Risk Element Information and Recommendations for Council Consideration
September 21, 2023
Below is a list of all 43 risk elements, grouped by category (Ecological, Socio-economic, and Management), considered by the Council's Ecosystem and Ocean Planning (EOP) Committee and Advisory Panel (AP) during their comprehensive review of the EAFM risk assessment. For each element, there is an element description, definition, indicator(s) (if applicable), and risk criteria (if applicable). The information associated with each element incorporates the most recent feedback and recommendations developed by the EOP Committee and AP at their September 13-14, 2023 meeting. The Council will review the EOP Committee and AP recommendations at the October 3-5, 2023 Council meeting and will finalize the list of risk elements to potentially be included in a revised risk assessment report. Technical staff from the Council and NEFSC will develop a revised draft risk assessment in early 2014 using the most recent information and indicators from the 2024 Mid-Atlantic State of the Ecosystem report. The draft risk assessment will be presented to the EOP Committee and AP in March 2024 for final feedback and recommendations regarding the inclusion, deletion, or parking/later consideration of any risk element for Council consideration. The Council will then review and approve the new EAFM risk assessment for use by the Council in future management documents, priorities, and decisions.
As a reminder:
Risk Elements - identify what we are measuring. They can be any aspect that may threaten achieving the biological, economic, or social objectives that the Council desires from a fishery.
Definitions - describe why we are measuring it and clearly state what is at risk.
Indicators - are how we measure risk and are observations that gives information about the risk element.
Risk Criteria - help specify what is the risk, ranging from low to high.
[Ecological Elements 4](#ecological-elements)
[Stock Assessment Performance 4](#stock-assessment-performance)
[Fishing Mortality Status and Stock Biomass Status 6](#fishing-mortality-status-and-stock-biomass-status)
[Food Web (1) - Prey Availability 8](#food-web-1---prey-availability)
[Food Web (2) - Predation Pressure 10](#food-web-2---predation-pressure)
[Food Web (3) - Protected Species Prey 11](#food-web-3---protected-species-prey)
[Food Web (4) -- Other 12](#food-web-4-other)
[Ecosystem Productivity 13](#ecosystem-productivity)
[Forage Base (new) 19](#forage-base-new)
[Population Diversity (new) 20](#population-diversity-new)
[Ecological Diversity (new) 21](#ecological-diversity-new)
[Climate 22](#bookmark=id.26in1rg)
[Distribution Shifts 25](#_Toc145171762)
[Estuarine and Coastal Habitat 29](#_Toc145171763)
[Offshore Habitat (new) 31](#offshore-habitat-new)
[Invasive Species (new) 32](#invasive-species-new)
[Economic Elements 33](#economic-elements)
[Commercial Value 33](#commercial-value)
[Marine Recreational Angler Days/Trips 35](#bookmark=id.44sinio)
[Commercial Fishery Resilience (1) - Revenue Diversity 37](#commercial-fishery-resilience-1---revenue-diversity)
[Commercial Fishery Resilience (2) - Shoreside Support 39](#commercial-fishery-resilience-2---shoreside-support)
[Recreational Fishery Resilience - Shoreside Support (new) 40](#recreational-fishery-resilience---shoreside-support-new)
[Commercial Fishery Resilience (4,5,6) - Capital, Insurance Availability, and Emerging Markets/Opportunities (new) 41](#commercial-fishery-resilience-456---capital-insurance-availability-and-emerging-marketsopportunities-new)
[Seafood Safety (new) 42](#seafood-safety-new)
[Social-Cultural Elements 43](#social-cultural-elements)
[Commercial Fishery Resilience (3) -- Fleet Diversity 43](#bookmark=id.1ci93xb)
[Recreational Fleet Diversity (new) 46](#recreational-fleet-diversity-new)
[Community Vulnerability 48](#_Toc146143128)
[Food Production Elements 51](#food-production-elements)
[Commercial Fishing Production 51](#commercial-fishing-production)
[Recreational/Subsistence Food Production 52](#recreationalsubsistence-food-production)
[Commercial Employment (new) 53](#commercial-employment-new)
[Recreational Employment (new) 54](#recreational-employment-new)
[Management Elements 55](#management-elements)
[Fishing Mortality Control 55](#bookmark=id.2p2csry)
[Technical Interactions 57](#_Toc145171771)
[Offshore Wind -- Biological/Ecosystem (new) 58](#_Toc146143137)
[Offshore Wind -- Fishery Science and Access (new) 62](#offshore-wind-fishery-science-and-access-new)
[Offshore Energy Exclusive of Wind (new) 65](#offshore-energy-exclusive-of-wind-new)
[Aquaculture (new) 66](#aquaculture-new)
[Other Ocean Activities 67](#other-ocean-activities)
[Regulatory Complexity and Stability 68](#regulatory-complexity-and-stability)
[Allocation 69](#bookmark=id.32hioqz)
[Discards 70](#_Toc145171772)
[Essential Fish Habitat (new) 72](#essential-fish-habitat-new)
[References 73](#references)
Description:
Stock assessments provide the scientific basis for sustainable fishery management in this region. This risk element is applied at the species level, and addresses risk to achieving OY due to scientific uncertainty based on analytical and data limitations. The Council risk policy accounts for scientific uncertainty in assessments, with methods for determining scientific uncertainty currently being refined by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).
Other assessment-related risk elements (F status and B status) describe risks according to our best understanding of stock status, but assessment methods and data quality shape that understanding.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to analytical limitations
Indicators:
The Council currently uses indicators from stock assessment review and a qualitative assessment of general assessment data quality. The EOP and Council can continue to use pass/fail criteria from independent stock assessment reviews, and more formally incorporate data quality indicators (including data quality impacts from any source of scientific survey constraint), assessment retrospective performance indicators, or other indicators of analytical limitations. The SSC OFL CV process already reviews many aspects of analytical assessment uncertainty, including data quality and retrospective performance, which may be incorporated in this EAFM risk assessment.
Proposed risk criteria:
Low risk for assessment performance was defined as stock assessment model(s) passing peer review, and stocks having high data quality. Low-Moderate risk was assessment passing peer review, but some key data and/or reference points are lacking. The Moderate-High risk category was not used for this element in the past, but could include consideration of major data gaps and or large retrospective patterns that require adjustment. High risk was the assessment failing peer review, and/or that considerable data shortcomings required the use of data-limited tools.
An alternative set of criteria could apply OFL CVs used by the SSC for establishing ABC, which represent overall assessment uncertainty. An OFL CV of 60% could represent the low risk category, 100% the low-moderate risk category, 150% the moderate-high risk category, and stocks without an assessment (where OFL CV is usually not applied) remaining in the high risk category. If applying these criteria, we could change the name of this to "Assessment uncertainty" to match what the SSC is evaluating.
Risk Level Definition
Low Assessment model(s) passed peer review, high data quality, small retrospective pattern
Low-Moderate Assessment passed peer review but some data and/or reference points may be lacking
Moderate-High Assessment passed peer review but with major data quality issue or large retrospective pattern
Description:
Managed fisheries are required to be prosecuted within fishing mortality
limits and managed stocks are required to be maintained above minimum
threshold biomass levels to preserve sustainable yield. These elements
are applied at the species level. Because OY is the objective, and OY is
at most MSY under U.S. law, fishing mortality (
Definitions:
Fishing Mortality -- F Status: Risk of not achieving OY due to overfishing
Stock Biomass -- B Status: Risk of not achieving OY due to depleted stock
Indicators:
Stock assessments estimate both current F relative to the F reference point and current B relative to the B reference point and these indicators are used directly. When these quantities are not estimated due to analytical limitations, the SSC can evaluate the weight of evidence for risk of overfishing and overfished status based on evidence outside the stock assessment, and this evaluation is used in the EAFM risk assessment.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="2.9166666666666665in"}
Summary of single species status for MAFMC and jointly federally managed stocks (Spiny dogfish and both Goosefish). The dotted vertical line is the target biomass reference point of Bmsy. The dashed lines are the management thresholds of one half Bmsy (vertical) or Fmsy (horizontal). Stocks in red are below the biomass threshold (overfished) and have fishing mortality above the limit (subject to overfishing), stocks in green are above the biomass threshold but have fishing mortality above the limit. Remaining stocks have fishing mortality within limits: stocks in orange are above the biomass threshold but below the biomass target, and stocks in purple are above the biomass target.
Proposed risk criteria:
We applied low and high risk criteria for these elements as defined in
U.S. law. Low risk criteria are
Risk Level Definition
Low F < Fmsy
Low-Moderate Unknown, but weight of evidence indicates low overfishing risk
Moderate-High Unknown status
Risk Level Definition
Low B > Bmsy
Low-Moderate Bmsy > B > 0.5 Bmsy, or unknown, but weight of evidence indicates low risk
Moderate-High Unknown status
Description:
This element is applied at the species level.
Fish stocks and protected species stocks are managed using single species approaches, but fish and protected species stocks exist within a food web of predator and prey interactions. This element is one of two separating food web risks to achieving OY for Council managed species from two sources. This first element assesses prey availability for each species, and the second food web risk element assesses predation pressure on each species (see next element).
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY for Council managed species due to availability of prey.
Indicators:
Indicators of prey availability for each Council managed species would be based on food habits information for the Council managed species combined with population trends for key prey species (if available). Prey could include all species (Council managed, other-managed, and non-managed) or a subset as determined by the EOP and Council.
Another indicator of prey could be based on stomach contents of predators, as was used for the 2022 bluefish research track assessment and presented in the 2023 State of the Ecosystem report. This index includes 22 forage species and was designed for bluefish, but also includes important forage for summer flounder and other Council managed species.
{width="5.833333333333333in" height="3.5in"}
Forage fish index developed for the 2022 bluefish research track stock assessment
A secondary indicator of prey availability would include the fish condition indicators from the State of the Ecosystem report (shown below under Ecosystem Productivity). These would not rely on detailed diet information, instead reflecting the impact of environmental drivers including prey availability on fish growth.
Diet information was gathered from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) food habits database and other sources (Smith and Link, 2010; Johnson et al 2008).
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low Prey availability high (not limiting) and/or good fish condition past 5 years
Low-Moderate Aggregate prey available for this species has stable or increasing trend, moderate condition
Moderate-High Aggregate prey available for this species has significant decreasing trend, poor condition
High Managed species highly dependent on prey with limited and declining availability, poor condition
Description:
This element is applied at the species level.
Fish stocks and protected species stocks are managed using single species approaches, but fish and protected species stocks exist within a food web of predator and prey interactions. This element is one of two separating food web risks to achieving OY for Council managed species from two sources. This second food web risk element assesses predation pressure on each species, and the first element assesses prey availability for each species (see element above).
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY for Council managed species due to predation pressure.
Indicators:
Indicators of predation pressure on a Council managed species would be based on food habits information for predators of the species combined with key predator trends. This could be derived from empirical information or food web/multispecies models. Predators could include all species (protected, HMS, Council managed, other-managed, and unmanaged) or a subset as determined by the EOP and Council. Predation mortality (M2) compared to fishing mortality (F) to evaluate the relative importance of predation mortality is another indicator that could help inform the risk criteria levels.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low Predation pressure represents low proportion of overall mortality
Low-Moderate Predation pressure moderate proportion of overall mortality, decreasing mortality trend
Moderate-High Predation pressure moderate proportion of overall mortality, increasing mortality trend
Description:
This element is applied at the species level.
Fish stocks and protected species stocks are managed using single species approaches, but fish and protected species stocks exist within a food web of predator and prey interactions. The previous two elements focus on Council managed species OY, while this element focuses on protected species objectives (maintain or recover populations and minimize bycatch).
This element ranks the risks of not achieving protected species objectives due to species interactions with Council managed species. In the US, protected species include marine mammals (under the Marine Mammal Protection Act), Endangered and Threatened species (under the Endangered Species Act), and migratory birds (under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). In the Northeast US, endangered/threatened species include Atlantic salmon, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, all sea turtle species, and five whales.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving protected species objectives due to interactions with Council-managed species
Indicators:
Food web models and diet information can be used to establish thresholds of "importance" for predators and prey. Although monkfish occasionally ingest seabirds (Perry et al., 2013), there are no Council-managed species that are important predators of protected species (Smith and Link, 2010), so here we rank only risks where Council managed species represent prey of protected species. An important prey of protected species is defined here as individually comprising >30% of the predator's diet by weight. Critical prey warranting a high risk ranking would be a majority (>50%) of diet for an individual protected species.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low Few interactions with any protected species
Low-Moderate Important prey of 1-2 protected species, or important prey of 3 or more protected species with management consideration of interaction
Moderate-High Important prey of 3 or more protected species
Description:
Fish stocks and protected species stocks are managed using single species approaches, but fish and protected species stocks exist within a food web of predator and prey interactions. This element would be applied at the species level. The proposed new element would address risks to HMS management objectives from Council managed activities.
Definition:
Risks to maintaining HMS and shorebird populations due to interactions with Council-managed species.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended removing this as a stand-alone risk element and consider as a potential indicator under the Food Web (2) and (3) risk elements.
Description:
This element is applied at the ecosystem level (the Mid-Atlantic Ecosystem Production Unit).
Productivity at the base of the food web supports and ultimately limits the amount of managed species production in an ecosystem.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to changing system productivity at the base of the food web.
Indicators:
A combination of five indicators will be used to assess the risk of changing ecosystem productivity. We examine trends in total primary production, zooplankton abundance for a key Mid-Atlantic species, aggregate forage fish (new), and two aggregate fish productivity measures: condition factor (weight divided by length of individual fish) and a survey based "recruitment" (small fish to large fish) index. An assessment-based recruitment index was recently added to the State of the Ecosystem report as well. Because benthic crustaceans are important prey for many Council-managed species, we note a benthic production indicator is desirable but not yet available.
These indicators evaluate ecosystem productivity in aggregate, which may change due to drivers such as decreasing primary productivity, changes in spatial/temporal overlap at the base of the food web, or other factors.
For primary production and fish productivity, the spatial scale of analysis is the Mid-Atlantic Ecosystem Production Unit.
Primary production has fluctuated recently with current conditions near average. The observed stability in system productivity is in contrast to an apparent shift in the timing of the bloom cycle in the Mid-Atlantic. Comparing remote sensing information from the 1970-80s to 1997-2015 information suggests that winter productivity was historically higher in the MAB and that the spring bloom we see today was less prominent. Shifts in timing of low trophic level production can affect Council managed fish species through early life history stages that feed on zooplankton.
{width="6.5in" height="4.069444444444445in"}
[Monthly primary production trends show the annual cycle (i.e. the peak during the summer months) and the changes over time for each month.]{.mark}
Zooplankton provide a critical link between phytoplankton at the base of the food web, and higher trophic organisms such as fish, mammals, and birds. Changes in the species composition and biomass of the zooplankton community have a great potential to affect recruitment success and fisheries productivity, and climate change may be the most important pathway for these changes to manifest. Therefore these indices are relevant to both productivity and trophic structure objectives.
The time series of zooplankton biovolume suggest that overall zooplankton production has not changed over time. However, the dominant species of zooplankton in the Mid-Atlantic, Centropages typicus, shows a seasonal shift in abundance. This suggests a change in timing of zooplankton reproductive cycles, which may impact fish species such as Atlantic mackerel.
{width="6.0in" height="3.59375in"}
Time series of zooplankton abundance from 2019 SOE
The amount of forage available is one important driver of fish productivity. Indicators of aggregate pelagic forage fish biomass and forage fish energy content are presented in the State of the Ecosystem report. Indicators of benthic forage are under development but not yet available. Food habits data from surveys and literature could be used to define the forage base common to all Council managed and protected species.
{width="5.598958880139983in"
height="3.3593755468066493in"}
Fish condition is measured as the weight per length--a measure of "fatness". This information is from NEFSC bottom trawl surveys and shows a change in condition across all species at around 2000. Around 2010-2013 many species started to have better condition, though black sea bass remain thinner for their length on average.
{width="7.0in" height="4.157204724409449in"}
The number of small fish relative to the biomass of larger fish of the same species, as derived from the NEFSC survey, is a simple measure of productivity intended to complement model-based stock assessment estimates of recruitment. There is a general decrease in this indicator when aggregated across managed and unmanaged species in the Mid-Atlantic. The plot includes black sea bass, butterfish, clearnose skate, fourspot flounder, little skate, scup, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, thorny skate, windowpane flounder, winter flounder, and winter skate.
{width="5.833333333333333in" height="4.375in"}
{width="5.833333333333333in" height="4.375in"}
Potential risk criteria:
Low risk for this element was defined as no trends in ecosystem productivity across all five indicators. The Low-Moderate risk criterion was trend(s) in ecosystem productivity for 1-2 indicators, whether increasing or decreasing. The Moderate-High risk criterion was trends in ecosystem productivity (3+ measures, increase or decrease). The High risk criterion was decreasing trends across 4 or more indicators.
Risk Level Definition
Low No trends in ecosystem productivity
Low-Moderate Trend in ecosystem productivity (1-2 measures, increase or decrease)
Moderate-High Trend in ecosystem productivity (3+ measures, increase or decrease)
Description:
The amount of forage available is one important driver of fish productivity. This element would be applied at the ecosystem level, and evaluates whether there is sufficient aggregate forage available to provide supporting ecosystem services to managed and protected species.
Definition:
Risk to not maintaining aggregate forage base and ecosystem function for Council-managed species and protected species.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended removing this as a stand-alone risk element and consider as a potential indicator under the Ecosystem Productivity risk element.
Description:
This element would be applied at the species level.
Changes (particularly reduction) in diversity at the species/stock level (size, sex, reproductive) can impact stock productivity, and therefore yield.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to reduced species/stock diversity (size, sex, genetic, reproductive).
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended parking this risk element and consider potentially incorporating it later when more information is available and potential indicators could be developed.
Description:
This element would be applied at the ecosystem level.
Diversity of species within ecosystems provides the capacity to adapt to change at the ecosystem level, stabilizing ecosystem structure and function for dependent fishing communities.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to reduced species diversity and altered ecosystem structure and function.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended parking this risk element and continue to track potential indicators (e.g., zooplankton, larval, and adult diversity) in the State of the Ecosystem reports and determine how these may be incorporated in the future.
[]{#bookmark=id.26in1rg .anchor}Climate
Description:
Climate change is expected to alter environmental conditions for managed fish in the Northeast US. This element is applied at the species level, and evaluates risks to species productivity (and therefore to achieving OY) due to projected climate change factors in the region using a comprehensive assessment (Hare et al., 2016) and other climate indicators (e.g., Mid-Atlantic ocean acidification).
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to projected climate change or ocean acidification impacts on species productivity.
Indicators:
Indicators for climate productivity risk were taken from a climate vulnerability assessment (Hare et al., 2016) that evaluated exposure of each species to multiple climate threats, including ocean and air temperature, ocean acidification, ocean salinity, ocean currents, precipitation, and sea level rise. The assessment also evaluated the sensitivity (not extinction risk) of each species based on habitat and prey specificity, sensitivity to temperature and ocean acidification, multiple life history factors, and number of non-climate stressors. Additional indicators linking temperature and ocean acidification to individual stocks are presented in the State of the Ecosystem reports.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="4.232697944006999in"}
Hare et al., 2016 Climate vulnerability by species, Northeast US
Indicator: Mid Atlantic Ocean acidification 
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="3.055395888013998in"}
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low Low climate vulnerability ranking
Low-Moderate Moderate climate vulnerability ranking
Moderate-High High climate vulnerability ranking, climate indicators impacting the stock increasing (worsening)
High Very high climate vulnerability ranking, climate indicators impacting the stock increasing (worsening)
Low risk ranking was defined as a low climate vulnerability ranking. Low-Moderate risk was a moderate climate vulnerability ranking. Moderate-High risk was a high climate vulnerability ranking. High risk was a very high climate vulnerability ranking.
[]{#_Toc145171762 .anchor}Distribution Shifts
Description:
Climate change is expected to drive changes in spatial distribution for managed fish in the Northeast US as environmental conditions become more or less favorable for each stock throughout its range. Species distribution shifts in turn can increase risks of ineffective spatial catch allocation; if catch allocation is greatly mismatched with species distribution OY may not be achieved. This element is applied at the species level, and evaluates risks of species distribution shifts due to projected climate change in the Northeast US.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to spatial mismatch of stocks and management as a result of climate-driven distribution shifts.
Indicators:
Risks of species distribution shifts due to projected climate change in the Northeast US were assessed in a comprehensive assessment (Hare et al., 2016). We applied those distribution shift risk rankings directly in the risk assessment.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="5.085990813648294in"}
Hare et al., 2016 Distribution shift risk by species, Northeast US
In addition, changes in species distribution are monitored using fisheries independent bottom trawl surveys. Two distribution shift indicators are derived from these surveys: kernel density plots of recent distribution compared with 1970s distribution, and time series of the along shelf position of the center of distribution.
Historical vs. current distribution
Spatial distribution has changed over time for some species more than for others. The distribution of black sea bass, as measured by NEFSC surveys, has shifted northward relative to historical distributions. In contrast, the distribution of longfin squid in the Mid-Atlantic has remained relatively stable.
Species distribution models incorporating habitat variables show where distributions have increased or decreased over time: [https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/ecosystems/fisheries-habitat-northeast-us-shelf-ecosystem]{.underline}
Changes in along shelf position
The annual centroid of a species' distribution can be characterized by the position in the ecosystem along an axis oriented from the southwest to the northeast, referred to as the along shelf distance, and by depth. Along shelf distances range from 0 to 1360 km, which relates to positions along the axis from the origin in the southwest to the northeast. All species combined show a shift to the northeast and into deeper water. Individual Council managed species distribution centeroids, aside from squids, also showed this trend to the northeast along the shelf in previous analysis.
{width="6.5in"
height="5.847222222222222in"}
Aggregate species shifts from the 2023 State of the Ecosystem report
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low Low potential for distribution shifts
Low-Moderate Moderate potential for distribution shifts
Moderate-High High potential for distribution shifts, observed distribution shifts
[]{#_Toc145171763 .anchor}Estuarine and Coastal Habitat
Description:
Estuarine and coastal habitat provides important nursery grounds for Council managed species, and is changing in quality and quantity due to multiple stressors from climate, land use, and coastal development. This element is applied at the species level, and evaluates risk of not achieving OY due to threats to estuarine and nearshore coastal habitat/nursery grounds.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to threats to estuarine/nursery habitat.
Indicators:
Risk was determined by first evaluating the estuarine dependence of species, and then by enumerating threats to the estuarine habitat required by these species. An assessment of national coastal and estuarine condition was used in this assessment. Water and habitat quality assessments produced for Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, Long Island Sound, and other coastal estuaries have been developed and can be considered in the future. The National Coastal Condition Assessment for the Northeast US (US EPA, 2012) was used to evaluate estuarine and coastal condition. This report lists water, sediment, benthic, and coastal habitat quality as well as fish contamination. State of the Ecosystem reports now include up to date indicators of Chesapeake Bay habitat conditions which could be included as indicators.
{width="6.5in"
height="2.9305555555555554in"}
Improvement in overall Chesapeake Bay water quality, from 2022 SOE
Species specific habitat use indicators for Chesapeake Bay are in development. As reported in the 2023 SOE, Chesapeake Bay suitable habitat for juvenile summer flounder growth has declined by 50% or more. Climate change is expected to continue impacting habitat function and use for multiple species. Habitat is improving in some areas (tidal fresh SAV, oyster reefs), but eelgrass is declining. Similar information from multiple East Coast estuaries could be integrated into the risk assessment as it becomes available.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low Not dependent on nearshore coastal or estuarine habitat
Low-Moderate Estuarine dependent, estuarine condition stable
Moderate-High Estuarine dependent, estuarine condition fair
Species were defined as low risk if not dependent on nearshore coastal or estuarine habitat. Low-Moderate risk were estuarine dependent species with a stable estuarine condition. Moderate-High risk were estuarine dependent species with a fair estuarine condition. High risk were estuarine dependent species with a poor estuarine condition.
Description:
This element would be applied at the species level.
Offshore habitat , defined here as all habitat outside of the estuary and beyond the immediate coastal/nearshore areas, supports all life stages of many Council managed species, and is changing in quality and quantity due to multiple stressors from climate to other ocean uses such as offshore wind development. This element evaluates risk of achieving OY due to changes in offshore habitat quality and quantity.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to changing offshore habitat. The rationale is that multiple drivers of offshore habitat change, including ocean industrialization, are included in this definition.
Indicators:
Indicators of offshore habitat trends are available from species-specific habitat modeling through the [Northeast Regional Habitat Assessment]{.underline}, [NEFSC]{.underline}, and multiple other efforts throughout the region.
Indicators include the amount of habitat, quality of habitat, or other aspects of habitat important to support fish productivity. For example, the cold pool is a seasonal habitat feature linked to several species in the Mid-Atlantic with indicators for spatial extent, duration, and temperature within the feature.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low No trends in offshore habitat
Low-Moderate Trend in offshore habitat (1-2 measures, increase or decrease)
Moderate-High Trend in offshore habitat (3+ measures, increase or decrease)
Description:
Invasive species (defined as non-native to the ecosystem and likely to cause harm to the environment and or economy) are spread by human activity and have the potential to disrupt ecosystem structure and function.
This element would be applied at the ?? ecosystem level.
It would evaluate risks to OY across all Council managed species due to invasive species interactions and impacts on stock productivity.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to invasive species threats to managed species productivity.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended removing this as a stand alone risk element and consider as a potential indicator under the Estuarine/Coastal Habitat and Offshore Habitat risk elements.
Description:
This element is applied at the ecosystem level, and addresses the risk of not maximizing fishery value. Revenue serves as a proxy for commercial profits, which is the component of a fishery's value that this element is ultimately attempting to assess risk towards. Lack of cost information across all fleet segments precludes the assessment of risk to profitability itself at the ecosystem level.
Definition:
Risk of not maximizing commercial fishery value.
Indicators:
Gross revenue is the current indicator for this element, and can be developed for all fishing activity within the Mid-Atlantic and for all Council managed species. Revenue serves as a proxy for commercial profits, which is the component of a fishery's value that this element is ultimately attempting to assess risk towards. Currently this indicator is aggregated and presented at the ecosystem-level.
{width="5.833333333333333in" height="2.625in"}
Net revenue (Gross revenue - trip costs) is a better proxy for trip value, in an economic context. However, this metric can be calculated only for trips by vessels holding federal licenses and submitting Vessel Trip Reports. This indicator would thus not capture all fishing within the region, and of potential interest to the Council. It underrepresents the total revenue generated regionally by about ½, and does not present the same trends as the subset for which net revenue can be generated. See figure below for the comparison of all revenue from Hatteras to the Canadian border versus what net revenue can be calculated for. The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended continued development of this indicator.
{width="6.5in" height="5.305555555555555in"}
Potential risk criteria:
Low risk was defined as no trend and low variability in revenue. Low-Moderate risk was increasing or overall high variability in revenue. Moderate-High risk was a significant long-term revenue decrease. High risk was a significant recent decrease in revenue.
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
[]{#bookmark=id.44sinio .anchor}Marine Recreational Angler Days/Trips
Description:
Providing recreational opportunities is a stated goal of optimal fishery management under the legal definition of "benefits to the nation". Recreational fishing is important in the Mid-Atlantic region with the economic and social aspects of many coastal communities being highly dependent on recreational fishing.
This element is assessed at the ecosystem level where it applies equally to all recreationally fished species. Providing recreational opportunities is a stated goal of optimal fishery management under the legal definition of "benefits to the nation". Recreational fishing is important in the Mid-Atlantic region with the economic and social aspects of many coastal communities being highly dependent on recreational fishing.
Definition:
Risk of not maximizing recreational fishery value and opportunities.
Indicators:
Currently, angler days and trips are the proxy indicators for the value generated from recreational fishing. Although willingness to pay would better capture the economic concept of recreational value, this information is not gathered systematically in the region. Potentially, multiple indicators could be used to better proxy for recreational fishery value.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="2.625in"}
Potential risk criteria:
Angler days and trips are the proxy indicators for the value generated from recreational fishing.
Risk Level Definition
Low No trends in angler days/trips
Low-Moderate Increasing or high variability in angler days/trips
Moderate-High Significant long term decreases in angler days/trips
Description:
This element is applied at the ecosystem level, and addresses the potential risk of reduced commercial fishery business resilience by evaluating species diversity of revenue at the permit level.
Definition:
Commercial Fishery Resilience (Species Revenue Diversity) - Risk of reduced commercial fishery business resilience (at permit level).
Indicators:
Currently the average effective Shannon index for species revenue at the permit level is used to calculate diversity for all permits landing any amount of Council-managed species within a year (including both monkfish and spiny dogfish). Although the exact value of the effective Shannon index is relatively uninformative in this context, the relative value identifies changes in diversity.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="2.3333333333333335in"}
Although the Shannon index provides a measure proportional to each type's relative frequency, the effective Shannon index has the added benefit of converting diversity measures onto a common scale, which is important when averaging across permits after calculation. As such, the effective Shannon index was selected as the preferred index of fishing diversity, consistent with the literature (Thunberg & Correia 2015).
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low No trend in diversity measure
Low-Moderate Increasing trend or high variance in diversity measure
Moderate-High Significant long term downward trend in diversity measure
Low risk was defined as no trend and low variability in the diversity measure. Low-Moderate risk was an increasing trend or overall high variance in the diversity measure. Moderate-High risk was a significant long term decrease in the diversity measure. High risk was a significant recent decrease in the diversity measure.
Description:
This element is applied at the ecosystem level, and ranks the risk of reduced commercial fishery business resilience due to shoreside support infrastructure by examining the number of shoreside support businesses.
Definition:
Risk of reduced commercial fishery business resilience due to loss of shoreside support infrastructure.
Indicators:
Indicators include the number of shoreside support businesses. The number of shoreside support businesses were tallied for all Mid-Atlantic states in two categories: number of companies (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Obtained September 27, 2017. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm) and number of non-employer entities Non-employer Statistics." Obtained September 28, 2017. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nonemployer-statistics.html), which we consider separately. Non-employer entities are businesses that have no paid employees (i.e. entrepreneurs, or the owner is the workforce), while the shoreside support companies include all businesses with paid employees. Some state level data was not included due to confidentiality.
The number of shoreside support companies include seafood merchant wholesalers, seafood product preparation and packaging, and seafood markets across all Mid-Atlantic states. The indicator shows a significant long-term and short-term decrease, which represents moderate-high risk to fishery resilience. The number of non-employer entities, including seafood preparation and packaging and seafood markets, shows a long-term increase. Data from other shoreside fishery supporting businesses, such as gear manufacturers and welding companies, are not included here due to aggregation of the statistics across non-fishing industries (e.g. net manufacturers combined with all other businesses).
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low No trend in shoreside support businesses
Low-Moderate Increasing or high variability in shoreside support businesses
Moderate-High Significant recent decrease in one measure of shoreside support businesses
Description:
This element ranks the risk of reduced fishery business resilience due to shoreside support infrastructure by examining the number of shoreside support businesses.
Definition:
Risk of reduced fishery business resilience due to shoreside support infrastructure (marinas, bait and tackle shops, etc.).
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended parking this risk element, collect additional information, and allow for continued development of potential indicators.
Commercial Fishery Resilience (4,5,6) - Capital, Insurance Availability, and Emerging Markets/Opportunities (new)
Description:
This element is applied at the ?? level.
Definition:
Risk of reduced fishery business resilience due to business and economic pressures.
Indicators:
Indicators capturing the risk envisioned by the Committee/AP could include access to capital, inflation, gas prices, insurance prices, etc.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended removing these as stand-alone risk elements but consider them for potential indicator development that could inform other commercial fishery resilience risk elements.
This element is applied at the ??? level. This element describes the risk to market access (e.g. spiny dogfish EU market; surfclam on GB and PSP) for Council-managed species. This element would not consider the potential risks to human health.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended removing as a stand-alone risk element and consider as a potential indicator in other commercial fishery resilience risk elements.
[]{#bookmark=id.1ci93xb .anchor}Commercial Fishery Resilience (3) -- Fleet Diversity
Description:
This element is applied at the ecosystem level, and ranks the risk to maintaining equity in access to fishery resources. Beyond equity concerns, maintaining diversity can provide the capacity to adapt to change at the ecosystem level for dependent fishing communities, and can address objectives related to stability.
Definition:
Risk of reduced fishery resilience (number and diversity of fleets).
Indicators:
Currently the diversity in revenue generated by different fleet segments, as well as a count of the number of active fleets, at the ecosystem level. A fleet is defined here as the combination of gear (Scallop Dredge, Other Dredge, Gillnet, Hand Gear, Longline, Bottom Trawl, Midwater Trawl, Pot, Purse Seine, or Clam Dredge) and vessel length category (Less than 30 ft, 30 to 50 ft, 50 to 75 feet, 75 ft and above). The effective Shannon index is used to calculate the diversity of revenue across these fleets. Although the exact value of the effective Shannon index is relatively uninformative in this context, the relative value identifies changes in diversity.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="4.958333333333333in"}
Other metrics for diversity exist. The Simpson index is a common measure of biodiversity, but has the undesirable attribute of being asymmetric and weighing more common types more heavily than the less common types. Although the Shannon index provides a measure proportional to each type's relative frequency, the effective Shannon index has the added benefit of converting diversity measures onto a common scale. As such, the effective Shannon index was selected as the preferred index of fishing diversity, consistent with the literature and ensuring no differential treatment between large and small fleets (Thunberg & Correia 2015).
Potential risk criteria:
Low risk was defined as no trend and low variability in the diversity measure. Low-Moderate risk was increasing variability or overall high variability in the diversity measure. Moderate-High risk was a significant long-term decrease in the diversity measure. High risk was a significant recent decrease in the diversity measure.
Risk Level Definition
Low No trend in diversity measure
Low-Moderate Increasing or high variability in diversity measure
Moderate-High Significant long term downward trend in diversity measure
Description:
This element is applied at the ecosystem level, and ranks the risk to maintaining equity in recreational access to fishery resources. Beyond equity concerns, maintaining diversity can provide the capacity to adapt to change at the ecosystem level for dependent fishing communities, and can address objectives related to stability.
Definition:
Risk of reduced recreational fishery business resilience (diversity of modes).
Indicators:
Recreational fleet effort diversity is already presented in the Mid-Atlantic State of the Ecosystem Report. This indicator is an effective Shannon estimate of diversity of effort across mode (i.e. effort by shoreside, private boat, and for-hire anglers).
{width="5.833333333333333in" height="2.625in"}
Other metrics for diversity exist. The Simpson index is a common measure of biodiversity, but has the undesirable attribute of being asymmetric and weighing more common types more heavily than the less common types. Although the Shannon index provides a measure proportional to each type's relative frequency, the effective Shannon index has the added benefit of converting diversity measures onto a common scale. As such, the effective Shannon index was selected as the preferred index of fishing diversity, consistent with the literature and ensuring no differential treatment between large and small mode contributions (Thunberg & Correia 2015).
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and AP also recommended a harvest:catch ratio by mode indicator. The intent of this indicator would be to evaluate if recreational fishing behavior/preferences are changing (i.e., harvest versus catch and release) within the different recreational modes/sectors.
Potential risk criteria:
Similar criteria could be applied as for commercial diversity. Low risk was defined as no trend and low variability in the diversity measure. Low-Moderate risk was increasing variability or overall high variability in the diversity measure. Moderate-High risk was a significant long-term decrease in the diversity measure. High risk was a significant recent decrease in the diversity measure.
Risk Level Definition
Low No trend in diversity measure
Low-Moderate Increasing or high variability in diversity measure
Moderate-High Significant long term downward trend in diversity measure
**
**
[]{#_Toc146143128 .anchor}Community Vulnerability
Description:
This element ranks the vulnerability of communities to events such as regulatory changes to fisheries, wind farms, and other ocean-based businesses, as well as to natural hazards, disasters, and climate change. Vulnerability metrics can help assess the relative impact of system changes on human communities dependent on and engaged in fishing activities.
This element is applied at the ecosystem level.
Definition:
Risk of reduced community resilience (vulnerability, reliance, engagement).
Indicators:
The NOAA Fisheries Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs; Jepson and Colburn (2013)) are statistical measures of the vulnerability of communities to events such as regulatory changes to fisheries, wind farms, and other ocean-based businesses, as well as to natural hazards, disasters, and climate change. The CSVIs currently serve as indicators of social vulnerability, gentrification pressure vulnerability, commercial and recreational fishing dependence (with dependence being a function of both reliance and engagement), sea level rise risk, species vulnerability to climate change, and catch composition diversity. We use a combination of these five indicators for the most fishery dependent communities to evaluate overall social risk levels.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low Few (<10%) vulnerable fishery dependent communities
Low-Moderate 10-25% of fishery dependent communities with >3 high vulnerability ratings
Moderate-High 25-50% of fishery dependent communities with >3 high vulnerability ratings
Below is a brief description for each vulnerability category based on the NOAA social indicator study (Colburn et al., 2016; Jepson and Colburn, 2013):
-
Fishing dependence indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or recreational fishing to coastal communities.
-
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community's ability to adapt to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing.
-
Gentrification pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure.
Here, we define gentrification in fishing communities as described by Colburn and Jepson (2012), where coastal population growth combined with an influx of higher-income people seeking waterfront property can increase property values and displace working-class residents engaged in resource-dependent activities. "Three common elements of gentrification are reuse of waterfront structures, construction of new housing, and growth within the services sector (Colburn and Jepson, 2012)."
Communities are ranked as high, medium high, moderate, or low relative to the respective indicator. Community dependence on commercial and recreational fishing is mixed, with notably more communities in the Mid-Atlantic dependent on recreational fishing. While communities with high to medium high risk for social vulnerability are broadly distributed in suburban and rural areas of the Mid-Atlantic region, communities with high to medium high gentrification pressure are concentrated in beachfront communities near urban areas in New York and New Jersey.
The social and economic impacts of climate change have been modeled through application of social indicators of fishing dependent communities (Jepson and Colburn, 2013). Assessment of a range of social indicators has been applied in the Mid-Atlantic Region to predict vulnerability of communities to regulatory changes and disasters. More recently this methodology has been extended to include specific indicators of vulnerability to climate change and linked to species vulnerability assessments (Colburn et al., 2016; Hare et al., 2016). The tools developed through this approach are vital to an evaluation of the risks of climate change facing coastal communities dependent on fishing. Below is a description of the CSVIs related to climate change.
-
Sea level rise index is a measure of the overall risk of inundation from sea level rise based on community area lost from one to six foot level projections over the next ~90 years. A high rank indicates a community more vulnerable to sea level rise.
-
Species vulnerability is measured by the proportion of community fish landings that attributed to species vulnerable to climate change.
-
Catch composition diversity is the relative abundance of species landed in a community. It is measured by Simpson's Reciprocal Index, and a higher index value indicates greater diversity. Communities with a diverse array of species landed may be less vulnerable to climate change.
Sea level rise is predicted to have variable impacts on coastal communities. The Mid-Atlantic region has a 3-4 times higher than global average sea level rise rate (Sallenger et al. 2012). Mid-Atlantic communities clustered around the Chesapeake Bay area and the New Jersey shore had especially high vulnerability to sea level rise (Fig. ). These vulnerabilities include infrastructure (docks, marinas, bait shops, gear storage) and access to shore-based facilities due realignment of coastal communities.
Mid-Atlantic fishing communities with total landings value of $100,000 or more were mapped for their dependence on species vulnerable to climate change and catch composition diversity (Simpson Reciprocal Index). A number of communities in southern New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia are highly dependent on species such as clams that are highly vulnerable to climate change while displaying low catch composition diversity. Communities with this situation are considered more vulnerable to climate change in general.
While the maps provide an overview of the social and climate indicator results for the Mid-Atlantic coastal communities, Table identifies Mid-Atlantic communities that are most highly dependent on both commercial and recreational fishing. The varying vulnerability level to social factors, gentrification pressure, and climate change in these communities provide a more comprehensive profile and should be taken into account in the decision making process for fishery management.
To estimate "high" vulnerability across all current indicators (which are ranked on different scales), we tallied rankings from Table of MedHigh or High for social vulnerability and gentrification pressure, along with rankings of High risk from sea level rise, High/Very High species vulnerability, and rankings of Low catch composition diversity. We considered a majority (3 or more out 5) to represent high risk to a community overall because with only 5 indicators, this means that a majority (60-100%) of the individual indicators were high risk. Low risk ranking was defined as few (<10%) vulnerable fishery dependent communities with 3 or more high vulnerability rating. Low-Moderate risk was 10-25% of fishery dependent communities with 3 or more high vulnerability ratings. Moderate-High risk was 25-50% of fishery dependent communities with 3 or more high vulnerability ratings. High risk was a majority (>50%) of fishery dependent communities with 3 or more high vulnerability ratings.
Description:
This element is applied at the ecosystem level, and describes the risk of not optimizing domestic commercial fishing production from Council-managed species and total commercial fishing production in the Mid-Atlantic. Commercial seafood landings , as well as total landings which include bait, are used to assess fishing production.
Definition:
Risk of not optimizing total commercial fishing production.
Indicators:
Commercial seafood landings from Council managed species (in red below) and total landings (in black) which include bait and industrial uses were used to assess fishing production.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="2.9166666666666665in"}
Time series of landings of bait from the Federal Commercial Dealer Database.
Potential risk criteria:
The criteria still needs to be developed to account for both seafood and total commercial landings.
Description:
This element is applied at the ecosystem level, and describes the risk of not maintaining personal food production.
Definition:
Risk of not maintaining personal food production
Indicators:
Total recreational harvest (all species) and harvest per angler are currently used as indicators in the Mid-Atlantic region. Recreational seafood landings (as opposed to total catch which includes catch and release that are captured under other Risk Elements/indicators) were used to assess food use of recreationally caught fish.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel also supported the potential development of new indicators that would evaluate the subsistence component of this risk element.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="2.3333333333333335in"}
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low No trend or increase in recreational landings
Low-Moderate Increasing or high variability in recreational landings
Moderate-High Significant long term decrease in recreational landings
Low risk was defined as no trend, or an increase in recreational seafood landings. Low-Moderate risk was increasing or high variability in recreational seafood landings. Moderate-High risk was a significant long-term decrease in recreational seafood landings. High risk was a significant recent decrease in recreational seafood landings.
Description:
This element ranks the risk of not optimizing or maintaining employment opportunities in the commercial sector. What does optimized employment entail?
Definition:
Risk of not optimizing or maintaining commercial job creation and retention
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended parking this risk element until additional work and development could occur. As a potential indicator, the group suggested utilizing commercial VTR information (number of crew and days absent) that might provide a timeseries of employment (or proxy for employment) at the individual level.
Description:
This element ranks the risk of not optimizing or maintaining employment opportunities in the recreational sector. What does optimized employment entail?
Definition:
Risk of not optimizing or maintaining recreational job creation and retention.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended parking this risk element until additional work and development could occur. As a potential indicator, the group suggested utilizing party/charter VTR information (number of crew and days/trips) that might provide a timeseries of employment (or proxy for employment) at the individual level.
[]{#bookmark=id.2p2csry .anchor}Fishing Mortality Control
Description:
This element is applied at the species and sector (commercial and recreational) level, and addresses the level of management control in terms of catch estimation and monitoring to prevent overfishing. Adequate management control indicates a low risk of overfishing, while poor management control indicates a higher risk of overfishing and hence not achieving OY.
The ability to control total catch within the specified Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) is necessary to prevent overfishing, which is a fundamental requirement of US fisheries law. Chronic or persistent overfishing can lead to stock depletion and ultimately to a stock being declared as overfished and requiring a stock rebuilding plan. The ability to constrain catch is a function of the efficacy of the catch monitoring program for each species and sector which relies on both proactive (in -season closure) and reactive (pay backs for overages in subsequent years) accountability measures (AMs). Under certain circumstances, specification of management measures which are too strict could lead to "underfishing" (not achieving the desired quota) and hence not achieving OY.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to a mismatch of projected effects of management controls with harvest/catch targets.
Indicators:
Total catch at the fishery sector level compared to the appropriate catch limit (ABC or Annual Catch Limit, ACL). For the commercial fishery, NMFS dealer data in conjunction with estimates of dead discards from the most recent stock assessment are used to compare the annual catch limit to actual annual catch. For the recreational sector, Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) estimates of recreational landings and dead discards in conjunction with stock assessment estimates of recreational discards in weight are used to compare the annual catch limit to actual annual catch estimates.
Landings only information could potentially be considered if underfishing appears to be more important or if discards are low for a fishery sector. Discards are also addressed under a separate risk element. However, the current risk element is "Fishing Mortality Control" which would include both landings and discards. The Mid-Atlantic State of the Ecosystem report now includes an indicator that looks at total catch divided by total ABC or ACL across all Mid-Atlantic species if a broader look across managed species is preferred.
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="2.625in"}
{width="5.833333333333333in"
height="2.3333333333333335in"}
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low No recent history (last 5 years) of overages
Low-Moderate Small recent overages, but infrequent
Moderate-High Routine recent overages, but small to moderate
[]{#_Toc145171771 .anchor}Technical Interactions
Description:
This element is applied at the species and sector (commercial and recreational) level and considerers potential interactions with non-Council-managed species, including protected species, on Council-managed fisheries. Here the risk is caused by negative consequences from fishing activity regulated under Council FMPs which interacts with species managed by other agencies, including bycatch of protected species. For example, interactions with species protected under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) could result in greater restrictions in Council managed fisheries, increasing the risk that OY would not be achieved in those fisheries.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to interactions with non-Council managed species, including protected species.
Indicators:
The current indicator used is the MMPA category fishery level (Category I - frequent incidental mortality or injury; Category II - occasional incidental mortality or injury; Category III, remote likelihood of incidental mortality or injury) assigned to the dominant gear type associated with the fishery sector. This indicator is relatively static over time and may not appropriately track risk associated with these technical interactions.
Could look at the total number of protected species "takes" by a fishery sector by year or five year period. Could also consider regulatory changes that were considered and/or implemented to reduce technical interactions in Mid-Atlantic fisheries.
Proposed risk criteria:
Evaluation of this risk element requires quantification of the likelihood that non-Council AMs would be triggered and impact fishing activities for Council managed species. In addition, NMFS manages incidental mortality of mammals through take reductions plans which could negatively impact a fishery.
Risk Level Definition
Low No interactions with non-Council managed species
Low-Moderate Interactions with non-Council managed species but infrequent, Category II fishery under MMPA with limited takes; or AMs not likely triggered
Moderate-High AMs in non-Council managed species may be triggered; or Category I fishery under MMPA (but takes less than PBR)
High AMs in non-Council managed species triggered; or Category I fishery under MMPA and takes above PBR
[]{#_Toc146143137 .anchor}Offshore Wind -- Biological/Ecosystem (new)
Description:
This element would be applied at the species level and considers the biological and ecosystem risks of offshore wind development on Council-managed fishery resources and/or the supporting habitat. Offshore wind development is expected to cover 2.4 million acres of ocean space by 2030 in the Greater Atlantic region (ME through NC). Within these lease areas, there are 3,400 foundations (i.e., wind turbines) with over 9,000 miles of interconnecting cable proposed for construction. Offshore wind siting, construction, and operation has the potential for a variety of biological impacts and associated risks for fisheries resources. Habitat alteration, local hydrodynamic changes, underwater noise, and electromagnetic fields (EMF) can affect stock productivity, food availability and migration patterns. However, these risks are likely different across species and habitat types and more research is needed to fully understand these impacts.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to biological impacts to stock productivity, distribution, and ecosystem structure and function.
Indicators:
Information and relevant data at the species level available in the NOAA Tech Memo titled "Fisheries and Offshore Wind Interactions: Synthesis of Science".
Species distribution overlap with offshore wind from a couple of potential data sources (e.g., https://apps-st.fisheries.noaa.gov/dismap/DisMAP.html). However, translating exposure into a risk of impacts, which is likely to be different by species, may be challenging.
From the State of the Ecosystem report - Right whale spatial overlap with offshore wind lease areas to help inform the ecosystem structure/function component of the definition.
{width="6.5in" height="8.402777777777779in"}
Right whale hot spots overlap with offshore wind lease areas
In addition, recent work by Friedland et al. 2023 ( [https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mcf2.10230]{.underline}), evaluated the habitat usage by forage species within and outside of offshore wind lease areas. This information could also be used to help inform the ecosystem structure/function component of the definition.
{width="6.5in" height="6.930555555555555in"}
Mean occupancy habitats at the 20% (light blue) and 80% (dark blue) quantile thresholds across forage species; gray shows the model extent. Taxa with spring models include (A) Atlantic Mackerel, (B) Atlantic Menhaden, and (C) Atlantic Herring; taxa with autumn models include (D) Round Herring, (E) longfin inshore squid, (F) Atlantic Chub Mackerel, (G) Spanish Sardine, (H) Butterfish, and (I) Atlantic Thread Herring.
Potential risk criteria:
To be developed.
Description:
This element would be applied at the species and sector (commercial and recreational) level and considers the risks of offshore wind development on data and science quality and to fishery/fleet access for Council-managed fishery resources. Given the anticipated overlap between offshore wind lease areas and spatial coverage of many fishery-dependent survey strata, there are anticipated survey impacts through "preclusion, habitat change, changes in statistical design, and reduced sampling productivity" (Hogan et al. 2023). These impacts to the quality and quantity of the data could have implications for stock assessments, scientific uncertainty, and catch levels. As wind turbine construction and operation continues and expands, fishing fleet access, fishing operations, and revenue are anticipated to change.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to fishery impacts due to access and scientific uncertainty.
Indicators:
Indicators for the Mid-Atlantic State of the Ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts web site. Fishery revenue and party charter activity from within lease areas by species, fleet, or community, community vulnerability/engagement/EEJ, spatial overlap of lease areas and federal fisheries surveys.
{width="5.833333333333333in" height="2.625in"}
{width="6.5in"
height="10.041666666666666in"}Spatial overlap map with NEFSC surveys
(From 2021 SOE; wind areas are out of date)
FishRules and FishBrain apps for recreational fishing spatial overlap information (work is still under review).
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low 0-3% revenue in lease area; no/low EEJ concerns; 0-5% spatial overlap for relevant survey(s)
Low-Moderate 4-10% revenue in lease area; low-moderate EEJ concerns; 5-20% spatial overlap for relevant survey(s)
Moderate-High 11-20% revenue in lease area; moderate-high EEJ concerns; 21-40% spatial overlap for relevant survey(s)
Description:
This element would be applied at the species and sector (commercial and recreational) level and considers the risks of non-wind related energy development offshore, which could include tidal energy turbines, oil and gas extraction, and other development of offshore energy infrastructure.
Definition:
Risks of all offshore energy exploration and/or production on fishery displacement.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended removing this as a stand-alone risk element and be included as a potential indicator under the Other Ocean Activities risk element (see below).
Description:
There is growing interest in the continued development and expansion of aquaculture production to support the increasing consumption of seafood and complement wild-caught fisheries. The Council does have an aquaculture policy, but does not have regulatory authority over aquaculture permitting, development, or operation. This element would be applied at the species level and would consider the biological and/or spatial risks of aquaculture development on Mid-Atlantic Council managed fisheries.
Definition:
Risks to fishery access from area closures due to aquaculture development in the Mid-Atlantic.
The Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee and Advisory Panel recommended removing this as a stand-alone risk element and be included as a potential indicator under the Other Ocean Activities risk element (see below).
Description:
This element is applied at the species and sector (commercial and recreational) level, and addresses the risk of fishery displacement or damage of a fishery resource and/or supporting habitat as a result of non-fishing activities in the ocean (e.g., energy development/aquaculture/shipping/other industrial uses, etc.). Many of these activities are in planning stages but not yet implemented in the region. It also includes evaluation of risk to Council fisheries from area-based measures outside of the control of the Council, including area closures implemented by other Councils to protect sensitive habitats, spawning areas, etc. and/or through marine monument/sanctuaries or other types of area-based management designations.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to fishery displacement from non-fishing ocean activities and/or area designations.
Indicators:
A more quantitative approach (similar to that done for offshore wind) could be applied with GIS mapping to determine the spatial footprint of current and future planned non-fishing activities (if available) could be calculated and qualify and spatial overlap with existing habitat and/or fishing ground locations. With a quantitative evaluation, potential to use a range/binned approach to specify risk level (e.g., 0-10% overlap, low risk, 11-20% overlap, low-moderate risk etc.), but those bins and risk level would likely be arbitrary. Depending on scope of element and how applied, could use the NMFS Habitat Climate Vulnerability Assessment, the Mid-Atlantic Council NRHA data explorer, and the America the CCC Area-Based Management tool for spatial mapping and overlap calculations.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low No spatial overlap with fisheries
Low-Moderate Low-moderate overlap with fisheries
Moderate-High Moderate-high overlap with fisheries
Further refinement of the criteria will be needed to identify potential thresholds to indicate a specific risk level.
Description:
This element is applied at the species and sector (commercial and recreational) level. Constituents have frequently raised concerns about the complexity and continually changing fishery regulations and the need to simplify them to improve their efficacy. Complex and constantly changing regulations may lead to non-compliance and/or impact other fisheries. Non-compliance could have stock assessment, data quality, management, and fairness and equity implications.
Revised definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to frequency of regulatory modifications and regulatory complexity, which may have an adverse effect on compliance.
Indicators:
Continue with a qualitative evaluation using the frequency of any regulatory change over the last 5 years by fishery and sector.
Potential alternative indicators include: quantifying the number of regulations and/or the frequency of regulatory changes, based on evaluation of the Code of Federal Regulations; frequency of mid-changes; number of states in management unit with different regulations (recreational bluefish versus black sea bass for example); noncompliant harvest relative to total harvest reported by MRIP to track compliance.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk levels and definitions will need to be updated depending upon the indicators developed for this risk element.
[]{#bookmark=id.32hioqz .anchor}Allocation
Description:
Many Mid-Atlantic fisheries have some allocation component and any adjustments/changes in allocation can be driven by a number of factors which can present a variety of management, biological, and fishery risks. This element is applied at the species and sector level, and addresses the risk of not achieving OY due to spatial mismatch of stocks and management allocations or because of sub-optimal allocation by sector and/or area.
Definition:
Risk of not achieving OY due to spatial mismatch of stocks and management or sub-optimal allocation by sector and/or area.
Indicators:
Currently, the Allocation indicator consists of whether or not the Council is considering or an ongoing management action that might have any sort of allocation outcome/implication (by sector, region, permit holder etc.). However, this indicator does not directly get at the actual risk associated with spatial mis-match or sub-optimal allocation.
Indicators quantifying the difficulty of allocation could include a combination of distribution shifts (see above) and the number of interests (sectors, states, etc.) requiring allocation. There are new analyses and tools available (Palacios-Abrentes et al 2023 -https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279025) that could provide more insight on actual mismatch risks for some species and sectors.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low No recent or ongoing Council discussion about allocation
Low-Moderate This category not used
Moderate-High This category not used
Currently, there are no definitions to specify intermediate levels of risk for this element, so only low and high risk criteria have been developed. A Low risk ranking was no recent or ongoing Council discussion about allocation. High risk was defined as recent or ongoing Council discussion about allocation.
[]{#_Toc145171772 .anchor}Discards
Description:
This element is applied at the species and sector level. Stakeholders have identified the reduction of discards as a high priority in the Council management program, especially those caused by regulations since they represent biological and economic waste. Discards of either the target or non-target species in the fishery would be taken into consideration.
Definition:
Risk of not minimizing regulatory discards, bycatch mortality, and incidental catch to extent practicable.
Indicators:
NMFS provides estimates of discards by species based, in large part, on at-sea observations collected in the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP), for stock assessment purposes and quota monitoring. The observer program provides information on the reason for discarding during a commercial trip. In addition, the MRIP provides estimate of discards by species for the recreational fisheries. Discards and incidental catch will be evaluated for each species and fishery with a focus on identifying discards caused by regulations for each fishery sector. The ratio of regulatory discards to total discards for the target species could be applied or the ratio of discards to overall catch of the target species could be applied. A similar, or combined, approach could be applied for non-target species.
Discard mortality indicators might be more challenging, at least in terms of tracking improvements/declines over time. Discard mortality rates by species and gear type are not estimated annually, or even every 10 years, and are typically based on results developed from targeted research projects. Therefore, a static discard mortality rate by species and gear is applied to the discard estimate.
Potential risk criteria:
Low risk was defined as no significant discards and incidental catch (<5%). Low-Moderate risk was low or episodic discarding and incidental catch (<20%). Moderate-High risk was regular discarding and incidental catch (20% or more) but managed at an acceptable level. High risk was high discarding and incidental catch (>40%) and difficulty in management. A similar approach could be applied to discard mortality risks: low - mortality <5% for dominant gear; low-moderate - mortality <25% for dominant gear; moderate-high - mortality <50% for dominant gear; mortality >50% for dominant gear.
Risk Level Definition
Low No significant discards or incidental catch; no significant discard mortality
Low-Moderate Low or episodic discards and incidental catch; low discard mortality
Moderate-High Regular discards and incidental catch but managed; moderate discard mortality
Description:
The MSA requires federal fishery management councils and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service to designate Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for species managed under federal fishery management plans. EFH designation is important because it means those areas will be given additional consideration before any federal agencies are allowed to carry out activities in those areas. This element would be applied at the species level and would consider risks for not properly identifying and/or projecting EFH for Council-managed species.
Definition:
Risk of not identifying and/or protecting essential fish habitat and implications for Council-managed species.
Indicators:
The Northeast Habitat Climate Vulnerability Assessment and the Northeast Regional Habitat Assessment (https://www.mafmc.org/nrha) Data Explorer could be used to help identify EFH and critical habitats and potentially quantify changes in the total/spatial extent of these habitats over time (ie., compare current EFH areas to updated EFH areas). Quantifying the spatial overlap of offshore wind lease areas and EFH footprint.
The Council is currently reviewing EFH designations for all Council-managed species and outcomes from that action could be used to develop the indicators considered here.
Potential risk criteria:
Risk Level Definition
Low No-little change in EFH quantity; little-small spatial overlap between offshore wind lease area and designated EFH []{.mark}
Low-Moderate Low -moderate change in EFH quantity; low-moderate overlap between offshore wind lease area and designated EFH
Moderate-High Moderate-high change in EFH quantity; moderate-high overlap between offshore wind lease area and designated EFH
The Council is currently working on an amendment to update EFH designations for Council managed species. Development of any indicators, if using those provided above, and evaluation of ranking criteria would likely not occur until sometime in 2025 once the EFH amendment is complete.
Able, K. W. (2005). A re-examination of fish estuarine dependence: Evidence for connectivity between estuarine and ocean habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64, 5--17. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2005.02.002.
Barrett, R. T., Camphuysen, K. (C. J. )., Anker-Nilssen, T., Chardine, J. W., Furness, R. W., Garthe, S., et al. (2007). Diet studies of seabirds: A review and recommendations. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64, 1675--1691. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsm152.
Bowser, A. K., Diamond, A. W., and Addison, J. A. (2013). From puffins to plankton: A DNA-based analysis of a seabird food chain in the northern Gulf of Maine. PLoS One 8:e83152.
Burke, V. T., Morreale, S. J., and Standora, E. A. (1994). Diet of the Kemps ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, in New York waters. Fishery Bulletin 92, 26--32.
Burke, V. T., Standora, E. A., and Morreale, S. J. (1993). Diet of Juvenile Kemp's Ridley and Loggerhead Sea Turtles from Long Island, New York. Copeia 1993, 1176--1180.
Carruthers, T. R., Punt, A. E., Walters, C. J., MacCall, A., McAllister, M. K., Dick, E. J., et al. (2014). Evaluating methods for setting catch limits in data-limited fisheries. Fisheries Research 153, 48--68. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2013.12.014.
Colburn, L. L., and Jepson, M. (2012). Social Indicators of Gentrification Pressure in Fishing Communities: A Context for Social Impact Assessment. Coastal Management 40, 289--300. doi:10.1080/08920753.2012.677635.
Colburn, L. L., Jepson, M., Weng, C., Seara, T., Weiss, J., and Hare, J. A. (2016). Indicators of climate change and social vulnerability in fishing dependent communities along the Eastern and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Marine Policy 74, 323--333. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.030.
Friedland, K.D., Ganley, L.C., Dimarchopoulou, D., Gaichas, S., Morse, R.E., Jordaan, A., 2023. Change in body size in a rapidly warming marine ecosystem: Consequences of tropicalization. Science of The Total Environment 903, 166117. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166117]{.underline}
Gabriel, W. L., and Mace, P. M. (1999). "A Review of Biological Reference Points in the Context of the Precautionary Approach," in Proceedings of the Fifth National NMFS Stock Assessment Workshop: Providing Scientific Advice to Implement the Precautionary Approach Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-40., ed. V. R. Restrepo (U.S. Dep. Commer.), 34--45. Available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/stock/documents/workshops/nsaw_5/gabriel_.pdf.
Gaichas, S. K., Seagraves, R. J., Coakley, J. M., DePiper, G. S., Guida, V. G., Hare, J. A., et al. (2016). A Framework for Incorporating Species, Fleet, Habitat, and Climate Interactions into Fishery Management. Frontiers in Marine Science 3. doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00105.
Gannon, D. P., Read, A. J., Craddock, J. E., and Mead, J. G. (1997). Stomach contents of long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) stranded on the U.S. Mid-Atlantic coast. Marine
Mammal Science 13, 405--418. Available at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/prot_res/atgtrp/ai/bgl/3.pdf [Accessed November 17, 2017].
Hare, J. A., Morrison, W. E., Nelson, M. W., Stachura, M. M., Teeters, E. J., Griffis, R. B., et al. (2016). A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLOS ONE 11, e0146756. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146756.
Jepson, M., and Colburn, L. L. (2013). Development of Social Indicators of Fishing Community Vulnerability and Resilience in the US Southeast and Northeast Regions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-129 (US Dept Commerce, 2013). Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/councils/training/2014/r_h3_fishing_community_vulnerability.pdf [Accessed September 25, 2015].
Johnson, A.K., Richards, A., Cullen, D.W., Sutherland, S.J., 2008. Growth, reproduction, and feeding of large monkfish, Lophius americanus. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65, 1306--1315.
Johnson, J. H., Dropkin, D. S., Warkentine, B. E., Rachlin, J. W., and Andrews, W. D. (1997). Food Habits of Atlantic Sturgeon off the Central New Jersey Coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126, 166--170.
McClellan, C. M., and Read, A. J. (2007). Complexity and variation in loggerhead sea turtle life history. Biological Letters 3, 592--594.
Palacios-Abrantes J, Crosson S, Dumas C, Fujita R, Levine A, Longo C, et al. (2023) Quantifying fish range shifts across poorly defined management boundaries. PLoS ONE 18(1): e0279025. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279025]{.underline}
Perry, M. C., Olsen, G. H., Richards, A., and Osenton, P. C. (2013). Predation on Dovekies by Goosefish over Deep Water in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Northeastern Naturalist 20, 148--154. Available at: https://www.eaglehill.us/NENAonline/articles/NENA-20-1/20-Perry.shtml [Accessed September 26, 2017].
Powers, K. D. (1983). Pelagic distributions of marine birds off the Northeastern United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC 27. Woods Hole, MA.
Powers, K. D., and Backus, E. H. (1987). "Energy transfer to seabirds," in Georges Bank, eds. R. H. Backus and D. W. Bourne (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 372--374.
Powers, K. D., and Brown, R. G. B. (1987). "Seabirds," in Georges Bank, eds. R. H. Backus and D. W. Bourne (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 359--371.
Richards, R. A. (2016). 2016 Monkfish Operational Assessment. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 16-09. National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 Available at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1609/crd1609.pdf [Accessed October 2, 2018].
Savoy, T. (2007). Prey eaten by Atlantic sturgeon in Connecticut waters. Pages 157-166 in J. Munro, D. Hatin, J. E. Hightower, K. McKown, K. J. Sulak, A. W. Kahnle, and F. Caron, editors. Anadromous sturgeons: Habitats, threats, and management. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 56. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Schneider, D. C., and Heinemann, D. W. (1996). "The state of marine bird populations from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine," in The Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management, eds. K. Sherman, N. A. Jaworski, and T. J. Smayda (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science), 197--216.
Seney, E. E., and Musick, J. A. (2007). Historical Diet Analysis of Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta Caretta) in Virginia. Copeia 2007, 478--489. doi:10.1643/0045-8511(2007)7[478:HDAOLS]2.0.CO;2.
Shoop, C. R., and Kenney, R. D. (1992). Seasonal Distributions and Abundances of Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles in Waters of the Northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs 6, 43--67.
Smith, B. E., and Link, J. S. (2010). The Trophic Dynamics of 50 Finfish and 2 Squid Species on the Northeast US Continental Shelf. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-216. National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm216/ [Accessed April 26, 2016].
Smith, L. A., Link, J. S., Cadrin, S. X., and Palka, D. L. (2015). Consumption by marine mammals on the Northeast U.S. Continental shelf. Ecological Applications 25, 373--389. doi:10.1890/13-1656.1.
US EPA (2012). National Coastal Condition Report IV, EPA-842-R-10-003. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research; Development/Office of Water Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nccr.