1

Action Plan for Fish Release Mortality Science

L. Benaka, L. Sharpe, K. Abrams, M. Campbell, J. Cope, F. Darby, E.J. Dick, J. Hyde, B. 

Linton, C. Lunsford, D. Rioux, and Y. Swimmer

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

February 2016
2
3

Action Plan for Fish Release Mortality Science

L. Benaka, L. Sharpe, K. Abrams, M. Campbell, J. Cope, F. Darby, E.J. Dick, J. Hyde, B. 

Linton, C. Lunsford, D. Rioux, and Y. Swimmer1

Cover photo courtesy of Robert Hannah, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

February 2016

U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny S. Pritzker, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kathryn D. Sullivan, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

 1 The authors would like to thank Scott Baker and Bruce Leaman for sharing their expertise.
4

Recommended citation:

Benaka, L. R., L. Sharpe, K. Abrams, M. Campbell, J. Cope, F. Darby, E.J. Dick, J. Hyde, B. 

Linton, C. Lunsford, D. Rioux, and Y. Swimmer. 2016. Action Plan for Fish Release Mortality 

Science. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA, 34 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Observer Program (attn. Lee Benaka)

1315 East-West Highway, 12th Floor

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Or online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ecosystems/bycatch/discard-and-release-mortality
5

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................6

Purpose and Goals................................................................................................................9

References ....................................................................................................................15

Appendix 1. Action Plan Steering Committee and Workshop Attendees........................16

Appendix 2. Mortality Workshop SMART Tool Results.................................................17
6

Introduction

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) and its fishery management partners are committed to rebuilding overfished 

marine and anadromous fish stocks. Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils), 

Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions (Commissions), and international fishery management 

organizations such as the International Pacific Halibut Commission, have implemented a variety 

of measures to rebuild or maintain fish populations (e.g., reduced fishing seasons, closed areas, 

species-specific non-retention measures, temporal and/or spatial fisheries closures, and size 

limits). 

Under these management systems, release mortality can occur in both commercial and 

recreational fisheries due to a variety of factors, including how a fish is handled, how long it is 

exposed to air, whether it is injured during the fishing process, or whether it experiences thermal 

shock and/or pressure changes during ascent. Release mortality occurs in a wide variety 

commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as through the use of a wide variety of fishing 

gears (e.g., trawls, gillnets, hook and lines).

Release mortality generally is used to describe seemingly live animals of varying condition at 

capture that subsequently die when released. “Release mortality” will be used throughout this 

Action Plan, although it is referred to in the literature by other descriptors such as delayed, 

discard, fatigue, hooking, and post-release mortality. Release mortality can occur soon after 

release due to severe injury or immediate post-release predation. 

Release mortality also can occur later as a delayed response to stress or injury sustained during 

capture or handling. This delayed release mortality can result from an acute injury or one that 

leads to a chronic condition and eventual death. An example of the latter could be damage to a 

fish’s internal organs during the interaction, which renders it unable to forage or metabolize food 

effectively, ultimately resulting in its death. Another example is damage to a fish’s body while it 

is caught in a trawl net, prior to being dumped on a boat’s deck and subsequently discarded.

This Action Plan focuses on fish release mortality. Release mortality also is a concern for 

protected species such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds. However, release mortality 

challenges for protected species can differ from those for fish, and NMFS has, and continues to, 

address protected species release mortality (e.g., Swimmer and Gilman 2012).

The degree to which scientists have accurate estimates of fish release mortality may affect 

estimates of fishing mortality used in stock assessments to set reference points that are the basis 

for determining whether a fish stock is overfished or undergoing overfishing. For example, if a 

stock assessment assumes a 100% release mortality rate for a particular species, and new 

information calls that assumption into question, then an improved release mortality rate estimate 

may impact the status of the stock.

More accurate release mortality rates may result in better estimates of total catch. These catch 

estimates are used to manage annual catch limits, which are required by the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Annual catch limits, designed to prevent or end 
7

overfishing, may be assigned to groups of fishermen2 or entire fleets and are impacted by release 

mortality assumptions. More accurate release mortality estimates also may result in better

estimates of approved take of fish that are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

such as some populations of Pacific salmon. 

Release mortality also is important to international fishery management agencies. For example, 

the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2014 established a Workshop 

on Methods for Estimating Discard Survival, which was created to address the need for guidance 

on methods for estimating discard survival (ICES 2015).

Release mortality is viewed by many stakeholders as an undesirable and/or wasteful product of 

recreational and commercial fishing. For recreational anglers, release of a fish that is dead or 

dying of barotrauma does not allow that fish to contribute to an enjoyable angling experience in 

the future. More importantly, in the commercial and recreational fishing context, the ecosystemlevel impacts of release mortality can affect the growth of fish populations and the recovery of 

overfished fish populations. 

Barotrauma is an example of acute physiological stress and is recognized as a leading cause of 

release mortality for certain types of fish. Barotrauma results from the change in pressure that 

occurs when some deep-water fish, especially fish with physoclistous gas bladders, are rapidly 

brought to the surface. The symptoms of barotrauma, including stomach eversion and bulging 

eyes, have been described extensively in the literature, especially for Pacific rockfish (e.g., Jarvis 

and Lowe 2008, Hannah et al. 2012). Fish suffering from barotrauma often can recover if they 

are handled properly, although recovery success is likely species specific. 

The recreational fishing community has raised the issue of barotrauma and recreational release 

mortality as a concern over the past several years. Fishermen and managers have developed and 

promulgated best practices designed to reduce release mortality (e.g., see the FishSmart website

at www.fishsmart.org). Fishermen have adopted various fishing practices, especially the use of 

descending devices, which are designed to minimize the effects of barotrauma. These methods 

have been tested for success or ease of use for only a handful of species to date, with varying 

degrees of species-specific success. Barotrauma and release mortality also are concerns in 

commercial fisheries. 

In August 2014, NMFS published a Technical Memorandum entitled Fisheries Release 

Mortality, which summarized NMFS-funded fish release mortality research over the past 15 

years, identified release mortality data gaps, compiled mortality estimates used by NMFS, and 

identified criteria to help scientists and managers focus release mortality resources (Benaka et al. 

2014). When this report was published, NMFS announced that it would develop—in partnership 

with fishing communities, scientists, and managers—an Action Plan for Fish Release Mortality 

Science. 

In late 2014, NMFS assembled an Action Plan Steering Committee (see Appendix 1). The 

Steering Committee developed a simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) tool that can 

be used by managers, scientists, and other fishery stakeholders to identify high-priority release 

 2 For the purposes of this action plan, the term “fishermen” encompasses commercial and recreational fishermen.
8

mortality estimate needs. The Steering Committee brought together experts from NMFS, state 

agencies, academia, industry groups, non-governmental organizations, international fishery 

management organizations, and Councils (see Appendix 1) to meet at an April 2015 workshop at 

the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. 

Workshop participants tested the SMART tool, discussed issues related to data gaps suggested 

by the SMART tool, and discussed a variety of release mortality science topics including 

mismatches between catch data and discard mortality data and conflicting results from multiple 

release mortality studies. (See Appendix 2 for a summary of the SMART tool and preliminary 

results.) After the workshop, the Steering Committee developed this draft Action Plan. 

The April 2015 workshop served as a “beta test” of the SMART tool. The workshop included a 

limited number of experts and evaluated a limited list of species. The conclusion to Appendix 2 

offers some general thoughts on the SMART tool, including suggestions that the SMART tool 

should:

• Be customized based on regional needs, including modification of the management 

sensitivity filter to explicitly account for data-limited species, or whether a species is 

managed using a correct or incorrect release mortality rate.

• Be utilized by a wide group of regional stakeholders, including members of Regional 

Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committees, as well as fishermen.

• Evaluate multi-species complexes, overlapping fishery sectors, and/or gear types to help 

address larger ecosystem-based factors. 
9

Purposes and Goals 

The purpose of the Action Plan is to:

Guide NMFS science efforts related to reducing fish release mortality, improving

estimates of release mortality, and better incorporating improved release mortality 

estimates into stock assessments and management processes. 

The goals of the Action Plan are to:

1. Enable the use of planning tools such as the SMART tool to help managers, scientists, 

and other stakeholders determine which fish species, complexes, and/or fisheries would 

benefit most from improved mortality rate estimates.

2. Facilitate the development of improved fish mortality rate estimates.

3. Support effective and efficient research that leads to reduced release mortality for highpriority species, complexes, and/or fisheries.

4. Ensure that improved fish mortality rate estimates are incorporated effectively into stock 

assessments and existing management processes.

Each of these goals is supported by specific objectives. 

Goal 1. Enable the use of planning tools such as the SMART tool to help managers, scientists, 

and other stakeholders determine which fish species, complexes, and/or fisheries would benefit 

most from improved mortality rate estimates. 

1.1 Support Councils, Commissions, fishermen, and management entities in their use of the 

simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) tool to identify high-priority release 

mortality estimate needs.

o Provide in-person training to management entities and stakeholders so that the 

entities and their partners can customize the SMART tool and use it to evaluate a 

wide variety of species/complexes/fisheries on an ongoing basis.

o Collect results of SMART tool evaluations and make them available to grant 

programs and other parties that might be interested in identifying priorities based 

on SMART tool results.

Challenge Addressed: Although it might be desirable to obtain improved release 

mortality data and estimates for all managed fish species, NMFS has limited resources 

available for the improvement of release mortality rate estimates. In addition, NMFS and 

its management partners currently do not have a standard approach to identifying highpriority release mortality estimate needs.

Potential Partners: NMFS Office of Science and Technology (ST), NMFS Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries (SF), NMFS Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division (Atlantic HMS), Councils, Commissions, regional fishery management 

organizations.

Products: One or more in-person training sessions, lists of regional priorities.
10

Goal 2. Facilitate the development of improved fish mortality rate estimates.

2.1 Support the identification of data gaps and data-collection opportunities related to

improved mortality rate estimates.

o Use Council, Commission, and other management entity research priority 

documents and related documents (e.g., Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 

research recommendations) to identify data gaps for species/complexes/fisheries 

that receive high SMART tool scores in each region.

o Work with observer programs and other monitoring programs to identify 

opportunities to collect data that would help inform release mortality estimates for 

high-priority species.

o Help ensure that existing and new release mortality research initiatives include 

opportunities to obtain relevant baseline information (e.g., effects of air exposure, 

gear type, temperature, climate change, depth of capture, reasons for releasing 

fish, release methodology, “length of fight,” disposition of released fish) where 

that information is missing, as well as opportunities to evaluate release mortality 

by sector (commercial versus recreational, nearshore versus offshore, wild versus

hatchery, and/or deep-water versus shallow-water) as necessary.

Challenge Addressed: NMFS and its partners will continue to identify release mortality 

data gaps, and some of these gaps can be addressed through refinement of monitoring 

programs and research that focuses on obtaining baseline information and evaluating 

release mortality by sector.

Potential Partners: ST, SF, NMFS Science Centers, NMFS Regional Offices, National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).

Products: Lists of identified data gaps, recommendations for monitoring programs.

2.2 Support the development of best practices related to the creation of improved mortality 

rate estimates.

o Identify, possibly as part of a national workshop, best practices for condition 

evaluation programs (e.g., reflex action mortality predictors) to be used in NMFSfunded research, especially simplification of such programs.

o Identify, possibly as part of a national workshop, best practices for the 

development of reliable and robust proxies for short- and long-term mortality 

where such proxies would be helpful.

Challenge Addressed: Experts have identified areas of release mortality research, 

including condition evaluation programs and short- and long-term proxies for mortality 

that could benefit from the establishment of best practices.

Potential Partners: ST, Atlantic HMS, NMFS Science Centers, NMFS Regional Offices,

Sea Grant, other external stakeholders.

Products: One or more national workshops on best practices.
11

2.3 Support new observer data-collection efforts that could inform and improve release 

mortality estimates.

o Explore the development of procedures that would facilitate observer collection of 

data on air temperature, time on deck, condition, and other factors that could be 

related to release methods for high-priority species.

o Ensure that observer program discard condition data fields are as consistent as 

possible among U.S. observer programs and among U.S. and international 

observer programs such as the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission.

o Improve observer identification of challenging species that are discarded often, 

including skates and sharks.

Challenge Addressed: NMFS is better able to identify release mortality challenges when 

discard data generated from domestic and international observer programs are consistent, 

and when discarded species are accurately identified by observers.

Potential Partners: ST, Atlantic HMS, NMFS Science Centers, NMFS Regional Offices, 

regional fishery management organizations.

Products: Revised observer forms that feature more consistent condition data fields; 

additional training and/or identification guides for hard-to-identify species.

Goal 3. Support effective and efficient research that leads to reduced release mortality for highpriority species, complexes, and/or fisheries.

3.1 Support collaborative research efforts with fishermen and other stakeholders to 

identify how release mortality rates and fisherman behavior are affected by descending 

devices, careful release practices, and other methods.

o Incorporate additional factors such as time on deck in a standardized manner for 

descending device studies.

o Focus descending device studies on improving the ability of head boats and 

charter boats to descend multiple fish at once.

o Examine how careful release practices could affect release mortality estimates.

o Obtain better understanding of fisherman usage and perceptions of descending 

devices and release practices, and how release mortality affects fisherman 

behavior.

o Support and improve observer data collection about type, use, and efficacy of 

descending devices.

o Support additional efforts to develop guidelines for reducing release mortality in 

commercial and recreational fisheries targeting marine and anadromous species,

and communicate to stakeholders about methods to reduce release mortality. 

Challenge Addressed: Descending devices have shown great promise in reducing 

barotrauma and release mortality in some fisheries, especially on the West Coast, but 

descending devices have not been adequately tested in a variety of fisheries in other 

regions.

Potential Partners: ST, SF, Atlantic HMS, NMFS Office of Communications, NMFS 

Science Centers, NMFS Regional Offices, NFWF, Sea Grant, other external stakeholders.
12

Products: Additional research projects focusing on descending devices, additional 

release mortality reduction guidelines, additional release mortality reduction 

communication efforts.

3.2 Explore the creation of an acoustic tagging–related device loaner program (which 

might include pop-up satellite archival tags, acoustic arrays, hook times, and/or 

acceleration data loggers) for collaborative researchers funded by NMFS.

o Evaluate the cost of such a loaner program in light of savings that should result 

from researchers not having to include such devices in their budgets.

o If the program is created, provide mandatory training in the use of such devices, 

and ensure that insurance and recovery costs are built into project budgets.

Challenge Addressed: Release mortality grant applications often include requests for 

expensive acoustic tagging equipment, and amounts requested would be lower if NMFS 

were able to loan out equipment through a program similar to its underwater video 

camera loaner program.

Potential Partners: ST, SF, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, NMFS Science 

Centers, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Products: Memo evaluating the feasibility of an acoustic tagging-related device loaner 

program.

3.3 Ensure that relevant existing NMFS grant programs (including programs that receive 

funding from NMFS) support high-priority release mortality research needs through highquality and effective collaborative research projects.

o Facilitate contacts between NMFS stock assessment scientists and release 

mortality researchers, so that researchers can increase their chances of producing 

results that will be useful to stock assessment scientists.

o For grant programs that include specific release mortality priorities, explore ways 

to modify release mortality priority language to ensure that funded projects are 

most likely to produce useful results (e.g., requiring applicants to provide an 

overview of historic literature and/or power analysis if appropriate).

Challenge Addressed: NMFS grant programs, and NMFS-supported programs, fund 

release mortality research, but program priorities are often broad and lacking in specific 

guidance that could help improve proposals and make them more relevant to NMFS’ 

high-priority release mortality science needs.

Potential Partners: ST, SF, NMFS Office of Management and Budget, NMFS Science 

Centers, NMFS Regional Offices, NMFS Office of Management and Budget, NFWF, 

external partners.

Products: Consideration of refined release mortality priorities in existing grant programs,

new processes for communication between stock assessment scientists and release 

mortality researchers.
13

3.4 Create an online clearing house for release mortality estimation research and priorities.

o Develop a public database (to be maintained by the NMFS Office of Science and

Technology) of release mortality research, including published research, ongoing 

and unpublished research (as appropriate), gray literature (where available), and 

raw data (where available).

o Identify and implement a procedure to dynamically update discard and release 

mortality research priorities and document where and how research priorities have 

been addressed over time.

Challenge Addressed: Release mortality researchers applying for NMFS grants may not 

have ready access to recently completed or ongoing research, as well as current Council 

or NMFS region-specific research priorities.

Potential Partners: ST, NMFS Science Centers, Sea Grant, external stakeholders.

Products: Public release mortality research and priorities database.

Goal 4. Ensure that improved fish mortality rate estimates are incorporated effectively into stock 

assessments and existing management processes.

4.1 Organize a session as part of the next National Stock Assessment Workshop (NSAW),

or at other national or international meetings, that focuses on best practices for the 

incorporation of new release mortality estimates into stock assessments, and the effects of 

those estimates on management decision-making.

o Explore the development of procedures or best practices for how new estimates 

can be effectively incorporated, through Council Scientific and Statistical 

Committees (SSCs) and other means, into existing assessment processes. 

o Consider whether new release mortality estimates might lead to increased fishing 

opportunities or new requirements and restrictions.

o Consider the development of a symposium at a regularly occurring national or 

international meeting (e.g., the American Fisheries Society, the American 

Sportfishing Association, the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, World 

Fisheries Congress) on best practices and the effects of new mortality estimates 

on management, or similar topics, involving additional stakeholders from outside 

NMFS.

Challenge Addressed: As scientists continue to carry out release mortality research 

through internal NMFS funding or external grant funding, NMFS and its management 

partners will benefit from workshops and symposia that examine how to make best use of 

these findings.

Potential Partners: ST, SF, NOAA’s Recreational Fishing Initiative, HMS, NMFS 

Science Centers, NMFS Regional Offices, Councils, Commissions, Sea Grant, external 

stakeholders.

Products: An NSAW session, a symposium at a national or international meeting.
14

4.2 Improve communications to recreational and commercial fishing communities targeting 

marine and anadromous fish species regarding how release mortality estimates are created 

and used, as well as how such estimates can impact stock assessments, catch limits, and 

other management processes.

o Develop fact sheets and other communication methods to educate fishing 

communities regarding various aspects of release mortality estimates.

o Explore the development of additional videos as necessary to explain to 

stakeholders how release mortality estimates are used by scientists and managers

and communicate release mortality success stories.

Challenge Addressed: If recreational and commercial fishing communities do not 

understand how release mortality estimates are created and used, and how they might 

impact management, they may not be effective partners with NMFS in reducing release 

mortality and developing improved release mortality estimates.

Potential Partners: ST, SF, NOAA’s Recreational Fishing Initiative, NMFS Science 

Centers, NMFS Regional Offices, Sea Grant, NMFS Office of Communications, external 

stakeholders (including FishSmart network).

Products: Fact sheets, online videos, presentations and demonstrations at national and/or 

regional fishing shows.

Action Plan Objectives Timeline (shaded cells represent the time frame when an objective 

will be carried out)

Objective 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

1.1. Support use of SMART tool.

2.1. Support the identification of data gaps and 

data-collection opportunities related to improved 

mortality rate estimates.

2.2. Support the development of best practices 

related to the creation of improved release 

mortality estimates.

2.3. Support new observer data-collection efforts 

that could inform and improve release mortality 

estimates.

3.1. Support collaborative research to identify 

how release mortality rates and fisherman 

behavior are affected by various methods.

3.2. Explore the creation of an acoustic taggingrelated device loaner program.

3.3. Ensure NMFS grant programs support highpriority release mortality research needs.

3.4. Create an online clearing house.

4.1. Organize a session(s) at the NSAW and 

other national or international meetings focusing 

on best practices.

4.2. Improve communications to recreational and 

commercial fishing communities.
15

References

Benaka, L. R., L. Sharpe, L. Anderson, K. Brennan, J. E. Budrick, C. Lunsford, E. Meredith, M. 

S. Mohr, and C. Villafana. 2014. Fisheries Release Mortality: Identifying, Prioritizing, and 

Resolving Data Gaps. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. U.S. Dept. of Commer., 

NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-142.

Hannah, R. W., P. S. Rankin, and M. T. O. Blume. 2012. Use of a novel cage system to 

measure postrecompression survival of northeast Pacific rockfish. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 

4(1):46-56.

ICES. 2015. Report of the Workshop on Methods for Estimating Discard Survival 3 

(WKMEDS 3), 20-24 April 2015, London, UK. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:39. 47 pp. Available 

online at: 

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2015/

WKMEDS/01%20WKMEDS3%20report%20FINAL.pdf

Jarvis, E. T., and C. G. Lowe. 2008. The effects of barotrauma on the catch-and-release survival 

of southern California nearshore and shelf rockfish (Scorpaenidae, Sebastes spp.). Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65:1286-1296. 

Swimmer, Y., and E. Gilman. 2012. Report of the Sea Turtle Longline Fishery Post-release 

Mortality Workshop, November 15−16, 2011. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., 

NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-34, 31 p.
16

Appendix 1. Action Plan Steering Committee and Workshop Attendees

Steering Committee

Lee Benaka, Leah Sharpe—NMFS Office of Science and Technology

Karen Abrams, Randy Blankinship, Danielle Rioux—NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries

Forbes Darby—NMFS Office of Communications

Brian Linton— NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Matthew Campbell— NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center

John Hyde— NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center

E.J. Dick— NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center

Jason Cope— NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Chris Lunsford— NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Yonat Swimmer—NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

Scott Baker—North Carolina Sea Grant

Bruce Leaman—International Pacific Halibut Commission

Workshop Attendees

Bill Hoffman—Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries

Michael Musyl—Pelagic Research Group, LLC (Honolulu)

John Mandelman—New England Aquarium

Andrew Loftus—Andrew Loftus Consulting (Annapolis, MD)

Heather Reed—Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Theresa Tsou—Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Beverly Sauls—Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission

Chip Collier—South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Greg Stunz—Texas A&M University

Scott Meyer—Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Melanie Hutchinson—University of Hawaii

Craig Rose—FishNext Research (Seattle)

John Gauvin—Alaska Seafood Cooperative (Seattle)
17

Appendix 2. Mortality Workshop SMART Tool Results

Background

In July 2014, NMFS published a technical memorandum on release mortality in fisheries

(Benaka et al. 2014). Release mortality generally is used to describe ostensibly live animals of 

varying condition at capture that subsequently die when released. “Release mortality” will be 

used throughout this summary, although it is referred to in the literature by other descriptors such 

as delayed, discard, fatigue, hooking, and post-release mortality. 

The 2014 technical memorandum described research projects addressing release mortality that 

were funded by NMFS from 1999 to 2013. The report also described several important data 

gaps in understanding and methodology used to determine release mortality. In addition, the 

technical memorandum identified criteria that could help scientists and managers prioritize 

species for release mortality research efforts.

When this technical memorandum was published, NMFS announced that it would develop—in 

partnership with fishing communities, industry, scientists, and managers—an Action Plan to 

guide agency science, improve estimates of release mortality, and better incorporate release 

mortality estimates into stock assessments. NMFS staff charged with developing the Action Plan 

decided to use a simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) tool. This tool could use the 

criteria identified in the technical memorandum to prioritize species for which improved release

mortality estimates would significantly alter fishing opportunities or practices. 

NMFS identified a Steering Committee charged with organizing an April 2015 workshop 

involving state researchers and managers, academics, Regional Fishery Management Council 

staff and members, and industry representatives (see Appendix 1). The workshop participants 

helped the Steering Committee to explore prioritization options for important U.S. fish species 

that might be in need of improved release mortality rate estimates (e.g., species with very low or 

high assumed mortality rates supported by only a single study, few data, and/or myriad

assumptions, or species subject to “no-retention” management policies). Workshop participants 

focused especially on instances where improved estimates of release mortality rates would likely

directly affect the results of a stock assessment and/or fishing opportunities or practices. 

The SMART Tool

The SMART tool is designed to be an objective, repeatable, and fairly quick assessment of the 

need for improved release mortality estimates for certain species. Results of the SMART tool 

are not meant to be prescriptive but rather are intended to provide a starting point for discussions 

of release mortality research priorities. 

The tool first applies a “management sensitivity filter” to each species, which asks experts to 

answer, using their professional judgement, two questions:

1. Will a new release mortality estimate likely significantly alter fishing opportunities?

2. Will a new release mortality estimate likely significantly alter fishing practices? 

If either question receives a “yes” answer, the species should be evaluated using the SMART 

tool. If both questions receive a “no” answer, then the species should not be evaluated. This 
18

filter is meant to address issues such as the extent to which the species in question has already 

been studied. For example, if a dozen published studies have estimated release mortality to be 

15 to 20 percent for a particular species, an additional study likely will not result in a 

significantly revised release mortality estimate that would alter fishing opportunities or practices.

The SMART tool, which was used by Steering Committee members prior to the 2015 workshop,

included five criteria:

1. Restricted or rare

2. Vulnerability

3. Economic impact

4. Political sensitivity and stakeholder engagement

5. Discard ratio

The following sections describe how each of these criteria was scored.

Restricted or Rare

The restricted or rare criterion was a binary option that asked simply whether the species was 

considered to be restricted or rare. If the answer to the question was “yes” for either restricted or 

rare, then the criterion received a score of 100. If the answer was “no” to both questions, then 

the criterion received a score of 0. The Steering Committee defined “restricted” to mean that the 

species was commonly considered to be a limiting or "choke" species in relation to other target 

species in a mixed-species fishery. The Steering Committee defined “rare” to mean that the 

species was listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

Vulnerability

The vulnerability criterion was a quantitative approach based on stock status and /or productivity 

and susceptibility indices. If a species stock status is unknown, or if the stock assessment results 

are uncertain, experts should use the productivity-susceptibility analysis (PSA) tool developed by 

NMFS (http://nft.nefsc.noaa.gov/PSA.html). The PSA tool should result in categorization of a 

species productivity and susceptibility as low, medium, or high. Based on those categories, the 

species would receive scores based on the matrix shown below: Susceptibility

100 75 50

75 50 25

50 25 0

Productivity
19

If the species in question has a related stock assessment, and that stock assessment addresses 

uncertainty, then SMART tool users should assign the following scores for this criterion, based 

on the stock status in the assessment:

• Overfishing and overfished = 100

• Overfishing and not overfished (substantial uncertainty) = 70

• Not overfishing but overfished (substantial uncertainty) = 70

• Overfishing but not overfished (little uncertainty) = 50

• Not overfishing but overfished (little uncertainty) = 50

• Not overfishing and not overfished = 0

In addition, if the species in question suffered a decline in status from 2004 to 2014 (i.e., moved 

from not overfished to overfished, and/or from not undergoing overfishing to undergoing 

overfishing), the assessors should add a 10-point bonus to the score. This bonus score was 

designed to highlight variability and susceptibility in a species stock status.

Economic Impact

The economic impact criterion asked experts to consider the impacts of a hypothetical situation 

in which uncertainty about release mortality led to the unexpected closure of a fishery or 

fisheries. The following types of impacts received various scores:

• The regional economy would suffer significant and immediately measurable economic 

consequences (e.g., impact could lead to a request for a fishery disaster declaration) = 

100

• The regional economy would suffer some measurable economic consequences = 60

• The regional economy would suffer minor economic consequences = 20

• The regional economy would suffer no measureable economic consequences = 0

Political Sensitivity and Stakeholder Engagement

This criterion used a matrix approach that could result in a range of scores from 0 to 100, based 

on level of political sensitivity and stakeholder engagement. Experts were asked to categorize 

sensitivity and engagement related to the species in question as high, moderate, or low. 

High sensitivity/engagement could be characterized by lawsuits involving the species, efforts to 

certify/ecolabel the species, or large involvement of stakeholders including anglers/fishermen in 

cooperative release mortality research. Moderate sensitivity/engagement could be characterized 

by infrequent or no lawsuits, moderate levels of public comment on rulemaking, some discussion 

of certification/ecolabeling for the species, and some angler/fisherman involvement in 

cooperative research. Low sensitivity/engagement could by characterized by either low levels of 

public comment on rulemaking or low levels of angler/fisherman involvement in cooperative 

research.
20

Based on those categories, the species would receive scores based on the matrix shown below: Political sensitivity

High 60 60 80 100

Moderate 40 40 60 80

Low 20 40 40 60

None 0 20 40 60

None Low Moderate High

Stakeholder engagement

Discard Ratio

This criterion also used a matrix approach that could result in a range of scores from 0 to 100, 

based on the magnitude of the discard estimate (e.g., high, medium, low) and the uncertainty in 

the discard estimate (e.g., high, medium, low). For magnitude of the discard rate, if ratio of 

discards to landings was unknown or more than 1.5 times landings, experts were asked to assign 

a score of “high.” If discards were between 0.5 and 1.5 times landings, experts were asked to 

assign a score of “moderate.” If discards were less than 0.5 times landings, experts were asked 

to assign a score of “low.”

For uncertainty, if the coefficient of variation (CV) of the discard estimate was unknown or 

above 50 percent, experts were asked to assign a score of high. If the CV of the discard estimate 

was from 30 to 50 percent, experts were asked to assign a score of medium. If the CV of the 

discard estimate was less than 30 percent, experts were asked to assign a score of low.

Based on those categories, the species would receive scores based on the matrix shown below: Magnitude

High 50 75 100

Moderate 25 50 75

Low 0 25 50

Low Moderate High

Uncertainty

Each of the criteria received a weight that reflected the importance of the criterion in relation to 

the other criteria. The weights, which can be easily adjusted within the SMART tool, were as 

follows for the analyses conducted prior to and during the expert workshop:

1. Restricted or rare = 20

2. Vulnerability = 100

3. Economic impact = 100

4. Political sensitivity and stakeholder engagement = 20

5. Discard ratio = 60

Species Evaluated with the SMART Tool

Prior to the April 21–22, 2015, workshop, the Acting Director of the Office of Science and 

Technology sent an email message to Regional Fishery Management Council and Marine 

Fisheries Commission Executive Directors, as well as the Division Chief for Atlantic HMS, 

asking for lists of the top-10 species under their jurisdiction that would benefit from improved 
21

release mortality rates. Steering Committee members and workshop participants participated in 

a series of conference calls prior to the workshop to evaluate the top-10 species using the 

SMART tool. Table 1 lists the species submitted for consideration. It is important to note that 

the species evaluated by the Steering Committee and workshop participants may not represent 

the full suite of species requiring evaluation in a particular region. In addition, it is important to 

note that a small number of experts conducted these evaluations. The SMART tool should 

produce more useful results if a larger number of experts evaluate a more extensive list of 

regional species.

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) Species Preliminary Results

The experts who evaluated the NEFMC species used the management sensitivity filter to rule out 

an evaluation of Atlantic herring and river herring. The experts felt that the Atlantic herring 

discard rate was very low, and that it would be difficult to design a study to identify an improved 

release mortality rate estimate for this species. The experts felt that more information was 

needed regarding the magnitude of river herring discards before a new release mortality rate 

would have a significant impact on management. The experts also decided to evaluate the skate 

complex as separate species. Figure 1 shows the scores for these species.

Workshop participants felt that some of the higher scores for the NEFMC species reflected the 

species position as a choke species that constrains other fisheries (e.g., flounder species). 

Vulnerability also influenced high scores for some of the species, especially windowpane 

flounder and thorny skate. For the two species that scored the highest (windowpane flounder and 

Atlantic halibut), the NEFMC cited an unknown release mortality rate and the fact that the 

annual catch limit for these species could constrain other fisheries. Workshop participants 

suggested some additional species for consideration by the SMART tool, including Atlantic cod 

(especially as encountered in lobster fisheries), haddock, pollock, wolfish, and cusk (especially 

as released through the use of recreational gear).

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) Species Preliminary Results

The experts who evaluated the MAFMC species used the management sensitivity filter to rule 

out an evaluation of several species, including the six species submitted by the MAFMC that 

were not identified as species of concern by the Council (i.e., Atlantic mackerel, tilefish, 

surfclam, ocean quahog, Loligo, and Illex). In addition, the experts decided not to evaluate spiny 

dogfish, at least initially, because numerous studies already have focused on this species. In 

addition, the experts decided not to evaluate summer flounder because that species also has been 

the subject of many recreational fishery studies. Summer flounder may warrant SMART tool 

evaluation if commercial fishery release mortality estimates could possibly change substantially 

in response to additional research. Figure 2 shows the scores for these species.

Economic impact scores were major drivers for the MAFMC species scores, with the exception 

of butterfish, whose score was driven by the discard ratio criterion. None of the species were 

considered to be restricted or rare, and the species scored low in terms of vulnerability and 

political sensitivity/stakeholder interest. 

The MAFMC included some comments on the species it suggested for evaluation. For 

butterfish, the MAFMC commented, “Discards are a large part of catch (sometimes greater than 
22

50%); discard mortality assumed=100%.... Most probably do die either immediately or 

indirectly, so I wouldn't think this would be a high priority for research on this topic.” 

Table 1. Species submitted for consideration by the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, and expert opinion in the case of the West Coast (the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council was unable to provide a species list due to schedule conflicts). Species with an asterisk 

were considered but not evaluated by workshop participants. 

NEFMC MAFMC ASMFC SAFMC GFMC West 

Coast

NPFMC WPFMC Atlantic 

HMS

Georges 

Bank winter 

flounder

Butterfish Black sea 

bass

Red 

snapper

Red 

snapper

Black 

rockfish

Pacific 

halibut

Main 

Hawaiian 

Islands 

Deep-7 

bottomfish 

species

Dusky shark

Windowpane 

flounder

Scup Scup Gag 

grouper

Gag 

grouper

Blue 

rockfish

Bering Sea 

red, blue, 

golden king 

crab

Bigeye tuna Sandbar 

shark

Atlantic 

halibut

Black sea 

bass

Spanish 

mackerel

Vermillion 

snapper

Vermillion 

snapper

Bocaccio Bering Sea 

Tanner 

crab

Striped 

marlin

Porbeagle 

shark

Northern red 

hake

Bluefish Bluefish Warsaw 

grouper

Greater 

amberjack

Brown 

rockfish

Bering Sea 

Bairdi crab

Oceanic

whitetip 

shark

Scalloped 

hammerhead 

shark

Silver hake Spiny 

dogfish*

Black drum Speckled 

hind

Goliath 

grouper

Copper 

rockfish

Longnose 

skate

Silky shark Common 

thresher 

shark

Southern 

New England 

winter 

flounder

Summer 

flounder*

Atlantic 

sturgeon

Gray 

triggerfish

Gray 

triggerfish

Cowcod Big skate Blue shark Yellowfin 

tuna

Gulf of 

Maine winter 

flounder

Atlantic 

mackerel*

Shad* Red porgy Mutton 

snapper

Canary 

rockfish

Alaska 

skate

Bigeye 

thresher 

shark

Blacktip 

shark 

(Atlantic)

Northeast 

skate 

complex

Tilefish* Red drum* Red 

grouper

Red 

grouper

Quillback 

rockfish

Sleeper 

shark

Shortfin 

mako shark

Blacktip 

shark (Gulf 

of Mexico

Ocean pout Surf 

clam*

Spotted 

seatrout*

Scamp 

grouper

Scamp 

grouper

Vermillion 

/ sunset 

rockfish

Spiny 

dogfish

Blue marlin Blacknose 

shark 

(Atlantic)

Atlantic 

herring*

Ocean 

quahog*

Weakfish* Black sea 

bass

Yellowtail 

snapper

Yelloweye 

rockfish

Yelloweye 

rockfish

South Pacific 

albacore

Blacknose 

shark (Gulf 

of Mexico)

River 

herring*

Loligo* Summer 

flounder*

Snowy 

grouper

King 

mackerel

Sablefish 

(fixed gear)

Shortraker 

rockfish

Illex* Tautog* Blueline 

tilefish

Sablefish 

(trawl gear)

Rougheye 

rockfish

Striped 

bass*

Lingcod Sablefish

Spiny 

dogfish

Skates (big 

and 

longnose)
23

Figure 1. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for NEFMC Species

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

SMART Ranking - Northeast

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
24

Figure 2. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for MAFMC Species

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Species Preliminary Results

The experts who evaluated the MAFMC species used the management sensitivity filter to rule 

out an evaluation of several species. These species (shad, red drum, spotted seatrout, weakfish, 

summer flounder, tautog, and striped bass) were identified by the ASMFC as species that have 

been the subject of multiple release mortality studies, and/or species whose release mortality 

rates are not debated in assessment processes. 

Figure 3 shows the scores for the six ASMFC-suggested species that were evaluated. Atlantic 

sturgeon received an overall score that was twice that of the next highest-scoring group of 

species. This high score was due to the vulnerability and discard ratio criterion scores assigned 

to Atlantic sturgeon. In addition, according to ASMFC comments, the release mortality rate 

used for Spanish mackerel, the second highest-scoring species, is based on a couple of studies, 

although release mortality rates identified in those studies were highly variable (10–35%).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Butterfish Scup Bluefish Black sea bass

SMART Ranking - MAFMC

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
25

Figure 3. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for ASMFC Species

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) Species Preliminary Results

Experts evaluated all 12 species that were suggested by the SAFMC. Figure 4 shows the results 

for these species. Although red snapper received the highest score due to its stock status and 

high discard quantities, the experts felt that Warsaw grouper and speckled hind should have 

received the highest scores, in part because retention of these species is not allowed, as well as 

because of stock status. However, these two species received lower scores because no directed 

fishery for these species has existed for a few decades, which impacted the species points under 

the economic criterion. The experts also commented that a release mortality study focusing on 

Warsaw grouper and speckled hind would be difficult because the species are rarely encountered. 

This challenge led workshop participants to suggest that the Action Plan should focus on 

complexes of species that are caught by a certain gear type (e.g., hook-and-line, gillnet, trawl).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Spanish mackerel Black drum Atlantic sturgeon Black sea bass Scup Bluefish

SMART Ranking - ASMFC

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
26

Figure 4. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for SAFMC Species

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

SMART Ranking - South Atlantic

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
27

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GFMC) Species Preliminary Results

Experts evaluated all 11 species that were suggested by the GFMC. Figure 5 shows the results 

for these species. The experts were surprised to see that red snapper received the highest scores,

because that species has been studied so extensively. This surprising result led to some 

discussion of the possible need for an additional SMART tool criterion that would evaluate the 

extent to which release mortality has been studied for a species. In addition, the experts 

commented that if red snapper had been separated into recreational and commercial sectors, the 

recreational sector may not have been evaluated due to the management sensitivity filter. 

Workshop participants felt it would be worthwhile to consider separation of certain species into 

recreational and commercial sectors for SMART tool evaluation purposes. 

West Coast Species Preliminary Results

Because the timing of the top-10 species request conflicted with a meeting of the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC), the PFMC was unable to provide a list of species. Instead, 

experts invited to the workshop, as well as Steering Committee members, identified a list of 15 

species to be evaluated with the SMART tool. Figure 6 shows the results for these species. 

Workshop attendees commented that some of the West Coast species have important regional 

differences due to distribution. For example, cowcod, which received a high score, is found 

mostly off Southern California. Sector differences (i.e., commercial versus recreational) also 

were cited as important by the workshop attendees. Similar differences might occur for 

nearshore fisheries as opposed to offshore fisheries for the same species. Workshop attendees 

also concluded that highly migratory species were underrepresented in the West Coast SMART 

tool analysis due to a lack of input from experts familiar with those species. 

Although all Regional Fishery Management Councils may want to revisit these SMART tool 

analyses using a more complete set of species and expert opinions, it will be especially important 

for the PFMC to spend some time with the SMART tool as it was unable to fully engage with the 

analytical process that occurred prior to the workshop.
28

Figure 5. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for GFMC Species

. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SMART ranking - Gulf of Mexico

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
29

Figure 6. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for West Coast Species

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) Species Preliminary Results

Experts evaluated all 13 species or species groups that were suggested by the NPFMC. 

However, the experts combined some of the species for evaluation purposes, and they evaluated 

an additional species, Pacific cod. The experts added Pacific cod because quotas for that are 

limited (which leads to additional discards when limits are close to being met), even though it is

a valuable commercial species. Figure 7 shows the results for these species. Pacific halibut 

scored highest due to its economic value, its discard ratio, and its ability to limit groundfish trawl 

fisheries. Workshop participants felt that skates could receive a higher score as a restricted

species if more were known about their biology and release mortality rates. Workshop 

participants also felt that rockfish species may have been scored too low in terms of the restricted

criterion. In addition, participants felt that it is important to note when species are managed 

under multiple jurisdictions, for example, Pacific halibut and some highly migratory species.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SMART Ranking - West Coast

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Impact Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
30

Figure 7. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for NPFMC Species

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC) Species Preliminary Results

Experts evaluated all 10 species or species groups that were suggested by the WPFMC. Figure 8 

shows the results for these species. Several species, including some tunas and sharks, received 

high scores due to the economic and vulnerability criteria receiving high scores. This scoring 

inspired some discussion at the workshop regarding the need to ensure there is a consistent 

understanding of the criteria definitions by various parties from different parts of the country 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SMART Ranking - Alaska

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
31

who use the SMART tools. When it submitted its list of top species, the WPFMC commented 

that release mortality rates for small cetaceans (such as false killer whales and pilot whales), as 

well as other protected species (such as sea turtles and albatrosses), are of high interest to the 

Council.

Workshop attendees expressed some confusion over why particular species were submitted for 

evaluation, and why some species were not. It appears that the species submitted by the 

WPFMC were chosen due to a combination of factors including population status, stock 

assessment results, and conservation and management measures that include a no-retention 

policy. Subsequent use of the SMART tool by Councils should involve a wider variety of 

experts and species than were possible for the limited time and participants allowed for the 2015 

workshop. In the case of Western Pacific species, additional SMART tool evaluations might 

include species for which managers have little release mortality information, such as louvar or 

oilfish.

Figure 8. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for WPFMC Species

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Main Islands

bottomdish species

Striped marlin Silky shark Bigeye thresher

shark

Blue marlin

SMART Ranking - West Pacific

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
32

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (Atlantic HMS) Preliminary Results

After the 2015 workshop, experts from the NOAA Fisheries Atlantic HMS Management 

Division, working with some Steering Committee members, evaluated eight species, and 

included separate evaluations for Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico populations of two of those 

species (blacktip and blacknose shark). Figure 9 shows the results for these species. 

Figure 9. Preliminary SMART Tool Scores for Atlantic HMS Species

The Atlantic HMS analysis highlighted differences in scoring that can occur for species that are 

managed domestically as well as internationally. Specifically, yellowfin tuna is a major species 

caught in the Atlantic HMS recreational and commercial fisheries and is assessed internationally 

by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Due to different stock 

assessment thresholds, yellowfin tuna is considered to be overfished internationally, but not 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

SMART Ranking - Atlantic HMS

Restricted/Rare Vulnerability Economic Impact Political/Stakeholder Discard Ratio
33

domestically, where the yellowfin tuna population is above the minimum stock size threshold 

identified for the species (NMFS 2014).

Atlantic HMS experts applied the SMART tool’s management sensitivity filter to exclude 

bluefin tuna and billfish because those species have been the subject of several release mortality 

estimation studies (for example, see Musyl et al. 2015). Atlantic HMS experts also excluded sea 

turtles from consideration in light of separate ongoing efforts involving NMFS and other 

stakeholders to answer release mortality questions involving those species.

Shark species, especially dusky shark and blacknose shark (Atlantic), received the highest scores 

due to their vulnerability, restricted and rare, and discard as a ratio of landings scores. Yellowfin 

tuna also received a relatively high score due to its economic importance and political and 

stakeholder interest.

General Thoughts on the SMART Tool

Workshop participants generally found the SMART tool to be useful in figuring out which 

species should be prioritized for release mortality research. However, participants did have some 

ideas to improve the tool. 

One possible improvement would be to make the vulnerability criterion more nuanced. For 

example, this criterion could award additional points if a species is making good progress with 

its rebuilding plan. Without such nuances, a stock that is declining steadily toward an overfished 

status would score higher than a stock that is overfished but rebuilding nicely. In addition, 

progress in ending overfishing might make this criterion less meaningful if most species 

evaluated are no longer undergoing overfishing.

As was mentioned above, the SMART tool might be improved by introducing a new criterion 

that provides a score based on how much data on release mortality is available for a species. 

This score could be based on a simple scheme of low, medium, or high levels of data being 

available. Another criterion, or perhaps a related criterion, could try to capture the complexity of 

the fishery related to the fish species. For example, does the fishery involve multiple sectors, 

multiple jurisdictions, and/or multiple gears?

The discard ratio criterion could be more meaningful if it included information about whether the 

estimates are derived from observer data as opposed to self-reported data. Workshop 

participants also felt that the scoring matrix used for the PSA option under the vulnerability 

criterion should more closely reflect the scoring system used in the actual PSA tool. Species 

with rich datasets and for which detailed analytic assessments exist could further elaborate the 

discard mortality criterion by detailing the proportion of fishing mortality composed of discard 

mortality. This additional metric would help inform managers about the relative importance of 

discard mortality. 

Workshop participants strongly felt that the SMART tool should be refined a bit and then used

by a wider group of regional stakeholders, including Regional Fishery Management Council 

Scientific and Statistical Committees, in order to apply a wider range of expertise to the SMART 

tool analysis, as well as to evaluate additional species and help identify additional data gaps. A 
34

wider group of regional stakeholders also could explore ways to adapt the SMART tool—for 

example, to use it to evaluate individual species, species complexes, sectors, or even gear 

types—or revise the weighting scheme to more accurate reflect regional concerns.

References

Benaka, L. R., L. Sharpe, L. Anderson, K. Brennan, J. E. Budrick, C. Lunsford, E. Meredith, M. 

S. Mohr, and C. Villafana. 2014. Fisheries Release Mortality: Identifying, Prioritizing, and 

Resolving Data Gaps. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS/SPO-142, 84 p.

Musyl, M. K., C. D. Moyes, R. W. Brill, B. L. Mourato, A. West, L. M. McNaughton, W. 

Chiang, and C. Sun. 2015. Postrelease mortality in istiophorid billfish. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 72(4):538-556.

NMFS. 2014. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. Silver Spring, MD, 195 p.