December 15, 2003

David E. Frulla, Shaun M. Gehan and Andrew D. Herman

Brand and Frulla

923 Fifteenth Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Messrs Frulla, Gehan and Herman:

Thank you for your October 16, 2003, request on behalf of The Associated
Fisheries of Maine, Inc. and the Trawlers Survival Fund pursuant to
Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 to cease dissemination of the revised
biological reference points for the northeast multispecies stock complex
("New England groundfish") contained in the draft document for Amendment
13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan ("Draft
Amendment 13"). The Northeast Regional Office within the National Marine
Fisheries Service ("NOAA Fisheries") is the responsible office for this
action. My office has completed its review of your request in light of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") Information
Quality Guidelines ("Guidelines") and has the following response.

We note at the outset that Draft Amendment 13 and its supporting
science, including the revised biological reference points at issue in
this request, have been subjected to formal, independent, external peer
review by an international panel of leading fisheries experts. The peer
reviewers' comments and the Agency's responses thereto are posted on the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) website at:
[[http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish.]{.underline}](http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish.)
The peer review conducted in this instance meets the proposed standards
for peer review found in the Office of Management and Budget "Proposed
Bulletin under Executive Order 12866 and Supplemental Information
Quality
Guidelines"([[www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/peer_review_and_info_quality.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.whitehouse.gov/)
published August 29, 2003), which states that peer review should be
conducted with genuine independence and objectivity under proper and
clearly-articulated procedures. Further, the methodologies, analyses and
conclusions used to develop the revised biological reference points were
fully described in the final report of the Working Group on
Re-Evaluation of Biological Reference Points for New England Groundfish,
which is also posted on the NEFSC website address provided above. As
evidenced by the wealth of information posted on NEFSC website, the
development of draft Amendment 13 and its supporting science has been
fully transparent with substantial opportunity for input from the
public.

Turning to the specifics of your request, it alleges that the revised
biological reference points contained in Draft Amendment 13 violate the
utility and objectivity standards of the Guidelines. Regarding the
utility standards, the Guidelines state that "(u)tility means that
disseminated information is useful to its intended users. 'Useful' means
that the content of the information is helpful, beneficial, or
serviceable to its intended users, or that the information supports the
usefulness of other disseminated information by making it more
accessible or easier to read, see, understand, obtain, or use." Further,
as stated in Part II of the Guidelines, "NOAA strives to continually
improve the usefulness of its data and information products." Your
request fails to state how the biological reference points fail to meet
NOAA's standard for utility.

New England groundfish are managed under the New England Fishery
Management Council's Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
Under this plan, overfishing definitions, including biomass thresholds
and targets and fishing mortality thresholds and targets, are required
and have been previously specified. The revised biological reference
points contained in Draft Amendment 13 were developed in February, 2002,
by the Working Group on Re-Evaluation of Biological Reference Points for
New England Groundfish ("Working Group"). The Working Group reviewed the
scientific adequacy of the existing overfishing reference points
(biomass producing maximum sustainable yield, or Bmsy, and the fishing
mortality rate associated with maximum sustainable yield, or Fmsy). In
developing the revised biological reference points, the Working Group
examined significant new data and methodological improvements available
to researchers for conducting a re-analysis of the existing biological
reference points. The revised biological reference points were developed
to ensure consistency between age-structured assessment models and
reference points and thereby improve the scientific basis for groundfish
fisheries management. Therefore, the revised biological reference points
comply with the utility standards because they are useful to the
intended users (New England groundfish fisheries managers) and are an
improvement over previously available information.

Regarding the objectivity standards, the Guidelines divide NOAA
information products into seven categories. Draft Amendment 13 is
categorized as a Natural Resource Plan under the Guidelines and, as
such, must: (1) Be developed according to published standards; (2) use
information of known quality or from sources acceptable to the relevant
scientific and technical communities; (3) be based on the best available
scientific information; and (4) present information in the proper
context. Further, the Guidelines state that, "(i)nformation that is
subjected to formal, independent, external peer review is presumed to be
objective. The requestor has the burden of rebutting that presumption."
Guidelines, Part III.A.3. Following is information on each of the four
objectivity criteria.

*Published Standards*

Draft Amendment 13 was developed according to published standards, which
include the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Standards
Guidelines at 50 CFR Part 600, Subpart D.

*Information of Known Quality*

The information used in support of the management measures in Draft
Amendment 13 is of known quality and from sources acceptable to the
relevant scientific and technical communities. As discussed in greater
detail below, that information, particularly the revised biological
reference points, was subjected to formal, external peer review and was
posted on the NEFSC web site, making it widely available to the public.

*Best Available Scientific Information*

The revised biological reference points in Draft Amendment 13 were
developed using the best available scientific information. As previously
stated, the Working Group was convened in February 2002. The Working
Group included six population dynamics-stock assessment experts from
outside NOAA Fisheries' Northeast Region, and was supported by twelve
staff members of the NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center, including
the NOAA Fisheries Chief Scientist. The resulting analyses and revised
biological reference points are fully described in the final report of
the Working Group.

In February 2003, NOAA Fisheries convened a formal, external peer review
panel to review the science supporting New England groundfish
management, including the revised biological reference points. The
Chairman of the peer review panel produced a summary consisting of a
collation of individual reviewer's comments. This summary included the
following statement:

> *[Most of the stock assessment and projection methodologies currently
> applied by the NEFSC provide an adequate scientific basis for
> fisheries management.]{.underline} The ADAPT VPA and AGEPRO
> methodologies provide a rigorous and adequate basis for assessing
> stock biomass and fishing mortality rate, making projections,
> evaluating the differences in potential consequences of alternative
> possible fisheries management policies, and for taking into account
> parameter and important model structure uncertainties.*

(Emphasis added)

The peer reviewers did not produce a consensus summary report. Instead,
each reviewer produced an individual report consisting of their review
comments. The NEFSC compiled a comprehensive summary of the points
raised by each reviewer and publicly responded to the comments of the
peer reviewers. In evaluating the peer review comments, the NEFSC
concluded that:

> *With due consideration to the peer reviewer's comments (as elaborated
> below), data and results used for the various stocks are appropriately
> calculated and constitute, in our opinion, the best science available
> with which to evaluate the status of these resources and support the
> development of Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. There
> are no alternative assessments that were considered by the peer
> reviewers to be superior to those presented by the GARM (NEFSC 2002c)
> or updated at SARC 36 (NEFSC 2003). Estimates of F~MSY~ and their
> proxies are robust to uncertainties in the population dynamics even
> for fully-rebuilt stocks, and estimates of B~MSY~ are the most
> appropriate values, given full consideration of alternative estimates
> and their technical bases.*

# Information in the Proper Context

The information contained in Draft Amendment 13 is presented in an
accurate, clear, complete and unbiased manner. Clear distinctions have
been drawn between policy choices and the supporting science upon which
those choices are based. The supporting materials, information, data and
analyses used within Draft Amendment 13 have been properly referenced
and made publicly available on the NEFSC website to ensure transparency.

As noted, the science supporting New England groundfish management,
including the revised biological reference points, has been subjected to
formal, external peer review. That information is therefore presumed to
be objective under the Guidelines. The peer reviewers concluded that the
NEFSC's stock assessment and projection methodologies formed an adequate
scientific basis for the fisheries management actions contained in Draft
Amendment 13.

In addition to having undergone formal, external peer review, Draft
Amendment 13 and its scientific underpinnings have been subjected to a
thorough and significant degree of public scrutiny, as evidenced by the
publication and web-based dissemination of documents, meeting summaries
and comments regarding these various issues. In all regards, the Draft
Amendment 13 supporting documentation meets and exceeds the Guidelines
standards for transparency and reproducibility.

Your request for correction also asserts: 1) That NOAA Fisheries has
refused to undertake the comparative analyses recommended by the peer
review panel, in particular with respect to the age structured
production model ("ASPM") approach advocated by Dr. Douglas Butterworth;
and 2) that NOAA Fisheries has not met in substance many of the other
scientific criticisms raised by the peer review panel. One example is
cited, i.e., refusing to investigate the feasibility of reaching biomass
targets for all 19 species simultaneously as requested by the panel.

The first of these assertions in incorrect. The NEFSC has maintained an
ongoing correspondence with Dr. Butterworth about his model, with the
goal of understanding the differences between it and the model used by
the NEFSC in calculating the revised biological reference points under
dispute. The most recent correspondence from the NEFSC to Dr.
Butterworth on this topic was on September 12, 2003, when a detailed
letter was sent identifying technical problems with his modeling
approach. NOAA notes that Dr. Butterworth's model has not yet been
subjected to formal peer review.

The second of these assertions is vague. Science is an ongoing process,
and failure to have addressed all scientific criticisms of a peer review
panel does not imply that the scientific basis of the revised biological
reference points is not the best scientific advice available at the
time. Without a more specific charge, it is impossible for NOAA to
determine whether this assertion has merit.

Furthermore, your assertion that NOAA Fisheries has refused to undertake
comparative analyses recommended by the peer review panel, in general,
or with respect to the ASPM approach in particular, is inaccurate. Based
on the information above, the revised biological reference points
included in Draft Amendment 13 have been determined to be based on the
best available scientific information.

In conclusion, your request for correction of the revised biological
reference points is denied.

You may file an appeal of this denial, as outlined in Part III.D.1 of
the Guidelines, within 30 calendar days of the date of this
correspondence. Your appeal must include: (1) The requestor's

name, current home or business address, and telephone number or
electronic mail address; (2) a copy of the original request and any
correspondence regarding the initial denial (including a copy of this
document); and (3) a statement of the reasons why you, the requestor,
believe this decision is in error. The complete appeal must be submitted
to: NOAA Section 515 Officer, NOAA Executive Secretariat, Herbert C.
Hoover Building - Room 5230, 14^th^ and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20230.

Sincerely,

xxSignedxx

> Patricia A. Kurkul

Regional Administrator