Contact:  Teri Frady                   FOR RELEASE 
          Gordon Helm                  1/7/98

Federal studies describing recent Northeastern groundfish stock declines are sound, says the National Academy of Science through an independent panel of experts in a report released today. Further, the panel finds "no scientific basis to support assertions that the regulations imposed by Amendment 7 of the Northeast Multispecies Management Plan are too severe from a biological perspective." The panel also supports the dramatic actions that have been taken to attempt recovery of these stocks.

"This rigorous peer review should reassure everyone that Northeast groundfish science is solid," said Terry Garcia, assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA deputy administrator. "The panel has confirmed that our scientific work supports strong management measures."

"The panel agrees that significant reductions in fishing effort, although painful, are the only way to recover these stocks," said Dr. Andy Rosenberg, regional administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Northeast Region.

The fisheries service is the federal agency responsible for building sustainable fisheries in U.S. waters. The independent review of Northeast groundfish science was required by Congress in 1996, after the regional fishery management council established controls on groundfish harvests following advice from federal scientists.

Dr. Terrance Quinn, a professor of fishery science at the University of Alaska and chairman of the nine-member panel, announced the results of the group's work today in Washington, D.C. "These stocks are in tenuous shape," he said, "and there is nothing in the stock assessments that's going to change that."

Dr. Michael P. Sissenwine, NMFS science and research director for the Northeast, says his assessment scientists are gratified by the report. "The panel's members are all highly respected assessment scientists and we appreciate their exhaustive review," he said. "They have agreed with us that there's no escaping the need for restrictions on fishing effort if we want to protect stocks poised for recovery like those of Georges Bank, as well as those still in collapse, such Gulf of Maine cod."

Sissenwine says that the report has removed the challenge to the quality of the science used to inform fishery management decisions in the Northeast. "The panel's recommendations for improving research, such as developing more sophistication in predicting how uncertainty influences assessments, are welcome," he says. "These improvements would bring us closer to perfection. However, the panel certainly makes clear that perfect' is not necessary or even typical of the scientific advice fishery managers need to build sustainable stocks."

The independent panel was convened by the National Academy of Sciences. The panel included academics, independent fisheries consultants, and government scientists from the United States, Canada, Norway, and Iceland.

The congressionally mandated study cost approximately $250,000. It was released less than a month after the release of a similar review of NMFS fish stock assessment methods nationwide, which had similar results. The status of knowledge is not perfect, the reviews found, but is sufficient to support effective management decisions.

The methods and data used to determine the status of Northeast U.S. groundfish have been examined routinely since 1985 through a regional peer review process, with an additional annual review since 1996 by a monitoring group convened by the regional management council.