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

State of the Ecosystem
Mid Atlantic 2024

Request Tracking, Risk Assessment Update,
and Ecosystem Working Group Report
MAFMC SSC
19 March 2024

Sarah Gaichas, Andy Beet, Brandon Beltz, Joseph Caracappa, Geret DePiper, Kimberly Hyde, Scott Large, Sean Lucey, Laurel Smith
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Brandon Muffley, MAFMC
and all SOE contributors

1 / 44

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

The IEA Loop1 IEA process from goal setting to assessment to strategy evaluation with feedbacks

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

2 / 44

State of the Ecosystem: Maintain 2021-2023 structure for 2024*

2024 Report Structure

  1. Graphical summary
    • Page 1 report card re: objectives →
    • Page 2 risk summary bullets
    • Page 3 *2023 snapshot
  2. Performance relative to management objectives
  3. Risks to meeting management objectives
    • *Climate and Ecosystem risks
    • Offshore wind development

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
3 / 44
  • except for 2 synthetic replacements

Ecosystem synthesis themes: still framing! but replace p.3 with 2023 Highlights

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.

4 / 44

State of the Ecosystem report scale and figures

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

A glossary of terms, detailed technical methods documentation, and indicator data and catalog 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

5 / 44

Report structure 2024: same as 2021-2023 with more management risk emphasis

  • 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
    • Same What and Why as Performance Section
    • New structure for Climate section
      • Fishery risk indicator
      • Climate and ecosystem drivers of fishery risk
      • Future considerations
  • Risk categories
    • Climate and Ecosystem Change
      • Risk to spatial management
      • Risk to seasonal management
      • Risk to quota setting/rebuilding
    • Other ocean uses
      • Offshore wind development
6 / 44

2024 State of the Ecosystem Request tracking memo

7 / 44

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2024:

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 (harbor porpoise, gray seals) mixed trend icon meeting objectives icon
  • Recover endangered populations (NARW) decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon
8 / 44

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2024:

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Climate: risks to spatial and seasonal management, quota setting and rebuilding

  • Fish and protected species distribution shifts
  • Changing spawning and migration timing
  • Multiple stocks with poor condition, declining productivity

Other ocean uses: offshore wind development

  • Current revenue in proposed areas
    • 1-23% by port (some with EJ concerns)
    • up to 20% by managed species
  • Overlap with important right whale foraging habitats, increased vessel strike and noise risks
9 / 44

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2024:

New section this year: 2023 Highlights

Notable 2023 events and conditions

  • South Fork Wind and Vineyard Wind 1 construction started
  • Scallop die-off elephant trunk 2022-2023
  • Hypoxia and mortality events in NJ coastal ocean this summer
  • Record low hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay
  • GOM summer phytoplankton bloom off the scale
  • 2nd ranked GOM bottom heatwave
  • Warm water everywhere EXCEPT in Spring on the NEUS shelf
  • Gulf Stream changes altering shelf break habitats
  • El Nino. Warmest year on record globally. Again.
10 / 44

2024 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

11 / 44

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

Indicator: Commercial landings

Indicators: Recreational harvest

Multiple potential drivers of landings changes: ecosystem and stock production, management actions, market conditions, and environmental change.

12 / 44

The long-term declining trend in landings didn't change.

Mid Atlantic Landings drivers: Stock status? TAC?   Risk elements: Fstatus, Bstatus, MgtControl

Indicator: Stock status

Most stocks have good status. Spiny dogfish B and F status have improved. Mackerel F status has improved, but B is still below the threshold. Summer flounder F exceeds the limit.

Indicators: Total ABC or ACL, and Realized catch relative to management target

Few managed species have binding limits; Management less likely playing a role

13 / 44

Stock status affects catch limits established by the Council, which in turn may affect landings trends. Summed across all MAFMC managed species, total Acceptable Biological Catch or Annual Catch Limits (ABC or ACL) have been relatively stable 2012-2020 (top). With the addition of blueline tilefish management in 2017, an additional ABC and ACL contribute to the total 2017-2020. Discounting blueline tilefish, the recent total ABC or ACL is lower relative to 2012-2013, with much of that decrease due to declining Atlantic mackerel ABC.

Nevertheless, the percentage caught for each stock’s ABC/ACL suggests that these catch limits are not generally constraining as most species are well below the 1/1 ratio (bottom). Therefore, stock status and associated management constraints are unlikely to be driving decreased landings for the majority of species.

Implications: Mid Atlantic Seafood Production Drivers

Biomass does not appear to drive landings trends

Key: Black = NEFSC survey; Red = NEAMAP survey New species categories, more southern species in Benthivores

Declining managed benthos, aggregate planktivores

Markets and availability (benthos), fishery consolidation (planktivores)

Monitor:

  • Climate risks including warming, ocean acidification, and shifting distributions
  • Ecosystem composition and production changes
  • Fishing engagement
14 / 44

Stock status is above the minimum threshold for all but two stocks, and aggregate biomass trends appear stable, so the decline in managed commercial seafood landings is most likely driven by market dynamics affecting the landings of surfclams and ocean quahogs, as landings have been below quotas for these species. In addition, regional availability of scallops has contributed to the decline of benthos landings not managed by the MAFMC, with some of the most productive grounds currently closed through rotational management. The long term decline in total planktivore landings is largely driven by Atlantic menhaden fishery dynamics, including a consolidation of processors leading to reduced fishing capacity between the 1990s and mid-2000s.

Recreational drivers differ: shark fishery management, possibly survey methodology

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

Indicator: Commercial Revenue

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

15 / 44

baseline year for indicator has changed from previous reports Although the Mid-Atlantic region shows declining revenue trends since 2016, inflation-adjusted revenue from harvested species was still greater than 1982 levels until 2022. In a similar manner to seafood landings, the results here are driven in large part by market dynamics affecting the landings of surfclams and ocean quahogs, as landings have been below quotas for these species, as well as lower quotas for Atlantic scallops. The declining Benthos category since 2012 may be partially caused by decreases in surfclam and ocean quahogs in the southern part of their range as harvest have shifted northward. Changes in other indicators, particularly those driving landings and those related to climate change, require monitoring as they may become important drivers of revenue in the future; for example:

  • Surfclams, ocean quahogs, and scallops are sensitive to warming ocean temperatures and ocean acidification.
  • Multiple stressors are interacting in Mid-Atlantic shellfish habitats.

SSC request: Net vs. Gross Revenue investigations

Net revenue calculable for ~ 1/2 of the revenue generated within the Greater Atlantic Region. Trends between the total gross revenue and gross revenue for which we can estimate costs are different. Net revenue looks to be just a scaled gross revenue metric: similar trend, different magnitude.

Net revenue

Cost coverage

16 / 44

Objective: Mid Atlantic Recreational opportunities increase icon above average icon icon; decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon Risk element: RecValue, increased risk

Indicators: Recreational effort and fleet diversity

Implications

  • Adding 2022 data, recreational effort (angler trips) again has a long term increase.

  • The increasing long term trend changed the risk category for the RecValue element back to low-moderate (previously ranked low risk).

  • New risk element: Decline in recreational fleet diversity suggests a potentially reduced range of opportunities.

  • Driven by party/charter contraction and a shift toward shore based angling.

17 / 44

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: Mid Atlantic Fishery Stability no trend icon near average icon icon   Risk elements: FishRes1 and FleetDiv, unchanged

Fishery Indicators: Commercial fleet count, fleet diversity

Most recent fleet counts at low range of series

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

Most recent near series low value. Covid role?

18 / 44

Objective: Mid Atlantic Ecological Stability mixed trend icon near average icon icon   Risk element: ecological diversity (put aside)

Ecological Indicators: zooplankton and larval fish diversity (not updated)

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
19 / 44

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: Mid Atlantic Environmental Justice and Social Vulnerability   Risk element: Social

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.

20 / 44

These plots provide a snapshot of the presence of environmental justice issues in the most highly engaged and most highly reliant commercial and recreational fishing communities in the Mid-Atlantic. These 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 including environmental justice issues, they may have lower ability to successfully respond to change.

Objective: Mid Atlantic Environmental Justice and Social Vulnerability   Risk element: Social

Indicators: Environmental justice vulnerability, recreational 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.

21 / 44

Objectives: All Areas Protected species Maintain bycatch below thresholds mixed trend icon meeting objectives icon

Indicators: Harbor porpoise and gray seal bycatch

Implications:

  • Currently meeting objectives for harbor porpoise and gray seals

  • Risk element: TechInteract, evaluated by species and sector: 14 low, 7 low-mod, 2 mod-high risk, 1 improved

  • 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).

22 / 44

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

Indicators: North Atlantic right whale population, calf counts

Implications:

  • Signs the adult population stabilized 2020-2022

  • 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. 1 UME is pending closure for pinnipeds.

23 / 44

2024 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

24 / 44

REVISED Risks: Climate and Ecosystem Change

Risks to Spatial Management/Allocation

  • Indicators of Distribution Shifts
  • Drivers
  • Implications

Risks to Seasonal Management/Timed Closures

  • Indicators of Changing Timing (Phenology)
  • Drivers
  • Implications

Risks to Quota Management/Rebuilding

  • Indicators of Changing Productivity
  • Drivers
  • Implications
25 / 44

Risks to Spatial Management

Indicators: Fish distribution shifts

Cetacean distribution shifts

26 / 44

Risks to Spatial Management

Drivers: Forage shifts, temperature increase Eastward (left) and northward (right) shifts in the center of gravity for 20 forage fish species on the Northeast U.S. Shelf, with increasing trend (orange) for fall eastward and northward center of gravity.

Northeast US annual sea surface temperature (SST, black), with increasing trend (orange).

Drivers: changing ocean habitat
Index representing changes in the location of the Gulf Stream north wall (black). Positive values represent a more northerly Gulf Stream position, with increasing trend (orange).

Cold pool temperature and spatial extent

Seasonal cold pool mean temperature (left) and spatial extent index (right), based on bias-corrected ROMS-NWA (open circles) and GLORYS (closed circles), with declining trends (purple).
27 / 44

Risks to Spatial Management

Future considerations

  • Distribution shifts caused by changes in thermal habitat are likely to continue as long as long-term temperature trends persist.
  • Near-term oceanographic forecasts are currently in development and may inform how future warming impacts species distributions.
  • Increased oceanographic variability needs to be captured by regional ocean models and linked to species distribution processes to better understand potential future distributions. Species with high mobility or short lifespans react differently from immobile or long lived species.

Adapting management to changing stock distributions and dynamic ocean processes will require continued monitoring of populations in space and evaluating management measures against a range of possible future spatial distributions.

28 / 44

https://github.com/NOAA-EDAB/presentations/raw/master/docs/EDAB_images/ScenPlanningOptions.png

Risks to Seasonal Management

Indicators: spawning timing, migration change

Percent resting stage (non-spawning) mature female fish (black) with significant increases (orange) and decreases (purple) from two haddock and three yellowtail flounder stocks: CC = Cape Cod Gulf of Maine, GOM = Gulf of Maine, GB = Georges Bank, SNE = Southern New England.

  • Recreational tuna fisheries 50 days earlier in the year in 2019 compared to 2002.
  • In Cape Cod Bay, peak spring habitat use by right and humpback whales has shifted 18-19 days later over time.
29 / 44

Risks to Seasonal Management

Drivers

Ocean summer length in the MAB: the annual total number of days between the spring thermal transition date and the fall thermal transition date (black), with an increasing trend (orange).

Cold pool seasonal persistence

Cold pool persistence index based on bias-corrected ROMS-NWA (open circles) and GLORYS (closed circles).

Future considerations

  • Management actions that rely on effective alignment of fisheries availability and biological processes should continue to evaluate whether prior assumptions on seasonal timings still hold.

  • New indicators should be developed to monitor timing shifts for stocks.

30 / 44

Risks to Quota Setting/Rebuilding

Indicators: fish productivity and condition

Fish productivity measures. Left: Small fish per large fish survey biomass anomaly in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Right: assessment recruitment per spawning stock biomass anomaly for stocks mainly in the Mid-Atlantic. The summed anomaly across species is shown by the black line, drawn across all years with the same number of stocks analyzed.

31 / 44

Condition factor for fish species in the MAB based on fall NEFSC bottom trawl survey data. MAB data are missing for 2017 due to survey delays, and no survey was conducted in 2020. (Perretti, et al., 2017)

Risks to Quota Setting/Rebuilding

Drivers: Forage Quality and Abundance

Forage fish energy density mean and standard deviation by season and year, compared with 1980s (solid line) and 1990s (dashed line) values.

Forage fish index in the MAB for spring (blue) and fall (red) surveys, with a decline (purple) in fall. Index values are relative to the maximum observation within a region across surveys.

Drivers: Low tropic levels Changes in zooplankton abundance in the MAB for large (top left) and small (top right) copepods, Cnidarians (bottom left), and Euphausiids (bottom right), with significant increases (orange) in small copeods and Cnidarians.

32 / 44

Risks to Quota Setting/Rebuilding

Drivers: Environmental
2023 Thermal habitat area by depth

OA in shellfish habitat Locations where bottom aragonite saturation state ($\Omega_{Arag}$; summer only: June-August) were at or below the laboratory-derived sensitivity level for Atlantic sea scallop (left panel) and longfin squid (right panel) for the time periods 2007-2022 (dark cyan) and 2023 only (magenta). Gray circles indicate locations where bottom `\(\Omega_{Arag}\)` values were above the species specific sensitivity values..

Drivers: Predation
Seals increasing, sharks stable, 50% of HMS populations above target

33 / 44

Risks to Quota Setting/Rebuilding

Future considerations

  • There is a real risk that short-term predictions in assessments and rebuilding plans that assume unchanging underlying conditions will not be as effective, given the observed change documented in the prior sections in both ecological and environmental processes.
  • Assumptions for species’ growth, reproduction, and natural mortality should continue to be evaluated for individual species.
  • With observations of system-wide productivity shifts of multiple managed stocks, more research is needed to determine whether regime shifts or ecosystem reorganization are occurring, and how this should be incorporated into management.
34 / 44

Risks: Offshore Wind Development Mid Atlantic   Element: OceanUse

Indicators: fishery and community specific revenue in lease areas

Council request: which New England ports have significant reliance on Mid-Atlantic managed species?

35 / 44

Risks: Offshore Wind Development Summary

Implications:

  • Current plans for buildout of offshore wind in a patchwork of areas spreads the impacts differentially throughout the region
  • Planned wind areas overlap with one of the only known right whale foraging habitats, and altered local oceanography could affect right whale prey availability. Development also brings increased vessel strike risk and the potential impacts of pile driving noise.

36 / 44
  • 1-23% of port revenue from fisheries currently comes from areas proposed for offshore wind development. Some communities have environmental justice concerns and gentrification vulnerability.
  • Up to 20% of annual commercial landings and revenue for Mid-Atlantic species occur in lease areas.

Evaluating the impacts to scientific surveys has begun.

2023 Highlights

  • Hypoxia and OA off NJ

NJ hypoxia

  • Record low hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay since 1995, relatively cool summer with high salinity.

  • Sea scallop recruitment detected Spring 2022, gone in Spring 2023

  • Days in 2022 at or above scallop stress temperature 17-19 C →

scallop stress bottom temp

37 / 44

In Chesapeake Bay, hypoxia conditions were the lowest on record (since 1995), creating more suitable habitat for multiple fin fish and benthic species. Cooler Chesapeake Bay water temperatures paired with low hypoxia in the summer suggest conditions that season were favorable for striped bass. Cooler summer temperatures also support juvenile summer flounder growth. However, warmer winter and spring water temperatures in the Chesapeake Bay, along with other environmental factors (such as low flow), may have played a role in low production of juvenile striped bass in 2023. Higher-than-average salinity across the Bay was likely driven by low precipitation and increased the area of available habitat for species such as croaker, spot, menhaden, and red drum, while restricting habitat area for invasive blue catfish.

2023 Highlights

  • Gulf Stream inshore, fewer rings

Intermittent warm waters like this can be threats to temperature sensitive species, especially species at the southern end of their range or are not mobile (e.g. scallops), while also providing suitable habitat for more southern species.

38 / 44

2023 Highlights

  • Gulf of Maine giant bloom and bottom heatwave

2023 median weekly chlorophyll concentrations (green line) with standard deviation 1998-2023 (gray shading).

39 / 44

EAFM Risk Assessment: 2024 Update with new elements

Species level risk elements

Species Assess Fstatus Bstatus PreyA PredP FW2Prey Climate DistShift EstHabitat OffHab
Ocean Quahog lowest lowest lowest tbd tbd lowest highest modhigh lowest tbd
Surfclam lowest lowest lowest tbd tbd lowest modhigh modhigh lowest tbd
Summer flounder lowest highest lowmod tbd tbd lowest lowmod modhigh highest tbd
Scup lowest lowest lowest tbd tbd lowest lowmod modhigh highest tbd
Black sea bass lowest lowest lowest tbd tbd lowest modhigh modhigh highest tbd
Atl. mackerel lowest lowest highest tbd tbd lowest lowmod modhigh lowest tbd
Chub mackerel highest lowmod lowmod tbd tbd lowest na na lowest tbd
Butterfish lowest lowest lowmod tbd tbd lowest lowest highest lowest tbd
Longfin squid lowmod lowmod lowmod tbd tbd lowmod lowest modhigh lowest tbd
Shortfin squid highest lowmod lowmod tbd tbd lowmod lowest highest lowest tbd
Golden tilefish lowest lowest lowmod tbd tbd lowest modhigh lowest lowest tbd
Blueline tilefish highest highest modhigh tbd tbd lowest modhigh lowest lowest tbd
Bluefish lowest lowest lowmod tbd tbd lowest lowest modhigh highest tbd
Spiny dogfish lowest highest lowest tbd tbd lowest lowest highest lowest tbd
Monkfish highest lowmod lowmod tbd tbd lowest lowest modhigh lowest tbd
Unmanaged forage na na na tbd tbd lowmod na na na tbd
Deepsea corals na na na tbd tbd lowest na na na tbd
  • Mackerel and dogfish Fstatus risk reduced to low, Summer flounder risk increased to high. Spiny dogfish Bstatus risk decreased to low
  • Indicators in development for new Prey Availability, Predation Pressure, and Offshore Habitat elements

Ecosystem level risk elements

System EcoProd CommVal RecVal FishRes1 FishRes4 ComDiv RecDiv Social ComFood RecFood
Mid-Atlantic lowmod modhigh lowmod lowest modhigh lowest tbd lowmod highest modhigh
  • Recreational value risk increased from low to low-moderate
  • Recreational diversity added, risk criteria in development

Species and Sector level risk elements

Species FControl Interact OSW1 OSW2 OtherUse RegComplex Discards Allocation
Ocean Quahog-C lowest lowest tbd tbd tbd lowest modhigh lowest
Surfclam-C lowest lowest tbd tbd tbd lowest modhigh lowest
Summer flounder-R lowmod lowest tbd tbd tbd highest modhigh highest
Summer flounder-C lowmod lowmod tbd tbd tbd lowmod modhigh lowest
Scup-R highest lowest tbd tbd tbd highest modhigh highest
Scup-C lowest lowmod tbd tbd tbd lowmod modhigh lowest
Black sea bass-R highest lowest tbd tbd tbd highest modhigh highest
Black sea bass-C lowmod lowmod tbd tbd tbd lowmod highest lowest
Atl. mackerel-R lowmod lowest tbd tbd tbd lowmod lowmod lowest
Atl. mackerel-C lowest lowmod tbd tbd tbd highest lowmod lowest
Butterfish-C lowest lowmod tbd tbd tbd modhigh modhigh lowest
Longfin squid-C lowest modhigh tbd tbd tbd modhigh modhigh lowest
Shortfin squid-C lowmod lowmod tbd tbd tbd modhigh lowest lowest
Golden tilefish-R na lowest tbd tbd tbd lowest lowest lowest
Golden tilefish-C lowest lowest tbd tbd tbd lowest lowest lowest
Blueline tilefish-R lowest lowest tbd tbd tbd lowmod lowest lowest
Blueline tilefish-C lowmod lowest tbd tbd tbd lowest lowest lowest
Bluefish-R lowmod lowest tbd tbd tbd modhigh lowmod highest
Bluefish-C lowest lowest tbd tbd tbd lowmod lowmod lowest
Spiny dogfish-R lowest lowest tbd tbd tbd lowest lowmod lowest
Spiny dogfish-C lowest modhigh tbd tbd tbd highest lowmod lowest
Chub mackerel-C lowest lowmod tbd tbd tbd lowest lowest lowest
Unmanaged forage lowest lowest tbd tbd tbd lowest lowest lowest
Deepsea corals na na tbd tbd tbd na na na
  • Management fully updated for existing elements
  • Offshore wind (OSW) risks split into 2 new elements in development, non-OSW uses added
40 / 44

Risk Assessment: new indicator previews

Prey Availability Risk

Evaluate Forage Index for a predator

  • Benthic Index in progress for the many Mid-Atlantic benthivores.
  • Zooplankton Indices needed for planktivores

Along with its Condition index

And Productivity anomaly (lagged)

41 / 44

THANK YOU! SOEs made possible by (at least) 80 contributors from 20+ institutions

Kimberly Bastille
Aaron Beaver (Anchor QEA)
Andy Beet
Brandon Beltz
Ruth Boettcher (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries)
Mandy Bromilow (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Baoshan Chen (Stony Brook University)
Zhuomin Chen (U Connecticut)
Joseph Caracappa
Doug Christel (GARFO)
Patricia Clay
Lisa Colburn
Jennifer Cudney (NMFS Atlantic HMS Management Division)
Tobey Curtis (NMFS Atlantic HMS Management Division)
Art Degaetano (Cornell U)
Geret DePiper
Dan Dorfman (NOAA-NOS-NCCOS)
Hubert du Pontavice
Emily Farr (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Michael Fogarty
Paula Fratantoni
Kevin Friedland
Marjy Friedrichs (Virginia Institute of Marine Science)
Sarah Gaichas
Ben Galuardi (GARFO)
Avijit Gangopadhyay (School for Marine Science and Technology UMass Dartmouth)
James Gartland (Virginia Institute of Marine Science)
Lori Garzio (Rutgers University)
Glen Gawarkiewicz (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Sean Hardison
Dvora Hart
Kimberly Hyde
John Kocik
Steve Kress (National Audubon Society’s Seabird Restoration Program)
Young-Oh Kwon (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Scott Large
Gabe Larouche (Cornell U)
Daniel Linden
Andrew Lipsky
Sean Lucey
Don Lyons (National Audubon Society’s Seabird Restoration Program)
Chris Melrose
Shannon Meseck
Ryan Morse
Ray Mroch (SEFSC)
Brandon Muffley (MAFMC)
Kimberly Murray
David Moe Nelson (NCCOS)
Janet Nye (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Chris Orphanides
Richard Pace
Debi Palka
Tom Parham (Maryland DNR)
Charles Perretti
CJ Pellerin (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Kristin Precoda
Grace Roskar (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Jeffrey Runge (U Maine)
Grace Saba (Rutgers)
Vincent Saba
Sarah Salois
Chris Schillaci (GARFO)
Amy Schueller (SEFSC)
Teresa Schwemmer (Stony Brook University)
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
Dave Wilcox (VIMS)
Timothy White (Environmental Studies Program BOEM)
Sarah Wilkin (NMFS Office of Protected Resources)
Mark Wuenschel
Qian Zhang (U Maryland)
42 / 44

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 78.4, pp. 1217-1228. ISSN: 1054-3139. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsab054. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab054 (visited on Aug. 08, 2022).

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).

Additional resources

43 / 44

SSC Discussion

  • Feedback on Climate and Ecosystem Change, 2023 Highlights sections

  • Prioritize 2023 and 2024 SOE requests (with NEFMC if possible)

  • SSC Ecosystem WG Project Priorities

    • Objective 1: Expanding and clarifying the ecosystem portion of the SSC OFL CV determination process (short term objective)
      • ABC decisions with environmentally driven recruitment (Wilberg et al)
      • Alternative stock performance metrics considering current conditions (Rago and Rothschild)
    • Objective 2: Developing prototype processes to provide multispecies and system level scientific advice appropriate for Council decision making, highlighting tradeoffs linking directly to economic and social outcomes (long term objective)
      • Ecosystem overfishing indicators (Beet and Gaichas)
      • Index Numbers for ecosystem performance (Walden and DePiper)
    • Objective 3: Collaborating with relevant working groups in developing the stock-specific Ecosystem and Socio-economic Profiles (ESP) process to specify stock-specific Ecosystem ToRs (moderate-term objective)
44 / 44

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

The IEA Loop1 IEA process from goal setting to assessment to strategy evaluation with feedbacks

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

2 / 44
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