Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Executive Summary
Pages 1-8

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 1...
... Numerous lawsuits have challenged whether National Standard 2 has been met in fisheries management plans and other federal actions under legislation mandating the use of "best scientific information available." The federal courts have not defined "best scientific information available," but instead have examined the amount and quality of information available at a particular time in relation to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries' regulatory responsibilities to conserve and rebuild stocks.
From page 2...
... STUDY SCOPE NOAA Fisheries asked the National Research Council's Ocean Studies Board to examine the application of the term "best scientific information available" as the basis for fishery conservation and management measures required under National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In particular, the National Research Council was asked to consider the following questions: · How should adherence to National Standard 2 be measured?
From page 3...
... Without a clearer understanding of how scientific assessments are developed, validated, and applied under National Standard 2, more management decisions will be destined for costly and time-consuming litigation. Although there are common elements in the application of "best scientific information available" among the councils, there are differences resulting from region-specific characteristics of the exploited stocks and the types of data available to evaluate fish populations, fish habitat, and the socioeconomic status of the fisheries.
From page 4...
... · A statutory definition of what constitutes "best scientific information available" for fisheries management is inadvisable because it could impede the incorporation of new types of scientific information and would be difficult to amend if circumstances warranted change. · Establishing procedural guidelines is the preferred alternative for creating accountability and enhancing the credibility of scientific information used in fisheries management.
From page 5...
... They will promote consistency in both the production and the use of scientific information without unduly constraining the ability of scientists to adopt new scientific protocols for data collection and analysis. Guidelines should remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate the strong regional differences in fisheries and the amount of scientific information available.
From page 6...
... Fishery management plan implementation should not be delayed to capture and incorporate data and analyses that become available after plan development, except under extraordinary circumstances when a brief and clearly defined postponement is agreed upon by the management council and the Secretary of Commerce, and measures are already in place to ensure that overfishing will not occur during the delay. Peer Review -- Peer review is the most accepted and reliable process for assessing the quality of scientific information.
From page 7...
... Internal peer review of scientific information is often sufficient; however, an external review may be advisable when one or a combination of the following circumstances applies: questions exceed the expertise of the internal review team, there is substantial scientific uncertainty, the findings are controversial, or there are a range of scientific opinions regarding the proposed action. Adherence to National Standard 2 NOAA Fisheries should require each fishery management council to provide explicit findings on how scientific information was used to develop or amend a fishery management plan.
From page 8...
... NOAA Fisheries should develop and implement a plan to systematically improve the quality of the "best scientific information available" that includes regular assessments of the outcomes of management actions and evaluation of the predictive quality of the scientific information supporting those actions. After a management action has been passed by the council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce, a follow-up evaluation of the effects of that management action is rarely undertaken.


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.