Mitigation research update Sample Clauses

Mitigation research update. Agenda Item 1 focused on information sharing and included presentations highlighting initiatives specific to seabird conservation in pelagic longline fisheries. Brief summaries of presentations are included below. SBWG-4 Doc 05 presented the preliminary findings of two line-weighing trials in the Australian tuna fishery. The trials examined the effects of seabird-friendly (fast sinking) branch lines on catch rates of target and non-target fish. In the event that no effects were detected the effectiveness in deterring seabirds would then be assessed. There was no statistical difference in the catch rates of Yellowfin tuna on gear configured with 60-g weights at 3.5 m from hooks (the industry standard) and gear with 120-g weights 2 m from hooks. Further, there was no statistically detectable difference between gear types in catch rates of other commercial species combined (Bigeye tuna, Albacore tuna, Dolphin fish and Broad- billed swordfish). It must be noted, however, that the catch data were highly variable and derived from a sample size of only 30 sets of the longline (36,000 hooks). Similarly, there were no statistical differences in the catch rates of Yellowfin tuna between branch lines with 60-g weights at 3.5 m and those with 40-g lead weights placed at the hook (hook-leads). There was also no detectable effect of the hook-lead gear on dolphin fish and a range of shark species combined. There was, however, a negative effect of the hook-lead branch lines on catch rates of broad-billed swordfish. However, the total number of swordfish caught was too small to justify drawing firm conclusions about xxxx leads and swordfish at this stage. The hook lead trial is currently underway and will be completed in early 2012. SBWG-4 Doc 06 provided an update on the BS30 underwater bait setter designed to release baited hooks at depth in pelagic longline fisheries. In the austral winter and spring of 2011 a prototype version of the underwater setter was tested in the Uruguayan swordfish fishery against White-chinned Petrels and Black-browed Albatrosses. In 35 days of fishing in the absence of other deterrent devices, two seabirds were caught on hooks deployed underwater and 11 were caught on hooks deployed at the surface. This result, although reasonable for a prototype underwater setter, fell short of the established standard, which is to eliminate or reduce to negligible levels mortality of deep diving species such as White- chinned Petrels. The prototype was sensi...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Mitigation research update. A major product of previous SBWG meetings has been a review of information on current mitigation research for pelagic long-line fisheries and the identification of knowledge gaps (AC3 Doc 14 Rev 4, Appendix 4, Table 2; AC4 Doc 14 Rev 4, Annex 5; AC5 Doc 14 Rev 1, Annex 3). The advice embodied in the table has been distributed to some of the tuna Regional Fishery Management Organisations (tRFMOs), where it has been well received. At this year’s meeting the Working Group reviewed and updated the information in this table, following presentation of the papers referred to in Section 1.1 of this Report. The format of the review table was discussed by the Working Group, and it was suggested that the current format of the table does not represent the most efficient presentation of the information. It was agreed that the review information for all fishery types should rather be presented in a more narrative style, clearly stating whether the mitigation measure has proven to be effective and thus recommended as a primary measure. The results of this review in the revised format are attached as Annex 2. The best-practice advice derived from the review was once again synthesised into an advice statement that can be readily transmitted to target audiences (tRFMOs and Party’s fisheries managers). This advice is provided at Annex 3. As before, it is recommended that the Advisory Committee endorse this advice and encourage Parties to use this information to guide the development of policy and practice within the fisheries under their jurisdiction.
Sample 1
Mitigation research update. The Working Group welcomed recent improvements identified by BirdLife’s Albatross Task Force in Argentina with the use of bird-scaring lines in the industrial demersal trawl fishery, particularly the testing of an off-setting towed device, which improved the performance of bird-scaring lines, significantly reducing the incidence of cross-over between bird-scaring lines and warp cables (SBWG-4 Doc 13). It was noted that results from these trials will be considered for inclusion in the Argentinean National Plan of Action - Seabirds. SBWG- 4 Doc 13 also reviews progress in the demersal xxxx trawl fishery in Namibia where the use of bird-scaring lines has significantly reduced seabird interactions with trawl warp cables. Modelling highlighted that the most important factors related to seabird interactions were offal discard, use of a bird-scaring line and season in this fishery. As a result, mitigation requirements have been included in the Namibian Xxxx Management Plan and Namibia’s draft National Plan of Action – Seabirds (NPOA – Seabirds). SBWG-4 Doc 55 provides a review of seabird mitigation research and management in the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas1. The paper highlights data gaps within observer data and stresses the need for finding a statistically rigorous proxy for cable strike mortality which could be used as a measure of performance with respect to setting targets in NPOA - Seabirds. To investigate this issue, experimental plans were outlined that comprise the random allocation of bird-scaring lines under differing environmental conditions with personnel in a support vessel astern of the fishing vessel, noting injured, moribund or dead birds behind the vessel in order to examine the relationship between seabird and warp cable strikes and levels of unobserved ("cryptic") mortality. The paper also outlines future work to be conducted in the fishery which includes mesh size trials to improve the selectively in the rock cod fishery and thus reduce discard levels. Argentina expressed their appreciation for the papers presented and made a statement in relation to SBWG-4 Doc 55, which they requested be annexed to the report (Annex 11). The UK asked that their position on the issue raised by Argentina be included as an annex to this report (see Annex 12). The Working Group reiterated previous advice that during trawl fishing seabirds are attracted to the vessel by the discharge of processing waste. All previous studies on this topic have shown that when...
Sample 1

Related to Mitigation research update

  • Technology Research Analyst Job# 1810 General Characteristics Maintains a strong understanding of the enterprise’s IT systems and architectures. Assists in the analysis of the requirements for the enterprise and applying emerging technologies to support long-term business objectives. Responsible for researching, collecting, and disseminating information on emerging technologies and key learnings throughout the enterprise. Researches and recommends changes to foundation architecture. Supports research projects to identify and evaluate emerging technologies. Interfaces with users and staff to evaluate possible implementation of the new technology in the enterprise, consistent with the goal of improving existing systems and technologies and in meeting the needs of the business. Analyzes and researches process of deployment and assists in this process.

  • Additional Information for Product Development Projects Outcome of product development efforts, such copyrights and license agreements. • Units sold or projected to be sold in California and outside of California. • Total annual sales or projected annual sales (in dollars) of products developed under the Agreement. • Investment dollars/follow-on private funding as a result of Energy Commission funding. • Patent numbers and applications, along with dates and brief descriptions.  Additional Information for Product Demonstrations: • Outcome of demonstrations and status of technology. • Number of similar installations. • Jobs created/retained as a result of the Agreement.

  • Research Use Reporting To assure adherence to NIH GDS Policy, the PI agrees to provide annual Progress Updates as part of the annual Project Renewal or Project Close-out processes, prior to the expiration of the one (1) year data access period. The PI who is seeking Renewal or Close-out of a project agree to complete the appropriate online forms and provide specific information such as how the data have been used, including publications or presentations that resulted from the use of the requested dataset(s), a summary of any plans for future research use (if the PI is seeking renewal), any violations of the terms of access described within this Agreement and the implemented remediation, and information on any downstream intellectual property generated from the data. The PI also may include general comments regarding suggestions for improving the data access process in general. Information provided in the progress updates helps NIH evaluate program activities and may be considered by the NIH GDS governance committees as part of NIH’s effort to provide ongoing stewardship of data sharing activities subject to the NIH GDS Policy.

  • Collaboration We believe joint effort toward common goals achieves trust and produces greater impact for L.A. County’s youngest children and their families.

  • For Product Development Projects and Project Demonstrations  Published documents, including date, title, and periodical name.  Estimated or actual energy and cost savings, and estimated statewide energy savings once market potential has been realized. Identify all assumptions used in the estimates.  Greenhouse gas and criteria emissions reductions.  Other non-energy benefits such as reliability, public safety, lower operational cost, environmental improvement, indoor environmental quality, and societal benefits.  Data on potential job creation, market potential, economic development, and increased state revenue as a result of the project.  A discussion of project product downloads from websites, and publications in technical journals.  A comparison of project expectations and performance. Discuss whether the goals and objectives of the Agreement have been met and what improvements are needed, if any.

  • Research Use The Requester agrees that if access is approved, (1) the PI named in the DAR and (2) those named in the “Senior/Key Person Profile” section of the DAR, including the Information Technology Director and any trainee, employee, or contractor1 working on the proposed research project under the direct oversight of these individuals, shall become Approved Users of the requested dataset(s). Research use will occur solely in connection with the approved research project described in the DAR, which includes a 1-2 paragraph description of the proposed research (i.e., a Research Use Statement). Investigators interested in using Cloud Computing for data storage and analysis must request permission to use Cloud Computing in the DAR and identify the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) or providers and/or Private Cloud System (PCS) that they propose to use. They must also submit a Cloud Computing Use Statement as part of the DAR that describes the type of service and how it will be used to carry out the proposed research as described in the Research Use Statement. If the Approved Users plan to collaborate with investigators outside the Requester, the investigators at each external site must submit an independent DAR using the same project title and Research Use Statement, and if using the cloud, Cloud Computing Use Statement. New uses of these data outside those described in the DAR will require submission of a new DAR; modifications to the research project will require submission of an amendment to this application (e.g., adding or deleting Requester Collaborators from the Requester, adding datasets to an approved project). Access to the requested dataset(s) is granted for a period of one (1) year, with the option to renew access or close-out a project at the end of that year. Submitting Investigator(s), or their collaborators, who provided the data or samples used to generate controlled-access datasets subject to the NIH GDS Policy and who have Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and who meet any other study specific terms of access, are exempt from the limitation on the scope of the research use as defined in the DAR.

  • Research Project 3.1 These Materials and Data will be used by Recipient's PI solely in connection with the Research Project, as named and described in the attached research application (insert Research Project name below):

  • Development Plan document specifying the work program, schedule, and relevant investments required for the Development and the Production of a Discovery or set of Discoveries of Oil and Gas in the Contract Area, including its abandonment.

  • Development cooperation 1. The Parties recognise that development cooperation is a crucial element of their Partnership and an essential factor in the realisation of the objectives of this Agreement as laid down in Article 1. This cooperation can take financial and non-financial forms.

  • Development Phase contractual phase initiated with the approval of ANP for the Development Plan and which is extended during the Production Phase while investments in xxxxx, equipment, and facilities for the Production of Oil and Gas according to the Best Practices of the Oil Industry are required.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.