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

Delivering climate, ecosystem,
and socioeconomic observations
to fishery managers

Integrated ecosystem reporting and risk assessment
for the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

ECCWO5
21 April 2023

Sarah K. Gaichas1, Brandon Muffley2, Geret DePiper1, Kimberly Bastille1, 3,
Kimberly J. W. Hyde1, Scott Large1, Sean M. Lucey1, and Laurel Smith1

1NOAA NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, USA;
2Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, DE, USA;
3Ocean Associates Inc, Arlington, VA, USA

1 / 20

Goal: include climate and ecosystem information in management decision processes

Overview

  • What types of decisions are made?

    • Single species catch limits
    • Allocations to fleets or areas
    • Coordination across boundaries and sectors
    • Multispecies and ecosystem level tradeoffs
  • How can ecosystem information support these decisions?

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

EAFM Policy Guidance Doc Word Cloud

2 / 20

Recommendations

Overall:

  • Show up to management meetings. Regularly.

  • Center on management objectives.

  • Focus on management implications.

  • Listen, and respond to requests.

  • Iterate.

3 / 20

Recommendations

Overall:

  • Show up to management meetings. Regularly.

  • Center on management objectives.

  • Focus on management implications.

  • Listen, and respond to requests.

  • Iterate.

"How can we use this?"

  • Collaborate across disciplines, with managers and stakeholders.

  • Prepare some examples.

  • Expect them to be changed!

  • Listen, and respond to requests.

  • Iterate.

3 / 20

Background: Federal fishery management in the US

Eight regional Fishery Management Councils establish plans for sustainable management of stocks within their jurisdictions. All are governed by the same law, but tailor management to their regional stakeholder needs.

US map highlighting regions for each fishery management council

4 / 20

Northeast US State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

2023 SOE Mid Atlantic Cover Page

5 / 20

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 / 20

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
  3. Risks to meeting management objectives

State of the Ecosystem page 1 summary tableState of the Ecosystem page 2 risk bullets

Ecosystem-scale fishery management objectives
Objective Categories Indicators reported
Provisioning and Cultural Services
Seafood Production Landings; commercial total and by feeding guild; recreational harvest
Profits Revenue decomposed to price and volume
Recreation Angler trips; recreational fleet diversity
Stability Diversity indices (fishery and ecosystem)
Social & Cultural Community engagement/reliance and environmental justice 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
7 / 20

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2023:

Performance relative to management objectives

Seafood production decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon

Profits decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon

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
8 / 20

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2023:

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
  • Distribution shifts complicate management
  • Multiple fish with poor condition, declining productivity

Other ocean uses: offshore wind development

  • Current revenue in proposed areas
    • 1-34% by port (some with EJ concerns)
    • up to 17% by managed species
  • Different development impacts for species preferring soft bottom vs. hard bottom
  • Overlap with important right whale foraging habitats, increased vessel strike and noise risks
  • Rapid buildout in patchwork of areas
  • Scientific survey mitigation required

 
 
     
 

9 / 20

Risks: Climate change Mid Atlantic

Indicators: ocean currents, temperature, seasons

The Gulf Stream is trending north. Ocean summer is lasting longer. In contrast to SST, long term bottom temperature is increasing in all seasons. Few surface and no bottom extreme warming events in 2022.

10 / 20

Seasonal sea surface temperatures in 2022 were above average for most of the year, however late spring storms caused deep mixing, which delayed stratification and surface warming in late spring and early summer. A combination of long-term ocean warming and extreme events should be used to assess total heat stress on marine organisms

Implications: Climate change and Mid-Atlantic 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

  • Ocean acidification approaching sensitivity thresholds in commercial shellfish habitats

  • Gulf stream warm core rings more abundant, important to shortfin squid availability

 
 
     

*Climate vulnerability and Distribution Shift risk levels from climate vulnerability analysis (Hare et al., 2016)

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

  • Managed species shifts already impacting allocation discussions

New Indicator: protected species shifts

11 / 20

SOE use in management: 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
12 / 20

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. https://www.mafmc.org/eafm

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
13 / 20

(Gaichas et al., 2016) 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 → 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

14 / 20

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
14 / 20

EAFM Risk Assessment: 2023 Update (all methods to be reviewed/revised this year)

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 highest 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 lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh highest
Spiny dogfish lowest highest 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
  • RT assessment decreased Spiny dogfish Assess, risk to low and increased Fstatus risk to high
  • RT assessment decreased bluefish Bstatus risk from high to low-moderate
  • RT assessment increased Illex Assess risk from low-moderate to high

Ecosystem level risk elements

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

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
  • Management section not updated--to be revised this year
15 / 20

SOE use in management: MAFMC

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

Mid-Atlantic EAFM framework

16 / 20

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: can improve on current management, but distribution shifts lower expectations

Summer flounder MSE results by OM

17 / 20

Entry points for ecosystem information in management decisions: where to start?

Management decisions

  1. What are our issues and goals?
  2. Current decisions
    • Stock assessments
    • Advice on catch levels
    • Harvest control rules
  3. New (current) decisions
    • Habitat change or restoration
    • Changing species distribution and interactions
    • Tradeoffs between fisheries
    • Tradeoffs between ocean use sectors

Methods and tools

  1. Stakeholder engagement, surveys, strategic planning
  2. Add information to current process
    • Ecosystem ToRs, overviews, SOE
    • Risk or uncertainty assessments
    • Management strategy evaluation
  3. Integrate across current processes
    • Risk assessment
    • Conceptual models
    • Scenario planning
    • MSE (again)

State of the Ecosystem data on github https://github.com/NOAA-EDAB/ecodata

18 / 20

Questions?

Thank you

19 / 20

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).

Gaichas, S. K. et al. (2016). "A Framework for Incorporating Species, Fleet, Habitat, and Climate Interactions into Fishery Management". In: Frontiers in Marine Science 3. ISSN: 2296-7745. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00105. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2016.00105/full (visited on Apr. 29, 2020).

Hare, J. A. et al. (2016). "A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf". In: PLOS ONE 11.2, p. e0146756. ISSN: 1932-6203. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146756. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146756 (visited on Mar. 01, 2016).

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).

20 / 20

Goal: include climate and ecosystem information in management decision processes

Overview

  • What types of decisions are made?

    • Single species catch limits
    • Allocations to fleets or areas
    • Coordination across boundaries and sectors
    • Multispecies and ecosystem level tradeoffs
  • How can ecosystem information support these decisions?

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

EAFM Policy Guidance Doc Word Cloud

2 / 20
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