities if: , Phocoena sinus, which occurs which were finalized in January 2011, 1) fishing vessels of that nation are only in the territorial waters of Mexico, provide guidance for the identification engaged, or have been engaged cannot form the basis of identifica- and certification procedures under the during the preceding calendar year tion. Likewise, the statute only allows Moratorium Protection Act (50 C.F.R. in fishing activities or practices; nations to be identified for bycatch §300.201 (2011)).

8 Marine Fisheries Review Identifying Nations and 3) improved monitoring, control, measures required in the United States, Engaged in PLMR Bycatch and surveillance of fishing activities. NMFS will consider whether the pro- When making identification determina- gram is comparable in effectiveness, When determining whether to iden- tions, NMFS will also examine whether taking into account different conditions tify a nation as having fishing vessels adequate enforcement measures and that could bear on the feasibility and ef- engaged in the bycatch of PLMR’s capacity exist to promote compliance. ficacy of comparable measures. If other in the previous calendar year, NMFS measures could address bycatch of the evaluates appropriate information and Notification and Consultation PLMR’s in question that are comparable evidence. Once NMFS has determined Pursuant to the requirements under in effectiveness, then the implementa- that information on PLMR bycatch is the Moratorium Protection Act, NMFS tion of such measures by a nation may credible and provides a reasonable basis will publish a list of nations that have be deemed sufficient for purposes of the to believe or suspect that a nation’s fish- been identified as having fishing ves- Moratorium Protection Act. As relevant, ing vessels are engaged in bycatch of sels engaged in bycatch of PLMR’s in NMFS will consider whether measures PLMR’s, NMFS—acting through or in the biennial Report to Congress. Upon have been implemented and effectively consultation with the U.S. State Depart- submission of the biennial Report to enforced, including, but not limited to: ment—will initiate bilateral discussions Congress, the Secretary of Commerce, 1) programs for data collection and with the nation. The discussions will: acting through or in cooperation with sharing, including observer programs; 1) seek credible information that cor- the Secretary of State, will: 1) initiate 2) bycatch reduction and mitigation roborates or refutes the alleged PLMR consultations with identified nations for strategies, techniques, and equipment bycatch; 2) communicate the require- the purposes of entering into bilateral (including training and assistance for ments of the Moratorium Protection and multilateral treaties to protect the bycatch reduction technology and Act to the nation; and 3) encourage the PLMR’s from the bycatch activities equipment); and 3) improved monitor- nation to address the PLMR bycatch and described in the biennial report; and 2) ing, control, and surveillance of fishing take the necessary actions to receive a seek agreements through international activities. positive certification. organizations calling for international When making certification determi- In determining whether to identify na- restrictions on the fishing activities or nations, the Secretary of Commerce tions for bycatch of PLMR’s, NMFS will practices described in the biennial report will, in consultation with the Secretary consider information gathered during bi- that result in bycatch of PLMR’s. of State, evaluate the information dis- lateral discussions and examine whether cussed above, comments received from the nation has implemented measures Procedures to Certify Nations such nation, the consultations with each that are deemed to be effective to reduce Based on the identification, notifica- identified nation, and other relevant ac- bycatch of the relevant PLMR’s. NMFS tion, and consultation processes outlined tions, such as requests for assistance in will also examine whether there is an above, NMFS will certify nations that the implementation of measures compa- international organization with responsi- have been identified in the biennial rable to those of the United States. The bility for the conservation of the PLMR, report. Secretary of Commerce will also take and whether the nation is party to or Identified nations will receive either into account whether the nation partici- maintains cooperating status with the a positive or negative certification. A pates in existing certification programs, relevant international body. positive certification indicates that a such as those authorized under Section Further, NMFS will consider whether nation has: 1) provided documentary 609 of the Endangered Species Act (P.L. the relevant international body has ad- evidence of the adoption of a regulatory 101–162), or the affirmative finding opted effective measures for reducing program governing the conservation of process under the International bycatch of PLMR’s and whether the the PLMR that is comparable to that Conservation Program Act. Nothing in nation has implemented and is enforcing of the United States, taking into ac- the proposed regulations will modify such measures. If an identified nation count different conditions, and which, these existing certification procedures. is not party to the international body in the case of pelagic , If nations identified as having fish- with responsibility for bycatch of the includes mandatory use of circle hooks, ing vessels engaged in PLMR bycatch PLMR’s in question, NMFS will consid- careful handling and release equipment, receive a positive certification from the er whether the nation has implemented and training and observer programs; Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the effective measures for reducing bycatch and 2) established a management plan Moratorium Protection Act, no actions of such PLMR’s. Such measures may containing requirements that will assist will be taken against such nations. If an include, but are not limited to: 1) pro- in gathering species-specific data to identified nation fails to sufficiently ad- grams for data collection and sharing, support international assessments and dress PLMR bycatch and receives a neg- including observer programs; 2) bycatch conservation enforcement efforts for ative certification, the nation could face reduction and mitigation strategies, PLMR’s. denial of port privileges, prohibitions techniques, and equipment, including When determining whether a nation’s on the import of certain fish and fish gear restrictions and gear modifications; regulatory program is comparable to products into the United States, as well

74(2) 9 as other appropriate measures, based on Identification Decisions information, this information is rarely recommendations from the Secretary to available for the previous year. the President. The process for determin- Under the Moratorium Protection Even for U.S. PLMR stocks, the most ing appropriate action will consider the Act, NMFS is not required to estab- recent data available usually is at least 2 circumstances, extent, and gravity of the lish regulations for the identification or 3 years old (e.g., see NMFS marine bycatch of PLMR’s for which the initial process. Although NMFS has opted to mammal stock assessments). Generally, identification was made, and other rel- promulgate regulations for the iden- such data must be collected by placing evant factors. The Secretary will make tification process for transparency, its independent observers on fishing vessels such recommendations in accordance first identification process was based and implementing effective observer with U.S. obligations under applicable on the statutory text of the amendments programs. This can be logistically chal- international trade law, including the because regulations implementing the lenging and expensive. To address this World Trade Organization. new amendments were not finalized issue, NMFS is providing training and To facilitate enforcement, nations that in time for the first biennial report. In other assistance to developing nations to do not receive a positive certification preparation for the identification deci- foster the development and implemen- may be required to submit documenta- sions in the in the first biennial Report tation of effective observer programs. tion of admissibility when exporting to Congress, NMFS solicited informa- Another issue that arose concerned fish to the United States. To inform tion from the public, other nations, the geographic scope and nature of U.S. ports that cargo originating from other U.S. government agencies, and bycatch activities. In some cases, a foreign port may not be permitted international organizations regarding information was provided on fishing to enter into the United States, NMFS nations whose vessels were engaged activities that did not fall within the intends to collaborate with other Federal in IUU fishing activity in 2007 or 2008 scope of PLMR bycatch, as described agencies and take advantage of exist- or PLMR bycatch during 2008. On 21 under the Moratorium Protection Act. ing prior notification procedures, such March 2008, NMFS published a notice For example, information was provided as those required under section 343(a) in the Federal Register requesting such on the bycatch of species found solely of the Trade Act of 2002, or those pro- information (NOAA, 2008). NMFS cir- within the EEZ of another nation that posed for further development under culated this notice widely to constituents are not shared with the United States. the International Trade Data System and discussed it at relevant bilateral and Such activities do not qualify as PLMR (ITDS) established under the Security multilateral meetings. bycatch for purposes of the Moratorium and Accountability for Every (SAFE) In response to the Federal Register Protection Act. Port Act of 2006. notice, NMFS received reports, IUU All information received and collect- If the Secretary of Commerce cannot vessel lists, peer-reviewed literature, ed was compiled, reviewed, and com- reach a certification determination for and other information from individuals, pared against the criteria and statutory an identified nation by the time of the nongovernmental organizations, and requirements of the Moratorium Protec- next biennial report, the Moratorium other nations. In addition to information tion Act. Following this process, NMFS Protection Act requires the Secretary gathered from the public, NMFS also analyzed the information and concluded to establish alternative procedures for solicited RFMO information, including that no nations could be identified for the certification of fish or fish prod- RFMO IUU vessel lists, compliance re- PLMR bycatch under section 610 due ucts from such nation. Under these ports, information on violations of con- to the restrictions in the Moratorium alternative procedures, the Secretary of servation and management measures, Protection Act. Further, no nations were Commerce may allow entry of fish on and scientific reports. From its regional identified under section 609 for violating a shipment-by-shipment, shipper-by- offices and science centers, NMFS also RFMO bycatch measures. NMFS did, shipper, or other basis as long as speci- solicited information, including peer- however, identify six nations (France, fied conditions are met. To qualify for reviewed literature, scientific reports, Italy, Libya, Panama, People’s Republic the alternative certification procedures, and information on cooperative scien- of China, and Tunisia) for other IUU NMFS must determine that imports tific work, on bycatch activities. fishing activities under section 609. were harvested by practices that do not The information received focused Although NMFS fulfilled its obliga- result in bycatch of PLMR’s or were mostly on alleged IUU fishing activity; tions under the Act to examine informa- harvested by practices comparable to relatively little information was pro- tion on bycatch for potential use in the those required in the United States, ac- vided on PLMR bycatch. Of the bycatch identification procedures, NMFS was counting for different conditions that information that was provided, much of unable to identify nations for having affect the feasibility and efficacy of such it could not be used in the identification vessels engaged in fishing activity or practices, which, in the case of pelagic process because this information did not practices that result in PLMR bycatch longline fishing, includes mandatory fall within the preceding calendar year for the reasons discussed above. In use of circle hooks, careful handling as required in the Moratorium Protection preparation for the second biennial and release equipment, and training and Act. Unfortunately, due to the process report to Congress, which was pub- observer programs. of collecting and analyzing bycatch lished in January 2011, NMFS followed

10 Marine Fisheries Review the same process and faced the same ment these provisions can be found in a The impacts of shifting the majority of challenges. NMFS was unable to iden- proposed rule that was published in July BREP funding in 2012 from internal tify nations having vessels engaged in 2012 (NMFS, 2012). Although this law agency research to external non-Federal PLMR bycatch. is in the early stages of implementation, grants are hard to estimate, but applying Despite these difficulties in imple- it provides a new tool to promote the internal BREP project selection criteria menting these provisions, NMFS al- sustainable harvest and management of to the external grants program should ready has long-standing outreach and sharks and the adoption of international result in the awarding of grants to high- assistance programs with a number measures for the conservation of sharks. quality projects. of nations to address their PLMR by- The new international bycatch provi- catch. The U.S. Government engages Conclusion sions in the MSA provide an innovative in cooperative research with several This paper has summarized how and comprehensive tool through which nations and is working to enhance NMFS has and is implementing the the United States can address bycatch other nations’ capacity to reduce and new bycatch provisions in the MSA. by foreign nations. By combining mitigate bycatch. NMFS intends to The new provisions have provided new incentives for positive action toward continue those programs and to initiate and enhanced tools to address bycatch addressing and mitigating bycatch additional programs with other nations both domestically and internationally. and sanctions for fishing activities based on the nature of their PLMR by- Importantly, the provisions provide new and practices that result in bycatch catch interactions, need for assistance, mechanisms through which stakehold- of protected species, the provisions and willingness to work cooperatively ers can inform and influence effective embody a “carrot and stick” approach to with the United States. bycatch practices. encourage effective bycatch reduction Additionally, NMFS developed a Section 316 of the MSA, which cre- practices and reprove failure to employ process to determine which nations’ ated the BREP, has made significant these practices. fishing activities are likely to result in progress to develop technological Given the lack of resources of some bycatch of PLMR species. As part of devices and other conservation engi- nations to address bycatch, NMFS and this process, NMFS began to compare neering designed to minimize bycatch, the U.S. Congress have embraced the the distribution of PLMR species with seabird interactions, bycatch mortality, approach of providing international the distribution of fisheries effort using and post-release mortality in Federally cooperation and assistance to other gear that is known to have significant managed fisheries. It is worth noting nations to enhance their capacity for PLMR bycatch rates. NMFS conducted that although Section 316(a) focuses achieving sustainable fisheries. In the an initial analysis comparing available on Federally managed fisheries, Section first year of the reauthorized MSA, a half information on pelagic longline fisheries 316(c) allows for an international ele- million dollars was spent by NMFS on with species distribution information. ment to the overall work of the BREP, cooperative work with other nations to Additional analyses and information at least in terms of seabird interactions. address IUU and international bycatch. will be required to develop a compre- In addition, although the most recent In subsequent years, Congress has al- hensive list of nations whose fishing reauthorization of the MSA did not located more than one million dollars, activities are likely to result in PLMR revise the MSA’s definition of bycatch allowing NMFS to provide financial bycatch. NMFS also will continue to to encompass seabirds, Section 316’s and personnel resources to developing collect information for possible iden- explicit identification of seabirds as a nations. Capacity building projects that tification of nations for PLMR bycatch major concern of the Bycatch Reduction NMFS has supported or assisted include under the provisions of the Moratorium Engineering Program does more closely observer and enforcement training, Protection Act. associate seabirds with the concept of marine mammal stranding training, bycatch. training in the use of bycatch reduction Identifying Nations Improvements to bycatch reduction and mitigation gear such as circle hooks, in Relation to Shark Conservation devices and TED’s in Atlantic and and bycatch research. The High Seas Driftnet Fishing Mora- Gulf of Mexico trawl fisheries, gillnets If funding continues at or above the torium Protection Act was amended by in Northeast fisheries, and trawls in current level, NMFS can potentially the international provisions of the Shark Alaska and Pacific Northwest fisheries; implement a long-term bycatch strategy. Conservation Act, which was enacted in improvements in our understanding Unlike the short-term international by- January 2011. Under this law, NMFS is of post-release mortality in Southwest catch reduction projects in which most required to identify nations whose fish- shark fisheries; and documentation and governments and NGO’s engage, a long- ing vessels engaged in directed or inci- monitoring of seabird bycatch around term strategy would encourage enduring dental catch of sharks on the high seas the country will help NMFS meet its changes. A recent study by the National and do not have a regulatory program for obligations under the MSA, ESA, Research Council found that long-term the conservation of sharks comparable MMPA, and the U.S. National Plan investments in capacity building are to that of the United States. More infor- of Action for Reducing the Incidental critical for proper stewardship of the mation on how NMFS plans to imple- Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. oceans, but are often not funded (NRC,

74(2) 11 2008). The MSA funding can possibly individual vessels and must be obtained bycatch management, volume II, final regu- latory impact review. U.S. Dep. Commer., help fill this need. within the calendar year preceding the NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Juneau, Ak., The new MSA provisions hold value biennial report to Congress. If Congress 323 p. for many of NMFS’ stakeholders, from passes H.R. 4100 and/or S. 52, the time ______. 2009b. Annual Report to Congress on the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Pro- fishermen to foreign nations. There are frame for information that could be gram. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. three aspects of the new provisions that used in identifying nations for bycatch Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, Md., 55 p. ______. 2009c. Draft environmental assess- are especially notable: increased equity, would expand to three years, which ment, regulatory impact review, and regula- new mechanism of communication, could increase the information available tory flexibility analysis for a proposed rule and new outlets to influence change. for potential use in the identification to establish identification and certification procedures for nations under the High Seas The provisions could potentially in- process under the reauthorized MSA. Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act. crease international equity of bycatch Further, this legislation would authorize U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. requirements. As the United States is at creation of an International Cooperation Serv., Silver Spring, Md., 105 p. ______. 2010. Annual Report to Congress on the vanguard of implementing bycatch and Assistance Program to provide as- the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. measures domestically, increased equity sistance for efforts to build sustainable U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. would benefit domestic fishermen, al- fishery management capacity in other Serv., Silver Spring, Md., 95 p. NOAA. 2007a. Illegal, unreported, or unreg- lowing them to be more competitive on nations. This program, which would be ulated fishing, final rule. 72 Fed. Regist. 70 (12 the global market. authorized at $5 million annually over April 2007), p. 18,404–18,405. Available on- line at https://federalregister.gov/a/07-1830. In the past, the United States used five years, could allow NMFS to expand ______. 2007b. Certification of nations whose international organizations, multilat- its international cooperative assistance fishing vessels are engaged in illegal, unre- eral, and bilateral meetings as venues program and significantly increase ported, or unregulated fishing or bycatch of protected living marine resources. Advance in which to discuss international NMFS’ efforts to address international notice of proposed rulemaking, 72 Fed. bycatch. Unfortunately, some nations bycatch. Regist. 111 (11 June 2007), p. 32,052–32,055. do not belong to relevant interna- Available online at https://federalregister. Literature Cited gov/a/E7-11254. tional organizations to which the ______. 2008. Identification of nations whose United States is a member or do not Benaka, L. R., and J. Dobrzynski. 2004. The fishing vessels are engaged in illegal, unre- have relevant multilateral or bilateral National Marine Fisheries Service’s National ported, or unregulated fishing and/or bycatch Bycatch Strategy. Mar. Fish. Rev. 66(2):1–8. of protected living marine resources. Notice, relationships with the United States. Chopin, F., Y. Inoue, and P. He. 1996. Future 73 Fed. Regist. 56 (21 Mar. 2008), p. 15,136– The consultation provisions provide directions in conservation technology. Con- 15,137. Available online at https://federalreg- new mechanisms through which the trib. Res. Fish. Engr. (2):59–67. ister.gov/a/E8-5786. Coe, J. M., D. B. Holts, and R. W. Butler. 1984. ______. 2009. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery United States and foreign nations The tuna-porpoise problem: NMFS dolphin Conservation and Management Reautho- can engage in constructive discourse mortality reduction research, 1970–1981. rization Act; Proposed rule to implement about bycatch reduction techniques Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(3):18–33. identification and certification procedures to FAO. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fish- address illegal, unreported, and unregulated and strategies. eries. FAO, Rome, Italy, 41 p. (IUU) fishing activities and bycatch of- pro Increasingly in recent years, nongov- Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine tected living marine resources (PLMR’s). 74 fisheries. An update. FAO, Rome, Italy, 131 p. Fed. Regist. 9 (14 Jan. 2009), p. 2,019–2,032. ernmental organizations, RFMO’s, and Lewison, R., and L. B. Crowder. 2007. Putting Available online at https://federalregister. academics are undertaking research and longline bycatch of sea turtles into perspec- gov/a/E9-609. data collection on international bycatch tive. Conserv. Biol. 21(1):79–86. ______. 2010. Chinook salmon bycatch man- ______, S. A. Freeman, and L. B. Crowder. agement in Bering Sea pollock fishery. Final practices (Lewison et al., 2004; Lewi- 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries rule. 75 Fed. Regist. 167 (30 Aug. 2010), p. son and Crowder, 2007; López-Mendi- on threatened species: the impact of pelagic 53,026–53,074. Available online at https:// laharsu et al., 2007). The identification longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea federalregister.gov/a/2010-20618. turtles. Ecol. Letters 7:221–231. ______. 2012. High Seas Driftnet Fishing and certification processes of the reau- López-Mendilaharsu, M., G. Sales, B. Giffoni, P. Moratorium Protection Act; Identification and thorized MSA provide an opportunity to Miller, F. N. Fiedler, and A. Domingo. 2007. certification procedures to address shark con- Distribucion y composicion de tallas de las servation. 77 Fed. Regist. 132 (10 July 2012), use the information gleaned from these tortugas marinas (Caretta caretta y Dermo- p. 40,553–40,561. Available online at https:// investigations to influence the bycatch chelys coriacea) que interaction con el pala- federalregister.gov/a/2012-16838. practices of other nations, primarily in nagre pelagico en el atlantic sur. Col. Vol. Sci. NRC. 2008. Increasing capacity for stewardship Pap. ICCAT 60(6):2094–2109. of oceans and : a priority for the 21st those circumstances in which bilateral NMFS. 1998. Managing the nation’s bycatch. Century. Natl. Res. Counc., Wash. D.C., Nat. and multilateral engagement have not Programs, activities, and recommendations Acad. Press, 156 p. been effective in reducing bycatch. The for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Prado, J. 1997. Technical measures for bycatch U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. reduction. FAO Fish. Rep. 547 suppl.:25–44. primary constraints on this information Serv., Silver Spring, Md., 174 p. Wilde, G. R. 2009. Does venting promote sur- are that it must focus on bycatch by ______. 2009a. Bering Sea Chinook salmon vival of released fish? Fisheries 34(1):20–28.

12 Marine Fisheries Review