Reducing Sea Turtle Bycatch in Trawl Nets: a History of NMFS Turtle Excluder Device (TED) Research

Reducing Sea Turtle Bycatch in Trawl Nets: A History of NMFS Turtle Excluder Device (TED) Research

LEKELIA D. JENKINS

Introduction and at one time had a nesting female in 1913. This fishery involves pulling Sea turtle, Chelonioidea, bycatch population of only 300 individuals a net behind a boat. With advances in became a Federal management issue for (National Research Council, 1990; Lutz fishing technology, such as more power- the U.S. southeast shrimp trawl fishery and Musick, 1997; Lutz et al., 2003). ful engines and winches to haul the net, in the 1970’s after the listing of all seven NMFS and the U.S Fish and Wildlife shrimpers began using larger nets and sea turtle species under the Endangered Service (FWS) share responsibility for pulling them for longer periods of time. Species Act (ESA). Although five spe- protecting sea turtles, with NMFS being Presently, shrimpers typically tow their cies of sea turtle may encounter shrimp responsible for protection at sea and the nets underwater for 2–3 h at a time. Sea trawls in U.S. waters, those of most con- FWS being responsible for protection on turtles encountering a net might attempt cern are the loggerhead, Caretta caretta, land, such as protecting nesting females, to swim away from it and are often en- and Kemp’s ridley, Lepidochelys kempii. eggs, and hatchlings. trained. If unable to surface to breathe, The loggerhead is the sea turtle most To conserve sea turtles, people have turtles can drown during the long tow often captured by U.S. shrimp trawls. taken measures to protect them, par- time (National Research Council, 1990). At the beginning of the National Marine ticularly as hatchlings and adults. Beach To address the problem of sea turtle Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA, monitors relocate and place protective bycatch in trawls, it is essential to research program, the Kemp’s ridley barriers around nests. Municipalities understand the fishing process and the was considered the most endangered have encouraged or mandated that resi- fishing gear used. During the shrimp sea turtle, because it nests on only dents regulate light use and beach traffic. fishing process the outriggers, which one beach, Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, With limited success, some conservation are stored upright, are lowered over the and management groups have attempted water (Fig. 1). Attached to each outrig- captive breeding, artificial imprinting of ger are one or two nets typically 30–50 Lekelia D. Jenkins is with the School of Marine hatchlings on new nesting beaches, and ft in headrope length (Fig. 2). Each net and Environmental Affairs, University of Wash- ington, 3707 Brooklyn Ave. N.E., Seattle, WA headstarting (the captive rearing and is equipped with a pair of large rect- 98105 ([email protected]). Mention of trade names release of turtles once they are beyond angular wooden doors that are 3–10 ft or commercial firms does not imply endorse- the size of most natural predation) (Na- long. When lowered into the water, they ment by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. tional Research Council, 1990; Lutz and slide on their edge along the seabed. The Musick, 1997; Lutz et al., 2003). doors are rigged with chains to pull at However, studies on the reproductive an angle so that the force of the water value of different life stages of log- pushes them apart and spreads the net ABSTRACT—Thirty-six years ago, NOAA’s gerhead sea turtles reveal that recovery open between them. National Marine Fisheries Service began of these populations cannot occur with For each door, attached between the research on how to reduce mortality of sea protection of eggs and hatchlings alone. door and ahead of the net is a tickler turtles, Chelonioidea, in shrimp trawls. As a result of efforts of NMFS and many stake- The most reproductively valuable life- chain. This looped length of chain drags holders, including domestic and foreign fish- stages are subadults and adults, which along the seabed, startling shrimp off the ermen, environmentalists, Sea Grant agents, are the lifestages most impacted as bottom so that they can be captured by and government agencies, many trawl fish- bycatch (Crouse et al., 1987). Thus is it the net. A leadline, also known as a foot- eries around the world use a version of the critical to reduce sea turtle mortality in rope, is the weighted line that extends turtle excluder device (TED). This article chronicles the contributions of NMFS to this shrimp trawls. between the doors along the bottom of effort, much of which occurred at the NMFS Shrimp and sea turtles often share the net and helps to keep the net close Mississippi Laboratories in Pascagoula. the same aquatic habitat—including to the seabed. The corkline, floatline, Specifically, it summarizes the impetus for coastal waters along the southeastern or headrope is attached to the top of the and results of major developments and little known events in the TED research and dis- United States—so shrimpers have likely net and is fixed with varying numbers of cusses how these influenced the course of encountered sea turtles since the begin- floats. The floats and weights help deter- subsequent research. ning of the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery mine the shape of the net in the water.

26 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 1.—Shrimp trawl boat (Source: Maril, 1983).

The shape of the net is also affected Grant agents, and government agen- 1976, but it was linked to events that by how it is sewn together, and about six cies—this extended community invent- took place in 1973 and 1974. During different types of net designs are used in ed and continues to improve the turtle those years, while observing the op- the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery. The seams excluder device (TED). The notable eration of various experimental trawl of the net, where the top net is sewn to contributions of members of this com- nets, NMFS serendipitously recorded the bottom net, are called the wings. The munity, including shrimpers and Sea three sea turtles encountering the trawl entrance of the net is called the mouth. Grant agents, far exceeds the capacity net. One of these trawls was a separa- The net tapers back from the mouth to of one paper, so this article focuses on tor trawl, a type of net that has a large form a funnel, and the narrow part of the the contributions of NMFS to this effort, mesh panel that directed large objects funnel is referred to as the throat. At the much of which occurred at the NMFS out of a hole in the net while allowing back of the net is the net bag or codend, Mississippi Laboratories in Pascagoula small objects like shrimp to proceed into where the captured shrimp are collected. (Fig. 3). Specifically, it summarizes the the net bag (Fig. 4). The turtle became Attached to the codend is the lazy line impetus for and results of major NMFS entangled by its scutes and flippers and that allows the back of the net to be developments and little known events became trapped in the exclusion chute swung onboard for emptying (Maril, in the TED research and discusses how (Ogren et al., 1977). The video of these 1983; 1995; Maiolo, 2004). these influenced the course of subse- encounters laid the foundation for the This paper chronicles the research quent NMFS research. initial course of research NMFS pursued that the NMFS began 36 years ago on re- in 1976, when NMFS began researching ducing mortality of sea turtles in shrimp History gear modifications that would reduce trawls. As a result of the combined sea turtle mortality in shrimp trawls. At efforts of NMFS and many stakehold- Barrier Devices the beginning of its research program, ers—including domestic and foreign The effort to invent a device to reduce NMFS consulted with sea turtle special- fishermen, environmentalists, Sea sea turtle bycatch in trawls began in ists Archie Carr and Larry Ogren. Based

74(2) 27 Figure 2. —Shrimp trawl net (Source: Maiolo, 2004).

on the video, the turtle specialists were configurations, causing the bottom-line problems with the reverse barrier with concerned that if a sea turtle entered of the barrier to touch the seafloor, stim- limited success. the trawl net, its marginal scutes might ulating shrimp ahead of the trawl and In 1981, NMFS abandoned the become entangled in the mesh. For this allowing their escape. In 1978, NMFS reverse barrier device because of its reason, NMFS initially pursued a barrier abandoned the forward barrier, because high rate of shrimp loss and complex panel to prevent the capture of sea turtles it only reduced turtle capture by 30% design. The device also became easily by barring their entrance to the net. and had a large (38–53%) shrimp loss. clogged with debris that caused the Fieldwork on the gear began in In 1979, gear specialists modified the trawl to become deformed, resulting 1978, with limited collaboration with forward barrier design, resulting in the in the capture of turtles and the loss of the Southeastern Fisheries Association “reverse barrier” (Fig. 5). In this design, shrimp. In addition, the device required and the Texas Shrimp Association to the webbing panel attached to the head custom fitting to the net, thus greatly facilitate the use of commercial fishing rope and sloped backwards from it to restricting subsequent alterations to the vessels to conduct sea turtle population the footrope. The best reverse barrier trawl dimensions. For example, in order studies and to test gear. NMFS devel- design reduced turtle capture by 79% to fish effectively for different species oped two panel designs. One design was and shrimp capture by 15–30%. Unfor- of shrimp, shrimpers commonly alter the called the “forward barrier,” which con- tunately, the reverse barrier increased height of the trawl mouth with floats, but sisted of a panel of webbing attached to the drag on the trawl, causing it to lift the custom fitted reverse barrier would and sloping forward from the headrope up like the wing of a plane and resulted inhibit such alterations. down to a bottom-line that ran between in the loss of shrimp. NMFS attempted the trawl doors. This design can be lik- to correct this problem by adding weight The NMFS TED ened in appearance and function to the to the footrope, but the shrimpers on In 1980, the University of Geor- cowcatchers placed on locomotives. Un- the cooperative vessels testing the gear gia, Marine Extension Service (UGA fortunately, turtles were able to go under objected to this as it made the trawl more MAREX) sent NMFS photos of a the bottom-line and into the trawl. Also, difficult to use. NMFS tried various “jellyball shooter” and suggested a some fishing conditions altered the trawl other rigging techniques to correct the similar approach could work for ex-

28 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 3.—Timeline of major events in NMFS sea turtle bycatch reduction research.

Figure 4.—Separator trawl with entrained sea turtle (Source: Ogren et al., 1977).

74(2) 29 Figure 5.—Reverse barrier (Source: J. Watson. 1980. Milestone report: sea turtle excluder trawl project. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]).

cluding turtles. The jellyball shooter The grid bars were spaced six inches had been used for decades, especially apart and the device had a 3-ft square by shrimpers in South Carolina and door on the bottom. The NMFS TED Georgia, when cannonball jellyfish, excluded 89% of the turtles that entered Stomolophus meleagris, are so dense the net and had no statistically signifi- that shrimping could not otherwise cant loss of shrimp. NMFS developed a occur. The jellyball shooter consists top-opening TED as a result of divers’ of a grid that is placed in the neck of observations that turtles had difficulty the trawl to block large objects from escaping out of the bottom-opening door entering the net bag and directs them and attempted to escape upwards. This out of a hole cut in the net. top-opening TED increased the turtle Based on these photographs, John exclusion rate to 97%. Watson, then head of the NMFS Sea To reduce shrimp loss, NMFS de- Turtle Excluder Trawl Project, and veloped a device called an accelerator Eddie Toomer, a contract vessel captain funnel. This tube of webbing functioned Figure 6.—The NMFS TED (Source: from Winter Haven, Fla., independently by accelerating the water through the NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Labora- and simultaneously conceived of plac- TED, thus carrying more shrimp into the tory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]). ing the grid within a frame. Watson codend. The result was a 7% increase in constructed his version from fragile shrimp catch in comparison to a trawl PVC and Toomer constructed his from without a TED. NMFS TED to exactly 1 cu yd. Observer heavy steel. Though Toomer’s original One of the research objectives for data on size of the most commonly model was too heavy and Watson’s too 1981 was to determine if there was a caught turtle species suggested that the fragile to be practical, NMFS drew difference in shrimp catch with TED’s TED could be smaller with no reduc- ideas from both to apply to a new on major shrimping grounds. After test- tion in turtle release efficiency. NMFS design. NMFS called the resulting ing the NMFS TED against a standard reduced the size of the TED, so it would prototype the turtle excluder device trawl net in South Carolina, Georgia, fit the smaller twin trawls common in the (TED) (Fig. 6). Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Loui- Gulf of Mexico fishery. Also, the size The original prototype resulting from siana, and Texas, NMFS determined reduction allowed for easier handling these conceptual models was designed there was either no statistical difference and storage. During testing, this TED to exclude large loggerhead turtles. The or an increase in shrimp retention when had a statistically insignificant increase frame was slightly more than 1 cu yd and using TED’s. in shrimp catch. weighed about 97 lb. A grid was slanted In 1982, hoping to increase TED In 1983, to make the TED even 45° between a front and back oval hoop. adoption, NMFS reduced the size of the more appealing to shrimpers, NMFS

30 Marine Fisheries Review modified not only the device but also During the next 2 yr, NMFS con- In 1986 the UGA MAREX conduct- its name. NMFS officially renamed the ducted field tests of the NMFS TED ed a demonstration test at Cape Canav- “turtle excluder device” the “trawling on board cooperative vessels in every eral, Fla., that led to the development efficiency device” in an attempt to southeast U.S. state with a commercial of a testing protocol that compared the market its ability to exclude trash that fleet. These states were North Carolina, number of wild turtles caught in a net could damage the net and to reduce South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Loui- that had a TED with the number of wild finfish bycatch with a hummer wire siana, Alabama, and Texas. Mississippi turtles caught in a control net that did that vibrated, encouraging fish to exit had been the site of previous field tests, not have a TED. The Cape Canaveral the net. as it is the home of NMFS laboratory ship channel was known to have a very NMFS also explored the use of that developed the NMFS TED. As a high density of sea turtles, so testing in alternative lighter materials for TED result of the field tests, NMFS further this area almost insured that both the construction. With the help of the Naval modified the NMFS TED, most notably control net and the net with the TED Surface Weapons Center’s Plastics by removing a shock cord that was used would encounter sea turtles. Laboratory, NMFS created two new to hold the accelerator funnel in place. From 1986 to 1989, NMFS used tests prototypes: a plastic NMFS TED and The shock cord could become lodged in the Cape Canaveral ship channel to a fiberglass NMFS TED. The plastic between the front carapace and neck of evaluate industry-developed TED’s NMFS TED was too flexible and could sea turtles as they passed through the ac- and certify them for commercial use. not withstand minimum loads. The celerator funnel, inhibiting their ability For a TED to become certified for fiberglass NMFS TED was stable but to exit through the TED. commercial use it must exclude at least not durable, so NMFS modified it to The late 1980’s marked the end of in- 97% of the turtles that enter the trawl increase durability. NMFS also created depth research to modify and improve (NOAA, 1990a). This figure is based a collapsible fiberglass TED. Testing the NMFS TED. Around 1990 NMFS on the exclusion rate obtainable with showed that these prototypes were not focused anew on TED invention, and the NMFS TED. There were several strong enough for commercial use. these efforts produced the Taylor Soft problems with this protocol including NMFS also explored the use of alu- TED and the Super Shooter TED, which the unexplained death of a couple of minum TED’s but determined that they will be discussed later. What immedi- turtles, the inability to document the would be more costly than those made ately followed the NMFS TED era was number of turtles entering each net, from galvanized steel. The aluminum a period of increased NMFS cooperation and the vague definition of a “captured TED was also too light and was unstable with the fishing industry to test and im- turtle.” With the latter problem, it was when towed on the surface, causing the prove shrimper-invented TED’s. During often difficult to determine if a turtle TED to roll, twisting the codend. In this time the protocols for testing TED’s discovered in the net at the end of a test 1983, NMFS also began work on the also evolved. had entered the net just before the test collapsible NMFS TED. Both ends of ended and would have exited through the deflector bars had hinges that al- TED Testing Protocols the TED if given more time or if that lowed this TED to fold for easy space- Part of the foundation of the effort turtle was truly ensnared in the net. saving storage. During fishing, the water to invent a device to reduce sea turtle NMFS abandoned this testing pro- tension forced the TED into an open bycatch was the development of a protocol in 1989, because there was no configuration. cess by which to test these devices. The longer a high concentration of turtles In 1984, NMFS further modified the process by which TED’s were evalu- in the Cape Canaveral channel. UGA NMFS TED to improve the its handling. ated changed significantly over the first MAREX continued to survey the turtle NMFS decided to make the TED even 15 years of research. Initially, NMFS populations in this and other potential smaller by reducing the door width from evaluated TED’s using a comparative testing sites with dense turtle popula- 36 to 30 inches and the frame width from trawl test design in which one net had tions. By the time the Cape Canav- 52 to 42 inches. This reduction would a TED and the other net on the same eral turtle populations had recovered, still allow 95% of turtles to escape. The vessel did not. NMFS consistently used however, NMFS was committed to a remaining 5% represented mostly large this test design through 1985. While this different testing protocol, so testing in adult loggerheads. allowed NMFS to evaluate the shrimp Cape Canaveral has only occurred a In 1985, NMFS developed a smaller retention of TED’s under various fishing few times since then. In 1988, NMFS TED for use in inshore waters. A pro- conditions in numerous states, it was used a new testing protocol to evalu- totype half-scale TED became easily not well suited to evaluate sea turtle ate several TED’s, and this alternative fouled and was not large enough to exclusion. Because researchers did not protocol evolved into the small-turtle reduce bycatch. A two-thirds scale TED, know the density of sea turtles in an TED testing protocol. however, reduced bycatch by 50% with- area, they could not determine whether a NMFS developed a small-turtle TED out any statistically significant shrimp TED had effectively excluded sea turtles testing protocol for conducting tests loss. This TED became known as the or whether the trawl did not encounter using small sea turtles in the clear waters Mini-TED. any turtles. off Panama City, Fla., that it has used

74(2) 31 consistently since 1990. The protocol to 5 min. If the turtle remained in the col (NOAA, 1990b). Instead of a paired consisted of seven components1: net after the time limit, NMFS declared trawl test design in which one trawl had it a capture. An even longer time limit an experimental TED and the other did 1) Each day, the researchers random- was proposed but blood chemistry tests not have a TED, under the modified ly selected two TED’s and tested revealed that this would increase the protocol both nets had an experimen- each 10 times. This was repeated turtle’s stress level. tal TED. Each of the trawls were also on a second day, so that they tested Over the years, NMFS has improved mounted with an underwater camera that each TED a total of 20 times. the small-turtle testing protocol. To eval- allowed NMFS technicians to monitor 2) Turtles were kept in holding pens uate the small-turtle TED testing proto- the wild turtles that entered the net. until transferred to the test vessel, col, in 1989 NMFS convened a review With the modified protocol, the turtle is where they were held in a fiber- panel that determined the protocol was given 10 minutes to escape. If the turtle glass tank of seawater. limited in that: 1) captive turtles behaved does not escape within 10 minutes, the 3) Each turtle was delivered to divers differently than wild caught turtles, 2) turtle is considered captured, the trawl by placing it in a Herculite bag and captive turtles were not as physically fit is retrieved, and the turtle is released. It clipping it to a steel messenger as wild turtles, and 3) test turtles could is important to note that only one type wire that was attached to the trawl. not be introduced to the net in the same of test protocol could be given to a TED, 4) Three divers monitored the test. way a wild turtle would be. In response, so failure of either test meant failure of Diver number one received the NMFS conditioned the turtles in ponds the TED. No further testing was allowed turtle and released it under and to make them more physically fit. unless the TED was modified. behind the trawl headrope. During the first few years of the To pass the certification test with any 5) Diver number two recorded a) small-turtle testing, many of the turtles of the protocols, the candidate TED had the time elapsed from the turtle’s were positively buoyant. NMFS ad- to exclude 97% of turtles with a 90% release into the trawl to the turtle’s dressed the buoyancy problem by confidence interval, according to the encounter with the TED, b) time improving the turtle’s conditioning, standard set by the control TED during elapsed from the turtle’s encounter minimizing their stress, and noting for that round of testing. Initially, NMFS with the TED to the turtle’s escape consideration during analysis when used the NMFS TED as a control, or removal from the TED, c) turtle turtles displayed buoyancy problems because it was the most extensively activity code, and d) water clarity during the test. Eventually, NMFS tested TED and was 97% effective in code. partially addressed the effect of release excluding turtles. Using the NMFS 6) Diver number three recorded each position on the test by randomizing the TED as a control addressed the varia- test using an underwater video release location of the turtle into the net. tions between the Cape Canaveral and camera. Although this testing protocol remains small-turtle testing protocols, because 7) Once the turtle encountered the controversial, NMFS believes that the the NMFS TED had a known exclusion TED, the divers initiated a 2-min test is precautionary, because a TED rate. Any variation in this rate could be time limit. If after this time the should exclude a sea turtle no matter viewed as an artifact of the small-turtle turtle had not escaped, a diver its condition, making any behavioral testing protocol and was adjusted for in removed it. This limit allowed abnormalities, such as lack of an escape the statistical analysis. sufficient time to evaluate TED response, inconsequential. In 1996, NMFS began using the Super performance, limited diver time, After the first use of the small-turtle Shooter TED as the control TED. NMFS and insured minimal stress to the testing protocol, in 1988, NMFS began calculated the probability of Type I and turtle. to use Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, Lepido- Type II errors in order to insure that chelys kempii, because they were easier the sample size of the test was large Based on an idea originally proposed to acquire from captive-rearing facilities enough that a statistical analysis would by UGA MAREX, the protocol involved and were the species of greatest concern. be powerful enough to correctly reject or the release of captive-reared juvenile When environmental groups protested accept a TED. Based on this calculation, green turtles into the net and the filming the use of highly endangered Kemp’s NMFS eventually increased the number of their progress through the net. The ridley sea turtles, in 1994 NMFS began of turtles released into the candidate turtles had to escape within a certain to use the threatened loggerhead sea TED from 20 to 25. time or it was considered captured. turtle, Caretta caretta. NMFS invited TED inventors and After the first year of testing, NMFS Even though the small-turtle TED manufacturers to participate in the increased the testing time limit from 2 testing protocol has improved, the testing. NMFS allowed the inventor to option remained available to certify a install the TED, view preliminary video TED using the Cape Canaveral protocol of the TED’s underwater performance, 1Mitchell, J. F. 1988. Project report: TED evalu- and was used occasionally for a number and make adjustments if necessary. If the ation and video documentation. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. Available from of years. In 1990, NMFS developed the TED was failing or had failed the test, Jenkins. Modified Cape Canaveral Testing Proto- NMFS or the inventors could modify

32 Marine Fisheries Review the TED and retest during the same test session if time allowed. NMFS gave copies of the testing videos to the TED inventors and manufacturers and invited them to attend the TED Testing Review Committee meeting. This committee was comprised of Sea Grant agents, shrimp fishing industry representatives, fishing gear specialists, and sea turtle experts. The committee reviewed the video of each test and could score the test as a capture or escape or they could choose to dis- card the test. In 1995, however, NMFS abandoned use of the review panel and the process of scoring the tests, because the criteria for making classifications were too vague. Figure 7.—Georgia Jumper TED (Source: S. Boone. Patent application. [Available Testing of Industry-developed from Jenkins.]). TED’s While NMFS was developing the The Morrison Soft TED was the first Weedless TED’s, NMFS evaluated, NMFS TED, members of the shrimp TED to use flexible mesh webbing (as tested, or modified over 30 different fishing industry had begun to develop opposed to a rigid grid) as the separa- fishing industry-invented TED designs. different types of TED’s, and several tor panel in the TED (Fig. 8). Unlike a This number does not include the many of these inventors worked closely with grid that is placed in the throat of the modifications and version of each design Sea Grant to evaluate the devices. Fol- trawl net, the soft TED panel begins in nor the over 15 designs that were pro- lowing the successful demonstration in the mouth of the trawl and tapers back, posed but never tested. Cape Canaveral in 1986, in 1987 NMFS forming a mesh ramp to the escape open- The fishing industry and other stake- joined this effort and began field tests ing. NMFS evaluations and modifica- holders attacked the sea turtle bycatch of some of these devices. That year tions of this TED centered on refining problem from all angles. Most of the marked a turning point in the NMFS it so that it would perform consistently ideas were variations on barrier devices, TED program, as most of the effort in across styles of nets and fishing environ- hard TED’s, and soft TED’s. Others the following years focused on evaluat- ments. NMFS certified it for commercial were more novel, such as the Sonic Ex- ing, testing, and modifying TED’s that use in 1987. The Parker Soft TED, cluder. This device, invented by Daniel members of the shrimp fishing industry which is a variation of the Morrison Soft Leveque of Lake Charles, La., Michael designed. Three designs in particular TED, is currently the only soft TED that Tritico of Longville, La., and Martin made substantial early advances in TED remains certified (Fig. 9). Lenhardt of the Virginia Institute of design. These were the Georgia Jumper, The Anthony Weedless TED was the Marine Science, used sound waves to invented by Sinkey Boone of Darien, first TED design to solve the problem ward turtles away from an approaching Ga.; the Morrison Soft TED, invented of TED’s becoming clogged with veg- trawl. Another novel device, the Turtle by Sonny Morrison of McClellanville, etation and similar debris (Fig. 10). It Detection Device, invented by Ricky S.C.; and the Anthony Weedless TED, consisted of a frameless grid, the bars of Bourg of Dulac, La., consisted of a invented by Ernest Anthony of La- which did not attach to the bottom of the mechanical trigger located at the codend combe, La. grid, allowing debris to enter the codend attachment point that released a tethered The Georgia Jumper was the first rather than clog the TED. In comparison float from the trawl when a sea turtle or frameless TED; the oval shaped metal to other TED’s, NMFS certified this large object was encountered (Fig. 11). frame was sewn directly into the net at TED by proxy to its similarity to the The shrimp fishing industry also a 45° angle (Fig. 7). Beginning in 1987, Georgia Jumper with limited evalu- proposed a number of TED accesso- NMFS frequently evaluated modifica- ations, focusing on shrimp retention. ries. One such device was the Pierce tions of the Georgia Jumper. Much of Subsequent to its certification, NMFS Shrimp Broom invented by Webster this work focused on how the device analyzed the impact of an improperly Pierce and Mitch Serigne of Louisiana was configured in the net; the grid itself installed Anthony Weedless TED on sea (Fig. 12). This broom of plastic fibers has remained largely unchanged. NMFS turtle escapement. was attached to a TED frame so as to certified the Georgia Jumper for com- In addition to the innovative Georgia prevent shrimp from exiting through the mercial use in 1987. Jumper, Morrison Soft, and Anthony escape opening. During testing in 1995,

74(2) 33 Figure 9.—Parker Soft TED (Source: Mitchell, J. F. and W. Taylor. 1997. Report on small turtle TED test: phase 2 soft TED testing. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]).

Figure 8.—Morrison Soft TED (Source: J. F. Mitchell. 1989. Project report: soft TED evaluations, video documentation and small turtle tests. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]).

this device excluded all turtles. Other TED’s could effectively and consistently notable accessories were the Darien exclude turtles. Roller and Georgetown Roller (Fig. 13). These similar devices consisted of Bottom-opening vs. a PVC pipe attached to the bottom of Top-opening TED’s the TED frame. NMFS certified these To determine if TED’s performed devices for use to prevent chaffing and better as top opening or bottom opening, tearing of the net. NMFS evaluated four different TED The years of cooperation between designs (the NMFS TED, the Georgia NMFS and the fishing industry resulted Jumper, the Anthony Weedless TED, in TED’s that were increasingly efficient and the Super Shooter TED) in 1995 in releasing turtles and more effective in and 1996 in a total of 14 different fishing retaining shrimp. The designs reflected configurations using captive-reared sea the collective scientific, engineering, turtles. All the top-opening TED designs and fishing knowledge of NMFS per- had equal or better turtle exclusion rates sonnel, Sea grant agents, and industry than their bottom opening counterpart. collaborators. However, there are two With the exception of one configuration major points of difference between of bottom-opening Super Shooter TED, NMFS and industry in the approach all the top-opening TED’s had shorter Figure 10.—Anthony Weedless TED to TED design: whether turtles were escape times than their bottom opening (Source: NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula released more effectively from top or counterparts. In fact, the escape times Laboratory, Miss. [Available from bottom-opening TED’s and whether soft of top-opening TED’s (55–85 sec) were Jenkins.]).

34 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 11.—Turtle Detection Device (Source: NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]). often about half that of bottom-opening technical solutions to the operational on further evaluations of the Morrison TED’s (64–177 sec).2 problems with soft TED’s. Panel mem- 4×8 inch Soft TED installation in vari- bers included soft TED designers and ous trawl types and sizes and continued Soft TED Testing shrimp industry representatives. The testing of Andrews TED designs. The industry panel developed ideas for soft Morrison 4×8 inch Soft TED was in- In response to growing concerns that TED modifications and submitted them stalled in the following trawl types: 1) soft TED’s were catching high numbers to NMFS for testing and diver evaluation. 2-seam balloon with and without a bib of sea turtles, NMFS evaluated soft Of 18 soft TED designs evaluated during (i.e., a section of webbing extending TED’s almost exclusively from 1996 the project, seven were variations of the forward from the net’s top panel and through 1998. In 1996, NMFS obtained Andrews Soft TED and eleven were connecting to a third central bridle); 2) five Andrews Soft TED’s from three variations of the Morrison Soft TED. 4-seam balloon with and without a bib; different net shops to evaluate the con- NMFS identified design problems 3) mongoose; and 4) straight wing flat. sistency of installation and turtle exclu- that prevented the escape of juvenile On the trawl designs with bibs (which sion. Of the five TED’s, four apparently turtles in 15 of the 18 soft TED’s. Of helps to maintain optimal spread of the had installation problems that resulted the 18 designs, one successfully passed mouth of the trawl), NMFS evaluated in areas of slack webbing in the TED the test protocol by excluding 22 of 25 TED panel configuration at different (Fig. 14). Small turtles released near turtles. The successful design was the center wire adjustments. The Andrews the wings of the TED had significantly Morrison 4 × 8 inch Soft TED (later Soft TED evaluation and testing resulted higher relative capture rates (70%) than known as the Parker Soft TED), con- in the development of three designs those released in the center position 3 structed with 8 inch webbing in the main which successfully passed the test pro- (0%). panel and 4 inch webbing in the wings tocol. These designs were the Andrews NMFS then convened a soft TED and at the exit hole apex. In addition, the 4 × 8 inch Soft TED , Andrews 6 × 3 × 5 advisory panel in March 1997 to develop researchers developed and conducted inch Soft TED, and Andrews 5 inch preliminary tests of an Andrews Soft Soft TED.5

2 TED with a combination of 6, 3 and 5 Following the 1997 tests, members of Mitchell, J. F., D. Foster, and J. Watson. 1996. 4 1996 TED testing: summary of evaluations and inch webbing panel. the Soft TED Advisory Panel evaluated results. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Later that year, NMFS continued shrimp retention of the Andrews 4×8 Miss. Available from the author of this paper. NMFS. 1995. 1995 TED certification test. its evaluation of soft TED’s, focusing inch Soft TED aboard a commercial NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. Available from Jenkins. 3Mitchell, J. F., D. Foster, and J. Watson. 1996. 4Mitchell, J. F., and W. Taylor. 1997. Report of 5Mitchell, J. F., and W. Taylor. 1997. Report on 1996 TED testing: summary of evaluations and small turtle TED test: phase 1 soft TED testing. small turtle TED test: phase 2 soft TED testing. results. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. Miss. Available from Jenkins. Available from Jenkins. Available from Jenkins.

74(2) 35 Figure 12.—Pierce Shrimp Broom (Source: NMFS. 1995. Figure 13.—Darien Roller (Source: J. F. Mitchell. 1994. 1995 TED certification test. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Lab- 1994 TED certification test. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Lab- oratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]). oratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]).

shrimp trawler and estimated a 20% loss of shrimp in comparison to a hard TED. Based on these findings, a subsequent meeting of the Soft TED Advisory Panel recommended that NMFS take no further action to certify any of the An- drews Soft TED designs which passed the field tests in 1997. The panel did, however, recommend that NMFS focus the 1998 TED testing on modifications to improve the shrimp retention of the Andrews Soft TED. In 1998, NMFS certified the Parker Soft TED; this was the only certification awarded of all the soft TED designs explored during these 3 yr of intensive research.6

Taylor Soft TED Figure 14.—Andrews Soft TED indicating observed areas of slack webbing and In addition to the NMFS TED, pocketing. (Source: Mitchell, J. F., D. Foster, and J. Watson. 1996. 1996 TED testing: summary of evaluations and results. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, NMFS scientists and gear specialists Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]). developed other distinct TED designs. One of these was the Taylor Soft TED. Charles “Wendy” Taylor, an NMFS net builder invented the Taylor Soft top-opening TED made from a triangu- gear specialist and former commercial TED (Fig. 15). The need for this device lar piece of 6 inch mesh polyethylene evolved from industry’s desire for a webbing that formed a shortened panel smaller mesh size soft TED with a flap and had a flap weighted with a chain 6Mitchell, J. F., and W. Taylor. 1998. Report on and the need for a soft TED suitable for over the exit hole. There were two small turtle TED test: modified Andrews TED testing. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, small trawls. The TED was a modifica- designs of the Taylor Soft TED: in one Miss. Available from Jenkins. tion of the Morrison Soft TED. It was a design the panel ends in a single mesh

36 Marine Fisheries Review (an apex) and in the other design the panel is squared-off. During testing in 1991, diver ob- servation revealed that the panel of the Taylor Soft TED was too far aft, preventing lateral expansion so the meshes were partially closed. This resulted in the blockage of the codend entrance and the misdirection of water flow. Taylor corrected the problem by moving the TED forward 5 ft and in- creasing the hanging ratio of the mesh. Following this adjustment, the TED successfully excluded 100% of turtles placed in the net with no statistically significant loss of shrimp. Super Shooter TED Another TED that NMFS had a significant role in inventing was the Super Shooter TED. Noah Saunders of TED, Inc., in Biloxi, Miss., began developing the Super Shooter TED around 1989 in cooperation with NMFS personnel, particularly Dale Stevens and John Watson. A modification of the Georgia Jumper, the aluminum rod bars of this Figure 15.—Taylor Soft TED (Source: NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. TED were bent at a 45º angle just above [Available from Jenkins.]). the bottom of the frame to prevent clogging by debris. This design differs from the Georgia Jumper in that it does not designs. One of the first such rela- open. During subsequent tests, the TED have a crossbrace because its greater tionships was with Mexico. In 1992, caught 3 of 5 turtles; the captured year- width and larger diameter material adds NMFS and the Instituto Nacional de ling turtles became entangled in one of stability. La Pesca (INP), the primary agency the baffles. NMFS suggested the TED This TED was manufactured in three for scientific and technological be modified by placing a barrier over sizes. The large size Super Shooter TED advice on fisheries development and the baffles and adding side hoops to consists of a 42×51 inch frame spaced assessment in Mexico, conducted the TED frame to assure that the outer 4 inch apart. The Mini Super Shooter comparative trawl tests of the Super codends remain open. (also known as the small size or mid Shooter and Anthony Weedless TED’s The second design, the FEDINP size Super Shooter TED) (Fig. 16) had in Mexico’s Gulf waters. TED was more traditional in appear- a 33×41 inch frame with bars spaced 3.5 In 1994, NMFS observed and sug- ance. This was a top-opening TED inch apart. The Inshore Super Shooter gested modifications to two TED’s with a 31.5 × 50.5 inch rectangular grid TED had a 32×35 inch frame with bars designed by the INP. The most unique made of 1.5 inch aluminum tubing. spaced 3.75 inch apart. During field of the two designs was the INP 3-bag The exit hole had nylon rope laced to tests the Super Shooter TED had no TED (Fig. 17), which had an oval grid the perimeter and was covered by a 1 statistically significant loss of shrimp and three codends. Two baffles, one in inch stretched mesh flap that extended and excluded 100% of turtles placed each wing, led to two outer codends. 23.5 inch beyond the frame. During in the net. Behind the baffles was the TED leading testing, this TED successfully excluded to the center codend. The Mexican gear all turtles. Cooperative Work with Mexico specialists explained that shrimp travel In addition to inventing the NMFS along the trawl wings and so will enter Leatherback TED’s TED and working with industry to the baffles before reaching the TED, The early 2000’s brought sweeping test and modify shrimper-invented thus reducing loss of shrimp. changes to TED regulations; this result- TED’s, NMFS also cooperated with Based on initial observations, the ed in a new focus for the TED research the governments of several foreign baffles were modified by lacing nylon program. The regulatory changes were nations in developing new TED line along the perimeter to keep them prompted in part by a study published

74(2) 37 Figure 16.—Mid-size Super Shooter TED (Source: NMFS. Figure 17.—INP 3-bag TED (Source: J. F. Mitchell. 1994. 1995. 1995 TED certification test. NMFS, SEFC, -Pasca 1994 TED certification test. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Labo- goula Laboratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]). ratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]).

in 2002 that showed that as many as with a minimum of 71 inch straight- to an aluminum pipe TED. Less water 47% of stranded (i.e., recovered car- line stretched mesh. These regulatory flow diversion leads to more shrimp casses) loggerhead turtles and 7% of changes effectively decertified many remaining in the net rather than flowing stranded green turtles had body depths of the previously certified TED’s. This out the TED escape opening. that exceeded the minimum legal TED caused NMFS’ TED research to shift The Flat Bar TED (Fig. 20) was also opening height (Epperly and Teas, focus into modification of previously equal to a pipe TED in frame strength. 2002). The study indicated that these certified TED’s, such as the Georgia The Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries large sea turtles might be drowning in Jumper, whose opening required modifi- Foundation, Inc., completed a study in trawl nets. cation to meet the larger escape opening 2007 and found that the aluminum Flat On 21 Feb. 2003, in response to requirement. Bar TED had statistically significant the mounting scientific evidence that increases in shrimp catch rates when sea turtle conservation measures were Flat Bar TED compared to an aluminum pipe TED.7 inadequate for protecting large turtles, To handle the rigors of deepwater In 2006, a Flat Bar TED with deflec- NMFS enacted several changes to the fishing, offshore shrimpers began using tor bars constructed from aluminum TED regulations (NOAA, 2003). Nota- larger TED’s made of sturdy aluminum flat bar stock, 1/4 inch in thickness bly, these new regulations required all or steel pipe to prevent bending of the and 1 1/2 inch in depth, successfully offshore single-grid hard TED’s to have frame. But some shrimpers noted that passed the small turtle test protocol a grid with a minimum measurement of there was an increased loss of shrimp by excluding 24 of 25 turtles (NOAA, 32 × 32 inch. They also required that all in these TED’s in comparison to TED’s 2010). offshore TED’s be equipped with either made from thinner materials. In 2005, a 6 inch overhang double-cover flap using a flume tank facility, NMFS gear 7Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, (Fig. 18), which has an escape open- specialists determined that the minimal Incorporated. 2008. An assessment of turtle ex- ing of at least 56 × 20 inch, or the 71 grid surface area of a TED made from cluder devices within the Southeastern shrimp fisheries of the United States. NOAA/NMFS inch standard leatherback modification aluminum flat bar led to almost no Cooperative Agreement No. NA04NMF4540112; (Fig. 19), which has an escape opening water flow diversion when compared #92.

38 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 18.—Double Cover Flap (Source: NOAA, 2001a).

Double Shoot TED 2010, this Double Shoot TED passed (NOAA, 2007). Then, in 2009, NMFS the small-turtle TED testing protocol published a notice of intent to prepare Debris clogging TED’s is a chief by excluding all 25 turtles. A paired- an environmental impact statement concern for shrimpers, especially after trawl test with a standard top-opening in preparation for possible regulatory hurricanes. NMFS gear specialists grid TED showed that the Double Shoot changes that would require the use of tackled this concern by creating the TED reduced finfish bycatch by 11.6% TED’s in trawl fisheries with docu- Double Shoot TED (Fig. 21). This with a 5.5% reduction in shrimp catch mented sea turtle interaction, such as TED has two openings. One opening (USDOC, 2011). those for knobbed whelk, Busycon on the bottom discharges heavy debris carica, and Atlantic sea scallops, and another opening on the top allows TED’s in Other Trawl Fisheries Placopecten magellanicus (NOAA, escape of turtles. The TED also has a 2009). In anticipation of this potential fixed fishing angle of the TED deflector In 2007 NMFS published an Ad- regulatory change, NMFS began test- bars through a dual-angle design that vance Notice of Proposed Rulemak- ing TED’s for these fisheries. Much of resembles a less than symbol (<). In ing to require TED’s in other fisheries the initial work was based on a device

74(2) 39 Figure 20.—Flat Bar TED lean- ing against a mooring. (Source: J. Watson. 2005. Sea Turtle Bycatch Reduction Research in the U.S. 1st Annual Meeting of the Bycatch Reduction Consortium, 1–2 June 2005, Boston, Ma. http://www.neaq. org/documents/conservation_and_ research/bycatch_consortium/2005_ meeting/john_watson.pdf).

Figure 19.—Leatherback Modification (Source: NOAA, 2001b).

called the flounder TED (Fig. 22). This TED features large holes at the bottom of the TED that will allow the passage of flounder into the codend but will still block the passage of sea turtles. Since 1992, all boats using bottom trawls to catch summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, at certain times and areas off Virginia and North Carolina have been required to use TED’s in their nets (NOAA, 1992). In 2010, NMFS ap- proved the use of a Modified Flounder TED (Fig. 23), which consisted of two grid frames that allowed the TED to be rolled onto a net reel. The Northeast Figure 22.—Flounder TED (Source: Fisheries Science Center and indus- Belcher, C., R. Vendetti, G. Gaddis, try developed this TED to improve and L. Parker. 2001. Results of gear catch retention by reducing clogging testing to reduce turtle capture in (NOAA, 2010). the whelk trawl fishery. Georgia Sea Figure 21.—The Double Shot Grant College Program. [Available Because whelk and flounder are TED frame prior to installation in from Jenkins, and online at georgia- both larger bottom dwelling organisms, webbing extension tube (Source: seagrant.uga.edu/images/uploads/ modifying the flounder TED was a USDOC, 2011). media/whelk_pub23.pdf.]).

40 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 23.—Modified Flounder TED (Source: NOAA, 2010). starting point for developing a TED ap- 2000 TED testing, the whelk TED The flat bar, however, caused small propriate for whelk. The whelk fishery excluded all 25 turtles placed in the turtles to be trapped on the lip of occurs primarily in Georgia and South TED, but fishermen thought that the the bar, over which they could not Carolina and arose as an alternative frame was too large for their trawls. In maneuver. NMFS gear specialists rec- fishery during times when the shrimp 2001, NMFS tested the Whelk TED II ommended that the top section of the fishery was closed. The whelk TED (Fig. 24). The height of this TED had outer frame near the escape opening was developed in cooperation with been reduced from 52 to 36 inch and should be replaced with pipe rather the Georgia Department of Natural the outer frame was constructed from 2 than flat bar. Following this modifi- Resources (GADNR) and the UGA inch flat bar. The flat bar allowed whelk cation, the whelk TED II passed the MAREX. to roll through the bottom openings of NMFS small-turtle testing protocol, NMFS evaluated these potential the TED more efficiently than a pipe capturing only 1 of 24 turtles. Cur- TED designs in 2000–01. During the frame. rently, GADNR requires the use of

74(2) 41 Figure 24.—Whelk TED II (Source: NMFS. 2001. Report on FY 2001 Small Turtle TED Test. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]).

this TED in the whelk trawl fishery in Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus; Since about 2009, NMFS returned Georgia waters. bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix; squid, to exploring a flexible grid design Sea turtle bycatch has also been Teuthida; black sea bass, Centropristis for the flynet fishery. They have had documented in the Atlantic sea scallop striata; scup, Stenotomus chrysops; and considerable success with a TED trawl fisheries. In 2005 and 2006, NMFS other finfishes. constructed of aluminum flat bar with tested the feasibility of using a whelk NMFS began developing a TED for a center section made of stainless TED modified with chaffing gear in this fishery in 1999. Initially, two of steel cable, which allows it to flex the sea scallop trawl fishery. This TED these TED’s passed the NMFS small- for storage around the net reel. Ver- design passed the NMFS testing criteria, turtle TED testing protocol. Both TED’s sions of this device have successfully and NMFS is now considering requiring had folding, hinged frames to facilitate passed the turtle test protocol and the use of TED’s in the Mid-Atlantic sea winding around the vessel net reel, but have reduced bycatch of spiny dog- scallop trawl fishery. Also, the Atlantic the industry was concerned that this fish, Squalus acanthias, by 40% and sea scallop dredge fishery has worked design could cause excessive loss of clearnose skates, Raja eglanteria, by with NMFS to develop a turtle exclud- fish. 63% without significant loss of target ing dredge. In response to this concern, NMFS catch (USDOC, 2010, 2011). If NMFS The flynet fishery is another trawl developed a bifolding TED called the decides to require the use of a TED in fishery with documented sea turtle Staggered Bar Flynet TED (Fig. 25). the flynet fishery, it might initially only bycatch. Flynets are high-profile trawls The staggered bar configuration was require TED’s for vessels targeting of 80–120 ft width and are fished just designed to let more fish into the net weakfish and croaker. above the seafloor. The flynet fishery bag by reducing the number of fish that is a multispecies fishery that operates are deflected through the exit hole of the Conclusion along the east coast from New York to TED. After correcting the installation In this article I have chronicled the North Carolina. Depending on fishing position of the TED so that the offset contributions of NMFS to the inven- location and depth, target species in- bars faced into the water flow, this TED tion and development of TED’s. I clude Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias excluded all 25 turtles that were placed summarized the impetus for and results undulatus; weakfish,Cynoscion regalis; in the net. of major events, including the initial

42 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 25.—Staggered Bar Flynet TED (Source: NMFS. 2000. Report on FY 2000 Small Turtle TED Test. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagoula Laboratory, Miss. [Available from Jenkins.]).

74(2) 43 attempts to develop a barrier device; support over the course of my disserta- ______. 1992. Summer flounder fishery. Final rule, 57 FR 234 (4 Dec. 1992), p. 57,358– development of the NMFS invented tion research at Duke University. I ap- 57,377. and the NMFS modified TED’s, such preciate the assistance of Lee Benaka, ______. 2001a. Sea turtle conservation; as the NMFS TED, Taylor Soft TED, John Mitchell, and the many key shrimp trawling requirements. Interim final rule, 66 FR 93 (14 May 2001), p. 24,290. and Super Shooter TED; and testing informants who provided information Available online at https://federalregister. and development of industry-invented for this research. I am grateful to the gov/a/01-12081. TED’s, such as the Georgia Jumper, two anonymous reviewers for their ______. 2001b. Endangered and threatened Morrison Soft TED, and Anthony wildlife; sea turtle conservation requirements. editorial suggestions and to TWIG for Proposed rule, 66 FR 191 (2 Oct. 2001), p. Weedless TED. I have also recorded their encouragement. I would also like 50,157. Available online at https://federalreg- details of little known events in the to thank the National Science Founda- ister.gov/a/01-24521. TED research, such as the testing of ______. 2003. Endangered and threatened tion and the Oak Foundation for funding wildlife; sea turtle conservation requirements. novel TED designs invented by gear this research. Final rule, 68 FR 35 (21 Feb. 2003), p. 8,456 specialists from the Mexican govern- -8,471. Available online at https://federalreg- ment and alerting devices, such as Literature Cited ister.gov/a/03-4136. ______. 2007. Endangered and threatened the Sonic TED and Turtle Detection Crouse, D. T., L. B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. wildlife; sea turtle conservation requirements. Device. 1987. A stage-based population model for Adv. notice of proprosed rulemaking, 72 loggerhead sea turtles and implications for FR 31 (15 Feb. 2007), p. 7382–7383. Avail- This summary of 36 years of his- conservation. Ecology 68(5):1,412–1,423. able online at https://federalregister.gov/a/ tory, shows how the NMFS program to Epperly, S. P., and W. G. Teas. 2002. Turtle E7-2719. reduce mortality of sea turtles in trawls excluder devices—Are the escape opening ______. 2009. Notice of intent to prepare an large enough? Fish. Bull. 100:466–474. environmental impact statement for sea turtle has grown. The program has progressed Lutz, P. L., and J. A. Musick (Editors). 1997. conservation and recovery in relation to the from reactive research in response to The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, Boca Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico trawl fish- Raton, Fla., 432 p. the regulatory change of the listing eries and to conduct public scoping meetings. ______, ______, and J. Wyneken (Edi- 74 FR 88 (8 May 2009), p. 21,627–21,631. of sea turtles under the Endangered tors). 2003. The biology of sea turtles Volume Available online at https://federalregister. II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 455 p. gov/a/E9-10674. Species Act to anticipatory research in Maiolo, J. R. 2004. Hard times and a nickel a preparation for potential TED require- bucket: struggle and survival in North Caro- ______. 2010. Sea turtle conservation; shrimp ments in additional trawl fisheries. As lina’s shrimp industry. Chapel Hill Press, Inc., and summer flounder trawling requirements. N.C., p. 191. Proposed rule, 75 FR 170 (2 Sept. 2010), p. a result of efforts of NMFS and numer- Maril, R. L. 1983. Texas shrimpers: community, 53,925–53,938. Available online at https:// ous stakeholders, many trawl fisheries capitalism, and the sea. Texas A&M Univ. federalregister.gov/a/2010-21823. around the world now use a version Press, College Station, Tex., 256 p. Ogren, L. H., J. Watson, and D. A. Wickham. ______. 1995. Bay shrimpers of Texas: rural 1977. Loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, of the turtle excluder device (TED). I fishermen in a global economy. Univ. Kan. encountering shrimp trawls. Mar. Fish. Rev. hope that this record of TED research Press, Lawrence, 320 p. 39(11):15–17. National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the USDOC. 2010. Annual Report to Congress on will further aid the development of sea turtles: causes and prevention. Natl. Acad. the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program TED’s for appropriate trawl fisheries Press, Wash., D.C., 259 p. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. worldwide. NOAA. 1990a. Sea turtle conservation; shrimp Serv., 100 p. Online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ trawling requirements. Final rule, tech. by_catch/docs/brep_report_2010.pdf Acknowledgements amendment, 55 FR 195 (9 Oct. 1990), p. ______. 2011. Annual Report to Congress 41,088-41,091. on the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Pro- I would like to acknowledge my ______. 1990b. Turtle excluder devices; gram. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. adoption of alternative scientific testing pro- Fish. Serv., 94 p. Online at www.nmfs. Ph.D. advisors Larry Crowder and tocol for evaluation. Notice of adoption, 55 noaa.gov/by_catch/docs/brep_report_2011. Michael Orbach for their advice and FR 195 (9 Oct. 1990), p. 41,092–41,093. pdf

44 Marine Fisheries Review