| Gear modifications
|
Acoustic devices (e.g., pingers)
|
Alert animals to presence of fishing gear. Effective for
sound-sensitive species (e.g., marine mammals).
|
Several trials of pingers on
fishing nets resulted in 70-90% reduction in cetacean bycatch (Cox et al.
2007). Pingers recommended by the International Whaling Commission in
2001
(IWC 2001).
|
Cost of individual pingers is low. Longer nets will require more pingers at
increased cost. These costs may be offset by reductions in net damage or loss
from interactions with marine mammals (NMFS 1997).
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure presence of pingers.
|
As part of the
Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan, all drift gillnets must have acoustic deterrent
devices (50 Code of Federal Regulations §229.31(c)). Studies show a 75%
reduction in cetacean entanglement (NMFS 1997).
|
| Visual devices
(e.g., Light Emitting
Devices, bait dyes,
colored gear)
|
Alert animals to presence of fishing gear. Effective for
light/color-sensitive species.
|
The use of LED lights along the fishing line dramatically reduces bycatch
of threatened and depressed fishes in Pink Shrimp trawl nets with no effect
on target catch (Hannah et al. 2015).
|
Cost of bait dye and lights of LED systems is relatively low.
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure use.
|
LED lights are
suggested for Pink Shrimp trawl nets to reduce bycatch of Eulachon Smelt and other sensitive species,
although no regulations are currently in place. Studies show a 70-90%
reduction in bycatch (Hannah et al. 2015).
|
| Mesh size optimization
|
Alterations to mesh size in nets.
|
The use of larger mesh sizes results in a reduction of smaller and
sub-legal sized bycatch (Alverson et al. 1994).
|
Changes to mesh size requirement may require production or purchase of all
new netting, or alterations to existing netting. Cost and time
required will vary.
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure appropriate mesh
sizes.
|
Trawl vessels
targeting California Halibut in California Halibut Trawl Grounds must use a minimum cod end mesh size of
7.5 inches (§ 8496(g–h)). Studies show a reduction in bycatch of
sub-legal
halibut (Schott 1975).
|
| Bycatch
Reduction Devices
(BRDs) in trawl nets
|
A hard grid, large-hole mesh, and/or escape hatch designed to
allow escape or exclude catch of turtles, debris, large animals, free
swimming fish in trawl nets.
|
BRDs are recognized as effective in reducing bycatch. The efficacy of
specific BRDs depends on their design, the fishery in which they are used,
and the profile of bycatch species (Eayrs 2007; Alverson
et al. 1994).
|
Cost of BRDs varies considerably. Small mesh windows may cost a few dollars,
while large steel grates may cost up to $1,000 (Eayrs 2007).
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure presence of BRDs.
|
Pink Shrimp
trawl nets must have BRDs to reduce bycatch of groundfish (e.g., Pacific Hake, Sablefish, Yellowtail
Rockfish;
§8841; California Code of Regulations Title 14
§120.1(c)). Studies show a 66-88% reduction of bycatch (Hannah and Jones
2007).
|
| Escape ports in traps
|
Allow bycatch species to escape traps.
|
Escape ports reduce sub-legal sized
individuals in traps (Stewart 1974).
|
The use of escape ports in pots and traps is
common practice. Any increases in the minimum port size would require
alterations to existing traps. minimum port size would require
alterations
to existing traps.
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure presence of escape
ports.
|
Lobster and crab
traps must have escape openings of varying number and size (§ 9010–9011).
|
| Streamers
|
A line runs from a high point of a vessel to a drag buoy towed
behind. Streamers are attached to the line and scare birds away from surface
lines, bait, and hooks.
|
Streamers reduce seabird interactions with longline gear (Melvin et al.
2004).
|
This measure does not require significant changes to the fishing gear or
vessel and has minimal costs (Sato et al. 2012).
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure presence of streamer
lines.
|
Groundfish
longline vessels in Alaska state and federal waters must have streamers (50 Code of Federal Regulations
§679.24(e)(3–4); Alaska Administrative Code Title 5
§28.055). Streamers are most necessary for use
with pelagic
longlines, which are not currently used in
California.
|
| Hook selection
|
Some hooks types, such as circle hooks, may result in
reduction in bycatch and/or increase in post-release survival of bycatch.
|
Circle hooks can reduce rates of bycatch and post-release mortality in
longline fisheries or hook-and-release fishing (NMFS 2008;
PFMC 2000). Hook
size also influences bycatch mitigation.
|
Transitioning hook type or size will have relatively low cost to fishermen.
May impact catch rates of target species.
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure presence of
appropriate hook type and size.
|
Use of circle
hooks required for some salmon fishing (California Code of Regulations Title 14
§27.80(a) and §182(c).
|
| Bait selection
|
Use of different baits can increase selectivity.
|
The use of fish instead of squid as bait reduces bycatch of turtles
and
sharks in longline fisheries (NMFS 2008).
|
Transitioning bait type will usually have minimal cost to
fishermen but may impact fishing efficacy.
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure presence of
appropriate bait.
|
No existing
regulatory examples in California.
|
| Marine mammal entanglement gear modifications
|
Several modifications to the material or configuration of gear
have been proposed to reduce marine mammal entanglements in lines (CDFW and
OPC 2017; PSMFC 2017).
|
Suggested gear modifications include reducing length of vertical and
trailer lines to minimize slack and changing rope color and material.
Preliminary evidence suggests reducing slack and accessory lines may have the
greatest positive effect (CDFW
and OPC 2017).
|
Adjusting length of lines may take some time when changing set location
across depths. Breakaway lines may have more materials cost and potential for
lost gear. Straightforward gear modifications are likely less costly than a
Take Reduction Team (PSMFC 2017).
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure appropriate gear
configuration.
|
Updated best
practices guide for crab fishing strongly recommends reducing slack in vertical lines and the number of
accessory lines and trailer buoys (CDFW and OPC 2017). Measures are not
mandatory at this time.
|
| Bycatch catch limits
|
Quotas/catch limits/hard caps
/triggers
|
Reduce absolute numbers of bycatch. May have no/minimal
effect on post-release mortality. Can be
vessel- or fishery- specific and transferable or
nontransferable.
|
Catch limits reduce landings of bycatch. Defensible quotas or hard caps
should be based on the
abundance, productivity, mortality, and
ecosystem role of species and subject to effective monitoring. Quotas can
function as incentive to change fishing gear or practices to avoid bycatch
(Alverson et al. 1994). Quotas can exacerbate discard mortality and derby
fishing unless paired with comprehensive tracking of catch and consequences
for quota exceedance (Marine Fish Conservation Network 2004).
|
Costs to fishermen may include monitoring costs and any lost fishing
opportunities (O’Keefe et al. 2012; Patrick and
Benaka 2013). For example, hard cap limits lead
to fishery closures when exceeded.
|
Requires significant monitoring and reporting to achieve
compliance. High monitoring needs. Hard caps typically require 100%
monitoring
(NMFS 1997).
|
Bycatch of sturgeon, halibut,
salmon, Steelhead and Striped Bass may not be
taken by or possessed on any herring fishing vessel (California Code of
Regulations Title 14 §163(e)).
Federal groundfish
management on the west coast allows for and utilizes sector- and
vessel-specific total catch limits for some bycatch species and prohibits
retention of others (50 Code of Federal Regulations §660.55(m)). These
bycatch limits have led to early season closures several times (e.g., 73
Federal Register §53,763.
Proposed hard caps for marine mammal and sea turtle interactions in
California drift gillnet fishery were withdrawn in 2017 due to potential
economic impacts (82 Federal Register §26,902).
|
| Spatial and temporal
measures
|
Closures with temporal (time) and/or spatial
(area) dimensions
|
Restrict fishing or use of certain gear types
at a time of year and/or in a geographic location when bycatch is
expected.
|
Time/area closures can reduce bycatch when
target and bycatch species segregate spatially or temporally (Alverson et al.
1994). The occurrence of bycatch species can be gleaned from behaviors and
physiological traits of the species (Dunn et al. 2011).
|
Depending on the size and complexity of
time/area closures, they could be either an inconvenience for or adversely
affect fishermen (Erickson and Berkeley 2008).
|
Closed areas must be monitored and enforced.
Patrols or VMS (see below) are likely necessary to ensure compliance.
|
Depth and season restrictions apply
in Cowcod Conservation Areas to protect several
rockfish species (California Code of Regulations Title 14
§27.50).
Certain areas of the California Habitat
Trawl Grounds are closed to fishing to protect bycatch, as well as habitat
and ecosystems. These closures have spatial but no temporal dimension
(§8495(c)). CDFW data show a range of bycatch and discard percentages for
each of the closed areas that are now avoided (CDFG
2008).
Spatial restrictions can also be voluntary.
The California Groundfish Collective and The Nature Conservancy work together
to develop fishing plans to manage bycatch risk in the Pacific groundfish
fishery (see: www.cagroundfish.org).
|
| Dynamic ocean management
|
Adaptive closures or avoidance schemes based
on real-time information sharing between government, scientists, and
fishermen. May be mandatory or voluntary.
|
Implementation of dynamic ocean management can
both reduce overall restrictions on fishing communities and mitigate bycatch
concerns (Dunn et al. 2016).
|
Complexity of the program and possible
information reporting may present some cost or inconvenience to fishermen.
Possible benefits by replacing large static closures with smaller dynamic
closures.
|
Closed areas must be monitored and enforced.
Patrols or VMS (see below) are likely necessary to ensure compliance with
mandatory closures.
|
Proposed use of the “EcoCast” model
to avoid areas of predicted bycatch in California
drift gillnet fishery Exempted Fishing Permit (NMFS
2016).
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School
for Marine Science & Technology Bycatch Avoidance Program collects the
geographic location of yellowtail bycatch from scallop fishermen in New
England. Each day, the data are compiled in an email notice describing
spatial areas to avoid based on bycatch of yellowtail from the previous day
(O’Keefe and DeCelles 2013).
Use of Sea State in the
Pacific Whiting fishery cooperative to avoid bycatch.
|
| Altering the time or depth of gear setting
|
Can influence bycatch by avoiding parts of
water column or times of day in which bycatch is most active.
|
The time or depth of setting can reduce
certain types of bycatch in certain fisheries. For example, setting drift
gillnets lower in the water column reduces cetacean and sea turtle bycatch
(NMFS 1997). Likewise, night setting can reduce seabird bycatch in longline
fisheries (Petersen 2008).
|
Minimal direct cost. Possible lost opportunity
costs, but study on depth setting requirements for the California drift
gillnet fishery show minimal effect on target catch rates. Potential loss of
catch may be offset by reductions in net damage or loss (NMFS 1997).
|
Human or EM and/or patrols required to
effectively enforce.
|
As part of the Pacific Offshore
Cetacean Take Reduction Plan, all drift gillnets
must have extenders, which ensure nets are a minimum of 36 feet below the
surface of the water (50 Code of Federal Regulations §229.31(b)). Studies
show a 25% reduction in marine mammal bycatch (NMFS 1997).
|
| Limit soak time
|
Reducing the amount of time gear is in the
water can reduce bycatch and improve survival of discards.
|
Mortality of catch increases with increased
soak time in pelagic longlines (Erickson and Berkeley 2008). Appropriate soak
time will vary by fishery.
|
Minimal direct cost. Possible lost opportunity
cost, but studies show that limiting soak time has no effect on target catch
of some species (Erickson and Berkeley 2008).
|
Human or EM and/or patrols required to
effectively enforce.
|
All traps have maximum soak times of
96 hours (§9003).
|
| Incentive/ disincentive
programs
|
Performance standards penalize fishermen
based on conformity with pre-determined bycatch or bycatch mortality
performance standards.
|
Reward (e.g., increase quota, longer season,
monetary reward) orand innovations in fishing practice (PFMC 2007).
|
Rewards and/or penalties can incentivize
compliance
|
This program could provide rewards for
voluntary reductions in bycatch. May provide for penalties as well.
|
May require 100% monitoring.
|
NA
|
|
| Permit attrition programs or buybacks
|
Buying out capacity of certain permit types or
allowing transition to other permit types.
|
Selectively-targeted buybacks can facilitate
transition to more selective gear or reduce overcapacity (Squires et al.
2007).
|
Possible costs to outgoing fishermen,
depending on administration of the program. May result in increased revenues
if overcapacity is addressed (Squires et al. 2007).
|
Dockside gear checks and/or patrols needed to
ensure phased-out gear types are not in use.
|
A buyback was conducted in the
Pacific groundfish fishery in 2005, however, the
motivation was primarily related to target stock sustainability.
|
| Gear recovery programs
|
Government program or incentive for fishermen.
Focused on recovering lost gear.
|
Gear recovery programs are an established
method to reduce ghost fishing (Macfadyen et al. 2009).
|
No cost to fishermen, unless recovery costs
must be reimbursed by identified gear owners. Possible compensation for
fishermen that participate in recovery.
|
No enforcement needs.
|
California Lost Fishing Gear
Recovery Project has removed more than 60 tons of
fishing gear from California waters since 2006 (Seadoc 2009). Also see Senate
Bill 1287 (McGuire).
|
| Strategies to avoid/reduce
ghost fishing by lost or derelict gear.
Lost gear is
known to continue catching target and non-target species (Macfadyen et al.
2009).
|
Use of degradable materials or destruct
devices in gear design
|
Use of materials in gear design that will
destruct over time and allow trapped catch to escape.
|
Use of biodegradable materials in nets and
pots reduces ghost fishing (Macfadyen et al. 2009).
|
Use of biodegradable gear is likely to have
upfront and ongoing maintenance costs for fishermen.
|
Dockside gear checks or patrols can ensure
appropriate gear configuration. Full observer coverage necessary to ensure
100% proper use.
|
All traps must have one destruction
device (§ 9003). Approved destruction devices are
outlined in regulation (California Code of Regulations Title 14
§180.2).
|
| Ownership identification on gear
|
Establishes accountability and places more
responsibility on the owner to track and recover their lost gear.
|
Required marking of gear facilitates gear
recovery programs and encourages responsible fishing (Macfadyen et al.
2009).
|
Minimal costs to fishermen. Fishermen
incentivized to do this already to indicate gear ownership.
|
Enforcement efforts not likely necessary, as
this is common practice with non-regulatory incentives.
|
All traps must be marked with a buoy
that identifies the operator
(§9006).
Herring gillnets must be marked with a buoy
that identifies the vessel number (California Code of Regulations Title 14
§163(f)(2)(F)).
|
| Require full retention of all or a portion of a vessel’s catch
|
Reduce discards and increase utilization of
species that would otherwise be dead discards. Useful when retained catch
cannot be released alive. Must consider the status and productivity of
bycatch species. Thisdoes not necessarily minimize mortality.
|
Full retention programs can be effective when
tailored to avoid increases in total mortality of overfished species.
Retention programs enable more comprehensive enumeration of bycatch and
encourage fishermen to alter their activities so they are less likely to
encounter non-target species (PFMC 2007).
|
Possible costs to fishermen if required to
land species with lower economic values (PFMC 2007).
|
Must be accompanied by an appropriate
monitoring and enforcement strategy. Full monitoring coverage only way to
ensure 100% compliance.
|
Participants in EM Exempted Fishing
Permits in the Pacific groundfish fishery are
required to operate under full retention rules with limited exceptions for
some species (see: http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/trawl-catch-share-program-em/em-efps/).
|
| Full retention programs
|
Restrictions on offal discharge
|
Require offal discharge away from lines to
distract seabirds, or prohibit discharge.
|
Discharging offal on the opposite side of the
vessel from gear deployment minimizes seabird bycatch (Cox et al.
2007).
|
Minimal costs to fishermen.
|
Full monitoring coverage only way to ensure
100% compliance.
|
Groundfish longline vessels in
Alaska state and federal waters must discharge
offal in a manner that distracts seabirds from baiter hooks (50 Code of
Federal Regulations §679.24(e)(2)(v); Alaska Administrative Code Title 5
§28.055).
|
| Other bycatch mitigation,
accountability, and data collection strategies
|
Training
|
Share fishing methods or proper handling and
release techniques to minimize bycatch and maximize post-release
survival.
|
Education and training programs are a
recognized method to mitigate bycatch concerns (PFMC 2007).
|
Government funded trainings may have some
attendance cost to fishermen. Costs can be defrayed by travel reimbursements
or stipends.
|
Minimal enforcement costs. Administration of
training program will have monetary costs that depend on the length and
complexity of trainings.
|
As part of the Pacific Offshore
Cetacean Take Reduction Plan, all drift gillnet
vessel operators must attend skipper education workshops after notification
from NMFS (50 Code of Federal Regulations § 229.31(d)). This program is
expected to facilitate successful implementation of the take reduction plan
and accompanying regulations (NMFS 1997).
|
| Descending and de-hooking devices
|
Increase post-release survival of
bycatch
|
Appropriate use reduces post-release mortality
(Hannah and Matteson 2007).
|
Cost of devices vary from homemade to
commercial devices (CDFW 2014).
|
Dockside monitoring to ensure all vessels are
equipped.
|
The Department currently encourages
the use of a variety of descending devices for
rockfish (CDFW 2014). When descending devices are utilized, survival rates
increase.
|
| Observers and Electronic Monitoring
|
Observers and EM can collect data on bycatch
and fishing operations. Observers can function as a spotter for protected
species and/or report violations.
|
Observer and EM programs can ensure compliance
with many regulations and support management decisions through data
collection. Possibility of inaccurate data due to the presence of observers
or EM influencing fishing behavior (Alverson et al. 1994; NMFS 2013). Observers
may be most useful for emerging or experimental fisheries with no data on
their effect (Commission 2005)
|
Costs to fishermen will depend on the
cost-sharing arrangement between government and fishermen for observers (NMFS
2013). Observers can have significant logistical costs to fishermen.
|
In some fisheries, observers report violations
themselves, while in others law enforcement officers can use the data.
Observer programs are some of the most expensive and funding is a primary
concern (Department of Commerce 2003; NMFS 2013). EM can reduce these costs,
but typically collect more limited information focused on
accountability.
|
Tanner Crab permittees must have
observers on board who collect a variety of
information including bycatch, incidental take, and discards (California Code
of Regulations Title 14 §126(a)(8)). This observer program was vital for
understanding the effects of this relatively new fishery and establishing its
management approach (Commission 2005).
|
| Vessel monitoring systems
|
VMS allows monitoring of the location of
vessels.
|
VMS is a more cost-effective method to ensure
compliance with area closures (Department of Commerce 2003).
|
Equipment and communication costs are
estimated at $3,250–$6,750 up front and $1,750 annually per boat. Costs to
fishermen will depend on the cost-sharing arrangement between government and
fishermen (Department of Commerce 2003).
|
Monitoring personnel required. High potential
costs of implementation, but the VMS program costs are significantly less
than traditional surveillance methods using ships and aircraft (Department of
Commerce 2003).
|
Certain vessels in the west coast
groundfish fishery must carry and operate a VMS
unit when at sea (50 Code of Federal Regulations §660.14). VMS data is
communicated to NOAA’s office of law enforcement for use in focusing patrol
efforts, preventing violations, and as evidence in prosecutions (see: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/about/our_programs/vessel_monitoring.html).
|
| Avoiding protected species through operational techniques
|
Using spotters or fleet communications to
avoid bycatch hotspots; establishing procedures (e.g., back-down procedure
for purse seines) to release
protected species caught in gear.
|
Changes in operational techniques and patterns
can effectively avoid bycatch of large or easily identifiable protected
species.
|
Possible lost opportunity costs if large
bycatch species impede fishing efforts.
|
Patrols or observers may be necessary to
ensure compliance with required procedures.
|
Use of Sea State and operational and
communication protocols in the Pacific Whiting
Conservation Cooperative designed to avoid bycatch (see: http://www.pacificwhiting.org).
|