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

State of the Ecosystem and
EAFM Risk Assessment: Mid-Atlantic

MAFMC
07 April 2021

Sarah Gaichas
Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Many thanks to:
Kimberly Bastille, Geret DePiper, Kimberly Hyde, Scott Large, Sean Lucey,
and all SOE contributors;
Brandon Muffley and all MAFMC Staff
for Risk Assessment updates

1 / 36

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

  • Ecosystem indicators linked to management objectives (DePiper, et al., 2017)

    • Contextual information
    • Report evolving since 2016
    • Fishery-relevant subset of full Ecosystem Status Reports
  • Open science emphasis (Bastille, et al., 2020)

  • Used within Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Ecosystem Process (Muffley, et al., 2020)

2 / 36

State of the Ecosystem: Updated structure

2020 Report

  1. Summary 2 pager
  2. Human dimensions
  3. Protected species
  4. Fish and invertebrates (managed and otherwise)
  5. Habitat quality and ecosystem productivity

2021 Report

  1. Graphical summary
    • Page 1 report card re: objectives →
    • Page 2 risk summary bullets
    • Page 3 synthesis themes
  2. Performance relative to management objectives
  3. Risks to meeting management objectives
Ecosystem-scale fishery management objectives
Objective Categories Indicators reported here
Provisioning and Cultural Services
Seafood Production Landings; commercial total and by feeding guild; recreational harvest
Profits Revenue decomposed to price and volume
Recreation Days fished; recreational fleet diversity
Stability Diversity indices (fishery and ecosystem)
Social & Cultural Community engagement/reliance status
Protected Species Bycatch; population (adult and juvenile) numbers, mortalities
Supporting and Regulating Services
Biomass Biomass or abundance by feeding guild from surveys
Productivity Condition and recruitment of managed species, Primary productivity
Trophic structure Relative biomass of feeding guilds, Zooplankton
Habitat Estuarine and offshore habitat conditions
3 / 36

2021 Request tracking memo

Request Year Source Progress Memo Section
Report card and summary visualizations 2019 Both Councils SOE new report card table and summary visualizaitions of synthesis themes 1
Ecosystem Overfishing indicators (Link and Watson, 2019) 2020 Both Councils SOE two ecosystem overfishing indicators included 2
Primary production required, interpretation of decline? 2020 Both Councils SOE indicator reworked along with Link and Watson metrics 3
Climate Change context 2020 NEFMC SOE reorganized; Risks section added emphasizing climate change 4
Clarify language (e.g., primary production required) 2020 Both Councils SOE edited by Research Communications Branch; glossary included 5
Copy Editing 2020 Both Councils SOE edited by Research Communications Branch 6
Ocean Acidification 2020 NEFMC SOE indicator added with in-situ data linked to preliminary lab work on thresholds 7
Include examples of High/Low engaged ports 2020 NEFMC SOE indicator reworked to show individual ports and social vulnerability 8
Expand wind lease area and habitat overlap 2020 MAFMC SOE indicator expanded to rank species with habitat in wind lease areas by landings in wind lease areas 9
Expand cold pool index 2020 MAFMC SOE indicator expanded with modeled data to include area and other attributes 10
Seperate Bigelow/Albatross catch diversity metric 2020 MAFMC SOE indicator added 11
Shark abundance and catch indicators 2020 MAFMC SOE multiple shark indicators added 12
Uncertainty estimates 2020 MAFMC SOE included for subset of indicators 13
Bycatch index 2020 NEFMC SOE added seal bycatch indicator, retained harbor porpoise indicator 14
Marine Mammal consumption 2019 MAFMC SOE added discussion of seal diets, memo no new consumption ests since Smith et al but could be in the future once work is complete 15
Estuarine Water Quality 2020 NEFMC SOE Chesapeake indicators updated and expanded 16
Forage abundance 2019 MAFMC SOE forage anomaly indicator added 17
Linking Condition 2020 MAFMC in progress; not ready for 2021 18
Avg weight of diet components by feeding group 2019 Internal in progress; part of fish condition 19
Mean stomach weight across feeding guilds 2019 MAFMC in progress; stomach fullness analysis started--species level 20
Shellfish growth/distribution linked to climate (system productivity) 2019 MAFMC in progress; project with R Mann student to start 2021 21
Cumulative weather index 2020 MAFMC in progress; data gathered for prototype 22
Management complexity 2019 MAFMC in progress; student work needs further analysis, no further work in 2020 23
VAST and uncertainty 2020 Both Councils in progress; not ready for 2021 24
Seal index 2020 MAFMC in progress; not ready for 2021 25
Incorporate social sciences survey from council 2020 NEFMC unable to start in 2020 26
Young of Year index from multiple surveys 2019 MAFMC unable to start in 2020 27
Biomass of spp not included in BTS 2020 MAFMC unable to start in 2020 28
Estuarine condition relative to power plants and temp 2019 MAFMC unable to start in 2020 29
Inflection points for indicators 2019 Both Councils unable to start in 2020 30
Reduce indicator dimensionality with multivariate statistics 2020 NEFMC unable to start in 2020 31
Breakpoints 2020 NEFMC unable to start in 2020 32
Re-evaluate EPUs 2020 NEFMC unable to start in 2020 33
4 / 36

State of the Ecosystem summary

State of the Ecosystem page 1 summary table

State of the Ecosystem page 2 risk bullets

5 / 36

Ecosystem synthesis themes

Characterizing ecosystem change for fishery management

  • Societal, biological, physical and chemical factors comprise the multiple system drivers that influence marine ecosystems through a variety of different pathways.
  • Changes in the multiple drivers can lead to regime shifts — large, abrupt and persistent changes in the structure and function of an ecosystem.
  • Regime shifts and changes in how the multiple system drivers interact can result in ecosystem reorganization as species and humans respond and adapt to the new environment.

6 / 36

Document Orientation

Spatial scale NEFSC survey strata used to calculate Ecosystem Production Unit biomass

A glossary of terms (Memo 5), detailed technical methods documentation and indicator data are available online.

Key to figures

Trends assessed only for 30+ years: more information

Orange line = significant increase

Purple line = significant decrease

No color line = not significant or < 30 years

Grey background = last 10 years

7 / 36

Revised structure to address Council requests and improve synthesis

  • Performance relative to management objectives
    • What does the indicator say--up, down, stable?
    • Why do we think it is changing: integrates synthesis themes
      • Multiple drivers
      • Regime shifts
      • Ecosystem reorganization
  • Objectives
    • Seafood production
    • Profits
    • Recreational opportunities
    • Stability
    • Social and cultural
    • Protected species
  • Risks to meeting fishery management objectives
    • What does the indicator say--up, down, stable?
    • Why this is important to managers: integrates synthesis themes
      • Multiple drivers
      • Regime shifts
      • Ecosystem reorganization
  • Risk categories
    • Climate: warming, ocean currents, acidification
      • Habitat changes (incl. vulnerability analysis)
      • Productivity changes (system and fish)
      • Species interaction changes
      • Community structure changes
    • Other ocean uses
      • Offshore wind development
8 / 36

State of the Ecosystem → Risk assessent 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

9 / 36

State of the Ecosystem → Risk assessent 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

Risk element: CommRev, unchanged

9 / 36

Performance relative to management objectives

Fishing icon made by EDAB       Fishing industry icon made by EDAB       Multiple drivers icon made by EDAB       Spiritual cultural icon made by EDAB       Protected species icon made by EDAB

10 / 36

Objective: Seafood production decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon   Risk elements: ComFood and RecFood, unchanged

Indicators: Commercial and recreational landings

Key: Black = Landings of all species combined;

Red = Landings of MAFMC managed species

Multiple drivers: ecosystem and stock production, management, market conditions, and environment

Is biomass driving?

Key: Black = NEFSC survey;

Red = NEAMAP survey

11 / 36

Landings drivers: Ecosystem or stock production?   Risk elements: Fstatus, Bstatus mostly unchanged

Key: Orange background = Tipping point overfishing threshold, Link and Watson 2019 Green background = Optimal range, Link and Watson 2019

One change: Butterfish Bstatus

12 / 36

Implications: Seafood Production

Key: Black = Landings of all species combined;

Red = Landings of MAFMC managed species

Drivers:

  • market dynamics affecting commercial landings of surfclams and ocean quahogs

  • other drivers affecting recreational landings: shark fishery management, possibly survey methodology

Monitor:

  • climate risks including warming, ocean acidification, and shifting distributions
  • ecosystem composition and production changes
  • fishing engagement
13 / 36

Because ecosystem overfishing seems unlikely, stock status is mostly acceptable, and aggregate biomass trends appear stable, the decline in commercial landings is most likely driven by market dynamics affecting the landings of surfclams and ocean quahogs, as quotas are not binding for these species.

Climate change also seems to be shifting the distribution of surfclams and ocean quahogs, resulting in areas with overlapping distributions and increased mixed landings. Given the regulations governing mixed landings, this could become problematic in the future and is currently being evaluated by the Council.

Objective: Commercial Profits decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon   Risk element: CommRev, unchanged

Indicator: Commercial Revenue

Key: Black = Revenue of all species combined;

Red = Revenue of MAFMC managed species

Recent change driven by benthos
Monitor changes in climate and landings drivers:
  • Climate risk element: Surfclams and ocean quahogs are sensitive to ocean warming and acidification.
  • pH in surfclam summer habitat is approaching, but not yet at, pH affecting surfclam growth

Indicator: Bennet--price and volume indices

14 / 36

Recent declines in prices contributed to falling revenue as quantities landed did not increase enough to counteract declining prices.

Objective: Recreational opportunities no trend icon near average icon icon; decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon   Risk element: RecValue, unchanged; add diversity?

Indicators: Recreational effort and fleet diversity

Implications

  • Decline in recreational fleet diversity suggests a potentially reduced range of opportunities.

  • Driven by party/charter contraction (from a high of 24% of angler trips to 7% currently), and a shift toward shore based angling.

  • Absence of a long-term trend in recreational effort suggests relative stability in the overall number of recreational opportunities in the MAB.

  • Memo 22-23, Cumulative weather index and management complexity drivers under construction

15 / 36

Changes in recreational fleet diversity can be considered when managers seek options to maintain recreational opportunities. Shore anglers will have access to different species than vessel-based anglers, and when the same species, typically smaller fish. Many states have developed shore-based regulations where the minimum size is lower than in other areas and sectors to maintain opportunities in the shore angling sector.

Objective: Stability no trend icon near average icon icon   Risk elements: FishRes1 and FleetDiv, unchanged, add recreational elements?

Fishery Indicators: Commercial fleet count, fleet diversity

Fishery Indicators: commercial species revenue diversity, recreational species catch diversity

16 / 36

Ecological Indicators: zooplankton and larval fish diversity

Ecological Indicator: expected number of species, NEFSC bottom trawl survey

Implications:

  • stable capacity to respond to the current range of commercial fishing opportunities
  • recreational catch diversity maintained by a different set of species over time
  • monitor zooplankton diversity driven by declining dominant species
17 / 36

While larval and adult fish diversity indices are stable, a few warm-southern larval species are becoming more dominant. Increasing zooplankton diversity is driven by declining dominance of an important species, which warrants continued monitoring.

Objective: Fishing community status   Risk element: Social, unchanged; new community level info

Indicators: Social vulnerability, fishery engagement and reliance

Mid-Atlantic recreational fishing communities

Mid-Atlantic commercial fishing communities

Implications: Highlighted communities may be vulnerable to changes in fishing patterns due to regulations and/or climate change. When any of these communities are also experiencing social vulnerability, they may have lower ability to successfully respond to change. These indicators may also point to communities that are vulnerable to environmental justice issues.

18 / 36

Indicators: Harbor porpoise and gray seal bycatch (Memo 14)

Implications:

  • Currently meeting objectives

  • Risk element: TechInteract, evaluated by species and sector: 14 low, 6 low-mod, 3 mod-high risk, unchanged

  • The downward trend in harbor porpoise bycatch can also be due to a decrease in harbor porpoise abundance in US waters, reducing their overlap with fisheries, and a decrease in gillnet effort.

  • The increasing trend in gray seal bycatch may be related to an increase in the gray seal population (U.S. pup counts).

19 / 36

Objectives: Protected species Recover endangered populations decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon

Indicators: North Atlantic right whale population, calf counts

Implications:

  • Population drivers for North Atlantic Right Whales (NARW) include combined fishery interactions/ship strikes, distribution shifts, and copepod availability.

  • Unusual mortality events continue for 3 large whale species, harbor and gray seals.

  • Risk elements:

    • FW2Prey evaluated by species: 13 low, 3 low-mod risk, unchanged
    • TechInteract, evaluated by species and sector, unchanged
20 / 36

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Climate icon made by EDAB       Wind icon made by EDAB

Hydrography icon made by EDAB       Phytoplankon icon made by EDAB       Forage fish icon made by EDAB       Apex predators icon made by EDAB       Other human uses icon made by EDAB

21 / 36

Risks: Climate change, multiple elements

Indicators: ocean currents, bottom and surface temperature, marine heatwaves

 
 
     
 
 
   
 
   
   
 
   
 

22 / 36

A marine heatwave is a warming event that lasts for five or more days with sea surface temperatures above the 90th percentile of the historical daily climatology (1982-2011).

Risks: Climate change   Risk element: EstHabitat 10 low, 4 high risk species, unchanged, new indices

Indicators: Estuarine conditions, Chesapeake Bay

Chesapeake Bay Water Temperature 2020 Anomalies from satellite

23 / 36

Risks: Climate change   Risk element: offshore habitat put aside, new indices

Indicator: cold pool area cold pool area

Indicator: acidification Seasonal pH

24 / 36

Risks: Ecosystem productivity   Risk element: EcoProd, unchanged, new indices

Indicators: primary production, zooplankton

Implications: increased production by smaller phytoplankton implies less efficient transfer of primary production to higher trophic levels. Monitor implications of increasing gelatinous zooplankton and krill.

25 / 36

Increased temperatures, as reported above, can increase the rate of photosynthesis by phytoplankton (i.e. primary productivity). Annual primary production has increased over time, primarily driven by increased productivity in the summer months.

Larger zooplankton (i.e. Calanus finmarchicus) had above average abundance in 2018-2019, while smaller-bodied copepods were near or below average.

Risks: Ecosystem productivity   Risk element: EcoProd, unchanged, new indices

Indicators: plankton-based forage anomaly and forage fish energy content (Memo 17)

Implications: fluctuating environmental conditions and prey for forage species affect both abundance and energy content. Energy content varies by season, and has changed over time most dramatically for Atlantic herring

26 / 36

Risks: Ecosystem productivity   Risk element: EcoProd, unchanged, new analyses

Indicators: fish condition (Memo 18)

Fish condition figure from 2020 SOE Preliminary results:

  • Multiple, different condition drivers by species
  • Acadian redfish, butterfish and winter flounder more affected by fishing pressure and stock size
  • Weakfish, windowpane flounder, and American plaice more affected by local bottom temperatures and zooplankton

Fish condition links conceptual model

27 / 36

See memo for preliminary results These relationships can potentially provide insights on which species may be more vulnerable to environmental changes such as climate change, as well as what biomass changes may be expected from certain species given current environmental conditions

Risks: Ecosystem structure   Risk element: DistShift, unchanged, add elements?

Indicators: distribution shifts (slide 7), diversity (slide 16), predators (Memo 12, 15, 25)

No trend in aggregate sharks

Gray seals increasing

  • Breeding season ~ 27,000 US gray seals, Canada's population ~ 425,000 (2016)
  • Canada's population increasing at ~ 4% per year
  • U.S. pupping sites increased from 1 (1988) to 9 (2019)
  • Harbor and gray seals are generalist predators that consume more than 30 different prey species: red, white and silver hake, sand lance, yellowtail flounder, four-spotted flounder, Gulf-stream flounder, haddock, herring, redfish, and squids.

Implications: stable predator populations suggest stable predation pressure on managed species, but increasing predator populations may reflect increasing predation pressure.

28 / 36

A survey conducted in 2021 in both countries will provide updated estimates of abundance.

Risks: Habitat climate vulnerability   New, opportunity to refine habitat risks

Indicators: climate sensitive species life stages mapped to climate vulnerable habitats

See EAFM risk assessment for example species narratives

29 / 36

Implications: Climate change and managed species   Risk elements unchanged, new info:

Climate: 6 low, 3 low-mod, 4 mod-high, 1 high risk

Multiple drivers with different impacts by species

  • Chesapeake Bay warm winter, low freshwater flow

    • Striped bass poor recruitment observed
      • plankton prey too early?
      • poor plankton transport?
    • Blue crab better survival over winter
  • Ocean acidification impact on shellfish growth

    • Surfclams vulnerable to increased temperature and acidification
    • Areas of low pH identified in surfclam and scallop habitat
    • Lab work in progress identified pH thresholds for surfclam growth: approaching threshold

DistShift: 2 low, 9 mod-high, 3 high risk species

Shifting species distributions alter both species interactions, fishery interactions, and expected management outcomes from spatial allocations and bycatch measures based on historical fish and protected species distributions.

black sea bass survey distribution change over time from 2018 SOE

30 / 36

Risks: Offshore Wind Development   Element: OceanUse

Indicators: development timeline, revenue in lease areas, survey overlap (full map) Rate and extend of offshore wind devevelopment by project end year

31 / 36

Risks: Offshore Wind Development   Element: OceanUse

Implications:

  • Current plans for rapid buildout of offshore wind in a patchwork of areas spreads the impacts differentially throughout the region

  • 2-24% of total average revenue for major Mid-Atlantic commercial species in lease areas could be displaced if all sites are developed. Displaced fishing effort can alter fishing methods, which can in turn change habitat, species (managed and protected), and fleet interactions.

  • Right whales may be displaced, and altered local oceanography could affect distribution of their zooplankton prey.

  • Scientific data collection surveys for ocean and ecosystem conditions, fish, and protected species will be altered, potentially increasing uncertainty for management decision making.

32 / 36

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
  • Butterfish B status risk increased from lowest to low-mod (below Bmsy)

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
  • Allocation risk decreased for 4 fisheries from high to low (intermediate rankings not applied)
  • Black sea bass regulatory complexity risk decreased from highest to mod-high
33 / 36

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

Habitat vulnerability analysis writeups--comments?

Contributors - THANK YOU!

The New England and Mid-Atlantic SOEs made possible by (at least) 52 contributors from 10 institutions

Andy Beet
Kimberly Bastille
Ruth Boettcher (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries)
Mandy Bromilow (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Zhuomin Chen (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Joseph Caracappa
Doug Christel (GARFO)
Patricia Clay
Lisa Colburn
Jennifer Cudney (NMFS Atlantic HMS Management Division)
Tobey Curtis (NMFS Atlantic HMS Management Division)
Geret DePiper
Emily Farr (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Michael Fogarty
Paula Fratantoni
Kevin Friedland
Sarah Gaichas
Ben Galuardi (GARFO)
Avijit Gangopadhyay (School for Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth)
James Gartland (Virginia Institute of Marine Science)
Glen Gawarkiewicz (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Sean Hardison
Kimberly Hyde
John Kosik
Steve Kress (National Audubon Society’s Seabird Restoration Program)
Young-Oh Kwon (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

Scott Large
Andrew Lipsky
Sean Lucey Don Lyons (National Audubon Society’s Seabird Restoration Program)
Chris Melrose
Shannon Meseck
Ryan Morse
Kimberly Murray
Chris Orphanides
Richard Pace
Charles Perretti
CJ Pellerin (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Grace Roskar (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Grace Saba (Rutgers)
Vincent Saba
Chris Schillaci (GARFO)
Angela Silva
Emily Slesinger (Rutgers University)
Laurel Smith
Talya tenBrink (GARFO)
Bruce Vogt (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Ron Vogel (UMD Cooperative Institute for Satellite Earth System Studies and NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research)
John Walden
Harvey Walsh
Changhua Weng
Mark Wuenschel

34 / 36

References

Bastille, K. et al. (2020). "Improving the IEA Approach Using Principles of Open Data Science". In: Coastal Management 0.0. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155, pp. 1-18. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155 (visited on Dec. 09, 2020).

DePiper, G. S. et al. (2017). "Operationalizing integrated ecosystem assessments within a multidisciplinary team: lessons learned from a worked example". En. In: ICES Journal of Marine Science 74.8, pp. 2076-2086. ISSN: 1054-3139. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsx038. URL: https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/74/8/2076/3094701 (visited on Mar. 09, 2018).

Muffley, B. et al. (2020). "There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management". In: Coastal Management 0.0. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156, pp. 1-17. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156 (visited on Dec. 09, 2020).

Additional resources

35 / 36

Discussion

  1. Feedback on structure?
  2. Feedback on synthesis themes? multiple drivers, regime shifts, system reorganization
  3. Feedback on Memo points?
    • 1 to 18 included in SOE
    • 19 to 25 in progress
    • 26 to 33 less progress
  4. Prorities for 2022, risk assessment updates?

Thank you!

36 / 36

SOE has been like an annual benchmark with new data and structure... hold pattern for a few years?

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

  • Ecosystem indicators linked to management objectives (DePiper, et al., 2017)

    • Contextual information
    • Report evolving since 2016
    • Fishery-relevant subset of full Ecosystem Status Reports
  • Open science emphasis (Bastille, et al., 2020)

  • Used within Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Ecosystem Process (Muffley, et al., 2020)

2 / 36
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