In the United States, implementation of strong legislative mandates and investments in scientific programmes have supported sustainable fisheries management for seafood production, marine ecosystems, and maritime communities and economies. Changing climate and ocean conditions present new and growing challenges that affect the ability to manage fisheries. To better prepare for and respond to these challenges, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service has called for increasing the production, delivery, and use of climate and environmental information to fulfil its living marine resource stewardship mandates. Addressing these challenges and more formally including climate-informed decision-making in the fisheries management process requires strengthening and adapting the current fisheries management framework. We focus on two impacts of a changing climate, shifting species distributions and changing productivity, which can have significant implications for effective fisheries management. We identify six key steps of a climate-informed science-to-management system: detecting changes, understanding mechanisms of changes, evaluating risks and priorities, conducting assessments, communicating advice, and making management decisions. For each step, we identify challenges and provide recommendations to address those challenges and increase the capacity to develop and apply climate-related science to support sustainable fisheries management in a changing world.

P>The 2006 reauthorisation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires annual catch limits for all target and non-target species within federally managed fisheries in the United States. In Alaska, both target and non-target species in the Alaska groundfish fisheries have been managed using catch limits since the early 1990s. Non-target species that are caught incidentally in a fishery require monitoring to ensure that the population is not negatively impacted by commercial fishing. Resource assessment scientists have been challenged with obtaining sufficient data to recommend an acceptable catch level for management of these species. This paper reviews three case studies where a catch limit is determined for non-target species when certain data are limited: (1) varying levels of biomass and catch data for all species within a species group or complex; (2) adequate catch data but no biomass data; (3) emerging target fishery of data-poor species, plus an example of how a complex of ecosystem component species is managed.

In total, 41 fish stocks in US ocean waters continue to be fished at unsustainable levels, and 46 fish stocks are overfished. In 2006, the US Congress required the implementation of annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures by 2010 to prevent overfishing, and by 2011 to recover overfished stocks. These requirements were modelled on the existing management system for Northeast Pacific groundfish, where more than 20 fish stocks and assemblages have been managed sustainably for 30 years. Science-based overfishing levels and acceptable biological catches (ABCs) have been implemented for each stock or assemblage, with buffers between the two to avoid overfishing. Total allowable catches are set at or below the acceptable biological catch. Suballocations of quotas by season, area, and gear type, along with in-season fishery closures based on extensive observer coverage and vessel monitoring, ensure that quotas are not exceeded. To comply with ACL requirements, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has defined ABC as an ACL. We demonstrate the effectiveness of ACLs for successful management of Northeast Pacific groundfish, suggesting that their use in other US fisheries might reduce the risk of overfishing and enhance the recovery of overfished stocks.

This Regulatory Impact Review addresses six proposed actions to amend subsistence halibut regulations, which were recommended by the State of Alaska (Action 1), Federal agencies (Action 2–5), or Alaska Native Tribes (Action 6) for consideration by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. These actions, if approved by the Secretary, would: (1) reduce the subsistence gear limits in Kodiak and add seasonal gear and vessel limits in the Sitka Sound Local Area Management Plan (LAMP) area; (2) add the village of Naukati to the list of eligible subsistence halibut communities; (3) implement a possession limit equal to two daily harvest and vessel limits to enhance enforcement; (4) revise the definition of charter vessel; (5) revise regulations allowing customary trade; and (6) allow the use of special permits within nonsubsistence use areas by eligible tribes. None of the proposed actions is intended to change the amount of halibut harvested for subsistence purposes. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared for Actions 1 and 6, which are subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A Final RFA will be prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service staff. Comment Due Date: A comment period will be announced by NMFS in the proposed rule. For Further Information Contact: Jane DiCosimo North Pacific Fishery Management Council 605 West 4 Avenue, Suite 306 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-4424 (907) 271-2809

Abstract Along with other conventional methods of managing,fisheries that have been largely successful in the North Pacific, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has adopted over a dozen closed areas in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska as of 1997. In May 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service implemented,essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and Management,Act and developed ,draft recommendations ,for the identification of EFH for all fishery management plans (FMPs). In June 1998, the Council amended its five FMPs to identify EFH and other actions to encourage habitat conservation and enhancement. Also in 1998, the Council closed the Cape Edgecumbe pinnacles near Sitka, Alaska to all federal fishing and anchoring. The 3.1 nm ,area comprises two volcanic necks that support extremely high biodiversity and dense concentrations of marine fauna. For 1999 and beyond, the Council is requesting recommendations for additional habitat ar eas of particular concern (HAPC) from its scientific advisors and the public. While these closures and HAPCs may not meet precise definitions of marine reserves, they provide similar protection for many diverse marine species. Keywords: closed areas; essential fish habitat; fisheries management;,habitat; habitat area of particular