# Presentation: 528256

## Proposed Revisions to theNational Standard 1 Guidelines: Adding Guidance on Annual Catch Limits and Other Requirements

**Presentation to the **
**Regional Fishery Management Councils**
**June 2008**
**NOAA Fisheries Service**
**Office of Sustainable Fisheries**
**Silver Spring, MD**

## Statutory Requirements

## National Standard (NS) 1

- “Conservation and management measures shall  **prevent overfishing** while achieving, on a continuing basis, the **optimum yield** from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”
- MSA Section 301(a)(1)

## 2007 MSA Amendments

- The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act *(MSRA)* amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act *(MSA)* on January 12, 2007.
- New requirements to end and prevent overfishing through the use of:
- “annual catch limits” (ACLs), and
- “measures to ensure accountability” (accountability measures or AMs).

## Annual Catch Limits (ACLs)

- Fishery management plans shall “establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.”

- MSA Section 303(a)(15)

## ACLs (cont.)

- Required for all managed fisheries except*:
- Species with annual life cycles, unless subject to overfishing
- Stocks managed under an international agreement to which the U.S. is party
- Implementation in fishing year*:
- 2010 for fisheries subject to overfishing
- 2011 for all other fisheries
- May not exceed a Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee’s (SSC) fishing level recommendation**

- *MSA sec. 303 note, MSRA sec. 104(b)
- **MSA sec. 302(h)(6)

## New SSC requirements

- “Each scientific and statistical committee shall provide its Council ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for
- acceptable biological catch,
- preventing overfishing,
- maximum sustainable yield, and
- achieving rebuilding targets, and
- reports on stock status and health,
- bycatch
- habitat status
- social and economic impacts of management measures, and
- sustainability of fishing practices.”

- MSA Section 302(g)(1)(B)

## For “overfished” stocks

- Effective July 12, 2009*, within **2** years of an “overfished” or “approaching overfished” stock status notification, Councils (or Secretary for Atlantic HMS) must “prepare **and implement**” management measures to:
**Immediately** end overfishing
- Rebuild affected stocks
- “as quickly as possible”
- “not to exceed 10 years”, unless biological or environmental circumstances, or management under an international agreement dictates otherwise

- MSA Sec. 304(e)
- *MSA sec. 303 note, MSRA sec. 104(b)

## NMFS Objectives in Revising the NS 1 Guidelines

## Strong, Yet Flexible, Guidelines

- Ensure that the MSA mandate for ACLs and AMs to end and prevent overfishing is met and account for U.S. fisheries diversity:
- Biological and ecological
- Management approaches
- Scientific knowledge
- Monitoring capacity
- Overlap in management jurisdiction
- Resource users

## Incorporate New Terms 

- Provide guidance on new requirements for ACLs, AMs, and acceptable biological catch (ABC)
- Explain their relationship to existing requirements
- Maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
- Optimum yield (OY)
- Status determination criteria (SDC) for defining “overfishing” and “overfished”

## Consider Public Input

- Themes from comments received (Feb-Apr 2007)
- Improve fisheries data
- Develop guidelines for Optimum Yield - incorporate ecosystem considerations
- Provide guidance on SSC role
- Allow Councils flexibility in developing ACLs and AMs
- AMs should provide short cycle-time; prefer inseason adjustments to corrective ones
- ACLs for rebuilding stocks must ensure rebuilding
- Protect sectors (e.g. commercial/recreational) from each other
- Ensure ongoing review of management effectiveness
- How ACLs will work for stocks shared with states

## Key Proposals 

## Themes of Proposals

- Revised system of limits and targets
- Incorporating both scientific and management uncertainty to reduce the risk of overfishing
- Accountability

## Reference PointsOFL > ABC > ACL > ACT

- Account for scientific uncertainty in estimating the true OFL.  Recommend: OFL > ABC
- The ACL may not exceed the ABC.
- ABC is one of the “fishing level recommendations” under MSA § 302(h)(6).
- Account for management uncertainty in controlling the actual catch to the target.   Recommend: ACL > ACT

## Applying ACLs for each “managed fishery”

- MSA section 302(h)(6) requires Councils develop ACLs for “each of its managed fisheries”
- FMPs vary in their inclusiveness of stocks:
- Only target stocks of the fishery, vs.
- Both target and non-target stocks for greater ecosystem considerations
- Propose a distinction between “the fishery” and stocks included for ecosystem considerations.

## Proposed stock classification in FMPs

**Stocks “in the fishery”:**
- Target and non-target stocks retained for sale or personal use.
- Other non-target stocks not retained but determined by a Council to need management as part of a fishery (e.g., concerns of overfishing, etc.).
**“****Ecosystem component” species:**
- Non-target species/stocks included in the FMP to account for protection of the marine ecosystem and ecosystem approaches to management, consistent with MSA Sections 2(a)(11), 3(5), and 3(33).
- Management would be applied to “the fishery” to protect these stocks with which the fishery interacts.
- All stocks in the FMP will be considered “in the fishery” unless otherwise specified through rulemaking.

## Stocks “in the Fishery”

**Target stocks **

**Non-target stocks **
***not***** retained that are, or **
**could likely become, subject **
**to overfishing or overfished**

**Non-target stocks **
**retained for **
**sale or personal use**

**Stocks “in the Fishery”**

## “Ecosystem Component” Species

**Ecosystem component species **
**(A type of non-target species)**

**The “fishery” / **
**Stocks that are part of the fishery**

## ACLs Apply to Stocks “in the Fishery”

- In practice, overfishing is determined at the stock level.  Therefore, NMFS proposes that ACLs also be applied at the stock level.
- ACLs would apply only to stocks “in a fishery.”
- ACLs would _not_ apply to “ecosystem component species.”

## Acceptably low risk of overfishing

- Managers establish a policy, in consultation with the SSC, to use in specification of ABC and ACT such that there is an acceptably low risk that overfishing will occur.
- ABC control rule
- A specified approach to setting the ABC for a stock as a function of the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL.
- ACT control rule
- A specified approach to setting the ACT for each stock such that the risk of exceeding the ACL due to management uncertainty is at an acceptably low level.

## Management Uncertainty

- Example, could assess past performance of achieving the target catch.

## Roles in Setting ACLs

## Accountability Measures (AMs)

- MSA requires that FMPs establish ACLs, “including measures to ensure accountability”
- Two types of AMs:
- Inseason measures to prevent reaching the ACL
- AMs to address an overage of the ACL
- Operational factors leading to an overage
- Mitigate biological harm to the stock, if any

## Performance Standards 

- Because of uncertainty, there is always a chance that overfishing could occur.
- To prevent chronic overfishing:
- The system of ACLs and AMs should be re-evaluated and modified if the ACL is exceeded more than 1 in 4 years.
- A higher performance standard could be used if a stock is particularly vulnerable to the effects of overfishing.

## ACLs & AMs for a Fishery Sector

_**Optional**_ to sub-divide a stock’s ACL into “sector-ACLs”.
- The sum of sector-ACLs should not exceed the overall ACL.
- AMs required for the overall ACL to protect the stock as a whole.
- For each sector-ACL, “sector-ACTs” and “sector-AMs” should be established.
- Sector-AMs should be fair and equitable.

## Could be a challenge to establish ACLs and AMs for stocks with most catch occurring in state waters.
State-Federal collaboration to establish ACLs and AMs.  
Where agreement cannot be reached:
The ACL should be specified for the entire stock, 
Identify a Federal portion of the ACL, and 
Apply AMs to catch in Federal waters.  
Similar approach as “sector-ACLs”.

- State-Federal collaboration to establish ACLs and AMs.
- Where agreement cannot be reached:
- The ACL should be specified for the entire stock,
- Identify a Federal portion of the ACL, and
- Apply AMs to catch in Federal waters.
- Similar approach as “sector-ACLs”.

**State-Federal Fisheries**

## Summary

## Summary

- MSA requires:
- ACLs and AMs to prevent overfishing,
- ACLs not exceed fishing level recommendations of SSCs, and
- ACLs and AMs in all managed fisheries, with 2 exceptions.
- NMFS proposes:
- ACLs and AMs for all stocks and stock complexes in a fishery, unless the 2 MSA exceptions apply.
- Clearly account for both scientific and management uncertainty in the ACL specification process.
- AMs should prevent ACL overages, where possible, and always address overages, if they occur.
- An optional “ecosystem component” category could allow flexibility in FMPs for greater ecosystem considerations.

## Questions