+ - 0:00:00
Notes for current slide
Notes for next slide

Mid-Atlantic Ecosystem Approach

MSE workshop background
March-April 2021

Sarah Gaichas, Geret DePiper, Brandon Muffley, Richard Seagraves
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

1 / 12

Mid-Atlantic Council Ecosysytem Approach (work in progress)

Diverse stakeholders agreed that an ecosystem approach was necessary. Developing and implementing an ecosystem approach to fishery management was done in collaboration between managers, stakeholders, and scientists.

Outline

  • Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Approach (EAFM)

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM indicator-based risk assessment

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM conceptual modeling (towards MSE)

2 / 12

Mid-Atlantic Council Ecosystem Approach

3 / 12

The Council’s EAFM framework has similarities to the IEA loop on slide 2. It uses risk assessment as a first step to prioritize combinations of managed species, fleets, and ecosystem interactions for consideration. Second, a conceptual model is developed identifying key environmental, ecological, social, economic, and management linkages for a high-priority fishery. Third, quantitative modeling addressing Council-specified questions and based on interactions identified in the conceptual model is applied to evaluate alternative management strategies that best balance management objectives. As strategies are implemented, outcomes are monitored and the process is adjusted, and/or another priority identified in risk assessment can be addressed.

Iterative development of the risk assessment

Example risk assessment table with species in rows and risk elements in columns with green cells indicating low risks, yellow and orange cells indicating moderate risks, and red cells indicatig high risk

  • Council staff and scientists create examples based on Council input

    ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ...

  • Council discusses, clarifies, revises with public input

Element Definition Indicators
Economic
Commercial Revenue Risk of not maximizing fishery value Revenue in aggregate
Recreational Angler Days/Trips Risk of not maximizing fishery value Numbers of anglers and trips in aggregate
Commercial Fishery Resilience (Revenue Diversity) Risk of reduced fishery business resilience Species diversity of revenue
Commercial Fishery Resilience (Shoreside Support) Risk of reduced fishery business resilience due to shoreside support infrastructure Number of shoreside support businesses
Social
Fleet Resilience Risk of reduced fishery resilience Number of fleets, fleet diversity
Social-Cultural Risk of reduced community resilience Community vulnerability, fishery engagement and reliance
Food Production
Commercial Risk of not optimizing seafood production Seafood landings in aggregate
Recreational Risk of not maintaining personal food production Recreational landings in aggregate
4 / 12

Risk elements: Management

Element Definition Indicators
Management
Control Risk of not achieving OY due to inadequate control Catch compared to allocation
Interactions Risk of not achieving OY due to interactions with species managed by other entities Number and type of interactions with protected or non-MAFMC managed species, co-management
Other ocean uses Risk of not achieving OY due to other human uses Fishery overlap with energy/mining areas
Regulatory complexity Risk of not achieving compliance due to complexity Number of regulations by species
Discards Risk of not minimizing bycatch to extent practicable Standardized Bycatch Reporting
Allocation Risk of not achieving OY due to spatial mismatch of stocks and management Distribution shifts + number of interests
5 / 12

Risk assessent indicators and ranking criteria example: Commercial revenue

This element is applied at the ecosystem level. Revenue serves as a proxy for commercial profits.

Risk Level Definition
Low No trend and low variability in revenue
Low-Moderate Increasing or high variability in revenue
Moderate-High Significant long term revenue decrease
High Significant recent decrease in revenue

Ranked moderate-high risk due to the significant long term revenue decrease for Mid-Atlantic managed species (red points in top plot)

Key: Black = Revenue of all species combined;

Red = Revenue of MAFMC managed species

6 / 12

EAFM Risk Assessment: 2021 Update

Species level risk elements

Species Assess Fstatus Bstatus FW1Pred FW1Prey FW2Prey Climate DistShift EstHabitat
Ocean Quahog lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest highest modhigh lowest
Surfclam lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh modhigh lowest
Summer flounder lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowmod modhigh highest
Scup lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowmod modhigh highest
Black sea bass lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh modhigh highest
Atl. mackerel lowest highest highest lowest lowest lowest lowmod modhigh lowest
Butterfish lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest highest lowest
Longfin squid lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest lowest lowmod lowest modhigh lowest
Shortfin squid lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest lowest lowmod lowest highest lowest
Golden tilefish lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest lowest
Blueline tilefish highest highest modhigh lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest lowest
Bluefish lowest lowest highest lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh highest
Spiny dogfish lowmod lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest highest lowest
Monkfish highest lowmod lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest
Unmanaged forage na na na lowest lowmod lowmod na na na
Deepsea corals na na na lowest lowest lowest na na na

Ecosystem level risk elements

System EcoProd CommRev RecVal FishRes1 FishRes4 FleetDiv Social ComFood RecFood
Mid-Atlantic lowmod modhigh highest lowest modhigh lowest lowmod highest modhigh

Species and Sector level risk elements

Species MgtControl TecInteract OceanUse RegComplex Discards Allocation
Ocean Quahog-C lowest lowest lowmod lowest modhigh lowest
Surfclam-C lowest lowest lowmod lowest modhigh lowest
Summer flounder-R modhigh lowest lowmod modhigh highest highest
Summer flounder-C lowmod modhigh lowmod modhigh modhigh highest
Scup-R lowmod lowest lowmod modhigh modhigh highest
Scup-C lowest lowmod modhigh modhigh modhigh highest
Black sea bass-R highest lowest modhigh modhigh highest highest
Black sea bass-C highest lowmod highest modhigh highest highest
Atl. mackerel-R lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Atl. mackerel-C lowest lowmod modhigh highest lowmod highest
Butterfish-C lowest lowmod modhigh highest modhigh lowest
Longfin squid-C lowest modhigh highest highest highest lowest
Shortfin squid-C lowmod lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest lowest
Golden tilefish-R na lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Golden tilefish-C lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Blueline tilefish-R lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest highest
Blueline tilefish-C lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest highest
Bluefish-R lowmod lowest lowest lowmod modhigh highest
Bluefish-C lowest lowest lowmod lowmod lowmod highest
Spiny dogfish-R lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Spiny dogfish-C lowest modhigh modhigh modhigh lowmod lowest
Chub mackerel-C lowest lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest lowest
Unmanaged forage lowest lowest modhigh lowest lowest lowest
Deepsea corals na na modhigh na na na
7 / 12

Changes: Butterfish B status risk increased from lowest to low-mod (below Bmsy) Allocation risk decreased for 4 fisheries from high to low (intermediate rankings not applied) Black sea bass regulatory complexity risk decreased from highest to moderate-high

Potential new indicators from new SOE sections on climate risk, habitat vulnerability, offshore wind

How is MAFMC using the risk assessment? What's next?

  • Based on risk assessment, the Council selected summer flounder as high-risk fishery for conceptual modeling

Mid-Atlantic EAFM framework

  • Working group of habitat, biology, stock assessment, management, economic and social scientists developed:

    • draft conceptual models of high risk elements, linkages
    • dataset identification and gap analysis for each element and link
    • draft questions that the Council could persue with additional work
  • Final conceptual model (next slide) and supporting information at December 2019 Council meeting

Council proceeding with management strategy evaluation (MSE) using the information from conceptual modeling as a basis. Topic: addressing recreational fishery discards with EAFM

8 / 12
9 / 12

In this interactive circular graph visualization, model elements identified as important by the Council (through risk assessment) and by the working group (through a range of experience and expertise) are at the perimeter of the circle. Elements are defined in detail in the last section of this page. Relationships between elements are represented as links across the center of the circle to other elements on the perimeter. Links from a model element that affect another element start wide at the base and are color coded to match the category of the element they affect.Hover over a perimeter section (an element) to see all relationships for that element, including links from other elements. Hover over a link to see what it connects. Links by default show text for the two elements and the direction of the relationship (1 for relationship, 0 for no relationship--most links are one direction).For example, hovering over the element "Total Landings" in the full model shows that the working group identified the elements affected by landings as Seafood Production, Recreational Value, and Commercial Profits (three links leading out from landings), and the elements affecting landings as Fluke SSB, Fluke Distributional Shift, Risk Buffering, Management Control, Total Discards, and Shoreside Support (6 links leading into Total Landings).

Council-selected management question:

Evaluate the biological and economic benefits of minimizing summer flounder discards and converting discards into landings in the recreational sector. Identify management strategies to effectively realize these benefits.

  • Opportunity to align EAFM work with traditional Council process
  • Management challenges to address and reduce regulatory discards
    • 90% of rec summer flounder catch is released
  • Raised by AP members and stakeholders seeking management to address
  • EAFM issue and focus – seven linked categories: Management, Summer Flounder Stock, Science, Fishing Fleets, and Benefits color categories for conceptual model

screen shot of summer flounder conceptual model with discards highlighted

10 / 12

Now: management strategy evaluation

  • You are here!

  • Opportunity to participate and shape the analysis

  • Iterative process with feedback

  • Introduction to MSE process up next

Mid-Atlantic EAFM framework

11 / 12

Mid-Atlantic Council Ecosysytem Approach (work in progress)

Diverse stakeholders agreed that an ecosystem approach was necessary. Developing and implementing an ecosystem approach to fishery management was done in collaboration between managers, stakeholders, and scientists.

Outline

  • Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Approach (EAFM)

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM indicator-based risk assessment

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM conceptual modeling (towards MSE)

2 / 12
Paused

Help

Keyboard shortcuts

, , Pg Up, k Go to previous slide
, , Pg Dn, Space, j Go to next slide
Home Go to first slide
End Go to last slide
Number + Return Go to specific slide
b / m / f Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode
c Clone slideshow
p Toggle presenter mode
t Restart the presentation timer
?, h Toggle this help
Esc Back to slideshow