NEW COD MANAGEMENT PLAN DISAPPROVED--FOR THE RIGHT REASONS

On May 28, 2025, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a press release announcing the “Disapproval of Amendment 25 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.”

The release went on to say that

“The New England Fishery Management Council prepared Amendment 25 to revise biological definitions for the Atlantic cod stock units managed under the [fishery management plan] from two stock units to four stock units.  However, Amendment 25 alone does not establish reference points or management measures for the newly defined Atlantic cod stock units.  After consideration of public comments received, the Secretary of Commerce disapproved Amendment 25 on May 16, 2025, on the basis that Amendment 25 and its supporting analyses do not adequately demonstrate how the proposed action is consistent with National Standard 1 or other required provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

“Because the four stock Atlantic cod structure and the resulting management track stock assessments have been determined to be the best scientific information available, National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act compels the Council to incorporate these cod stocks into the [fishery management plan].  The Council may do so by revising and resubmitting Amendment 25 or by developing a new amendment to the [fishery management plan].  To resolve the reasons for disapproval, the Council must include in a revised amendment the elements necessary for the action to be consistent with the National Standards and required provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  These management measures include:  The revision to the cod stock definitions to reflect four cod stock unit structure; the [status determination criteria] for the four cod stocks; accountability measures; and the distribution of [acceptable biological catch] for the four stocks.”

The press release didn’t make it completely clear why Amendment 25 failed to adhere to the National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management, but a May 16 letter from Michael Pentony, the Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries Office, to Rick Bellavance, Chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council, provides greater detail.

“The review of Amendment 25 and public comments received…concluded that the procedural approach to using Framework 69 as a companion action to Amendment 25 did not fully address the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  Reference points, status determination criteria, and management measures required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act for the revised cod stock unit definitions Framework Adjustment 69 instead of being incorporated into Amendment 25.  This separation was exacerbated by the interceding beginning of the 2025 fishing year, which complicated full implementation of the Amendment and Framework.”

Such letter puts the disapproval of Amendment 25 in context, which is important given both the amendment’s importance and the opposition that it had received.

Historically, the Atlantic cod off the United States coast were managed as only two stocks—Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine—even though genetic evidence strongly suggested that the species’ stock structure was significantly more complex. 

Such a simplistic management approach may well have contributed to the cod’s failure to respond to management efforts.  The 2023 Atlantic Cod Research Track Stock Assessment finally determined that there were at least four stock units which should be assessed separately: eastern Gulf of Maine, western Gulf of Maine (which is probably composed of two stocks—winter- and spring-spawning fish—but as a practical matter they can’t currently be separated for assessment purposes), Georges Bank, and southern New England.

The New England Fishery Management Council crafted Amendment 25, along with the related Framework Adjustment 69, in an effort to conform Atlantic cod management to the newly recognized stock structure.

From the beginning, the Amendment 25/Framework 69 package, which sharply reduced cod quotas and raised questions about how fish would be allocated among the various “sectors” created when catch shares were introduced to the New England groundfish fishery, became a lightning rod for fishermen already unhappy with the regulatory process.  Fishermen protested ahead of the December 2024 New England Council meeting, when Amendment 25 was expected to be approved, making comments similar to those uttered by Jerry Leeman, CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association, who said that

“These restrictions are going to be the end of the trawlers and anyone else buying fish.  Everyone in the fisheries expects Amendment 25 to torpedo their businesses.”

The fact that a representative of the New England Council admitted that

“The council recognizes the very low 2025 cod catch limits will be extremely challenging for the fishery to work under”

did not make fishermen view Amendment 25 any more favorably.  The New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association fretted that Amendment 25 could

“permanently destroy the centuries-old cod fishing business,”

and Leeman said that

“We hope the new administration will promote American fishermen, instead of treating us like an invasive species.  But, the ground fishery might not make it until then if Amendment 25 is handed down.”

Given such concerns, and given President Donald Trump’s April 17 Executive Order, which stated that

“Most American fish stocks are healthy and have viable markets.  Despite these opportunities, seafood is one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the United States.  Federal overregulation has restricted fishermen from productively harvesting American seafood including through restrictive catch limits, selling our fishing grounds to foreign offshore wind companies, inaccurate and outdated fisheries data, and delayed adoption of modern technology,”

also stated that

“It is the policy of the United States to promote the productive harvest of our seafood resources [and] unburden our commercial fishermen from costly and inefficient regulation,”

and directed the Secretary of Commerce to

“immediately consider suspending, revising, or rescinding regulations that overly burden America’s commercial fishing…[and] identify the most heavily overregulated fisheries requiring action and take the appropriate action to reduce the regulatory burden on them,”

there was reason for concern that the disapproval of Amendment 25 was one of the first responses to the new federal policy.

Fortunately, that does not appear to be the case.  Based on what was said in the press release and Mr. Pentony's letter, as well as the plain language of Magnuson-Stevens, it seems far more likely that the disapproval was merely a response to shortcomings in the amendment itself.

For, upon examination, it becomes clear that Amendment 25 is an ineffective document, that recognizes the four Atlantic cod stock units, but does nothing more.  Management measures for the newly-defined stocks are nowhere to be found.  Instead, stock determination criteria, management measures, and other necessary specifications were included in Framework 69.

Such an approach is not compatible with the plain language of Magnuson-Stevens, which states that

“Any fishery management plan which is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with regard to any fishery shall contain the conservation and management measures, applicable to foreign fishing and vessels of the United States, which are necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery; …assess and specify the present and probable future condition of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield from, the fishery, and include a summary of the information used in making such specification; …specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in the fishery) and, in the case of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined is approaching an overfished condition or is overfished, contain conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery; …to the extent that rebuilding plans or other conservation and management measures which reduce the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary, allocate, taking into consideration the economic impact of the harvest reductions or recovery benefits of the fishery participants in each sector, any harvest reductions or recovery benefits fairly and equitably among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors of the fishery; and 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.  [formatting omitted]”

Because Amendment 25 restructured the management plan to creating four stock units for Atlantic cod, replacing the previous two, it could not rely on pre-existing provisions in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan to fill in the missing details; it would have had to include all of the required provisions applicable to the four newly designated stock units.  But Amendment 25 failed to do so, leaving the overall fishery management plan recognizing four stock units, but only containing management measures applicable to the two stock units that were formerly recognized.  That both created an unresolvable mismatch and tied NMFS’ hands when it came to managing cod, for as noted in Mr. Pentony’s letter to Capt. Bellavance,

“We did not publish a proposed rule for Amendment 25 because it does not have any implementing regulations.”

Thus. the amendment was effectively toothless, defining four stock units, but providing no guidance on how they should be managed.  NMFS' disapproval of Amendment 25 was the only practical action.

Still, it’s comforting to know that NMFS’ failure to approve Addendum 25 and Framework 69 sooner was not caused by political considerations, as might possibly have been the case, but by a legitimate effort to conform the management documents to federal law and so get the management process right.  And it’s equally comforting to learn that NMFS considers the 2023 stock assessment, which led to the creation of the four stock units, to be the best scientific information available, and the appropriate basis for future management.

It appears that Atlantic cod management is still on the right track. 

Now, we just need the New England Council to respond to the regional administrator’s letter, make the needed revisions to Amendment 25, and send it back to NMFS for what, it is hoped, will prove to be a speedy approval.