Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic

DePiper, Geret; Seagraves, Richard J.; Muffley, Brandon; Sabo, Mary G.; Colburn, Lisa L.; Loftus, Andrew J.

doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00442

Cited by 37 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Repeated communication allows modelers to transition from responding to urgent and critical events, to providing strategic advice for operational use. This can include holistic risk assessments (Gaichas et al, 2018;Samhouri et al, 2019) and planning for climate change effects, for instance for the California drift gillnet fishery considered by EcoCast (Smith et al, unpublished). This type of risk assessment can lead to further ecosystem modeling and analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress on Implementing Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management in the United States Through the Use of Ecosystem Models and Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress on Implementing Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management in the United States Through the Use of Ecosystem Models and Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These climate vulnerability analyses and related information can be modified to include other factors, and the Productivity-Susceptibility Analyses can be updated for the ones completed approximately 10 years ago (Patrick et al 2009). Some of our Fisheries Management Councils have conducted related exercises, often using the climate vulnerability analyses results or methods (e.g., Gaichas et al 2018). The value of these analyses is to not only triage assessment and analytical efforts, but to communicate to all interested parties our rationale for why we are not conducting assessments for some stocks, protected resources, habitats, etc., for the immediate future, largely due to the (lower and differential) level of risk.…”

Section: Analysis Forecasts and Assessments In A Limited Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A NOAA Fisheries science perspective on the conditions during and after COVID-19: challenges, observations, and some possible solutions, or why the future is upon us

Link

Werner

et al. 2021

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many fisheries and marine science organizations are working to determine how to meet their missions in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak. As such, it seems prudent to exchange ideas, share knowledge, and initiate a discussion amongst us. As the scientific leadership team for NOAA Fisheries, we wanted to offer some perspectives. Others are also evaluating the impacts of COVID-19 but from the perspective of addressing tactical, day-to-day concerns of restarting operations for various marine and fisheries-oriented organizations. Thus, it seemed appropriate to us to explore the potential challenges posed by COVID-19, and to purposefully ascertain if there are strategic opportunities for improving how we conduct our operations. We need to find ways to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on our mission and also to glean information from our responses while in the midst of the crisis. We offer some recommendations to that end, and offer these thoughts not as having solved every problem, but to learn from each other, compare across organizations, and engage in dialogue within our discipline to advance much-needed changes.

show abstract

“…The Mid-Atlantic risk assessment was co-created with scientists, managers, and stakeholders in the region, clarifying the list of ecosystem-level management objectives and increasing transparency of the process. Indicators from the Mid-Atlantic State of the Ecosystem (SOE) report, an annual report on ecosystem status and trends developed by NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) with support from NOAA's IEA program, underpin this ecosystem-level risk assessment (Gaichas et al 2018).…”

Section: Mid-atlantic Eafm Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All objectives/risk elements were evaluated with ecosystem indicators using risk assessment criteria developed within the stakeholder engagement process, and formally adopted by the Council (Figure 3). For example, indicators tracking management performance were developed to assess risks to meeting management objectives (Gaichas et al 2018). Many of the risk assessment indicators were drawn from the SOE, which itself drew from existing efforts inside and outside the region, including the previously published comprehensive Northeast US Ecosystem Status Reports developed as part of the National IEA program (NEFSC 2012), management and economic performance reports (Clay, Kitts, and Pinto da Silva 2014), and social indicators (Colburn and Jepson 2012;Jepson and Colburn 2013;Colburn et al 2016); the US California Current Ecosystem Status Report (Harvey et al 2020); and the US Alaska annual Ecosystem Considerations report (Zador et al 2017).…”

Section: Mid-atlantic Eafm Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resource managers worldwide are being asked to consider the ecosystem while making management decisions. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) provides a flexible framework for addressing ecosystem considerations in decision making. The US Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) adapted the IEA approach and implemented a structured decision framework to address species, fleet, habitat, and climate interactions as part of their Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in 2016. The Council's EAFM decision framework first uses risk assessment to prioritize fishery-ecosystem interactions for consideration. The Council's 2017 EAFM risk assessment identified a range of ecological, social, and management objectives or risk elements. Development of a conceptual model to identify key environmental, ecological, social, economic, and management linkages for a high-priority fishery is the second step in the framework. The Council identified summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) as a high-risk fishery and finalized an EAFM conceptual model that considers high-risk factors and ecosystem elements in 2019. The Council used the conceptual model to identify three priority summer flounder management questions (recreational data uncertainty, recreational discards, and distribution shifts) to be considered for quantitative management strategy evaluation, the third step in the EAFM framework and set to begin in 2020. Finally, as strategies are implemented, outcomes are monitored and the process is adjusted, and/or other priorities identified in the risk assessment can be addressed. The Council's rapid progress in implementing EAFM resulted from an extensive, positive, and collaborative process between managers, stakeholders, and scientists. Collaboration helps build trust and buy-in from all participants and is essential to IEA and to the success of EAFM.

show abstract

Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic

Cited by 37 publications

References 59 publications

Progress on Implementing Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management in the United States Through the Use of Ecosystem Models and Analysis

Progress on Implementing Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management in the United States Through the Use of Ecosystem Models and Analysis

A NOAA Fisheries science perspective on the conditions during and after COVID-19: challenges, observations, and some possible solutions, or why the future is upon us

There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About