State of the Ecosystem
January Synthesis Meeting

EDAB/NEFSC
13-15 January 2025

Day 1: Tuesday, 13 January 2025

Overview of SOE structure (Tuesday, 9:20-9:45)

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reporting

Improving ecosystem information and synthesis for fishery managers

• Ecosystem indicators linked to management objectives (DePiper et al., 2017)

  • Contextual information
  • Report evolving since 2016
  • Fishery-relevant subset of full Ecosystem Status Reports

• Open science emphasis (Bastille et al., 2020)

• Used within Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s Ecosystem Process (Muffley et al., 2020)

The IEA Loop¹

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

Ecosystem reporting at different levels of organization

The SOE provides information at the ecosystem level

Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profiles (ESPs) provide information at the stock level

Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profiles support fisheries science and management by providing additional context that can help inform the development of the stock assessment model, as well as by communicating contextual information to fisheries managers.

State of the Ecosystem: Maintain 2025 structure for 2026

2026 Report Structure

1. Graphical summary
   • Page 1 report card re: performance metrics →
   • Page 2 risk summary bullets
   • Page 3 2025 snapshot
2. Performance relative to management objectives
   • What does the indicator say–up, down, stable?
   • Why do we think it is changing: explore drivers
3. Risks to meeting management objectives
   • Same What and Why as Performance Section
4. 2025 Highlights

Objective Categories	Indicators reported
Performance Metrics
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
Drivers of Performance
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
Risks to Meeting Objectives
Risks to Managing Spatially	Fish and cetacean distribution shifts
Risks to Managing Seasonally	Spawning and migration timing
Risks to Setting Catch Limits	Fish condition and recruitment
Other Ocean Uses	Fishery revenue and landings from wind lease areas by species and port
Drivers of Risks
Habitat and prey quality	Benthic and pelagic forage distribution; ocean temperature; changes in currents and cold pool
Phenology	Habitat timing: length of ocean summer, cold pool seasonal persistence
Drivers of productivity	Benthic and pelagic forage quality and abundance; ocean temperature and acidification
Other Ocean Uses	Wind development map; protected species presence and hotspots

Ecosystem synthesis framework

Characterizing ecosystem change for fishery management – how do we synthesize multiple indicators to explain ecosystem dynamics?

• 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. While we don’t yet incorporate statistical tests for regime shifts, we qualitatively assess whether multiple indicators suggest a regime shift may have occurred.
• 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. We qualitatively consider whether ecosystem reorganization has occured by assessing changes in species distributions, community composition, food web structure, and fishery dynamics.

State of the Ecosystem report scale and figures

A glossary of terms (2021 Memo 5), detailed technical methods documentation and indicator data are available online.

Key to figures

Long-term trends assessed only for 30+ years: more information

Short-term trends assessed for last 10 years of data OR a full time series <30 years

Orange line = significant increase

Purple line = significant decrease

No color line = not significant or < 30 years

Grey background = last 10 years

2025 State of the Ecosystem Request tracking memo: updates noted along the way

2026 Report Timeline

All participants:

This meeting, Jan 13-15

Group edit, Jan 16-26

Lead editors:

Internal review, Feb 2-13

Document public: March

SSC and Council presentations: March-June

NOAA IR: May

Review of Management Applications (Tuesday, 9:45-10:15)

Review of 2025 Summary results (Tuesday, 10:15-10:30)

These are the basis of 2026–discuss what to change

Mid Atlantic State of the Ecosystem Summary 2025:

Performance relative to management objectives

Seafood production ,

Profits ,

Recreational opportunities: Effort Effort diversity

Stability: Fishery not stable; Ecological not stable

Social and cultural:

• Fishing engagement and social vulnerability status by community

• Revenue climate vulnerability , majority high risk

Protected species:

• Maintain bycatch below thresholds (harbor porpoise, gray seals)

• Recover endangered populations (NARW)

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2025:

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Climate: risks to managing spatially, managing seasonally, and catch specification

• 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
  • 1-46% by Mid-Atlantic port
  • 2-16% by MAFMC managed species
• Overlap with important right whale foraging habitats, increased vessel strike and noise risks

New England State of the Ecosystem Summary 2025:

Performance relative to management objectives - Georges Bank

Seafood production Total , Managed , Both

Profits ,

Recreational opportunities: Effort Effort diversity

Stability: Fishery not stable; Ecological not stable

Social and cultural:

• Fishing engagement and social vulnerability status by community

• Revenue climate vulnerability , majority medium risk

Protected species:

• Maintain bycatch below thresholds (harbor porpoise, gray seals)

• Recover endangered populations , NARW Gray seal

New England State of the Ecosystem Summary 2025:

Performance relative to management objectives - Gulf of Maine

Seafood production ,

Profits Total , ; NEFMC managed ,

Recreational opportunities: Effort Effort diversity

Stability: Fishery not stable; Ecological not stable

Social and cultural:

• Fishing engagement and social vulnerability status by community

• Revenue climate vulnerability , majority medium risk

Protected species:

• Maintain bycatch below thresholds (harbor porpoise, gray seals)

• Recover endangered populations , NARW Gray seal Salmon

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2025:

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Climate: risks to managing spatially, managing seasonally, and catch specification

• 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
  • 1-32% by New England port
  • 1-20% by NEFMC
• Overlap with important right whale foraging habitats, increased vessel strike and noise risks

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2025: 2024 Highlights

Notable 2024 events and conditions

• 2024 warmest year on record globally. Again.

• BUT

• Cooler conditions across the coast

• Well established Mid Atlantic Cold Pool

• Multiple summer upwelling events off NJ

• Extreme ocean acidification measured off NJ

• Many fishery observations of different spatial and timing patterns, changed abundance

• Good scallop recruitment in Nantucket lightship

• More red drum in Chesapeake Bay

• Arctic copepods in GOM

• Cocolithophore bloom off NY

• Large whale aggregations

We welcome your observations! northeast.ecosystem.highlights@noaa.gov

Break! 10:30-10:45

Overview of new and revised indicators (Tuesday, 10:45-12)

Lunch! 12-1:30

Performance Relative to Management Objectives (Tuesday, 1:30-3:30)

Objective: Mid Atlantic Seafood production

Indicators: Commercial landings, climate risk

Indicators: Recreational harvest

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

Mid Atlantic Landings drivers: Stock status? TAC?

Indicator: Stock status

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

Catch near limits on average

Implications: Mid Atlantic Seafood Production Drivers

Biomass does not appear to drive landings trends

• Declining aggregate planktivores, benthos?

• Recreational drivers differ: shark fishery management, possibly survey methodology

Monitor:

• climate risks including warming, ocean acidification, and shifting distributions

• ecosystem composition and production changes

• fishing engagement

Objective: New England Seafood production

Indicators: Commercial landings, climate risk

Multiple drivers: ecosystem and stock production, management actions (stock rebuilding), market conditions (including COVID-19 disruptions), and environmental change

Indicators: Recreational harvest

New England drivers: Stock status? Survey biomass?

Indicator: Stock status

GB Haddock & Plaice now have B/Bmsy >1. GOM Haddock now has F/Fmsy < 1. Stock status and required management actions still likely playing large role in seafood declines.

Indicators: Survey biomass

Gulf of Maine

Georges Bank

Biomass availability still seems unlikely driver

Implications: New England Seafood Production

Drivers:

• Decline in commercial landings is most likely driven by actions to rebuild individual stocks (lower quotas) as well as market dynamics
• other drivers affecting recreational landings: tighter shark fishery regulations, changing demographics and preferences of anglers

Monitor:

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

Objective: Mid Atlantic Commercial Profits

Indicator: Commercial Revenue; profit indicators under SSC review

Indicator: Bennet–price and volume indices

Objective: New England Commercial Profits

Indicator: Commercial Revenue; profit indicators under SSC review

Both regions dependent on single climate-vulnerable species

Indicator: Bennet–price and volume indices

GOM high revenue despite low volume

Objective: Mid Atlantic Recreational opportunities ;

Indicators: Recreational effort and fleet diversity

Implications

• Adding 2023 data, recreational effort (angler trips) retains the long term increase.

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

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

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

Objective: New England Recreational opportunities

Indicators: Recreational effort and fleet diversity

Implications

• Absence of a long-term trend in recreational effort suggests relative stability in the overall number of recreational opportunities in New England

Objective: Mid Atlantic Fishery Stability: Not Stable

Fishery Indicators: Commercial fleet count, fleet diversity

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

Objective: New England Fishery Stability: Not Stable

Fishery Indicators: Commercial fleet count, fleet diversity

Fishery Implications:

• Commercial fishery diversity driven by small number of species; less capacity to respond to new opportunities

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

• Recreational diversity increase due to increase in ASFMC and MAFMC managed species

New indicator: Crew survey

How could crew survey information be integrated into fisheries stability analyses?

Objective: Mid Atlantic Ecological Stability

Ecological Indicators: zooplankton communities and total primary production

Objective: Mid Atlantic Ecological Stability (Cont.)

Ecological Indicators: fish richness and traits

• Declines in species trophic level & other life history traits suggests changing ecology

Objective: New England Ecological Stability

Ecological Indicators: zooplankton communities and total primary production

Left = GB, right = GOM

Objective: New England Ecological Stability (Cont.)

Ecological Indicators: fish richness and traits

• Declines in species trophic level & other life history traits suggests changing ecology

Mid Atlantic Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Indicators: Commercial fishery engagement, social vulnerability, revenue climate vulnerability

Community	personal_disruption_rank	pop_composition_rank	poverty_rank
Ocean City,MD	2	1	1
Barnegat Light,NJ	1	1	1
Cape May,NJ	1	1	1
Point Pleasant Beach,NJ	1	1	1
Brick,NJ	1	1	1
Hampton Bays/Shinnecock,NY	1	3	1
Montauk,NY	1	1	1
Newport News,VA	2	3	2

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Indicators: Commercial fishery revenue climate vulnerability

The Community Climate Change Risk Indicators are calculated by multiplying the percent contribution of species to the total value landed in a community by their respective Total Vulnerability scores (based on NOAA’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment) for different sensitivity and exposure factors and then summing the resulting values by year.

CCCVR map total vulnerability

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Indicators: Recreational fishery engagement, social vulnerability

Community	personal_disruption_rank	pop_composition_rank	poverty_rank
Bivalve, MD	low	med
Nanticoke, MD	med high	low	low
Ocean City, MD	med	low	low
Stevensville, MD	low	low	low
Solomons Island/Solomons/Lusby, MD	low	low	low
Avon, NC	med high	low
Morehead City, NC	med	low	med high
Nags Head, NC	low	low	low
Rodanthe, NC	low	low	low
Topsail Beach, NC	low	low	low
Hatteras township, NC	low	low	low
Atlantic Highlands, NJ	low	low	low
Barnegat Light, NJ	low	low	low
Cape May, NJ	low	low	low
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ	low	low	low
Babylon, NY	low	low	low
Montauk, NY	low	low	low
Orient, NY	low	low	low
Point Lookout, NY	med	low	low
Virginia Beach, VA	low	med	low
Wachapreague, VA	low	low	low
Cape May, NJ
Montauk, NY
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ
Barnegat Light, NJ
Ocean City, MD
Virginia Beach, VA
Morehead City, NC
Hatteras township, NC
Wachapreague, VA
Avon, NC
Atlantic Highlands, NJ
Babylon, NY
Nags Head, NC
Point Lookout, NY
Nanticoke, MD
Orient, NY
Bivalve, MD
Rodanthe, NC
Topsail Beach, NC
Solomons Island/Solomons/Lusby, MD
Stevensville, MD
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
BIVALVE, MD
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
NANTICOKE, MD
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
STEVENSVILLE, MD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS, NJ
BABYLON, NY
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NJ
CAPE MAY, NJ
MONTAUK, NY
OCEAN CITY, MD
ORIENT, NY
POINT LOOKOUT, NY
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, NJ
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
WACHAPREAGUE, VA

New England Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Indicators: Commercial fishery engagement, social vulnerability, revenue climate vulnerability

Community	personal_disruption_rank	pop_composition_rank	poverty_rank
Chatham,MA	1	1	1
Gloucester,MA	1	1	2
New Bedford,MA	4	3	3
Boston,MA	2	3	3
Portland,ME	1	1	1
Stonington,ME	1	1	1
Friendship,ME	1	1	1
Narragansett/Point Judith,RI	1	1	1

Implications: Highlighted communities may be vulnerable to changes in fishing patterns due to regulations and/or climate change. When also experiencing social vulnerabilities, they may have lower ability to successfully respond to change.

New England Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Indicators: Commercial fishery revenue climate vulnerability

The Community Climate Change Risk Indicators are calculated by multiplying the percent contribution of species to the total value landed in a community by their respective Total Vulnerability scores (based on NOAA’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment) for different sensitivity and exposure factors and then summing the resulting values by year.

New England communities shifting towads High/Very High climate vulnerability. Consolidating Species

CCCVR map total vulnerability

New England Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Indicators: Recreational fishery engagement, social vulnerability

Community	personal_disruption_rank	pop_composition_rank	poverty_rank
Clinton, CT	med	low	med
Old Saybrook, CT	low	low	low
Waterford, CT	low	low	low
Bourne, MA	low	low	low
Dennis, MA	low	low	low
Duxbury, MA	low	low	med
Falmouth, MA	med	low	med high
Gloucester, MA	low	low	med
Harwich Port, MA	low	low	low
Newburyport, MA	low	low	low
Provincetown, MA	low	low	med high
Barnstable Town, MA	low	low	low
Sandwich/East Sandwich/Forestdale, MA	low	low	low
Truro, MA	low	low	low
Westport, MA	low	low	low
Plymouth, MA	low	low	low
Ogunquit, ME	low	low	low
Hampton, NH	low	low	low
Newington, NH	low	low	low
Seabrook, NH	med	low	med
Narragansett/Point Judith, RI	low	low	low
New Shoreham, RI	med	low	low
Narragansett/Point Judith, RI
Gloucester, MA
Newington, NH
Barnstable Town, MA
Westport, MA
Plymouth, MA
Hampton, NH
Sandwich/East Sandwich/Forestdale, MA
Provincetown, MA
Seabrook, NH
Duxbury, MA
Harwich Port, MA
Truro, MA
Bourne, MA
New Shoreham, RI
Newburyport, MA
Dennis, MA
Falmouth, MA
Ogunquit, ME
Waterford, CT
Old Saybrook, CT
Clinton, CT
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA
BOURNE, MA
CLINTON, CT
DENNIS, MA
DUXBURY, MA
FALMOUTH, MA
GLOUCESTER, MA
HAMPTON, NH
HARWICH PORT, MA
NARRAGANSETT/POINT JUDITH, RI
NEW SHOREHAM, RI
NEWBURYPORT, MA
NEWINGTON, NH
OGUNQUIT, ME
OLD SAYBROOK, CT
PLYMOUTH, MA
PROVINCETOWN, MA
SEABROOK, NH
TRURO, MA
WATERFORD, CT
WESTPORT, MA

Objectives: Coastwide Protected species Maintain bycatch below thresholds

Indicators: Harbor porpoise and gray seal bycatch

Implications:

• Currently meeting objectives, but uncertainty in gray seal estimates

• The downward trend in harbor porpoise bycatch can also be due to a decrease in harbor porpoise abundance in US waters, reducing their overlap with fisheries, and a decrease in gillnet effort.

• Gray seal among the highest bycatch of any U.S. marine mammal. The increasing trend in gray seal bycatch may be related to an increase in the gray seal population (U.S. pup counts).

Objectives: Coastwide Protected species Recover endangered populations

Indicators: North Atlantic right whale population, calf counts

Implications:

• Signs the adult population stabilized 2020-2023

• Population drivers for North Atlantic Right Whales (NARW) include combined fishery interactions/ship strikes, distribution shifts, and copepod availability.

• Additional potential stressors include offshore wind development, which overlaps with important habitat areas used year-round by right whales, including mother and calf migration corridors and foraging habitat.

• Unusual mortality events continue for 3 large whale species.

Break! 3:30-3:45

Develop summary page 1 – summary tables (Tuesday, 3:45-4:30)

Wrap up (Tuesday, 4:30-4:45)

THANK YOU! SOEs made possible by (at least) 88 contributors from 20+ institutions

Andrew Applegate (NEFMC)
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)
Joseph Caracappa
Samuel Chavez-Rosales
Baoshan Chen (Stony Brook University)
Zhuomin Chen (UConn)
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
Bart DiFiore (GMRI)
Emily Farr (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Michael Fogarty
Paula Fratantoni
Kevin Friedland

Marjy Friedrichs (VIMS)
Sarah Gaichas
Ben Galuardi (GAFRO)
Avijit Gangopadhyay (SMAST UMass Dartmouth)
James Gartland (VIMS)
Lori Garzio (Rutgers University)
Glen Gawarkiewicz (WHOI)
Laura Gruenburg
Sean Hardison
Dvora Hart
Cliff Hutt (NMFS Atlantic HMS Management Division)
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 (RWE)
Don Lyons (National Audubon Society’s Seabird Restoration Program)
Chris Melrose
Anna Mercer

Shannon Meseck
Ryan Morse
Ray Mroch (SEFSC)
Brandon Muffley (MAFMC)
Robert Murphy
Kimberly Murray
NEFSC staff
David Moe Nelson (NCCOS)
Chris Orphanides
Richard Pace
Debi Palka
Tom Parham (Maryland DNR)
CJ Pellerin (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Charles Perretti
Kristin Precoda
Grace Roskar (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Jeffrey Runge (U Maine)
Grace Saba (Rutgers University)
Vincent Saba
Sarah Salois
Chris Schillaci (GARFO)
Amy Schueller (SEFSC)
Teresa Schwemmer (URI)
Tarsila Seara
Dave Secor (CBL)
Emily Slesinger

Angela Silva
Adrienne Silver (UMass/SMAST)
Talya tenBrink (GARFO)
Abigail Tyrell
Rebecca Van Hoeck
Bruce Vogt (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Ron Vogel (University of Maryland Cooperative Institute for Satellite Earth System Studies and NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research)
John Walden
Harvey Walsh
Sarah Weisberg
Changhua Weng
Dave Wilcox (VIMS)
Timothy White (Environmental Studies Program BOEM)
Sarah Wilkin (NMFS Office of Protected Resources)
Mark Wuenschel
Qian Zhang (U Maryland)

References

Bastille, K. et al. (2020). “Improving the IEA Approach Using Principles of Open Data Science”. In: Coastal Management 0.0. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155, pp. 1-18. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155 (visited on Dec. 09, 2020).

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).

Muffley, B. et al. (2020). “There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management”. In: Coastal Management 0.0. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156, pp. 1-17. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156 (visited on Dec. 09, 2020).

Additional resources

• ecodata R package

• Indicator catalog

• SOE Technical Documentation

• SOE Reports on the web

• Slides available at https://nefsc.github.io/READ-EDAB-SOE_reports/

• Contact: abigail.tyrell@noaa.gov, joseph.caracappa@noaa.gov

Day 2: Wednesday, 14 January 2025

Risks to meeting fisheries management objectives (Wednesday, 9:15-11:45 with break at 10:45)

Revised Risks: Climate and Ecosystem Change

Risk categories	Observation indicators reported	Potential driver indicators reported
Climate and Ecosystem Risks
Risks to Managing Spatially	Managed species (fish and cetacean) distribution shifts	Benthic and pelagic forage distribution; ocean temperature, changes in currents and cold pool
Risks to Managing Seasonally	Managed species spawning and migration timing changes	Habitat timing: Length of ocean summer, cold pool seasonal persistence
Risks to Setting Catch Limits	Managed species body condition and recruitment changes	Benthic and pelagic forage quality & abundance: ocean temperature & acidification
Other Ocean Uses Risks
Offshore Wind Risks	Fishery revenue and landings from wind lease areas by species and port	Wind development speed; Protected species presence and hotspots

Risks to Managing Spatially

Potential Impacts: Spatial misallocation of quotas within and across jurisdictions, leading to unmet quotas and/or increased discards. Specification of gear management areas may not utilize quotas and minimize bycatch.

Risks to Managing Seasonally

Potential Impacts: Spawning closures are less effective if peak spawning occurs outside the seasonal closure. Seasonal openings of exemption areas may be inconsistent with species presence. Seasonal quota allocations may be misaligned with availability.

Risks to Setting Catch Limits

Potential Impacts: Changes in environmental conditions can affect stock reference points and short-term stock projections. When productivity changes are not accounted for, they can lead to misspecified quotas and rebuilding plans.

Risks to Managing Spatially: Coastwide

Fish distribution shifts

Megabenthos distribution shifts

Cetacean distribution shifts

Risks to Managing Spatially: Coastwide

Drivers: Forage shifts, pelagic and benthic

Risks to Managing Spatially: Coastwide

Drivers: shifts in zooplankton – Copepods center of gravity from ECOMON

Risks to managing spatially: Coastwide

Drivers: changing ocean habitat

Add things on heatwaves, cold spells, thermal habitat here?

Risks to Managing Spatially: Coastwide

Future considerations

Distribution shifts caused by changes in thermal habitat and ocean circulation are likely to continue as long as long-term trends persist. Episodic and short-term events (see 2024 Highlights) may increase variability in the trends, however species distributions are unlikely to reverse to historical ranges in the short term. Increased mechanistic understanding of distribution drivers is needed to better understand future distribution shifts: species with high mobility or short lifespans react differently from immobile or long lived species.

Long-term oceanographic projections forecast a temporary pause in warming over the next decade due to internal variability in circulation and a southward shift of the Gulf Stream. Near-term forecasts are being evaluated to determine how well they are able to predict episodic and anomalous events that are outside of the long-term patterns.

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. Processes like the East Coast Climate Scenario Planning, and subsequent formation of the East Coast Climate Coordination Group, can help coordinate management.

Risks to Managing Seasonally: Coastwide

Indicators: spawning timing, migration change

• Recreational tuna fisheries 50 days earlier in the year in 2019 compared to 2002.

• In Cape Cod Bay, peak spring habitat use by right and humpback whales has shifted 18-19 days later over time.

• Baseline information on large whale seasonal presence has been collected.

Risks to Managing Seasonally: Mid-Atlantic

Drivers: thermal transition, habitat persistence, bloom timing

Cold pool seasonal persistence

Bloom timing

Future considerations

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

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

Risks to Managing Seasonally: New England

Drivers: thermal transition, habitat persistence, bloom timing

Future considerations

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

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

Risks: Offshore Wind Development

• Only one operational commercial-scale wind project (South Fork, NY)
• Most wind lease areas that have had construction activities are in the NY Bight
• Construction timelines are uncertain

Risks: Offshore Wind Development Mid Atlantic

Indicators: fishery and community specific revenue in lease areas

Left: Council request: New England ports relying on Mid-Atlantic managed species

Risks: Offshore Wind Development New England

Indicators: fishery and community specific revenue in lease areas

Left: Council request: Mid-Atlantic ports relying on New England managed species

Risks: Offshore Wind Development: Implications

Implications:

• Current plans for buildout of offshore wind in a patchwork of areas spreads the impacts differentially throughout the region.

• Lease areas overlap with North Atlantic right whale habitat. Development may alter local oceanography and prey availability, increase vessel strike risk, and result in pile driving noise impacts.

Break! 10:45-11:00

Risk to setting catch limits (Wednesday, 11:00-11:45)

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: Mid-Atlantic

Indicators: fish productivity and condition

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: Mid Atlantic Drivers

Drivers: Forage Quality and Abundance

New indicators: benthos abundance

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: Mid Atlantic Drivers

Drivers: Low trophic levels

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: Mid Atlantic Drivers

Changes in fish traits

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: New England

Indicator: Fish productivity

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: New England

Indicator: Condition

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: New England Drivers

Drivers: Forage Quality and Abundance

New indicators: benthos abundance

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: New England Drivers

Drivers: Low trophic levels

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: New England Drivers

Changes in fish traits

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: Coastwide

Drivers: Environmental

2024 Thermal habitat area by depth

New Indicator: Copepod Energy Prey Fields

• New indicator provided by Greg Ellis & Chris Orphanides: Maps of annual average copepod energy density
• How best to incorporate this information into the SOE?

Risks to Setting Catch Limits: Coastwide

Drivers: Environmental Potential Ocean Acidification Impacts: Scallops and Longfin squid

Drivers: Predation
Seals increasing, mix of population status for HMS, advection

Risks to Setting Catch Limits

Future considerations

• Processes that control fish productivity and mortality are dynamic, complex, and are the result of the interactions between multiple changing system drivers.

• There is a real risk that short-term predictions in assessments and rebuilding plans that assume unchanging underlying conditions will not be as effective, given the observed change documented in the prior sections in both ecological and environmental processes.

• Assumptions for species’ growth, reproduction, and natural mortality should continue to be evaluated for individual species.

• With observations of system-wide productivity shifts of multiple managed stocks, more research is needed to determine whether regime shifts or ecosystem reorganization are occurring, and how this should be incorporated into management.

Discussion of Forecast Summary Page (Wednesday, 11:45-12:15)

Review of Management Applications – East Coast Coordination Group (Wednesday, 12:15-12:30)

Lunch! 12:30-1:30

Develop summary page 2 – risk summary bullets (Wednesday, 1:30-2:15)

Develop summary page 2 – forecast infographic summary bullets (Wednesday, 2:15-3:00)

Break! 3:00-3:15

Develop summary page 3 – highlights (Wednesday, 3:15-4:30)

Wrap up (Wednesday, 4:30-4:45)

THANK YOU! SOEs made possible by (at least) 88 contributors from 20+ institutions

Andrew Applegate (NEFMC)
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)
Joseph Caracappa
Samuel Chavez-Rosales
Baoshan Chen (Stony Brook University)
Zhuomin Chen (UConn)
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
Bart DiFiore (GMRI)
Emily Farr (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Michael Fogarty
Paula Fratantoni
Kevin Friedland

Marjy Friedrichs (VIMS)
Sarah Gaichas
Ben Galuardi (GAFRO)
Avijit Gangopadhyay (SMAST UMass Dartmouth)
James Gartland (VIMS)
Lori Garzio (Rutgers University)
Glen Gawarkiewicz (WHOI)
Laura Gruenburg
Sean Hardison
Dvora Hart
Cliff Hutt (NMFS Atlantic HMS Management Division)
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 (RWE)
Don Lyons (National Audubon Society’s Seabird Restoration Program)
Chris Melrose
Anna Mercer

Shannon Meseck
Ryan Morse
Ray Mroch (SEFSC)
Brandon Muffley (MAFMC)
Robert Murphy
Kimberly Murray
NEFSC staff
David Moe Nelson (NCCOS)
Chris Orphanides
Richard Pace
Debi Palka
Tom Parham (Maryland DNR)
CJ Pellerin (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Charles Perretti
Kristin Precoda
Grace Roskar (NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation)
Jeffrey Runge (U Maine)
Grace Saba (Rutgers University)
Vincent Saba
Sarah Salois
Chris Schillaci (GARFO)
Amy Schueller (SEFSC)
Teresa Schwemmer (URI)
Tarsila Seara
Dave Secor (CBL)
Emily Slesinger

Angela Silva
Adrienne Silver (UMass/SMAST)
Talya tenBrink (GARFO)
Abigail Tyrell
Rebecca Van Hoeck
Bruce Vogt (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office)
Ron Vogel (University of Maryland Cooperative Institute for Satellite Earth System Studies and NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research)
John Walden
Harvey Walsh
Sarah Weisberg
Changhua Weng
Dave Wilcox (VIMS)
Timothy White (Environmental Studies Program BOEM)
Sarah Wilkin (NMFS Office of Protected Resources)
Mark Wuenschel
Qian Zhang (U Maryland)

References

Bastille, K. et al. (2020). “Improving the IEA Approach Using Principles of Open Data Science”. In: Coastal Management 0.0. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155, pp. 1-18. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155 (visited on Dec. 09, 2020).

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).

Muffley, B. et al. (2020). “There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management”. In: Coastal Management 0.0. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156, pp. 1-17. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156 (visited on Dec. 09, 2020).

Additional resources

• ecodata R package

• Indicator catalog

• SOE Technical Documentation

• SOE Reports on the web

• Slides available at https://nefsc.github.io/READ-EDAB-SOE_reports/

• Contact: abigail.tyrell@noaa.gov, joseph.caracappa@noaa.gov