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

State of the Ecosystem: 2022 Overview

11 May 2022

Kimberly Bastille1,2

Sarah Gaichas1, Sean Lucey1,
Geret DePiper1, Kimberly Hyde1, Laurel Smith1, and Scott Large1


Northeast Fisheries Science Center1
Ocean Associates Inc.2

1 / 30

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers using Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Approach (IEA)


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

  • Two annual reports evolving since 2016

    • Contextual information
    • Fishery-relevant subset of full Ecosystem Status Reprorts
  • Open science emphasis (Bastille, et al., 2020)

2 / 30

State of the Ecosystem: Report Structure

  1. Graphical summary
    • Page 1 report card re: objectives →
    • Page 2 risk summary bullets
    • Page 3 synthesis themes
  2. 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
  3. Risks to meeting management objectives
    • Climate Change/Ecosystem Productivity
    • Other ocean uses: Offshore Wind Development
Example 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 / 30

Report card page 1 and 2

State of the Ecosystem page 1 summary table

State of the Ecosystem page 2 summary table

4 / 30

Graphical summary of ecosystem synthesis themes, page 4

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.

5 / 30

Document Orientation

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

A glossary of terms, 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

6 / 30

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

7 / 30

Objective: New England Seafood Production decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon

Indicators: Commercial landings

Key: Black = Landings of all species combined;

Red = Landings of NEFMC managed species

Multiple drivers: ecosystem and stock production, management, market conditions (including COVID-19 disruptions), and environmental change

8 / 30

Indicators: Revenue and Bennet Index of Price and Volume

Key: Black = Revenue of all species combined;

Red = Revenue of NEFMC managed species

  • Driven by single species.
  • GB: Fluctuations associated with rotational management areas.
  • GB: High revenue caused by high volume/price from scallops.

  • GOM: Total regional revenue high due to high lobster prices, despite lower volume.
9 / 30

Objective: Mid-Atlantic Recreational Opportunities increasing arrow icon above average icon icon; decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon

Indicators: Recreational effort and fleet diversity

Implications:

  • Increased angler trips in 2020 relative to previous years strongly influence the long term increase in recreational effort. Recreational effort (angler trips) has increased over the long term, with 2020 effort above the long-term average.
  • 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.

10 / 30

Objective: New England Stability decreasing arrow icon Com below average icon icon; Rec near average icon icon

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

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

Implications:

  • Commercial fishery diversity driven by small number of species
  • Diminished capacity to respond to future fishing opportunities
  • Recreational diversity due to species distributions and regulations
  • Adult diversity in GOM suggests increase in warm-water species
11 / 30
  • Overall stability in the fisheries and ecosystem components
  • Increasing diversity in several indicators warrants continued monitoring

Objective: Mid-Atlantic Environmental Justice and Social Vulnerability  

Indicators: Environmental justice vulnerability, commercial fishery engagement and reliance

Implications: Highlighted communities may be vulnerable to changes in fishing patterns due to regulations and/or climate change. When also experiencing environmental justice issues, they may have lower ability to successfully respond to change.

12 / 30

Indicators: Harbor porpoise and gray seal bycatch

Implications:

  • Currently meeting objectives

  • 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.

13 / 30

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.

  • Additional potential stressors include offshore wind development, which overlaps with important habitat areas used year-round by right whales, including mother and calf migration corridors and foraging habitat.

  • Unusual mortality events continue for 3 large whale species.

14 / 30

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

15 / 30

Risks: Climate Change

Indicators: MAB surface and bottom temperature

Indicators: MAB marine heatwaves

16 / 30

Risks: Climate change

Indicators: ocean currents

Indicator: warm core rings

Warm core rings June 2021

17 / 30

Risks: Climate change

Indicator: cold pool indices

Indicator: ocean acidifictaion

Seasonal pH

Implications: Changes in cold pool could have impacts on multiple managed species. Areas of lower pH are in known surfclam habitat.

18 / 30

Risks: Climate change and estuarine habitat  

Indicators: Chesapeake Bay temperature

Indicator: SAV trends in Chesapeake Bay

Indicator: water quality attainment

19 / 30

Risks: Ecosystem productivity

Indicators: chlorophyll, primary production, phytoplankton size class

Implications: increased production by smaller phytoplankton implies less efficient transfer of primary production to higher trophic levels.

20 / 30

Risks: Ecosystem productivity

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

21 / 30

Risks: Ecosystem productivity

Indicator: fish condition

Indicator: fish productivity anomaly

Implications: Most species in the MAB had below average or poor condition again in 2021. Preliminary results of synthetic analyses show that changes in temperature, zooplankton, fishing pressure, and population size influence the condition of different fish species.

22 / 30

Risks: Ecosystem Structure

Indicator: species distribution

Implications: Species as a whole moving could mean new species interactions and potential for fishers.

23 / 30

Risks: Ecosystem structure

Indicators: predator status and trends

Implications: No trend in aggregate sharks and HMS populations mainly at or above taget. Stable predator populations suggest stable predation pressure on managed species, but increasing seal populations may reflect increasing predation pressure.

24 / 30

Risks: Habitat climate vulnerability

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

25 / 30

Risks: Offshore Wind Development

Indicators: development timeline, fishery and community specific revenue in lease areas

26 / 30

Risks: Offshore Wind Development

Implications:

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

  • Development will affect species differently, negatively affecting species that prefer soft bottom habitat while potentially benefiting species that prefer hard structured habitat.

  • Up to 20% of annual commercial landings and revenue for Mid-Atlantic species occur in lease areas.

27 / 30

Contributors - THANK YOU!

The New England and Mid-Atlantic SOEs made possible by (at least) 61 contributors from 14 institutions

Kimberly Bastille
Aaron Beaver (Anchor QEA)
Andy Beet
Ruth Boettcher (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries)
Mandy Bromilow (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Zhuomin Chen (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute)
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
Dan Dorfman (NOAA-NOS-NCCOS)
Emily Farr (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Michael Fogarty
Paula Fratantoni
Kevin Friedland
Marjy Friedrichs (VIMS)
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 Institute)

Scott Large
Andrew Lipsky
Sean Lucey
Don Lyons (National Audubon Society’s Seabird Restoration Program)
Chris Melrose
Shannon Meseck
Ryan Morse
Brandon Muffley (MAFMC)
Kimberly Murray
Chris Orphanides
Richard Pace
Tom Parham (Maryland DNR) Charles Perretti
CJ Pellerin (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Grace Roskar (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Grace Saba (Rutgers)
Vincent Saba
Chris Schillaci (GARFO)
Dave Secor (CBL)
Angela Silva
Adrienne Silver (UMass/SMAST)
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

28 / 30

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).

Additional resources

29 / 30











Thank you!

Questions?

30 / 30

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers using Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Approach (IEA)


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

  • Two annual reports evolving since 2016

    • Contextual information
    • Fishery-relevant subset of full Ecosystem Status Reprorts
  • Open science emphasis (Bastille, et al., 2020)

2 / 30
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