System level thresholds/reference points Includes requests to develop analytical methods that can be applied across all indicator types and operationalized for management advice. Much of this high priority methodological work is in progress. Management Includes analyses related to management performance. Work on this category is resource limited. Short term forecasts Includes requests for biological and environmental forecasts. These forecasts may be forthcoming from CEFI products once they are tested. Regime shifts Many analyses have been conducted and are in progress for individual ecosystem components, but a unifying framework with consistent methods is needed for the SOE. Multiple system drivers This category has the most requests. Most unranked requests from 2023 are in this category. Prioritization within this category is sorely needed. Functional group level status/thresholds/reference points Most of these requests are in progress. Stock level indicators Requests for this information may be more appropriately directed to stock specific ecosystem products such as Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profiles (ESPs).

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.

(DePiper, et al., 2017)

(Muffley, et al., 2021) (Gaichas, et al., 2018) (DePiper, et al., 2021) (Gaichas, et al., 2016)

Council and Advisory Panel members recommended new elements addressing human dimensions (recreational access equity), new elements addressing cross-sectoral impacts (offshore wind impacts on biology and ecosystem as well as fishery access and scientific sampling), and transitions from static ecosystem indicators to time series indicators (prey availability, predation pressure, and fishing community vulnerability). New ecosystem science was required to support these requests. The process included development of new indicators of prey availability based on spatio-temporal modeling using ecological datasets (stomach contents, zooplankton), and new spatial analyses of habitat, revenue, and surveys relative to wind energy development areas. Development of potential risk criteria is ongoing; thresholds between low, moderate, and high risk that are essential to operational use are developed collaboratively with Council and Advisory Panel members.

The slide shows a higher risk example (black sea bass, low recent condition correlated with recently declining prey) and a lower risk example (bluefish, despite a long term decline in forage fish prey. recent condition has been good)