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

What is Ecosystem Based
Fishery Management?

University of Maryland MEES 631: Fish Ecology
29 April 2024

1 / 56

What do you think Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) means?

2 / 56

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

3 / 56

Levels of ecosystem-based management in relation to marine fisheries management

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/ebfm/EBFM%20Myths%20v7.pdf

4 / 56

EBFM Guiding Principles

Five supporting EBFM steps to maintain resilient ecosystems

5 / 56

More concrete EBFM--one example and discussion

  • Evolving ecosystem approach in the Mid-Atlantic
    "Can we integrate ecosystem considerations into operational fishery management?"

    • Why?
    • How? Needs to be practical!
    • What has been done so far?

  • Discussion
    "What should managers do with information on fish ecology?"

    • What might be driving observed signals?
    • How should managers respond, depending on the drivers?
    • What would you do next?
6 / 56

An integrated ecosystem assessment success story (in progress)

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

Outline

  • Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Approach (EAFM)

  • Tailoring ecosystem reporting for fishery managers

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM: risk assessment ++

  • Next steps: what would you do?

  • [Extra slides: more ecosystem indicators]

Integrated Ecosystem Assessment

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

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

7 / 56

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

More information: http://www.fisherycouncils.org/ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#magnuson-stevens-act
8 / 56

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
9 / 56

Why an ecosystem approach?

"We rebuilt all the stocks, so why is everyone still pissed off?" --Rich Seagraves

in 2011, the Council asked:

visioning project goals and objectives

visioning project responses and port meetings

And many people answered, from commercial fishery, recreational fishery, environmental organization, and interested public perspectives.

Visioning report:

http://www.mafmc.org/s/MAFMC-stakeholder-input-report-p7b9.pdf

10 / 56

Common themes among all stakeholder groups:

• There is a lack of confidence in the data that drive fishery management decisions.

• Stakeholders are not as involved in the Council process as they can and should be.

• Different jurisdictions and regulations among the many fishery management organizations result in complexity and inconsistency.

• There is a need for increased transparency and communications in fisheries management.

• The dynamics of the ecosystem and food web should be considered to a greater extent in fisheries management decisions.

• Stakeholders are not adequately represented on the Council.

• Pollution is negatively affecting the health of fish stocks.

Visioning report, p. 3:

http://www.mafmc.org/s/MAFMC-stakeholder-input-report-p7b9.pdf

11 / 56

How did MAFMC develop their ecosystem approach?

Visioning Project → Strategic Plan with one objective to develop

"A non-regulatory umbrella document intended to guide Council policy with respect to ecosystem considerations across existing Fishery Management Plans"

Mid-Atlantic EAFM development with full details in speaker notes

Details, including workshop presentations and white papers: http://www.mafmc.org/eafm

12 / 56

The Mid-Atlantic Council identified several theme areas from the visioning project as noted in the left panel of the workflow graphic: forage fish, species interactions, social and economic issues, climate and habitat. The Council held full day workshops during Council meetings where experts on the topics provided overviews and Council members asked questions and discussed the issues. Workships on Forage fish, Climate, Climate and Governance, Interactions (species and fleet), and Habitat were held between 2013 and 2015, resulting in white papers on Forage fish, Climate (and habitat), Interactions (species, fleet, climate, and habitat). Social and economic considerations were integrated in each workshop rather than looked at separately.

Mid-Atlantic Council Ecosystem Approach

13 / 56

The Council’s EAFM framework has similarities to the IEA loop on slide 2. 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

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

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

14 / 56

State of the Ecosystem Report Outline

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

???

Objectives derived from (DePiper, et al., 2017)

15 / 56

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.

16 / 56

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

17 / 56

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
18 / 56

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
19 / 56

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.
20 / 56

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

21 / 56

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

Risk element: CommRev

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
21 / 56

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

22 / 56

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.

23 / 56

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

24 / 56

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
25 / 56

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.

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

26 / 56

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
27 / 56

(Perretti, et al., 2017)

Risks to Spatial Management

Indicators: Fish distribution shifts

Cetacean distribution shifts

28 / 56

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).
29 / 56

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.

30 / 56

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.
31 / 56

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.

32 / 56

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 FishRes2 ComDiv RecDiv Social ComFood RecFood
Mid-Atlantic lowmod modhigh lowmod lowest modhigh lowest tbd lowmod modhigh 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
33 / 56

How is MAFMC using the risk assessment?

  • Prioritization: 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.
34 / 56

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).

What is Management Strategy Evaluation?

  • Process to develop fishery management procedures

  • First used in S. Africa, Australia, and at International Whaling Commission late 1980s - early 1990s

Under this approach, management advice is based on a fully specified set of rules that have been tested in simulations of a wide variety of scenarios that specifically take uncertainty into account. The full procedure includes specifications for the data to be collected and how those data are to be used to provide management advice, in a manner that incorporates a feedback mechanism.

35 / 56

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

Results for 2 of 16 performance metrics:

Summer flounder MSE results by OM

August MAFMC briefing materials and full results on the web

36 / 56
  • 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

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)
37 / 56

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).

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).

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

38 / 56

Discussion: Risks to Quota Setting/Rebuilding; What drives changes in fish condition and productivity?

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.

39 / 56

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.

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.

40 / 56

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

41 / 56

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.

What do you think?

What could managers do?

42 / 56

Extra slides: 2024 SOE indicators

43 / 56

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

44 / 56

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.

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.

45 / 56

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.

46 / 56

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
47 / 56

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.

48 / 56

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.

49 / 56

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).

50 / 56

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.

51 / 56

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?

52 / 56

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.

53 / 56
  • 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

54 / 56

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.

55 / 56

2023 Highlights

  • Gulf of Maine giant bloom and bottom heatwave

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

56 / 56

What do you think Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) means?

2 / 56
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