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

Using Ecosystem Information in the
Stock Assessment and Advice Process

SCS7 Keynote 2
15 August 2022

Sarah Gaichas
Northeast Fisheries Science Center

With thanks to Brandon Muffley (MAFMC)

1 / 28

US Policy defines EBFM as:

A systematic approach to fisheries management in a geographically specified area that contributes to the resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem; recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social interactions among the affected fishery-related components of the ecosystem, including humans; and seeks to optimize benefits among a diverse set of societal goals.

relating environment marine habitat and the marine community to human activities social systems and objectives

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/ecosystem-based-fisheries-management-policy

2 / 28

We can and should include ecosystem information directly in stock assessments: ESPs are great!

schematic of northeast ESP process

slide courtesy Scott Large

3 / 28

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.

Ecosystem information can be used in decisions even if not directly in the stock assessment

Pathways for scientific advice from the northeast ESP process

slide courtesy Scott Large

4 / 28

Goal: increased range of opportunities for relevant ecosystem information to be considered in management decision processes

Outline

  • What types of decisions do we need to make?

    • Acceptable Biological Catch determination
    • Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Approach (EAFM)
    • Multispecies and system level tradeoffs

  • How can ecosystem information support these decisions?

    • Key tools: ecosystem reporting, risk assessment, managment strategy evaluation
    • Developing decision processes along with products

Word cloud based on Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council EAFM Guidance Document

EAFM Policy Guidance Doc Word Cloud

5 / 28

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC)

US East Coast map highlighting Mid-Atlantic council jurisdiction

MAFMC fishery management plans and species

Source: http://www.mafmc.org/fishery-management-plans
6 / 28

Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) determination: MAFMC approach

Council Risk Policy

ABC proportion of OFL given OFL CV

See MAFMC ABC control rule and update for 2020 MAFMC risk policy

7 / 28

How to get the OFL CV? Characterizing scientific uncertainty

SSC evaluates 9 criteria

  1. Data quality
  2. Model appropriateness
  3. Retrospective analysis
  4. Comparison with simpler analysis
  5. Ecosystem factors
  6. Recruitment trends
  7. Prediction error
  8. Informative F
  9. Simulations/MSE

5. Informed by ecosystem factors or comparisons with other species

a. Stock-relevant ecosystem factors directly included in the assessment model, e.g.,:

  • Environmentally dependent growth or other population processes;
  • Factors limiting/enhancing stock productivity (habitat quality, etc.);
  • Predation, disease, or episodic environmental mortality (e.g., red tide);

b. Ecosystem factors outside the stock assessment affecting short term prediction

  • General measures of ecosystem productivity and habitat stability (e.g., primary production amount and timing, temperature trends, etc.);
  • Comparisons among related species; e.g., recruitment, growth, condition patterns across Mid Atlantic fish species stable, varying synchronously, or varying unpredictably;
  • Climate vulnerability or other risk assessment evaluation of potential for changing productivity under changing conditions.

See MAFMC SSC OFL CV Guidance Document

8 / 28

Characterizing scientific uncertainty from ecosystem factors

Decsion Criteria Default OFL CV = 60% Default OFL CV = 100% Default OFL CV = 150%
Data quality One or more synoptic surveys over stock area for multiple years. High quality monitoring of landings size and age composition. Long term, precise monitoring of discards. Landings estimates highly accurate. Low precision synoptic surveys or one or more regional surveys which lack coherency in trend. Age and/or length data available with uncertain quality. Lacking or imprecise discard estimates. Moderate accuracy of landings estimates No reliable abundance indices. Catch estimates are unreliable. No age and/or length data available or highly uncertain. Natural mortality rates are unknown or suspected to be highly variable. Incomplete or highly uncertain landings estimates
... ... ... ...
Ecosystem factors accounted Assessment considered habitat and ecosystem effects on stock productivity, distribution, mortality and quantitatively included appropriate factors reducing uncertainty in short term predictions. Evidence outside the assessment suggests that ecosystem productivity and habitat quality are stable. Comparable species in the region have synchronous production characteristics and stable short-term predictions. Climate vulnerability analysis suggests low risk of change in productivity due to changing climate. Assessment considered habitat/ecosystem factors but did not demonstrate either reduced or inflated short-term prediction uncertainty based on these factors. Evidence outside the assessment suggests that ecosystem productivity and habitat quality are variable, with mixed productivity and uncertainty signals among comparable species in the region. Climate vulnerability analysis suggests moderate risk of change in productivity from changing climate. Assessment either demonstrated that including appropriate ecosystem/habitat factors increases short-term prediction uncertainty, or did not consider habitat and ecosystem factors. Evidence outside the assessment suggests that ecosystem productivity and habitat quality are variable and degrading. Comparable species in the region have high uncertainty in short term predictions. Climate vulnerability analysis suggests high risk of changing productivity from changing climate.
9 / 28

Making improved use of ecosystem information in OFL CV decisions

MAFMC SSC Eco WG decisions

MAFMC SSC Ecosystem WG update

10 / 28

SSC Ecosystem working group analyses in progress

  • Using explicit ecosystem drivers in OFL CV decision
    • For selected stocks representing a range of life history types
      • Which ecosystem factors affect uncertainty in current stock biomass and Fmsy?
      • Conceptual model mapping ecosystem factors to stock processes
      • Which current ecosystem indicators best match relevant ecosystem factors?
      • Simulation analysis: do changes in those indicators predictably change uncertainty?
  • Starting with existing summer flounder MSE framework, focusing on recruitment drivers
  • Evaluating both benefits of correct decision and costs of incorrect decision
11 / 28

SSC Ecosystem working group analyses in progress

  • Using explicit ecosystem drivers in OFL CV decision
    • For selected stocks representing a range of life history types
      • Which ecosystem factors affect uncertainty in current stock biomass and Fmsy?
      • Conceptual model mapping ecosystem factors to stock processes
      • Which current ecosystem indicators best match relevant ecosystem factors?
      • Simulation analysis: do changes in those indicators predictably change uncertainty?
  • Starting with existing summer flounder MSE framework, focusing on recruitment drivers
  • Evaluating both benefits of correct decision and costs of incorrect decision
  • Outlining multispecies and system level advice: identify initial priorities in collaboration with Council
    • Where are there multispecies/multifleet tradeoffs linking to economic and social outcomes?
    • Are there multi-indicator thresholds suggesting when FMP level management needs to change?
    • Are there changes in ecosystem productivity that imply standardized approaches for
      • Setting reference points?
      • Developing rebuilding plans?
      • Other analyses requiring short-term projections?
  • More direct SSC involvement in ecosystem reporting priorities MAFMC EAFM
  • Evaluate current multispecies indicators for common signals
  • Evaluate proposed ecosystem-level reference points and thresholds for regional ecosystems
12 / 28

Integrated Ecosystem Assessment and the MAFMC Ecosystem Approach

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

IEA process from goal setting to assessment to strategy evaluation with feedbacks

https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/national/IEA-approach

Mid-Atlantic EAFM framework with full details in speaker notes

  • Direct link between ecosystem reporting and risk assessment
  • Conceptual model links across risk elements for fisheries, species
  • Management strategy evaluation includes key risks

    https://www.mafmc.org/eafm

13 / 28

The Council’s EAFM framework has similarities to the IEA loop. 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.

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

2022 SOE Mid Atlantic Cover Page

14 / 28

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2022:

Performance relative to management objectives

Seafood production decreasing arrow icon, status not evaluated

Profits decreasing arrow icon, status not evaluated

Recreational opportunities: Effort increasing arrow icon above average icon icon; Effort diversity decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon

Stability: Fishery no trend icon near average icon icon; Ecological mixed trend icon near average icon icon

Social and cultural, trend not evaluated, status of:

  • Fishing engagement and reliance by community
  • Environmental Justice (EJ) Vulnerability by community

Protected species:

  • Maintain bycatch below thresholds mixed trend icon meeting objectives icon
  • Recover endangered populations (NARW) decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon
15 / 28

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2022:

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Climate: warming and changing oceanography continue

  • Heat waves and Gulf Stream instability
  • Estuarine, coastal, and offshore habitats affected, with range of species responses
  • Below average summer 2021 phytoplankton
  • Multiple fish with poor condition, declining productivity

Other ocean uses: offshore wind development

  • Current revenue in proposed areas
    • 1-31% by port (some with EJ concerns)
    • 0-20% by managed species
  • Different development impacts for species preferring soft bottom vs. hard bottom
  • Overlap with one of the only known right whale foraging habitats, increased vessel strike and noise risks
  • Rapid buildout in patchwork of areas
  • Scientific survey mitigation required
16 / 28

Implications: Climate change and managed species

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

Multiple drivers with different impacts by species

  • Seasonal estuarine conditions affect life stages of striped bass, blue crabs, summer flounder, black sea bass differently
    • Chesapeake summer hypoxia, temperature better than in past years, but worse in fall
    • Habitat improving in some areas (tidal fresh SAV, oyster reefs), but eelgrass declining
  • Ocean acidification impact on vulnerable surfclams
    • Areas of low pH identified in surfclam and scallop habitat
    • Lab work identified pH thresholds for surfclam growth
  • Warm core rings important to Illex availability. Fishing effort concentrates on the eastern edge of warm core rings, where upwelling and enhanced productivity ocurr

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

17 / 28

State of the Ecosystem → MAFMC 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

18 / 28

State of the Ecosystem → MAFMC 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

SOE Implications: 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
18 / 28

EAFM Risk Assessment: 2022 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
Chub mackerel highest lowmod lowmod lowest lowest lowest na na 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
  • Chub mackerel were added to the table

Ecosystem level risk elements

System EcoProd CommRev RecVal FishRes1 FishRes4 FleetDiv Social ComFood RecFood
Mid-Atlantic lowmod modhigh lowmod lowest modhigh lowest lowmod highest modhigh
  • Recreational value risk decreased from high to low-moderate

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 lowest
Scup-R lowmod lowest lowmod modhigh modhigh highest
Scup-C lowest lowmod modhigh modhigh modhigh lowest
Black sea bass-R highest lowest modhigh modhigh highest highest
Black sea bass-C highest lowmod highest modhigh highest lowest
Atl. mackerel-R lowmod lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest
Atl. mackerel-C lowest lowmod modhigh highest lowmod highest
Butterfish-C lowest lowmod modhigh modhigh modhigh lowest
Longfin squid-C lowest modhigh highest modhigh highest lowest
Shortfin squid-C lowmod lowmod lowmod modhigh lowest highest
Golden tilefish-R na lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Golden tilefish-C lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Blueline tilefish-R lowmod lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest
Blueline tilefish-C lowmod lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest
Bluefish-R lowmod lowest lowest lowmod modhigh highest
Bluefish-C lowest lowest lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest
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
  • 4 Allocation risks decreased from high to low
  • 4 Regulatory complexity risks decreased, 2 increased
  • Management control risk increased for blueline tilefish fisheries to low-moderate
19 / 28

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

How is MAFMC using the risk assessment?

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

Mid-Atlantic EAFM framework

  • Council proceeding with management strategy evaluation (MSE) addressing recreational fishery discards using information from conceptual modeling.
20 / 28

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).

MSE results: including the ecosystem

Summer flounder MSE results by OM

August MAFMC briefing materials and full results on the web

21 / 28
  • Linked recreational demand and population dynamics model
  • Alternative operating model included northward distribution shift as change in availability by state
  • Rank order of management options maintained, but degraded performance when considering ecosystem change

System level decisions: Are we observing multispecies shifts?

Indicator: fish condition

  • Work in progress relating to multiple drivers and markets
  • Stock level condition drivers --> decision on butterfish recruitment stanza for projections

Indicator: fish productivity anomaly

  • Related to multiple drivers (Perretti, et al., 2017)
  • Multispecies projection and reference point implications
22 / 28

System level decisions: Are we observing multispecies shifts?

23 / 28

System level decisions: Ecosystem Overfishing Indicators

Operational thresholds for management?

SSC currently discussing:

Figure key:

Orange background = Tipping point overfishing threshold, Link and Watson 2019

Green background = Optimal range, Link and Watson 2019

24 / 28

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.

Next steps

Simulation analysis

Simulation analysis

Simulation analysis

25 / 28

Next steps

Simulation analysis

Simulation analysis

Simulation analysis

Focus on developing decision processes that are able to use ecosystem information

  • Collaborative, iterative process between scientists, managers, stakeholders
  • Ecosystem reporting, risk and vulnerablity assessment useful tools
  • Stock level ESPs a good example
  • Multispecies and system level indicators of productivity change and overexploitation
25 / 28

Additional resources

References

Bastille, K. et al. (2021). "Improving the IEA Approach Using Principles of Open Data Science". In: Coastal Management 49.1. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155, pp. 72-89. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155 (visited on Apr. 16, 2021).

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).

DePiper, G. et al. (2021). "Learning by doing: collaborative conceptual modelling as a path forward in ecosystem-based management". In: ICES Journal of Marine Science. ISSN: 1054-3139. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsab054. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab054 (visited on Apr. 15, 2021).

Gaichas, S. K. et al. (2018). "Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic". In: Frontiers in Marine Science 5. ISSN: 2296-7745. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00442. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00442/abstract (visited on Nov. 20, 2018).

Muffley, B. et al. (2021). "There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management". In: Coastal Management 49.1. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156, pp. 90-106. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156 (visited on Apr. 16, 2021).

Perretti, C. et al. (2017). "Regime shifts in fish recruitment on the Northeast US Continental Shelf". En. In: Marine Ecology Progress Series 574, pp. 1-11. ISSN: 0171-8630, 1616-1599. DOI: 10.3354/meps12183. URL: http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v574/p1-11/ (visited on Feb. 10, 2022).

26 / 28

Questions?

Thank you

27 / 28

Where can environmental change come in? National standard 1

(v) Specifying MSY. (A) ... MSY ... should be re-estimated as required by changes in long-term environmental or ecological conditions, fishery technological characteristics, or new scientific information.
...
(C) The MSY for a stock or stock complex is influenced by its interactions with other stocks in its ecosystem and these interactions may shift as multiple stocks in an ecosystem are fished. Ecological and environmental information should be taken into account, to the extent practicable, when assessing stocks and specifying MSY. Ecological and environmental information that is not directly accounted for in the specification of MSY can be among the ecological factors considered when setting OY below MSY.

(iii) Relationship of Status Determination Criteria (SDC) to environmental and habitat change. ...
(A) If environmental changes cause a stock or stock complex to fall below its MSST without affecting its long-term reproductive potential, fishing mortality must be constrained sufficiently to allow rebuilding within an acceptable time frame .... SDC should not be respecified.

(B) If environmental, ecosystem, or habitat changes affect the long-term reproductive potential of the stock or stock complex, one or more components of the SDC must be respecified. Once SDC have been respecified, fishing mortality may or may not have to be reduced, depending on the status of the stock or stock complex with respect to the new criteria.

28 / 28

US Policy defines EBFM as:

A systematic approach to fisheries management in a geographically specified area that contributes to the resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem; recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social interactions among the affected fishery-related components of the ecosystem, including humans; and seeks to optimize benefits among a diverse set of societal goals.

relating environment marine habitat and the marine community to human activities social systems and objectives

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/ecosystem-based-fisheries-management-policy

2 / 28
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