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

State of the Ecosystem
Mid Atlantic and New England 2024

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
2 May 2024

Sarah Gaichas and Joseph Caracappa, (editors),
Andy Beet, Brandon Beltz, Geret DePiper, Kimberly Hyde, Scott Large, Sean Lucey, Laurel Smith (data and section leads),
and all SOE contributors

1 / 26

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

2 / 26

State of the Ecosystem: Changes 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 / 26
  • except for 2 synthetic replacements

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.

4 / 26

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 / 26

Mid Atlantic 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
6 / 26

New England State of the Ecosystem Summary 2024:

Performance relative to management objectives - Georges Bank

Seafood production Total no trend icon, Managed decreasing arrow icon, Both below average icon icon

Profits no trend icon, above average icon icon

Recreational opportunities: Effort no trend icon, near average icon icon; Effort diversity no trend icon, near average icon icon

Stability: Fishery mixed trend icon, Commercial below average icon icon Rec 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 mixed trend icon, NARW below average icon icon Gray seal above average icon icon

7 / 26

New England State of the Ecosystem Summary 2024:

Performance relative to management objectives - Gulf of Maine

Seafood production decreasing arrow icon, below average icon icon

Profits Total no trend icon, above average icon icon; NEFMC Managed decreasing arrow icon, below average icon icon

Recreational opportunities: Effort no trend icon, near average icon icon; Effort diversity no trend icon, near average icon icon

Stability: Fishery mixed trend icon, Commercial below average icon icon Rec 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 mixed trend icon, NARW below average icon icon Gray seal above average icon icon
Salmon below average icon icon
8 / 26

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 Mid-Atlantic port (some with EJ concerns)
    • 1–34% by New England port (some with EJ concerns)
    • 1-20% by MAFMC managed species
    • 3-54% by NEFMC managed species
  • Overlap with important right whale foraging habitats, increased vessel strike and noise risks
  • Gulf of Maine fisheries/offshore wind IEA in progress
9 / 26

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 / 26

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 / 26

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 / 26

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 / 26

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 / 26

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: New England Seafood production decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon

Indicators: Commercial landings

Indicators: Recreational harvest

Multiple drivers: ecosystem and stock production, management, market conditions, and environmental change

15 / 26

Although scallop decreases are partially explained by a decreased TAC, analyses suggest that the drop in landings is at least partially due to market disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we do not anticipate the long-term declining trend in landings to change.

New England Landings drivers: Stock status? Survey biomass?

Indicator: Stock status

Rebuilding requirements still likely playing a role in seafood declines

Indicator: Survey biomass

Biomass availability still seems unlikely driver

16 / 26

Implications: New England Seafood Production

Drivers:

  • decline in commercial landings is most likely driven by the requirement to rebuild individual stocks as well as market dynamics
  • other drivers affecting recreational landings: shark fishery management, possibly survey methodology

Monitor:

  • climate risks including warming, ocean acidification, and shifting distributions
  • ecosystem composition and production changes
  • fishing engagement

17 / 26

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

18 / 26

Risks to Spatial Management: All Areas

Indicators: Fish distribution shifts

Cetacean distribution shifts

19 / 26

Risks to Spatial Management: All Areas

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).
20 / 26

Risks to Spatial Management: All Areas

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.

21 / 26

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

22 / 26

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.

23 / 26

2023 Highlights

  • Gulf of Maine giant bloom and bottom heatwave

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

24 / 26

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)
25 / 26

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).

Additional resources

26 / 26

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

2 / 26
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