Download - Implementing Annual Catch Limits

IMPLEMENTING ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS:

A Blueprint for Ending Overfishing in U.S. Fisheries

Marine Fish Conservation Network · April 2009

Mission Statement The Marine Fish Conservation Network advocates national

policies to achieve healthy oceans and productive fisheries.

The Marine Fish Conservation Network (Network) is the

largest national coalition solely dedicated to promoting

the long-term sustainability of marine fish. With almost 200

members—including environmental organizations,

commercial and recreational fishing associations, aquariums,

and marine science groups—the Network uses its distinct

voice and the best available science to educate policymakers,

the fishing industry, and the public about the need for sound

conservation and better management practices.

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE · Suite 210 · Washington, DC 20003tel: 202.543.5509 · toll free: 866.823.8552 · fax: 202.543.5774

[email protected] · www.conservefish.org

The Marine Fish Conservation Network is supported by manyindividuals, businesses, and foundations. This report and ourwork in general is made possible via the generous support of

The Pew Charitable Trusts, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Curtis andEdith Munson Foundation, Ocean Foundation, Marisla Foundation,

Oak Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Sandler FamilySupporting Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation,

Norcross Wildlife Foundation, and Patagonia Inc.

CREDITS: Lead author: Kenneth Stump, Marine Fish Conservation Network Policy Director. The

author gratefully acknowledges the technical advice and reviews of this report by The Ocean Conservancy, Pew Environmental Group, Natural Resources Defense

Council, and the National Coalition for Marine Conservation.

PhOTO CREDITS:All photos are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Library

A Blueprint for ending overfishing in u.s. fisheries 3

Ending overfishing was the highest priority of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 (MSRA), signed into law in January 2007. Although overfishing was prohibited in the 1996 amendments to the national fisher-ies law, and maximum sustainable yield (MSY) was designated as a limit fishing level, fishery managers continued to set fishing lim-its above those recommended by scientists and allowed overfishing to continue in too many fisheries. To achieve the objective of ending overfishing in the MSRA, Congress strengthened the role of science in the fishery management process and required fishery managers to establish science-based annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability mea-sures (AMs) for all U.S. fisheries with a dead-line for implementation of 2010 for all stocks currently subject to overfishing and 2011 for all others.

Ending Overfishing: Top Priority of the Reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006

E National Standard 1: FMPs must include conservation and management measures that shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery (16 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(1))

E FMPs must specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished and to contain measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery (Id. § 1853(a)(10))

E Councils must establish and maintain a Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) (Id. § 1852(g)(1)(A))

E Councils’ SSCs must make recommendations for acceptable biological catch (ABC), preventing overfishing, and other related management advice (Id. § 1852(g)(1)(B))

Changes to the National Standard 1 regulatory guidelines to implement ACLs

The new fisheries law requires the councils’ science advisors, the Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs), to make recommenda-tions for “acceptable biological catch” (ABC) which managers may not exceed when they specify each year’s ACLs. The ACLs must be set at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, and must be accompa-nied by AMs. In February 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) initiated rulemaking to revise the 1998 National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 1 (prevent overfishing, achieve optimum yield) to assist fishery management councils in the implementation of the new ACL require-ments. The revised NS1 guidelines, pub-lished in January 2009, affirm that ACLs are required for all stocks in a fishery and that

Box 1 › Statutory requirements of the MSRA Related to the Prevention of Overfishing

E Councils must establish annual catch limits that may not exceed fishing level recommendations of the SSC or the scientific peer review process (Id. § 1852(h)(6))

E FMPs must establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits such that overfishing does not occur in a fishery, including measures to ensure accountability (Id. § 1853(a)(15))

E Fishery managers must prepare and implement a rebuilding plan within two years of notification to end overfishing immediately (Id. § 1854(e)(3)&(4))

E Fishery managers may not allow a period of overfishing under a rebuilding plan (Id. § 1854(e)(4)(A))

4 IMPLEMENTINg ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS

ACL is a limit not to be exceeded, attainment of which triggers accountability measures to ensure that ACLs are complied with. The new legal requirements stand to improve fisheries management significantly and end chronic overfishing in the nation’s fisheries, if fully implemented.

From Rulemaking to ImplementationWith the 2010-2011 deadline looming, the attention now shifts to implementation of ACLs at the eight regional fishery manage-ment councils charged with developing the fishery management plans (FMPs) for each

U.S. fishery. Just as fishery man-agement councils enact-

ed comprehensive “SFA amendments” to their FMPs to comply

with the 1996 amend-ments to the Magnuson-Stevens

Act (popularly known as the “Sustainable Fisheries Act,” or SFA), at least seven of the eight regional councils are now preparing or considering amendments to some or all of their FMPs to comply with the new require-ment for ACLs and AMs in U.S fisheries. Success at ending overfishing will ultimately depend on the implementation of the new rules by the councils and the Fisheries Service. If history is any indication, public oversight will be essential to ensure that councils and the Fisheries Service stay the course.

In a 2007 report, the Network found that overfishing has continued on stocks managed by councils that do not employ enforceable catch limits, whereas chronic overfishing is not a problem in regions that do.1 Our review of council catch-setting procedures and rules indicates that all regions will have to amend their operating procedures and their FMPs to implement the new ACL requirements fully:

E There is currently no consistent approach to ACL-setting at the regional fishery man-agement councils, and many regions do not have a formal catch specification process of any kind.

E The majority of councils must revamp their operating procedures to incorporate a catch specification process with a working SSC that recommends ABCs and annually reviews the performance of AMs relative to ACLs.

E Virtually all FMPs will need to be amended to incorporate formal control rules that enable managers to establish numeric catch limits across a wide range of data quality situations and many different spe-cies as required by the 2006 amendments.

E Even the two councils with FMPs having an operational system of SSC-recommended ABCs and catch limits do not adequately account for uncertainties or

E ACLs apply to all stocks in a fishery, including non-target stocks that are caught unintentionally as bycatch and retained or discarded at sea. All stocks in the FMP should be considered “in the fishery.”

E ACLs must be numeric (e.g., pounds, number of fish) and account for all sources of fishing mortality, including all discards in the fishery and bycatch mortality in other fisheries. ACLs may be set annually or on a multiyear basis, and divided into fishery sectors.

E ACL is a limit not to be exceeded that triggers accountability measures. ACLs must be set at

Box 2 › Principles for Setting ACLs in U.S. Fisheries

a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery and there is a low risk that limits are exceeded.

E The System of ABCs, ACLs and AMs must account for all sources of scientific and management uncertainty, and include uncertainty buffers to provide an adequate margin of safety against the risk of overfishing.

E ACLs must end overfishing immediately and overfished stocks must be rebuilt in as short a time as possible.

The new NS1

guidelines require

that all stocks in

the FMP have

status

determination

criteria (SDCs),

a specification of

MSY and OY, an

ABC control rule

and ABC,

mechanisms for

specifying ACLs,

and accountability

measures, with

minor exceptions

for those species

with statutory

exemptions

from ACLs.


provide increasing levels of precaution for stocks with less information.

E Additional technical guidance by the Fisheries Service is needed to ensure effec-tive implementation at the regional councils.

The clear intent of Congress to end overfish-ing requires fishery managers to make basic changes in how they do business. Henceforth, ACLs may not exceed the ABC limits recom-mended by the Councils’ scientific advisors, and managers must provide accountability to ensure that fisheries stay within their allotted catch limits. This report outlines the Network’s recommendations for implement-ing ACLs that are science-driven, risk-averse, and aimed at achieving long-term sustainabil-ity in the nation’s fisheries. Key elements of successful implementation will include:

➤ a classification scheme for stocks in the fishery;

➤ a formal catch specification process that includes annual review of performance;

➤ a system of control rules for establish-ing ABCs and ACLs that includes uncertainty buffers to provide a margin of safety against the risk of overfishing;

➤ a vulnerability assessment to reduce the risk of overfishing and improve con-servation of stocks;

➤ a system of accountability measures to ensure compliance with ACLs and avoidance of overfishing; and

➤ procedures for addressing ecosystem considerations in the setting of ACLs in order to achieve OY.

I. Casting a Wide Net: A New Classification Scheme for “Stocks in the Fishery”Councils have taken many different approach-es to the inclusion of stocks in FMPs and there has been little consistency in approach from region to region. The revised NS1 guide-lines establish a formal classification scheme for determining which stocks may be consid-ered “in the fishery,” taking an inclusive approach that is intended to comply with the statutory requirement to set ACLs such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery.2 NMFS requires that all stocks or stock com-plexes currently listed in an FMP are “stocks in a fishery,” including target stocks and non-target stocks caught incidentally as bycatch and either retained or discarded at sea.3 As such, all stocks in the FMP must have status determination criteria, MSY and OY specifica-tion, an ABC control rule, mechanisms for specifying ACLs, and accountability measures.4

The revised NS1 guidelines have added a new category of Ecosystem Component (EC)

species and give councils the option of clas-sifying non-target stocks as EC species, in which case ACLs are not required. The guid-ance for classifying Ecosystem Component (EC) species specifies that they should be non-target species, not subject to overfishing or overfished, and not generally retained for sale or personal use.5 Although EC species would not require specification of reference points or ACLs, the guidelines state that they should be monitored to the extent that any new information on catch trends or vulner-ability indicates that they should be reclassi-fied as “in the fishery.” In addition, even if a council elects to classify a non-target bycatch species as an EC stock, it needs to implement measures to minimize bycatch of EC species consistent with National Standard 9, and to protect their role in the ecosystem.6 Classification as EC species must not be used to avoid setting ACLs for stocks that properly require them.


FIgurE 1 › general classification scheme for “stocks in the fishery” (NMFS, 74 Fed. Reg., p. 3179)

NoN-target stocksStocks people retain for sale or personal use.

NoN-target stocksStocks that are not retained for which an overfishing or overfished status is a concern.

ecosystem compoNeNt speciesSee § 600.310 (d)(5) in final action.

the “fishery”Stocks that are part of the fishery.

target stocksStocks people seek to harvest and retain for sale or personal use.

II. Establishing a Mechanism for Implementing ACLs: A Formal Catch Specification Process at Every Fishery Management CouncilEstablishing science-based recommendations for OFLs, ABCs, ACLs and AMs that have a high probability of preventing overfishing will require each council to establish procedures for receiving SSC-recommended ABCs and making recommendations to NMFS for ACLs and accountability measures. In the revised NS1 guidelines, NMFS requires that the councils establish a mechanism for specifying ABCs and ACLs in the FMPs,7 as well as a process for receiving scientific information and advice on the specification of ABC.8 The procedures and mechanisms for specifying OFL, ABC, ACL and AMs should be described in each FMP. NMFS also recom-mends that councils modify their Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures (SOPPs) to describe the roles and responsi-bilities of the Council, SSC, and any peer reviewers in this process.9

Currently, only two councils (the North Pacific and Pacific) have a formal, well-

defined catch specification process for assessed stocks and mechanisms for setting catch limits or bycatch limits for stocks or stock complexes that lack assessments, as well as a working SSC that recommends ABCs to the Council. The Mid-Atlantic Council has an annual catch specification process but has not maintained a functioning SSC that recommends ABCs to the Council until this year. The New England Council has a formal specification process on paper but has used a biennial “frameworking” adjust-ment procedure as a substitute since 2004. The New England SSC has existed in name only for many years, being brought into the decisionmaking process on an ad hoc basis, but the SSC has recently been reconstituted to begin providing advice on a regular basis. The South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and Western Pacific have SSCs but still do not have a formal, well-defined catch specification process in which SSCs

NMFS Science Centers


FIgurE 1 › general classification scheme for “stocks in the fishery” (NMFS, 74 Fed. Reg., p. 3179)

recommend ABCs to their councils. Clearly, much work must be done to establish consis-tent ACL-setting procedures that comply with the MSRA in each region.

A uniform system of procedures for speci-fying ACLs at every council will provide trans-parency and consistency in the ACL-setting process. The information used to calculate status determination criteria, OFLs, and ABCs should be compiled in a Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report for each FMP that describes the infor-mation, how it was used, the uncertainty asso-ciated with it, and other relevant consider-ations.10 Determination of OFLs, ABCs and ACLs for each stock or stock complex in the management unit should be based on evalua-tion of the information in the SAFE report. Once a council has decided on ACLs, it must formulate management accountability mea-sures necessary to constrain catch at or below the ACL. For fisheries lacking inseason man-agement controls to prevent ACL from being exceeded and that do no account for manage-ment uncertainty in the setting of the ACL, the system of AMs should include an annual catch target (ACT) that is less than the ACL to account for the management uncertainty associated with preventing catch from exceed-ing ACL and reduce the likelihood that ACL will be exceeded (Figure 2).

FIgurE 2 › Roles of STARs, SSCs, FMCs, and peer reviewers in catch specification process

SDCs, OFL, ABC, compile SAFE report, summarize recommendations

“External Peer Review”Center for Independent

Experts

Assess stocks, compile in SAFE report, summarize recommendations for OFLs, ABCs

“Internal Peer Review”NMFS, States, academic, SSCs OFLs, ABCs, review AMs

ACLs AMs

Review STAR recommendations; recommend ABCs, evaluate AMs

Review STAR/SSC recommendations; choose ACLs, AMs

NMFS Science Centers › 1. STAr

› 2. SSC

› 3. FMC

Stock Assessment Review (STAR)

The ACL-setting process involves stepwise procedures for determining the status of stocks with respect to overfishing and over-fished criteria, followed by selection of the appropriate fishing levels:

E Stock assessment review scientists evalu-ate the status of stocks and recommend an overfishing level (OFL, corresponding to FMSY or proxy) and preliminary ABC, which are then summarized in a draft Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report.11

E The SSC evaluates the information in the draft SAFE report and recom-mends an ABC level that may not exceed OFL and is based, when possible, on the probabil-ity (which cannot exceed 50% and should almost always be a significantly lower val-ue) that an actual catch equal to the stock’s ABC would result in overfishing. The ABC must be derived from an ABC control rule that includes a buffer, or margin of safety, to account for the scientific uncertainty in the estimation of OFL. Scientists may rec-ommend ABCs different than specified in the control rule, based on their evaluation

Although catch

specifications may

be set for more than

one year at a time,

the SSCs should

assess the

performance of

management

measures on an

annual basis, make

recommendations

for modifying AMs

that are not

working, and

evaluate any new

information that

may require interim

adjustments

in ACLs.


of the uncertainty and risk associated with the data, as long as they clearly explain why.12 However, the control rule should serve as a maximum bound on ABC beyond which the SSC recommendation may not go, so that any deviation from the rule is more conservative, not less.

E The council specifies an ACL that may not exceed the SSC’s ABC recommendation, and formulates management measures (AMs) necessary to constrain catch at or below the ACL. Councils should establish an ACL control rule that specifies how management uncertainty and OY factors have been considered and factored into the system of ACLs and AMs. Unless adequate inseason management controls are in place to prevent ACL from being exceeded or management uncertainty has already been accounted for in the buffer between ABC and ACL, an annual catch target (ACT) should be included in the system of AMs and the ACT should be set a level such that the risk of exceeding the ACL due to management uncertainty is low.13

A process for specifying ACLs should be incorporated into each council’s annual cycle of meetings in conjunction with concurrent or overlapping SSC meetings. Although catch specifications may be set for more than one year at a time, the SSCs should assess the performance of management measures on an annual basis, make recommendations for modifying AMs that are not working, and evaluate any new information that may require interim adjustments in ACLs.

The councils’ Standard Operating Procedures and Practices (SOPPs), Council Operating Procedures (COPs), and SSC Terms of Reference (TORs) should all be amended as needed to establish a regular catch

specification process that includes SSC review of available scientific information and council procedures for receiving scientific advice from the SSC on the status of stocks, ABC recom-mendations, and other relevant matters.

Role of SAFE reports in the catch specification process: compiling the

“Best Scientific Information Available”National Standard 2 of the MSA states that conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.14 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports are intended to document and compile that information for use in the catch specification process. Existing regulations at 50 CFR § 600.315 establish the guidelines for the issuance of a SAFE report for each FMP. Each SAFE report should con-tain the information required by SSCs to make ABC recommendations and give other scientific advice. In addition, the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility to assure that a SAFE report or similar document is pre-pared, reviewed annually, and changed as nec-essary for each FMP.15 However, many coun-cils currently do not use SAFEs at all. The Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and Western Pacific regions cur-rently do not compile formal SAFE reports, while the New England Council does not reg-ularly update its SAFEs or utilize them in annual catch specifications.

Preparation of SAFE reports for each FMP will ensure a consistent, transparent treat-ment of scientific information and streamline the catch specification process by compiling all the relevant information used to set ACLs in one summary document. The SAFE reports for each FMP should be updated annually or as often as necessary and should be made available to the public on the NMFS and council webites.16


III. Amending the FMPs to Comply with the New Catch Limit requirements: A System of Control Rules for Setting ABC, ACL and ACTControl rules have been described as “pre-agreed plans for making management deci-sions based on stock size.”17 The 1998 National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 1 identified two limits for fishery management (referred to as thresholds) as benchmarks to determine if a stock or stock complex is experiencing overfishing and/or is overfished: a maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) and a minimum stock size threshold (MSST). These two limits were linked through a “limit” control rule corre-sponding to MSY. Technical guidance accom-panying the original NS1 guidelines called for explicit rules for setting the target yield (OY) well below the limit yield (MSY) to avoid a high probability of exceeding the limit.18

New limit and target control rulesIn the revised NS1 guidelines, NMFS has updated the guidance to incorporate the MSRA’s new legal requirements for ABC as a limit that the councils’ ACL recommendations

may not exceed by requiring councils to establish an ABC control rule based on scien-tific advice from its SSC.19 In addition, the new guidelines call on councils to establish a “target” con-trol rule to set the annual catch target (ACT) if an ACT is specified as part of the AMs for a fishery, which should clearly articulate how to account for the management uncertainty associated with preventing ACL from being exceeded.20 NMFS envisions that some reduction in the target catch (ACT) below the limit (ACL) will result.21 As with the earlier system of limit and target control rules, the new control rules should specify how fishing mortality (F) and catches vary as a function of stock biomass (B) in order to achieve yields not exceeding MSY while also achieving OY, as required by National Standard 1.

E A maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) indexed to MSY or proxy, treated as a threshold not to be exceeded – also converted into an annual level of catch and expressed as the overfishing level (OFL).

E A minimum biomass threshold – minimum stock size threshold (MSST) – below which the stock is overfished and requires a rebuilding program.

E A specification of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and optimum yield (OY).

E An acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule accounting for uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and other scientific uncertainties as well

Box 3 › Required Elements in FMP Overfishing Definitions

as stock status and vulnerability, as the basis for calculating an ABC recommendation.

E An annual catch limit (ACL), which may not exceed ABC, as a level of annual catch that is the basis for invoking accountability measures.

E Accountability measures (AMs), which may include annual catch targets (ACTs), to prevent ACLs or sector-ACLs from being exceeded and to correct or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur.

E Procedures for accounting for scientific and management uncertainty in establishing ABC, ACLs, and AMs.

In order to set

ACLs for all stocks

in the fishery,

fishery managers at

the councils and

NMFS need a set

of rules for each

FMP that will

enable them to

establish numeric

catch limits across

a wide range of

data quality

situations and

many different

species.


In revising the NS1 guidelines to comply with the new legal requirements to specify ABCs and ACLs, NMFS says it sought to retain the principle of limit and target fishing levels in which targets are set sufficiently below the limits so that the limits are not exceeded. But while the terms “ABC” and

“ACL” were introduced in the MSRA as required elements and as clear limits,22 the new guidelines provide limited guidance on how to incorporate management uncertainty (in addition to any relevant OY factors) direct-ly into the ACL so that ACL is set sufficiently

below the ABC in situations where ACT is not employed in

the system of AMs.23 If an ACT is not employed within the

system of AMs, a single control rule combining both

scientific and management uncertainty in the ABC recommendation and ACL must be employed.24 In that case, the ACL should account directly for management uncertainty and optimum yield (OY) factors, such that ACL < ABC (see Section IV).

Addressing data-rich and data-poor stocks in FMP control rulesIn order to set ACLs for all stocks in the fish-ery, fishery managers at the councils and NMFS need a set of rules for each FMP that will enable them to establish numeric catch limits across a wide range of data quality situ-ations and many different species. Control rules in FMPs should provide scientists and managers the ability to address all stocks in a fishery. At present, there are at least two work-ing examples of FMP control rules that, while in need of amending to comply with the MSRA, illustrate the practicability of setting

ACLs in species-rich FMPs across a wide range of situations involving different levels of information.

The Pacific Council’s groundfish FMP has a rudimentary version of a tiered control rule in which stocks are grouped in three categories25 for purposes of determining OFL, ABC and OY fishing levels, based on levels of available information for each stock. The Alaska region employs a more explicit, detailed system of tiered control rules to set annual catch limits based on levels of information available for dif-ferent stocks. This 6-tiered system of rules and criteria provides a basis for setting OFLs and ABCs in data-poor situations (Tiers 4-6) as well as data-rich situations (Tiers 1-3). Either sys-tem of control rules demonstrates that tiering can be part of setting numeric catch limits across a wide range of data quality situations, using available information. However, it is important to note that neither system ade-quately addresses uncertainties in the setting of ABCs or ACLs, and neither system is explic-itly more conservative with decreasing levels of information (see Section IV).

If a control rule is structured to account for different levels of information available for each stock in the FMP, then the system of uncertainty buffers for each category or “tier” should provide increasing precaution with decreasing levels of information and increas-ing uncertainty. In other words, control rules should be designed to be more conservative when the information is limited and uncer-tainty is higher. Additionally, control rules should be more conservative with more vul-nerable stocks (Section V). Such a system builds in an incentive to obtain better infor-mation for data-poor stocks, so as to improve the information that is available for fisheries management decisions.

All fisheries

information is

imprecise: scientific

estimates of

overfishing levels

are uncertain, and

managers’ ability to

track and control

all sources of

fishing mortality is

far from exact or

complete. Setting

clear buffers to

account for

scientific and

management

uncertainty is the

only way to reduce

the probability of

overfishing to an

acceptable level.


The revised NS1 guidelines underscore the importance of accounting for scientific and management uncertainty by stating that when specifying limits and accountability measures Councils must take an approach that considers uncertainty in scientific infor-mation and management control of the fish-ery.26 Although uncertainty buffers are not mandatory, a council would need to demon-strate that setting the ACL = ABC = OFL will not result in overfishing.27 In other words, the all-too-common practice of setting a catch target equal to the overfishing level vir-tually guarantees that OFL will be exceeded and that overfishing occurs, and thus would violate the MSRA. To achieve a high prob-ability of not overfishing, it is essential that the framework of FMP control rules includes explicit mechanisms to account for uncer-tainty (Fig. 3).

The revised NS1 guidelines specify that acceptable biological catch (ABC) may not

exceed the overfishing level (OFL). Moreover, the determination of ABC should be based, to the extent possible, on the probability that the actual catch equal to the stock’s ABC would result in overfishing. The guidelines clearly emphasize that, while the probability that overfishing will occur cannot exceed 50%, it should be a lower value.28 NMFS expects that in most cases ABC will be reduced from OFL to account for scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and other sources of scien-tific uncertainty in order to reduce the prob-ability that overfishing might occur.29 Given that there is always uncertainty in the esti-mate of MSY and OFL however, the Network believes that an ABC control rule should be configured so that ABC is always less than the OFL.

In addition, NMFS recommends that an annual catch target (ACT) be employed as part of the system of accountability measures for management uncertainty in ensuring that

IV. Accounting for Scientific and Management uncertainty: Control Rule Buffers to Provide an Adequate Margin of Safety Against the Risk of Overfishing

FIgurE 3 › UNCERTAINTY BUFFERS: A FRAMEWORK TO ACCOUNT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND MANAgEMENT UNCERTAINTY

scientific Uncertainty

management Uncertainty and oy considerations

ofLaBcacLact

ABC buffer

ACL/ACT buffer

The distance between OFL and ABC depends on how scientific uncertainty is accounted for in the ABC control rule. If a single control rule is used, the distance between ACL and ABC should account for management uncertainty in controlling the catch to within the ACL. If ACT is employed as part of a system of AMs, an ACT control rule should account for management uncertainty in ensuring that ACL is not exceeded by providing a largre buffer between ACT and ACL.


the catch does not exceed the annual catch limit (ACL). In most cases, some reduction in the target catch below the limit will result.30 In data-poor fisheries without inseason moni-toring capability, setting the ACT less than ACL increases the chances of staying within the limit and avoiding frequent overage deductions in subsequent years. If an ACT is not employed within the system of AMs, the alternative is to use a single control rule com-bining both scientific and management uncer-tainty in the ABC recommendation and ACL.31 In that case, the ACL should account directly for management uncertainty and opti-mum yield (OY) factors, such that ACL < ABC. Incorporating the management uncer-tainty (and any relevant OY considerations) directly into the ACL calculation would pro-vide a clear basis for setting ACL < ABC while still maintaining ACL as a limit not to be exceeded that triggers management mea-sures to cease fishing (Figure 3).

The reason for requiring control rule buf-fers is that all fisheries information is impre-cise: scientific estimates of overfishing levels are uncertain, and managers’ ability to track and control all sources of fishing mortality is far from exact or complete. Setting clear buf-fers to account for scientific and management uncertainty is the only way to reduce the probability of overfishing to an acceptable lev-el. Uncertainty factors should be incorporated systematically into the catch specification process to account for measurement errors (surveys, fishery observer data), process errors (stock assessment model simulations), extrin-sic ecological and environmental factors that act on fish population dynamics in unpredict-able ways, as well as management uncertain-ties associated with keeping fishery catches within the ACLs.

ABC control rule bufferThe NS1 guidelines specify that, for stocks required to have an ABC, each council must establish an ABC control rule based on scien-tific advice from its SSC.32 ABC is a level of

annual catch that is intended to account for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific uncertainty, and therefore NMFS expects that in most cases ABC will be reduced from OFL to reduce the risk that overfishing might occur in a given year.33 Given that there is always uncertainty in the estimate of MSY and OFL, the ABC control rule should be configured so that ABC is always less than the OFL. If the control rule is structured to account for different lev-els of information available for each stock in the FMP (as described in Section III), then the system of uncertainty buffers for each cat-egory or “tier” should provide increasing pre-caution with decreasing levels of information and increasing uncertainty. The procedure for setting ABC would be as follows:

1. Determine the “overfishing level” (OFL) based on MSY or proxy.

2. Calculate the fishing mortality rate at OFL (FOFL).

3. Calculate the ABC (< OFL).

4. Calculate the fishing mortality rate used to set the ABC (FABC) such that FABC/FOFL < 1.

5. The buffer between ABC and OFL increases as the level of uncertainty increases.

Technical guidance from NMFS is needed to determine appropriate methods of account-ing for uncertainty and establishing a system of ABC buffers. For stocks with high levels of information and adequate stock assessments, the uncertainty buffer for ABC may be derived quantitatively from a statistical analysis of the probability that a given ABC will avoid over-fishing. In conjunction with this probabilistic analysis and because even so-called “data-rich” stocks can still have considerable uncertainty, a vulnerability analysis (see Section V) should be used to inform decisions about the magni-tude of the buffer. For data-limited and unas-sessed stocks, it will not be possible to calcu-


All fisheries

information is

imprecise: scientific

estimates of

overfishing levels

are uncertain, and

managers’ ability to

track and control

all sources of

fishing mortality is

far from exact or

complete. Setting

clear buffers to

account for

scientific and

management

uncertainty is the

only way to reduce

the probability of

overfishing to an

acceptable level.

late the probability of overfishing in the ABC point estimate. If a probability-based approach is not applicable, then a simple percentage buffer determined from a vulnerability analy-sis, other research data, and professional judg-ment will be required.

Some FMPs— for example, the North Pacific groundfish FMPs —have ABC control rules which specify a small (e.g., 5%) default buffer between the OFL (F35%) and SSC-recommended ABC (F40% ) for assessed stocks that employ a spawning potential ratio (SPR) proxy for MSY (See Figure 4 below), but the choice of buffer in these control rules is arbi-trary. There is no analysis to show — and it is extremely unlikely — that the 5% buffer between OFL and ABC adequately captures all the uncertainty in the estimate of OFL or addresses other sources of scientific uncer-tainty. Moreover, the North Pacific tiered con-trol rule does not include a system of buffers that increase in size with increasing uncer-tainty and vulnerability for stocks in tiers with lower levels of information. As such, the North Pacific ABC control rule does not satisfy the new statutory requirements or the criteria out-lined by NMFS in the new NS1 guidelines.

The Pacific groundfish FMP also employs an explicit control rule that sets ABC equal to a proxy spawning potential ratio (SPR) for MSY, where the Council-specified proxy for MSY is

set at F40% and the target stock biomass is B40%. (For slower-growing, long-lived West Coast rockfish the ABC is set at the more conserva-tive F50% level and the target stock biomass is B50%.) However, this should more properly be considered an OFL control rule because no uncertainty buffer is established between OFL and ABC; an ABC control should account for sci-entific uncertainty in the esti-mate of OFL so that ABC < OFL. In the Pacific groundfish control rule, the mini-mum stock size threshold (MSST) is B25% (i.e., the stock has declined 75% from its unfished stock size), below which rebuilding commenc-es. When a stock biomass has dropped below B40%, fishing mortality is reduced linearly until OY = 0 at 10% of Bunfished. This is the so-called “40-10 rule,” aspects of which are illustrated in Figure 4.

The conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 4 provides one example of how an ABC control rule can work, but it is not the only approach and the existing applications of this framework in the Pacific and North Pacific groundfish FMPs do not systematically address stock-specific differences in vulner-ability due to life history and other factors, nor do they include an adequate system of

FIgurE 4 › CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ABC CONTROL RULE COMBININg ELEMENTS FROM THE NORTH PACIFIC AND PACIFIC gROUNDFISH FMPS

Explicit treatment of scientific uncertainty should result in a buffer between OFL and ABC, a reduction in fishing mortality as stock size declines below the target biomass, a minimum stock size threshold (MSST) below which a stock is overfished, and a cut-off point below which directed fishing is halted.

fishing mortality

rate (f)

Biomass (B)

B 10% B 25%

msst

B 40%

B target

Fishing mortality (F) rate is constant if stock biomass > B TArgET

Linear reduction in F rate if stock biomass < B TArgET

F oFl

F ABC

F = 0

B 100% (unfinished)


ABC buffers for stocks in each tier of the con-trol rule. Guidance from NMFS and each SSC is essential to ensure that councils devel-op effective ABC control rules with buffers that adequately reflect the scientific uncer-tainty. As noted in Section II, scientists should be able to recommend ABCs more conservative than specified in the control rule, based on their evaluation of the uncertainty and risk associated with the data, as long as they clearly explain why. The control rule should serve as a maximum bound on ABC beyond which the SSC recommendation may not go, so that any SSC deviation from the rule is more conservative, not less.

ACL uncertainty buffer when ACT is not employedThe revisions to the NS1 guidelines for ACLs specify that an ACL may not exceed the SSC-recommended ABC, and that ACL is the limit that triggers AMs.34 In cases where an ACT is not employed within the system of AMs, and where a single control rule combines both sci-entific and management uncertainty in the ABC recommendation and ACL, the ACL must be adjusted downward from ABC to account for the management uncertainty associated with preventing an ACL from exceeding ABC, as well as the relevant OY factors, so that ACL < ABC. National Standard 1 requires that ACLs achieve OY as well as prevent overfishing, and therefore an ACL control rule should also incorporate OY factors explicitly into its buffer.35 Councils should establish an ACL control rule in order to establish the basis for a buffer between the ACL and the ABC based on amount of man-agement uncertainty and achieving OY.

Control rules should reduce fishing mortality as stock size declines below the target biomass level (BMSY), and establish a stock abundance level below which fishing stops Each FMP should specify that a stock or stock complex below the size that would

produce MSY (BMSY or proxy) is fished at a lower rate or level than if the stock or stock complex were above the size that would pro-duce MSY. In the North Pacific and Pacific Council groundfish control rules, for example, the fishing mortality rate equivalent to ABC is automatically reduced in a linear fashion for any stock whose biomass has fallen below BMSY, or proxy, so that fishing mortality declines in proportion to the stock biomass and directed fishing is halted altogether beyond a certain cut-off point (See Figure 4). As discussed in the revised NS1 guidelines, the ABC control rule would incorporate this approach by fishing mortality as stock size declines and establishing a stock abundance level below which fishing would not be allowed.36

Establishing an FMP risk policyWhile there is always some risk of overfishing unintentionally, owing to the imprecise nature of fisheries data, the MSRA’s strong mandate to end overfishing requires a risk-averse policy to setting ABCs and ACLs such that there is a high probability of not exceeding the OFL. To guide the development of adequate control rule buffers, councils should adopt a policy that ABCs and ACLs should be set at a level that has a high probability (e.g., 75% or high-er) of not exceeding the overfishing level. An expert working group convened by the Lenfest Ocean Program in 2007 to provide scientific recommendations on the implementation of ACLs emphasized the need for fishery manag-ers to consider the acceptable level of risk of exceeding the prescribed OFL when setting ACLs (Rosenberg et al. 2007).37 The objec-tive should be to develop control rule buffers that maintain a sufficient margin of safety in the face of uncertainty so as to have a high probability of not overfishing.


nally developed for Australian fisheries to set more precautionary ACLs for stocks with higher vulnerabilities and greater uncertain-ties.40 The PSA methodology measures poten-tial risk of the resource to overfishing by exam-ining several productivity and susceptibility attributes that are scored from high to low risk, and an overall risk score is calculated and plot-ted on a PSA plot (Figure 5). Thus, for exam-ple, stocks that have low susceptibilities and high productivities are considered to have a low vulnerability of becoming overfished, while stocks with low productivities and high susceptibilities would have a high vulnerability of becoming overfished.41 Some Council SSCs are considering the use of PSA to inform deci-sions about buffer sizes when setting ABCs as well as the size of the management uncertain-ty buffer when setting ACLs. The risk score for a species in a particular fishery should be used to help determine ACLs and AMs, as well as the level of the performance standard used when evaluating the system of ACLs and

V. A Vulnerability Assessment to reduce the risk of Overfishing and Improve Conservation of Stocks: Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)The revised NS1 guidelines add a new provi-sion calling on councils to assess the vulner-ability of stocks, defined as a combination of a stock’s productivity, which depends upon its life history characteristics, and its susceptibil-ity to the fishery.38

Councils, in consultation with their SSC, are instructed to analyze the vulnerability of stocks in a stock complex.39 A vulnerability analysis should be conducted for all stocks in the fishery, including non-target stocks caught incidentally as bycatch in the fishery to deter-mine if they should be included in the fishery. The vulnerability analysis should also be used in inform decisions about uncertainty buffers when specifying ABC and ACL, designating species as ecosystem component species, and grouping data-poor species into stock complexes.

Rosenberg et al. (2007) recommended Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) as a tool to assess stock vulnerability and risks of overfishing, based on a methodology origi-

FIgurE 5 › ExAMPLE OF PRODUCTIVITY-SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS (PSA) PLOT ILLUSTRATINg CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS (FROM MRAg 2008)

HIgHPOTENTIALRISk

LOwPOTENTIALRISk

3

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

(<- L

OW

) Su

SCEp

TIBI

LITy

SCO

rE (H

IgH

->)

(<- HIgH) prOduCTIvITy SCOrE (LOW ->)1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3


AMs. Current stock complexes should be assessed through PSA and reorganized if individual stocks are found to be dissimilar in terms of geographic distribution, life history, and vulnerabilities to the fishery. Likewise, species with high potential risks should not be moved into the ecosystem component category because they would likely become overfished in the absence of management.

NMFS has convened an internal agency working group to produce technical guidance on PSA analysis which is slated for publica-tion in early spring of 2009. The councils

should work with their SSCs and NMFS to determine how risk assessment using PSA should be incorporated into the management process. The PSA analysis is a particularly important tool to use with data-poor stocks because it enables managers to make a rigor-ous and comprehensive evaluation of a stock’s vulnerability to the fishery without necessitat-ing a modeling-based, full-blown stock assess-ment. As noted above, however, a vulnerabil-ity analysis should be conducted for all stocks whether considered data-poor or data-rich.

VI. Complying With Annual Catch Limits, Addressing Management uncertainty: Accountability Measures The new fisheries law requires FMPs to establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits such that overfishing does not occur in a fishery, accompanied by measures to ensure accountability.42 The inclusion of accountability measures underscores Congress’ intent to ensure compliance with catch limits: the ACL is the level of annual catch of a stock that serves as the basis for invoking AMs;43 the objective for establishing AMs is that the ACL not be exceeded.44

In the revised NS1 guidelines, account-ability measures are defined as management controls that prevent ACLs or sector-ACLs from being exceeded (inseason AMs), where possible, and correct or mitigate overages if they occur (reactive AMs). Whenever pos-sible, FMPs should include inseason monitor-ing and management measures to prevent catch from exceeding ACLs, and FMPs should contain inseason closure authority giv-ing NMFS the ability to close fisheries if it determines that an ACL has been exceeded or is projected to be reached.45 On an annual basis, a council must determine as soon as possible after the fishing year if an ACL was

exceeded. If an ACL was exceeded, AMs must be triggered and implemented as soon as pos-sible to correct the operational issue that caused the ACL overage.46

In some data-poor recreational fisheries, it may be appropriate to consider the use of a system of multiyear average ACLs and AMs based on achievement of a rolling average catch.47 The use of a three-year rolling aver-age ACL, or some other appropriate multi-year period, would moderate wild swings in ACLs due to variable fishing conditions and participation from year to year. For instance, an overage in one year may be followed by an underage of that amount in the following year. Thus a system of annual AMs based on exceeding ACL in one year would not neces-sarily be appropriate or feasible in such fisher-ies. Even when AMs are based on multi-year average data, however, it is still necessary to conduct an annual evaluation of the moving average catch to the average ACL in order to assess the ongoing performance of the AMs and determine if the average ACL has been exceeded —and AMs should be implemented if the average catch exceeds the average


ACL.48 The ACL should be set conservatively to account for the clear management uncer-tainty inherent in such circumstances.

Use of annual catch target (ACT) within a system of AMsOne of the significant changes in the final revised NS1 guidelines is the recommendation to include an annual catch target (ACT) as part of the AMs for a fishery. Although an ACT is optional, it is strongly recommended for fisheries that lack effective inseason monitor-ing and control of catch and thus have a high-er likelihood of exceeding ACLs.49 If ACT is specified as part of the AMs for a fishery, an ACT control rule is to be utilized for setting the ACT that clearly articulates how manage-ment uncertainty in the amount of the catch is accounted for in setting ACT.50 As noted above, some reduction in the ACT below the ACL is envisioned to ensure that the risk of exceeding the ACL due to management uncer-tainty is at an acceptably low level.51 The use of ACTs in data-poor fisheries that lack effec-tive inseason monitoring capabilities is critical as an integral part of a system of AMs.

In addition to inseason AMs that close a fishery upon attaining an ACL and reactive AMs that address overages of ACL if they occur, the new guidelines provide that AMs may include area closures, changes in gear,

changes in trip size or bag limits, reductions in effort, overage adjustments, and other appropriate management controls for the fish-ery.52 AMs should be approved by the Secretary of Commerce, should be subject to regular scientific review, and should provide opportunities for public comment. The per-formance of AMs must be measurable and AMs must be modified if not working.

ACL Performance StandardIn the revised NS1 guidelines, NMFS calls on the councils to adopt an ACL performance standard to ensure that the system of ACLs and AMs is working as intended. NMFS pro-vides for some flexibility in the standard: the example given would only trigger a re-evalua-tion of the system of ACLs and AMs if the catch of a stock exceeds its ACL more often than once in the last four years (i.e., more often than 25 percent of the time), although a more conservative standard could be adopted as deemed appropriate.53 Creating a perfor-mance standard aimed at achieving the objec-tive only 75% of the time (e.g., three out of four years) may be appropriate in some data-poor fisheries, but the overall objective in most fisheries should be annual achievement of annual catch limits. Regardless of the per-formance standard employed, councils must still determine as soon as possible after the

E For fisheries lacking effective inseason monitoring and control of catches, an annual catch target (ACT) should be part of a system of AMs and ACT should be set below the ACL to ensure that the risk of exceeding the ACL due to management uncertainty is at an acceptably low level.

E AMs should be reviewed annually as part of the catch specification process to ensure that they are working as intended to avoid exceeding the ACL.

E where data permit, the ACL performance standard should be based on annual achievement of the management objective (i.e., to avoid exceeding ACL) and overages

Box 4› Principles for Accountability Measures

of ACL should automatically trigger AMs to correct the problem.

E In recreational fisheries, where data do not permit otherwise, ACLs may be based on a multi-year rolling average and the performance of AMs may be evaluated using multi-year average data.

E FMPs should include inseason closure authority to prevent catch from exceeding ACLs.

E For stocks in rebuilding plans, AMs should include overage adjustments that reduce the ACLs in the next fishing year by the full amount of the overage.


fishing year if an ACL was exceeded.54 If man-agement information is not available to pre-vent ACLs from being exceeded within the current fishing season, AMs must be triggered and implemented as soon as possible to cor-rect the operational issue that caused the

ACL overage.55 In other words, re-evaluation of the system of ACLs and AMs may not be required if ACLs are exceeded infrequently, but evaluation of performance and prompt management actions to address overages are still required on an annual basis.56

Whenever possible,

FMPs should

include inseason

monitoring and

management

measures to prevent

catch from

exceeding ACLs,

and FMPs should

contain inseason

closure authority

giving NMFS the

ability to close

fisheries if it

determines that an

ACL has been

exceeded or is

projected to be

reached.

VII. Achieving Optimum Yield: An Ecosystem Approach to ACL-Setting and Sustainable FisheriesReauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006 followed on the heels of a number of national panel reports calling for major reforms

of fisheries management, national ocean policy and governance

(e.g., Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel 1999; National

Research Council 1999; Pew Oceans Commission

2003; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 2004), all of which have recommended the adoption of a more holistic, ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

At its core, the debate over ecosystem-based fisheries management involves a defini-tion of sustainability. As noted by many scien-tists and policy experts, sustainability involves a great deal more than the narrowly construed Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of overfish-ing as “a level of fishing mortality that jeopar-dizes the long-term capacity of a stock to pro-duce maximum sustainable yield on a continu-ing basis.” Conventional fisheries science has a narrowly “single-species” focus in which individual target species are managed in isola-tion from their relation to the rest of the eco-system, largely ignoring the interactions of target species as predators and prey in the ecosystem.57 Citing many of these issues, the 1999 Report to Congress of the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel concluded that existing fishery management plans are not suf-

ficient to implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.58 The overall objective of ecosystem-based fisheries management is to remedy these shortcomings by realigning management objectives to sus-tain healthy marine ecosystems and the fish-eries they support.59

Although ecosystem-based fisheries man-agement recognizes the shortcomings of con-ventional fisheries science and management, its proponents do not propose to replace con-ventional single-species approaches but rather to incorporate a more ecologically realistic and inclusive view of sustainability into exist-ing practice.60 The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act expressed a similar desire to expand the application of ecosystem principles in fisheries management practice.61 Moreover, the MSA’s definition of OY acknowledges the importance of protecting marine ecosystems and authorizes downward adjustments from the maximum allowable fishing level to account for “any relevant eco-nomic, social, or ecological factor.”62 Other aspects of the nation’s fisheries law, such as provisions to conserve essential fish habitat, or EFH, also underscore the need for an eco-system approach.

The MSA provides ample support for efforts to incorporate an ecosystem-based approach into new rules for ACL-setting in the nation’s fisheries. To achieve National Standard 1’s two-fold objective of preventing overfishing and achieving optimum yield on a


continuing basis, the framework for ACLs in each FMP must do three things: (1) take into account the uncertainty in scientific informa-tion and management control of the fishery such that overfishing does not occur and there is a low risk that limits are exceeded;63 (2) for forage fish stocks, ensure that the rebuilding of overfished predator stocks is accounted for when setting ACLs for the forage stock; and (3) address all relevant social, economic, and ecological factors explicitly in the OY specifi-cations for each FMP, stating clearly how they were considered and how they were accounted for in the OY calculation.64

National Standard 1’s clear requirement for achieving OY in the setting of ACLs presents an opportunity to expand the application of ecosystem-based principles in the new catch-setting framework. To that end, the Network recommends that fishery managers factor the following considerations explicitly into their ACL specifications as practical steps toward achieving a more ecologically based embodi-ment of fisheries sustainability:

E Spatial-temporal management of ACLs should be employed as an integral part of effective catch-limit management. Ecosystem-based management is inherently

“place-based” because it focuses on geo-

graphically specific ecosystems and activi-ties affecting them.65 Time and area-based fishery regulations are essential tools in the management toolkit for addressing the shortcomings of relying solely or principally on how much fishing to permit without also considering carefully when and where and how the ACL is taken. Apportioning ACLs by seasons and areas can be used to achieve multiple objectives of the MSA to prevent overfishing, reduce bycatch, protect sensi-tive habitats, address competition among fishery sectors, avoid localized and serial depletions of fished stocks, and ensure geo-graphic and seasonal availability of prey to key predators. Management measures implementing ACLs should include appro-priate time and area management measures in the ACL specification process, including their use as part of a package of account-ability measures.

E ACLs for targeted forage fish must be set more conservatively to conserve their role as prey of other managed fish stocks and protect the integrity of marine food webs. The basis for preserving the ecological role of forage fish as prey is well established in the scientific literature. For instance, the National Research Council’s Committee on

FIgurE 6 › ILLUSTRATION OF MORE CONSERVATIVE FORAgE FISH FISHINg STRATEgY (“FFORAgE”) RELATIVE TO CONVENTIONAL SINgLE-SPECIES FISHINg

ofLaBc

acLact

fofL (e.g., fmsy, f30%)faBc (e.g., f40%)

facL (e.g., f50%)

B75%

B50%

B40%

B30%

msst

B100% UNfiNished

fforage (e.g., f70%)

ABC bufferforage fish

single-species

BMSY

1⁄2 BMSY

BOY

ACL/ACT buffer

Example forage fishfishing strategy

More forage fish stock biomass in

ecosystem as prey BOY

single-species< <

Biomass (stock size)Fishing Mortality


Ecosystem Effects of Fishing, Phase II (NRC 2006) recently concluded that if the United States is to manage fisheries within an ecosystem context, food web interac-tions, life-history strategies, and trophic effects will need to be explicitly accounted for when developing fishery harvest strate-gies.66 Moreover, if overfished stocks are to be rebuilt, adequate forage fish abundance

must be provided to support rebuilding. The central

importance of con-serving forage fish is

also recognized in the existing regulations imple-

menting the MSA’s essential fish habitat provisions, which establish that loss of prey species constitutes an adverse effect on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The new NS1 guidelines sanction more conservative fishing levels that maintain forage stocks at

higher levels of abundance than conven-tional fishing strategies based on MSY in order to preserve their role as prey in the ecosystem.67 Procedures for setting ACLs to achieve OY for forage fish stocks should be designed to maintain significantly higher biomass than the conventional single- species target biomass of BMSY.

As with guidance on procedures for estab-lishing adequate buffers in the ABC and ACL control rules, the agency’s role in achieving these ecosystem-based objectives will be cru-cial. Thus NMFS should play an active role in assisting the councils by providing additional technical guidance on these issues that includes procedures for incorporating spatial-temporal management measures and forage fish considerations directly into the ACL specification process (see Figure 6).

VIII. Technical guidance and Support by the National Marine Fisheries Service Will Be Crucial to Successful ACL ImplementationThe new overfishing guidelines raise the bar considerably for fishery management perfor-mance, although significant shortcomings and challenges remain that will require additional technical guidance from the Fisheries Service. Success at ending overfishing ultimately hing-es on implementation by regional fishery man-agers, and leadership by the Fisheries Service will be crucial to support and oversee the councils’ compliance.

The Network anticipates that new agency guidance on methods of assessing the vulner-ability of stocks will be issued soon. In addi-

tion, the Network calls on the Fisheries Service to provide technical guidance on methods of establishing ABC control rules, including uncertainty buffers designed to be more conservative as a stock declines in abun-dance and as uncertainty increases. Finally, the agency should provide additional techni-cal guidance on methods of addressing eco-logical factors when setting ACLs to achieve optimum yield, including procedures for set-ting ACLs to achieve OY for forage fish stocks that preserve their role as prey in the ecosystem.

The MSA’s

definition of OY

acknowledges the

importance of

protecting marine

ecosystems and

authorizes

downward

adjustments from

the maximum

allowable fishing

level to account for

any relevant

economic, social, or

ecological factor.

The MSA provides

ample support for

management

initiatives to

expand the

application of

ecosystem-based

principles in the

new catch-setting

framework.


1 Marine Fish Conservation Network. Taking stock: The Cure for Chronic Overfishing. Washington, D.C. (December 2007). 14 pp.

2 MSA, 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15).3 50 CFR § 600.310(d)(3)&(4).4 50 CFR § 600.31.0(c)(1-6).5 50 CFR § 600.310 (d)(5)(A)-(D).6 50 CFR § 600.310(d)(5)(iii).7 50 CFR § 600.310(b)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(ii).8 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(3): “Councils should develop a process

for receiving scientific information and advice used to estab-lish ABC.” This process must establish an ABC control rule (discussed at (c)(3) and (f)(4)), identify the body that will apply the ABC control rule (i.e., calculates the ABC), iden-tify the review process that will verify the resulting ABC, and confirm that the SSC recommends the ABC to the Council.

9 See the preamble to the NS1 final rule, 74 Fed. Reg. at 3181. The Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures (SOPPs) is described in existing regulations at 50 CFR § 600.115.

10 Examples of existing SAFE reports for Alaska Region groundfish http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/stocks/assess-ments.htm and Pacific Region groundfish http://www.pcoun-cil.org/groundfish/gfsafe.html provide a good summary over-view of status of stocks, incorporating the most recent assessment information, as well as socioeconomic and eco-logical information.

11 Existing regulations at 50 CFR § 600.315 establish the guidelines for the issuance of a SAFE report for each FMP. Each SAFE report should contain the information required by SSCs to make ABC recommendations and give other scientific advice. In addition, the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility to assure that a SAFE report or similar document is prepared, reviewed annually, and changed as necessary for each FMP.

12 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(3).13 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(6).14 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(2)15 See Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as NMFS

proposes to amend it at 50 CFR § 50 CFR § 600.315(e)(1)(i)).

16 See: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/stocks/assessments.htm. In the North Pacific region, the report chapters are compiled by the stock assessment scientists during their annual stock assessment workshop and review process through the regional Alaska Fisheries Science Center. A council staff liaison works with the chair of each assessment team to summarize its recommendations for OFLs and ABCs. These summary recommendations are then evaluated by the SSC as part of the annual council catch specification process at regularly scheduled council meetings each fall, forming the basis for council determinations of ACLs in December.

17 V.R. Restrepo et al. Technical Guidance On the Use of Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the MSFCMA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-##, July 17, 1998.

18 Ibid., V.R. Restrepo et al. 19 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(4).20 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(6).21 74 Fed. Reg. at p. 3193.22 See MSA § 302(g)(1)(B) and MSA § 303(a)(15).23 See response to comments in the NS1 final rule, 74 Fed.

Reg. at p. 3183.24 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(7).

25 See Amendment 11 to the Pacific Groundfish FMP, Appendix B. October 1998: pp. 5-5 to 5-10.

26 50 CFR § 600.310(b)(3).27 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(5)(i): “If a Council recommends an

ACL which equals ABC, and the ABC is equal to OFL, the Secretary may presume that the proposal would not prevent overfishing, in the absence of sufficient analysis and justifica-tion for the approach.”

28 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(4).29 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(3).30 74 Fed. Reg. at p. 3193.31 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(7).32 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(4).33 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(3).34 See Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as NMFS

proposes to amend it at 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(2)(iv).35 16 U.S.C. § 1802(33)(B).36 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(4).37 Andrew Rosenberg et al. Setting Annual Catch Limits for

U.S. Fisheries. Report of the Lenfest Working Group on Annual Catch Limits, Lenfest Ocean Program, September 2007. 36 p.

38 50 CFR § 600.310(d)(10).39 50 CFR § 600.310(d)(10).40 Andrew Rosenberg et al., note . 41 74 Fed. Reg. at p. 3185.42 MSA § 1853(a)(15)).43 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(2)(iv).44 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(6).45 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(2).46 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(3).47 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(4).48 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(4).49 74 Fed. Reg. at p. 3178.50 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(6).51 74 Fed. Reg. at p. 3193 and 50 CFR § 600.310(f)(2)(vi).52 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(2) and (3).53 See Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as NMFS

proposes to amend it at 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(3&4), 73 Fed. Reg. at 32544.

54 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(3).55 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(3).56 50 CFR § 600.310(g)(3).57 Robert C. Francis, Kerim Aydin, Richard L. Merrick, and

Stephen Bollens. Modeling and Management of the Bering Sea Ecosystem. In: Dynamics of the Bering Sea, Thomas R. Loughlin and Kiyotaka Ohtani, Eds., University of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-99-03, 1999: pp. 425-426.

58 EPAP. Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management, A Report to Congress, April 1999, p. 27.

59 E.K. Pikitch et al. Ecosystem-based Fishery Management. Science, Vol. 305, 16 July 2004: 346-347.

60 Robert C. Francis, Mark A. Hixon, M. Elizabeth Clarke, Steven A. Murawski, and Stephen Ralston. Ten Commandments for Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Scientists. Fisheries Vol. 32, No. 5, May 2007: 217-233.

61 16 U.S.C. 1882 of the amended MSA of 1996 tasked NMFS with convening a panel to develop recommendations

“to expand the application of ecosystem principles in fishery conservation and management activities.”

62 16 U.S.C. § 1802(33)(B).63 See Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as NMFS

proposes to amend it at 50 CFR § 600.310(b)(3), 73 Fed. Reg. at 32539.

Endnotes


Glossary of Frequently Used Terms

ABC – Acceptable Biological Catch

ACL – Annual Catch Limit

ACT – Annual Catch Target

AM – Accountability Measure

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CPUE – Catch per unit (of) effort

EC – Ecosystem Component (species)

EFH – Essential Fish Habitat

FMC – Fishery Management Council

FMP – Fishery Management Plan

HMS – Highly Migratory Species

MFCN – Marine Fish Conservation Network

MFMT – Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold

MSA – Magnuson-Stevens Act, aka Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MSRA – Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006

MSST – Minimum Stock Size Threshold

MSY – Maximum Sustainable Yield

NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service

NS1 – National Standard 1



OFL – Overfishing Level

OY – Optimum Yield

PSA – Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis

SAFE – Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report

SDC – Status Determination Criteria

SFA – Sustainable Fisheries Act, aka the Magnuson-

Stevens Act of 1996

SOPP – Statement of Organization, Practices and

Procedures

SPR – Spawning potential ratio

SSC – Scientific and Statistical Committee

STAR – Stock Assessment Review (team)

64 See Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as NMFS proposes to amend it at 50 CFR § 600.310(e)(3)(ii), 73 Fed. Reg. at 32542.

65 K.L. McLeod, J. Lubchenco, S.R. Palumbi, and A.A. Rosenberg. 2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Published by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS), http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM.

66 National Research Council, Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing, Phase II. Dynamic Changes in Marine Ecosystems: Fishing, Food Webs, and Future Options. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2006). 160 pp.

67 50 CFR § 600.310(e)(3)(iv)(C).

Endnotes continued

Pacific Council

New England Council

Mid-Atlantic Council

South Atlantic Council

Caribbean Council

Gulf of Mexico Council

Indicates where two adjacent Councils overlap

Western PacificCouncil

North Pacific Council

U.S. Ocean Territories and Regional

Fishery Management Councils

Marine Fish Conservation Network · 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE · Suite 210 · washington, DC 20003