Our ESP process was developed from the AFSC process, but we adjusted things slightly because of how our benchmarks are scheduled and because we are providing scientific advice to multiple Councils.

The ESP framework is an iterative cycle that complements the stock assessment cycle. First I will give you an overview of the ESP cycle, and then I will explain each step in more detail. The ESP begins with the development of the problem statement by identifying the topics that the assessment working group and ESP team want to assess. This process includes a literature review or other method of gathering existing information on the stock, such as reviewing prior assessments and research recommendations. Next, a conceptual model is created that links important processes and pressures to stock performance. From these linkages, we develop indicators that can be used to monitor the system conditions. Next, the indicators are analyzed to determine their status and the likely impacts on the stock. Some indicators may be tested for inclusion in assessment models. Finally, all of these analyses are synthesized into a report card to provide general recommendations for fishery management.

Changes: Recreational value decreased from high to low-mod 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

Declining commercial and recreational landings can be driven by many interacting factors, including combinations of ecosystem and stock production, management actions, market conditions, and environmental change. While we cannot evaluate all possible drivers at present, here we evaluate the extent to which ecosystem overfishing (total landings exceeding ecosystem productive capacity), stock status, and system biomass trends may play a role.

The NEFMC is developing an example fishery ecosystem plan that will

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).

aa with management with management strategy evaluation (MSE)strategy evaluation (MSE)

• 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 and supporting information at December 2019 Council meeting