Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 National Standard 2: From Origin to Application
Pages 17-40

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 17...
... of 1973, requiring that endangered species listing decisions proceed "on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data" (Fishery Conservation and Management Act, sec.
From page 18...
... Neither the congressional statement of purpose nor National Standard 2 has changed since 1976. A report of the Senate Commerce Committee described National Standard 2 "as an important adjunct" of National Standard 1 and stated that it "must be recognized as one of the most important standards" (Senate Committee, Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 94)
From page 19...
... Because NOAA Fisheries has a limited capacity to support data collection and analysis to improve the scientific information used in stock assessments, "achieving" the best scientific information has not been possible for all fisheries. In fisheries that are managed with outdated or insufficient information, some stakeholders have therefore argued that scientific information should meet an independent standard before it is deemed worthy to be used as a basis for decision making.
From page 20...
... More complex methods are used by stock assessment scientists to determine the relative probability that a given catch level will result in population persistence or population collapse over time. This requires translating uncertainty into an expression of risk that is then available to decision makers charged with managing risk.
From page 21...
... The court suggested that the management plan should have at least a 50 percent chance of achieving the target mortality rate, observing that "only in Superman Comics' Bizarro world, where reality is turned upside down, could [NOAA Fisheries] reasonably conclude that a measure that is at least four times as likely to fail as to succeed offers a `fairly high level of confidence'" (Natural Resources Defense Council v.
From page 22...
... In fisheries management, the null hypothesis represents the situation in which there is no fisheries impact and, thus, management action is not needed. The alternative hypothesis is that the fisheries cause impacts and, thus, management action is needed.
From page 23...
... . To understand how scientific reports and FMPs are produced in different management regions, the committee requested summaries of the process from each of the fisheries science centers and their associated fishery management councils (Table 2.1; Appendix C)
From page 24...
... It is clear that the councils differ strongly in the ways they apply ecosystem principles to the fishery management process, respond to uncertainty (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1999) , and organize and address problems (Miller, 1987)
From page 25...
... , through telephone surveys that gather socioeconomic information, and through observer programs that provide detailed commercial catch, effort, and bycatch data. Fishery-independent data are obtained through routine surveys conducted by NOAA Fisheries research vessels and chartered fishing vessels as well as through scientific research conducted by federal, state, and university scientists.
From page 26...
... its meetings would become politically charged with stakeholders attending with the intent of influencing the policies identified. NATIONAL STANDARD 2 AS INTERPRETED BY FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS The councils generally interpret "best scientific information available" as the most recent and relevant information available to them at the time of FMP development, typically as it appears in stock assessments and other reports generated through the science centers.
From page 27...
... Whereas data collection by the science centers occurs on an ongoing basis, stock assessments and other types of reports are produced primarily in response to requests from the councils and NOAA Fisheries regional offices. Each science center meets with the appropriate council(s)
From page 28...
... Peer review of scientific information is applied extensively to the fishery management system, to manuscripts intended for publication in journals, and to the gray literature (stock assessments, dissertations, agency reports, white papers, and other types of scientific documents) that form the bulk of the science supporting management decisions.
From page 29...
... In the North Pacific, stock assessments are done primarily by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Plan teams review the stock assessments at two meetings, and the scientific and statistical committee (SSC)
From page 30...
... As the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council notes, "The quality control is inherent in the NOAA Fisheries entities providing the information and in the [stock assessment panels] , [the socioeconomic panels]
From page 31...
... . Where discrepancies occur, solutions are provided by the councils primarily with advice from NOAA Fisheries scientists, council advisory panels, and council staff.
From page 32...
... Data acquired by the science centers in a transparent fashion can ultimately contribute to flawed policy when the
From page 33...
... NOAA Fisheries also has the option to develop independent FMPs or amendments in the face of council inaction (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2002)
From page 34...
... These included an overall decrease in landings, in mean size of fish in the commercial catch, in catch per unit effort, in recruitment of age-1 fish, and in the consolidation of the fishery into the most productive fishing areas. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council failed to take any action, however, despite the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing immediately once recognized; despite advice from NOAA Fisheries scientists, the Council's Reef Fish Stock Assessment and SSC advisory panels, and the NOAA General Counsel, and despite an explicit request from the Deputy Director of NOAA Fisheries.
From page 35...
... Scientific uncertainty will be used by those who object to the management action as a means to reject the conclusions of the scientific experts. Congressional use of the term "best scientific information available" is one of several techniques commonly used to facilitate the preparation and influence of scientific information in the regulatory process along with mandates for scientific studies and the strengthening of scientific advisory apparatus.
From page 36...
... Also, cases may be lost because events move more rapidly than the judicial process or because understanding of the "best scientific information available" has undergone revision. Still, NOAA Fisheries should not be indifferent to the instructions and lessons of judicial review.
From page 37...
... also concluded "that the overall impact of fishing-related activities in North American waters is unknown despite research efforts spanning 80 years." On December 19, 1997, NOAA Fisheries promulgated EFH regulations, to become effective January 20, 1998 (Fishery Conservation and Management Act, sec.
From page 38...
... ) The court enjoined enforcement of the amendments "until the Secretary performs a new, thorough, and legally adequate EA or Environmental Impact Statement for each EFH Amendment, in compliance with the requirements of NEPA" (American Oceans Campaign v.
From page 39...
... However, the "common law" of judicial review of "best scientific information available" is insufficiently mature, elaborate, and credible for day-to-day use within NOAA Fisheries.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.