Circular logo of the NOAA; blue colors for sea and sky separated by a white gull. Skip to 'main'.
; N O A A type: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center Technical Memorandum
; C R D number: ; 308
; Title: ; Management Track Assessments Spring 2023
; authors: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center
; date: ; June 2023
; start of top-matter block ;
; start of Title page block ;
; N O A A type: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center Technical Memorandum
; C R D number: ; 308
; Title: ; Management Track Assessments Spring 2023
; authors: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center
; address-1: ; U.S. Department of Commerce
; address-2: ; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
; CRDaddressIII: ; National Marine Fisheries Service
; CRDaddressIV: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center
; CRDaddressV: ; Woods Hole, Massachusetts
; date: ; June 2023
; end of titlepage block ;
; H3: ; NOAA Technical Memorandum, Editorial Notes
Span
Editorial Treatment
: In the interest of expedited publication, this report has undergone a truncated version of the
Span
N E F S C
Editorial Office’s typical technical and copy editing procedure. Aside from the front and back matter included in this document, all writing and editing have been performed by the authors included on the title page.
Span
Information Quality Act Compliance
: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106-554, the
Span
N E F S C
completed both technical and policy reviews for this report. These predissemination reviews are on file at the
Span
N E F S C
Editorial Office.
Span
Species Names
: The
Span
N E F S C
Editorial Office’s policy on the use of species names in all techni- cal communications is generally to follow the American Fisheries Society’s lists of scientific and common names for fishes, mollusks, and decapod crustaceans and to follow the Society for Ma- rine Mammalogy’s guidance on scientific and common names for marine mammals. Exceptions to this policy occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, resulting in changes in the names of species.
Span
Statistical Terms
: The
Span
N E F S C
Editorial Office’s policy on the use of statistical terms in all tech- nical communications is generally to follow the International Standards Organization’s handbook of statistical methods.
; citation: ; This document may be cited as:
NEFSC. 2023. Management Track Assessments Spring 2023. US Dept Commer, North- east Fish Sci Cent Tech Memo.308; 69p.+x. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at, ; link to ; http://www.n e f s c.n o a a.gov/n e f s c/publications/
; end of link ; .
; start of unnumbered Section titled : TABLE OF CONTENTS ; ; ; ; ;
LISTS
Reference
Lists: List of Tables; starts on page ; roman 2
; ; ; ;
Reference
Lists: List of Figures; starts on page ; roman 3
; ; ; ;
GLOSSARIES
Reference
Glossary: Abbreviations for fish stocks reviewed; starts on page ; roman 4
; ; ; ;
Reference
Glossary: Abbreviations and Acronyms; starts on page ; roman 5
; ; ; ;
Reference
Glossary: Statistical/review concepts, parameters, etc.; starts on page ; roman 7
; ; ; ;
Reference
Glossary: Locations/regions: state, country, etc.; starts on page ; roman 10
; ; ; ;
FISH STOCK REPORTS
Reference
Span
Section 1. ;
Panel Report; starts on page ; 1
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section Appendix A. ;
AOP Meeting Summary; starts on page ; 3
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section Appendix A.1. ;
Meeting participants; starts on page ; 12
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section Appendix B. ;
Terms of Reference; starts on page ; 13
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section Appendix C. ;
Peer Review Meeting Attendees; starts on page ; 14
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section Appendix D. ;
Peer Review Meeting Agenda; starts on page ; 16
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 2. ;
Atlantic Bluefish; starts on page ; 17
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 2.1. ;
Reviewer Comments: Atlantic Bluefish; starts on page ; 21
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 3. ;
Deep sea red crab; starts on page ; 28
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 3.1. ;
Reviewer Comments: Deep sea red crab; starts on page ; 33
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 4. ;
Longfin inshore squid; starts on page ; 37
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 4.1. ;
Reviewer Comments: Longfin inshore squid; starts on page ; 42
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 5. ;
Summer flounder; starts on page ; 49
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 5.1. ;
Reviewer Comments: Summer flounder; starts on page ; 52
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 6. ;
Scup; starts on page ; 59
; ; ; ;
Reference
Span
Section 6.1. ;
Reviewer Comments: Scup; starts on page ; 62
; ; ; ;
Reference
Photo Gallery; starts on page ; 69
; ; ; ;
; end of Table of Contents ;
; start of unnumbered Section titled : List of Tables ; ; ; ; ;
Reference
; Table 1 ; ;
Stocks reviewed at June 2023 Management Track Assessment Peer Review meeting; on page ; 2
Reference
; Table 2 ; ;
Stocks reviewed at February 2023 Management Track Assessment Stock Assessments meeting; on page ; 4
Reference
; Table 3 ; ;
Catch and status table for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 17
Reference
; Table 4 ; ;
Estimated reference points for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 18
Reference
; Table 5 ; ;
Short term projections for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 18
Reference
; Table 6 ; ;
Catch and status table for deep-sea red crab; on page ; 28
Reference
; Table 7 ; ;
Estimated reference points for deep sea red crab; on page ; 28
Reference
; Table 8 ; ;
Catch and status table for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 38
Reference
; Table 9 ; ;
Estimated reference points for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 38
Reference
; Table 10 ; ;
Catch and status table for Summer flounder; on page ; 49
Reference
; Table 11 ; ;
Estimated reference points for Summer flounder; on page ; 50
Reference
; Table 12 ; ;
Short term projections for Summer flounder; on page ; 50
Reference
; Table 13 ; ;
Catch and status table for Scup; on page ; 59
Reference
; Table 14 ; ;
Estimated reference points for Scup; on page ; 60
Reference
; Table 15 ; ;
Short term projections for Scup; on page ; 60
; end of List of Tables ;
Delicious plate of seafood for dinner.
Healthy seafood delights: shrimp, mussels, scallop, and fish dish.
; start of unnumbered Section titled : List of Figures ; ; ; ; ;
Reference
; Figure 1 ; ;
Estimated trends in biomass for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 23
Reference
; Figure 2 ; ;
Estimated trends in fishing mortality for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 24
Reference
; Figure 3 ; ;
Trends in estimated recruitment for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 25
Reference
; Figure 4 ; ;
Total catch of Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 26
Reference
; Figure 5 ; ;
Indices of abundance for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 27
Reference
; Figure 6 ; ;
Total catch of deep sea red crab; on page ; 35
Reference
; Figure 7 ; ;
Indices of abundance for deep sea red crab; on page ; 36
Reference
; Figure 8 ; ;
Estimated trends in biomass for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 45
Reference
; Figure 9 ; ;
Estimated trends in fishing mortality for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 46
Reference
; Figure 10 ; ;
Total catch of longfin inshore squid; on page ; 47
Reference
; Figure 11 ; ;
Indices of abundance for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 48
Reference
; Figure 12 ; ;
Estimated trends in biomass for Summer flounder; on page ; 54
Reference
; Figure 13 ; ;
Estimated trends in fishing mortality for Summer flounder; on page ; 55
Reference
; Figure 14 ; ;
Trends in estimated recruitment for Summer flounder; on page ; 56
Reference
; Figure 15 ; ;
Total catch of Summer flounder; on page ; 57
Reference
; Figure 16 ; ;
Indices of abundance for Summer flounder; on page ; 58
Reference
; Figure 17 ; ;
Estimated trends in biomass for Scup; on page ; 64
Reference
; Figure 18 ; ;
Estimated trends in fishing mortality for Scup; on page ; 65
Reference
; Figure 19 ; ;
Trends in estimated recruitment for Scup; on page ; 66
Reference
; Figure 20 ; ;
Total catch of Scup; on page ; 67
Reference
; Figure 21 ; ;
Indices of abundance for Scup; on page ; 68
; end of List of Figures ;
; start of CRDfishimages block ;
small image of an Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic Mackerel
small image of a bluefish
Bluefish
small image of an Atlantic deep-sea red crab
Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab
small image of a Longfin Squid
Longfin Squid
small image of a summer flounder
Summer Flounder
small image of a scup
Scup
small image of a Spiny Dogfish
Spiny Dogfish
Images fromNOAA
; link to ; Fisheries
; end of link ; and ; link to ; FishWatch.gov
; end of link ; .
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Abbreviations for fish stocks reviewed ;
These are the abbreviations for fish stock names, as used in the footers of each of the fish stock reports. Links are to the reports, summary pages and tables.
; Glossary-item ; ; AMACKUNIT ;
Span
(
Span
Scomber scombrus
) Atlantic mackerel
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 5
; Glossary-item ; ; BLFUNIT ;
Span
(
Span
Pomatomus saltatrix
) Atlantic bluefish
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 2
and 4
and 6
and 17
up to 27
; Glossary-item ; ; CRDUNIT ;
Span
(
Span
Chaceon quinquedens
) Atlantic deep-sea red crab
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 2
and 4
and 7
and 28
up to 36
; Glossary-item ; ; DORYUNIT ;
Span
(
Span
Doryteuthis pealeii
) longfin squid, from New England to Mid-Atlantic and the Southeast
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 2
and 4
and 7
and 37
up to 48
; Glossary-item ; ; FLKUNIT ;
Span
(
Span
Scophthalmus aquosus
) summer flounder
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 2
and 4
and 10
and 49
up to 58
; Glossary-item ; ; SCPUNIT ;
Span
(
Span
Stenotomus chrysops
) scup
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 2
and 4
and 9
and 59
up to 68
; Glossary-item ; ; SPDUNIT ;
Span
(
Span
Squalus acanthia
) Atlantic spiny dogfish
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 8
; end of Glossary ;
Fresh seafood on ice, ready for sale.
Fresh seafood on ice, ready for sale. Photo credit: Shutterstock.
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Abbreviations and Acronyms ;
; Glossary-item ; ; Albatross ;
Span
refers to activities of the
Reference
N O A A
vessel
Reference
Albatross 4
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 58
and 62
and 68
; Glossary-item ; ; AlbatrossIV ;
Span
Research vessel
Reference
N O A A S
Albatross IV, in service until November 2008
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 5;
; Glossary-item ; ; AOP ;
Span
Assessment Oversight Panel
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 1
and 3
up to 12
and 22
and 33
and 42
and 52
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; ASMFC ;
Span
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 12
up to 14
; Glossary-item ; ; Bigelow ;
Span
refers to activities of the
Reference
N O A A
vessel
Reference
Henry B. Bigelow
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 5
and 11
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; CAMS ;
Span
Catch Accounting and Monitoring System
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 2
and 4
up to 11
and 39
and 42
; Glossary-item ; ; CHESMAP ;
Span
Chesapeake Bay Multispecies Monitoring and Assessment Program
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 6
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; CRD ;
Span
Center Reference Document
Reference
; occurs on page: ; Roman 84;
; Glossary-item ; ; CSE ;
Span
Council of Science Editors
Reference
; occurs on page: ; Roman 84;
; Glossary-item ; ; DFO ;
Span
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; ECOMON ;
Span
Ecosystem Monitoring
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; GARFO ;
Span
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 6
and 14
and 15
and 39
; Glossary-item ; ; HenryBBigelow ;
Span
Reference
N O A A
research vessel Henry B. Bigelow, with specialized trawling net mecha- nisms; commissioned July 2007, used for surveys 2009; to ; 2019
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 5;
and 58
; Glossary-item ; ; ICES ;
Span
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (European Union)
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 34
and 44
; Glossary-item ; ; MADMF ;
Span
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 14
; Glossary-item ; ; MAFMC ;
Span
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 3
and 11
up to 14
and 17
up to 19
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; MARMAP ;
Span
Marine Resources Monitoring and Assessment Program
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; MRIP ;
Span
Marine Recreational Information Program
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 6
and 8
and 19
up to 21
; Glossary-item ; ; MTA ;
Span
Management Track Assessment
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 8
and 10
and 11
and 21
and 33
; Glossary-item ; ; MTrack ;
Span
Management Track
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 12
; Glossary-item ; ; NCDMF ;
Span
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 14
; Glossary-item ; ; NEAMAP ;
Span
Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 7
and 8
and 37
and 41
and 42
; Glossary-item ; ; NEFMC ;
Span
New England Fisheries Management Council
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 3
and 12
and 14
and 15
; Glossary-item ; ; NEFOP ;
Span
Northeast Fishery Observer Program
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 2
; Glossary-item ; ; NEFSC ;
Span
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Reference
; occurs on page: ; Cover roman 3;
and 1
and 4
up to 8
and 10
up to 15
and 17
and 19
and 21
and 29
and 33
and 37
up to 39
and 41
and 42
and 44
up to 46
and 48
and 49
and 52
and 53
and 58
and 59
and 62
and 63
and 68
and 70
and Roman 84;
; Glossary-item ; ; NMFS ;
Span
National Marine Fisheries Service
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 9;
and 1
and 5
and 8
and 14
and 22
and 69
and 70
; Glossary-item ; ; NOAA ;
Span
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 4;
up to roman 6;
and 2
and 3
and 21
and 22
and 52
and 53
and 63
and 69
and 70
; Glossary-item ; ; NOAAS ;
Span
Reference
N O A A
ship
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 5;
; Glossary-item ; ; NRCC ;
Span
Northeast Regional Coordinating Council
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 3
and 8
and 11
and 40
; Glossary-item ; ; NTAP ;
Span
Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 39
; Glossary-item ; ; RT ;
Span
Research Track
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 21
; Glossary-item ; ; RTA ;
Span
Research Track Assessment
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 10
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; SARC51 ;
Span
51st Stock Assessment Review Committee meeting, 2010
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 7
and 37
and 42
; Glossary-item ; ; SASINF ;
Span
Stock Assessment Support Information
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 39
; Glossary-item ; ; SAW ;
Span
Stock Assessment Workshop
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 42
and 44
; Glossary-item ; ; SAW60 ;
Span
60th Stock Assessment Workshop, 2015
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 10
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; SAW64 ;
Span
64th Stock Assessment Workshop, 2018
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; SAW66 ;
Span
66th Stock Assessment Workshop, 2019
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 10
; Glossary-item ; ; SEAMAP ;
Span
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 6
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; SMAST ;
Span
School for Marine Science and Technology (New Bedford, Maine)
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 13
and 15
; Glossary-item ; ; SSC ;
Span
Scientific and Statistical Committee
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 1
and 5
and 6
and 11
and 13
; Glossary-item ; ; STOCKEFF ;
Span
Stock Assessment Efficiency Initiative
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 6
and 19
; Glossary-item ; ; TOR ;
Span
Term of Reference
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 21
and 33
; Glossary-item ; ; UMASS ;
Span
University of Massachusetts
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 14
; Glossary-item ; ; WHAM ;
Span
Woods Hole Assessment Model
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 1
and 4
and 6
and 17
and 19
up to 21
; Glossary-item ; ; WHOI ;
Span
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
Reference
Massachusetts
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 9;
and 15
and 69
; end of Glossary ;
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Statistical/review concepts, parameters, etc. ;
; Glossary-item ; ; 000s ;
Span
thousands
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 17
and 18
and 25
and 49
and 50
and 56
and 59
and 60
and 66
; Glossary-item ; ; ABC ;
Span
acceptable biological catch
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 6
and 10
and 11
and 17
up to 19
and 21
and 52
; Glossary-item ; ; AgePro ;
Span
Age Structured Projection Model ( ; link to ; source
; end of link ; )
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 52
; Glossary-item ; ; ALK ;
Span
age; to ; length key
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 19
; Glossary-item ; ; ASAP ;
Span
Age-Structured Assessment Program, modelling software
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 1
and 4
up to 6
and 10
and 21
and 49
and 52
and 59
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; ASM ;
Span
At Sea Monitoring
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 2
; Glossary-item ; ; Bayes ;
Span
following a Bayesian approach to statistics and probability
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 33
; Glossary-item ; ; BMSY ;
Span
Span
biomass maximum sustainable yield
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 7
and 8
and 42
and 43
; Glossary-item ; ; BMSYpr ;
Span
Span
proxy estimate for biomass maximum sustainable yield
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 37
up to 39
and 45
; Glossary-item ; ; BRP ;
Span
biological reference point
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 9
and 11
and 13
and 30
and 32
and 43
; Glossary-item ; ; BSIA ;
Span
Best Scientific Information Available
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 42
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; BThr ;
Span
Span
threshold for biomass that indicates overfished status
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 7
and 45
; Glossary-item ; ; CI ;
Span
confidence interval
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 19
and 37
; Glossary-item ; ; CPUE ;
Span
catch per unit effort
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 6
and 19
up to 21
; Glossary-item ; ; CV ;
Span
coefficient of variation
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 10
and 11
and 17
and 39
and 51
and 61
; Glossary-item ; ; DCAC ;
Span
Depletion-corrected average catch model
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 30
and 33
; Glossary-item ; ; DWF ;
Span
Distant Water Fleets
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 38
and 47
; Glossary-item ; ; EFP ;
Span
Exempted Fishing Permit
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 29
; Glossary-item ; ; ESP ;
Span
Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 6
; Glossary-item ; ; ESS ;
Span
Expeditionary Support Ship
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 11
; Glossary-item ; ; F ;
Span
(instantaneous) fishing mortality rate
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
and 8
and 9
and 18
up to 21
and 37
and 50
and 52
and 60
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; F35 ;
Span
Span
fishing mortality rate at 35% of the total catch
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 18
and 21
and 50
; Glossary-item ; ; F35SPR ;
Span
Span
fishing mortality for 35% of spawning potential rate
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 18
and 52
; Glossary-item ; ; F40SPR ;
Span
Span
fishing mortality for 40% of spawning potential rate
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
and 60
; Glossary-item ; ; F60SPR ;
Span
Span
fishing mortality for 60% of spawning potential rate
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 8
; Glossary-item ; ; FFull ;
Span
Span
fishing mortality rate on fully selected ages
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 17
up to 19
and 24
and 39
and 49
and 50
and 55
and 59
and 60
and 65
; Glossary-item ; ; FMP ;
Span
fishery management plan
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 29
and 30
and 35
; Glossary-item ; ; FMSY ;
Span
Span
fishing mortality rate for maximum sustainable yield
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
and 8
and 42
and 43
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; FMSYpr ;
Span
Span
proxy estimate of fishing mortality rate for maximum sustainable yield
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 17
and 18
and 20
and 24
and 38
and 49
and 50
and 52
and 55
and 59
and 60
and 65
; Glossary-item ; ; FRebuild ;
Span
Span
fishing mortality rate consistent with the stock rebuilding plan
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
and 17
up to 19
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; Frho ;
Span
Span
fishing rate adjusted for the
Reference
rho
value
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 19
and 60
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; FThr ;
Span
Span
threshold fishing mortality level that indicates overfishing status
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 24
and 55
and 65
; Glossary-item ; ; GLM ;
Span
Generalized Linear Model
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 33
; Glossary-item ; ; ISmooth ;
Span
renaming of
Reference
Plan B smooth
: a model using log-linear regression and
Reference
Lo e s s
smoothing
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 5
and 11
; Glossary-item ; ; lb ;
Span
pounds, imperial measurement unit for weight
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 36
; Glossary-item ; ; LLC ;
Span
Limited Liability Company
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 15
; Glossary-item ; ; Loess ;
Span
loesscurve fitting (local polynomial regression)
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 8;
; Glossary-item ; ; lognorm ;
Span
probability distribution whose logarithm is normally distributed
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 23
up to 25
and 27
and 54
and 55
and 58
and 64
and 65
and 68
; Glossary-item ; ; Lorenz ;
Span
model for natural mortality using Lorenzen curve
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
and 6
and 8
and 9
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; LPUE ;
Span
Landings Per Unit Effort
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 7
and 28
and 30
and 32
and 33
and 36
; Glossary-item ; ; M ;
Span
(instantaneous) natural mortality rate
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
up to 6
and 9
and 10
and 21
and 22
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; Mrho ;
Span
Mohn’s rho parameter: the average relative bias of retrospective estimates
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 8;
and roman 9;
and 19
and 50
and 60
; Glossary-item ; ; MSP ;
Span
maximum spawning potential
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 41
; Glossary-item ; ; MSY ;
Span
maximum sustainable yield
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
and 8
and 18
and 30
and 33
and 38
and 50
and 60
; Glossary-item ; ; mt ;
Span
metric ton
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
up to 7
and 10
and 11
and 17
and 18
and 20
and 21
and 28
and 33
and 37
up to 39
and 42
and 45
and 48
up to 50
and 52
and 59
and 60
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; multinomial ;
Span
the multinomial probability distribution
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 6
and 19
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; NA ;
Span
not applicable
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 29
and 38
; Glossary-item ; ; OFL ;
Span
overfishing limit
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 1
and 11
and 49
and 50
and 52
and 59
and 60
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; PlanBSmooth ;
Span
‘Plan B’ model using log-linear regression and
Reference
Lo e s s
smoothing
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 8;
; Glossary-item ; ; Q ;
Span
catchability coefficient
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 7
and 37
and 38
and 45
and 48
; Glossary-item ; ; R-prog ;
Span
programming environment for statistical processing and presentation
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 1
; Glossary-item ; ; Recr ;
Span
expected recruitment numbers
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 21
; Glossary-item ; ; RMSE ;
Span
root mean square error
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 53
; Glossary-item ; ; SBRM ;
Span
Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 8
and 11
; Glossary-item ; ; SPR ;
Span
spawning potential ratio
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 18
; Glossary-item ; ; SPR60 ;
Span
Span
60% of the spawning potential ratio
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 8
; Glossary-item ; ; SS3 ;
Span
Stock Synthesis 3 model
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 1
and 8
and 9
; Glossary-item ; ; SSB ;
Span
spawning stock biomass
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 4
up to 6
and 8
and 17
up to 21
and 39
and 49
up to 52
and 59
up to 62
and 64
; Glossary-item ; ; SSB40 ;
Span
Span
the approximate equilibrium spawning stock biomass that results from fishing at forty percent of maximum sustainable yield
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBMSY ;
Span
Span
spawning stock biomass consistent with maximum sustainable yield
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 5
and 8
and 18
and 50
and 60
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBMSYpr ;
Span
Span
proxy value for spawning stock biomass estimation for maximum sustainable yield
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 17
up to 19
and 23
and 49
and 52
and 54
and 59
and 62
and 64
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBrho ;
Span
Span
spawning stock biomass level adjusted according to the
Reference
rho
value
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 19
and 60
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBTar ;
Span
Span
theoretically ideal spawning stock biomass level
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 21
and 23
and 54
and 64
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBThr ;
Span
Span
threshold for spawning stock biomass that indicates overfished status
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 21
and 23
and 54
and 64
; Glossary-item ; ; VTR ;
Span
Vessel Trip Report
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 28
and 33
; Glossary-item ; ; WAA ;
Span
Weight-at-age
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 21
; end of Glossary ;
Aerial view of NMFS building, surrounding wharves and Eel Pond; Woods Hole, Mass.
Aerial view ofNMFS
building and surrounds, Woods Hole Laboratory,MA
; photo ©WHOI
Map of northeastern seaboard; states and countries shown using 2-letter acronyms.
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Locations/regions: state, country, etc. ;
; Glossary-item ; ; CA ;
Span
Canada
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; CT ;
Span
Connecticut
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
and 4
; Glossary-item ; ; GB ;
Span
Georges Bank
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; GOM ;
Span
Gulf of Maine
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; MA ;
Span
Massachusetts
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 6;
and roman 9;
and roman 10;
and 13
and 15
and 69
; Glossary-item ; ; MAB ;
Span
Mid-Atlantic Bight
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; ME ;
Span
Maine
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; NC ;
Span
North Carolina
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 12
; Glossary-item ; ; NH ;
Span
New Hampshire
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; NJ ;
Span
New Jersey
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
and 14
; Glossary-item ; ; NY ;
Span
New York
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; RI ;
Span
Rhode Island
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; SNE ;
Span
Southern New England
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; US ;
Span
United States
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 7
and 38
and 46
; Glossary-item ; ; VT ;
Span
Vermont
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; end of Glossary ;
1. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : 2023 Management Track Peer Review Panel Report ;
Span
Cynthia M.Jones (Chair)
Reference
Span
; refer to footnote 1 ;
Span
; start of footnote 1 ;
Old Dominion University (retired) ; end of footnote ;
(chair)
; and ;
Span
Katie Drew
Reference
Span
; refer to footnote 2 ;
Span
; start of footnote 2 ;
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ; end of footnote ;
; and ;
Span
Alexei Sharov
Reference
Span
; refer to footnote 3 ;
Span
; start of footnote 3 ;
Maryland Department of Natural Resources ; end of footnote ;
; and ;
Span
John Wiedenmann
Reference
Span
; refer to footnote 4 ;
Span
; start of footnote 4 ;
Rutgers University ; end of footnote ;
.
Five fish stock assessments were reviewed by the June 2023 Management Track peer review panel. All were Level 2 Expedited Reviews: deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens
), scup (Stenotomus chrys-
ops
), longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus
), and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix
). Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias
) was identified as a Level 3 En- hanced review assessment during the
Span
A O P
, but was not addressed during the June Management Track Peer Review meeting and instead will be reviewed during the September Management Track Peer Review meeting. Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus
) was elevated to a Level 2 Expedited Review as a result of a putative status change and will be reviewed in September. Levels of review were as recommended by the Assessment Oversight Panel (
Reference
Appendix A
).
The Peer Review Panel (Panel) for the June 2023 Management Track Assessments met via webinar on June 26; to ; 28, 2023. The Panel was to determine whether the completed management track assessment was technically sufficient to (a) evaluate stock status, (b) provide scientific advice and (c) successfully address the assessment Terms of Reference (
Reference
Appendix B
). Table
Reference
1
presents a list of the stocks, name of the lead analyst/presenters, and conclusions about stock status.
Attendance at the meeting is provided in
Reference
Appendix C
with the Agenda shown in
Reference
Appendix D
.
We thank Russ Brown (Population Dynamics Branch Chief) and Michele Traver (Assessment Process Lead) for their support during the meeting and to the staff of the Population Dynamics Branch at
Span
N E F S C
for the open and collaborative spirit with which they engaged the Panel.
Our thanks also extend to the rapporteurs for taking extensive notes during the meeting and to staff of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The Panel has suggestions for improvements that could be made for review of Management Track assessments:
; start of Itemized List ; ; Item ;
The Panel suggests that review materials be posted a week prior to the meeting and include, in ad- dition to the
Span
N M F S
analyst report, supporting materials and model diagnostics such as the standard
Span
R
plots from
Span
A S A P
,
Span
W H A M
, and
Span
S S 3
, where such information is available.
The Panel also has several crosscutting recommendations with respect to the individual stock assessments:
; start of Enumerated List ; ; Item 1. ;
For both summer flounder and bluefish, estimates of unusually high recruitment near the end of the time-series are propagated through the
Span
O F L
projections, as these fish enter the fishery at relatively young ages (summer flounder are fully recruited to directed fisheries at age-4 and bluefish at age-2).If these recruitment events are overestimated (as the summer flounder event in 2018 turned out to be), the resulting
Span
O F L
will be too high and may increase the risk of overfishing. The
Span
S S C
may want to consider retrospectively adjusting anomalously high recruitment events near the terminal year of the assessment when doing
Span
O F L
projections to mitigate this risk.
; ; Item 2. ;
The 2023 peer review of the Catch Accounting and Monitoring System (
Span
C A M S
; O’Keefe et al. 2023) concluded, with some caveats, that
Span
C A M S
can be implemented to provide a single source of commercial fishery data for the primary purposes of quota monitoring and stock assessment. Where presented during the review, the differences between the commercial landings from
Span
C A M S
and from the previously used databases were minimal; differences in the estimates of commercial discards were somewhat greater, although the
Span
C A M S
estimates were generally within the confidence intervals of the previous estimates. The differences could not be explained. The Panel recommends that future stock assessment updates continue to check
Span
C A M S
estimates against current or historical estimates of discards and harvest, where available to ensure that the differences remain negligible.
; ; Item 3. ;
Reduction in Port sampling for individual lengths and age structures represents a significant threat to the stock assessment enterprise.
Span
N O A A
should decide whether it can return Port sampling to levels comparable with those achieved prior to 2019. If they cannot, they should increase catch sampling by observers (either
Span
A S M
or
Span
N E F O P
) to balance the loss of these data.
; ; Item 4. ;
Span
N O A A
should continue to evaluate the use of dynamic reference points with analytic assessments.
Table 1:
Stocks reviewed at June 2023 Management Track Assessment Peer Review meeting
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; Stock ;
; ; head cell ; ; Lead Analyst/Presenter ;
; ; head cell ; ; Peer review conclusion ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Deep sea red crab, Expedited Review ;
Toni Chute ;
Stock’s overfished and overfishing status is unknown ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Scup, Expedited Review ;
Mark Terceiro ;
Stock is not overfished and over- fishing is not occurring ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Longfin inshore squid, Expedited Review ;
Lisa Hendrickson ;
Stock is not overfished and over- fishing status is unknown ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Summer flounder, Expedited Review ;
Mark Terceiro ;
Stock is not overfished and over- fishing is not occurring ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Bluefish, Expedited Review ;
Tony Wood ;
Stock is not overfished and over- fishing is not occurring ; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Appendix A. ; start of Appendix Section at level 4: titled : Summary of Assessment Oversight Panel Meetings for February 2023 Management Track Stock Assessments ;
The
Span
N R C C
Assessment Oversight Panel (
Span
A O P
) met to review the operational stock assessment plans for Atlantic mackerel, bluefish, deep sea red crab, longfin inshore squid, spiny dogfish, scup and summer flounder stocks on February 23, 2023. One assessment was recommended for Level 1 Review (Direct Delivery) and this assessment will undergo an internal review before being delivered to the appropriate management body. The assessments for stocks/species recommended for Level 2 and 3 peer reviews will be reviewed during the peer review meeting scheduled for June 26; to ; 30, 2023.
The
Span
A O P
consisted of:
Span
Russell W. Brown, Ph.D.
Reference
Span
; refer to footnote 5 ;
Span
; start of footnote 5 ;
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. ; end of footnote ;
(chair)
; and ;
Span
Michael Celestino
Reference
Span
; refer to footnote 6 ;
Span
; start of footnote 6 ;
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, New Jersey Fish and Wildlife. ; end of footnote ;
; and ;
Span
Cate O’Keefe, Ph.D.
Reference
Span
; refer to footnote 7 ;
Span
; start of footnote 7 ;
Vice-chair of the
Span
N E F M C
Scientific and Statistical Committee, Fishery Applications Consulting Team, LLC. ; end of footnote ;
; and ;
Span
Paul Rago, Ph.D.
Reference
Span
; refer to footnote 8 ;
Span
; start of footnote 8 ;
Chair of the
Span
M A F M C
Scientific and Statistical Committee,
Span
N O A A
Fisheries (retired). ; end of footnote ;
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Meeting Details: ;
These meetings were guided by the
Span
N R C C
approved stock assessment guidance documents. Back- ground documents were provided to the Panel: (1) an updated prospectus for each stock; and (2) an overview summary of all the salient data and model information for each stock. Prior to the meeting, each assessment lead prepared a proposal for their Management Track Assessment. The proposal reflected the research track or most recent assessment results, the peer review panel Summary Report results, and any initial investigations conducted for the management track assessment.
At the meeting, each assessment lead gave a presentation on the data to be used, model specifications (if applicable), evaluation of model performance, the process for updating the Biological Reference Points, the basis for catch projections, and an alternate assessment approach if their analytical assessment is rejected by the peer review panel.
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Major Recommendations for Review of Individual Stocks ;
In general, the
Span
A O P
approved the plans presented, but recommended several points of emphasis to the recommended review levels as summarized in Table
Reference
2
below.
Span
A O P
guidelines can be found in the ; link to ; stock assessment process document
; end of link ; .
Table 2:
Stocks reviewed at February 2023 Management Track Assessment Stock Assessments meeting
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; Stock ;
; ; head cell ; ; Lead ;
; ; head cell ; ; Review Level ;
; ; head cell ; ; Rationale and Comments ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Atlantic, mackerel ;
Kiersten, Curti ;
Level 1, Direct Delivery, (Provisional) ;
The assessment will be updated with three years of data (2020; to ; 2022). There are questions about the availability of the 2022 egg/biomass index. If the 2022 egg/biomass index is not available, the review level should be elevated to Level 2. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile will be provided as supplementary information.
Span
I smooth
approach will be used as an alternate assessment approach. ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Bluefish ;
Tony Wood ;
Level 2, Expedited, Review ;
A Research Track assessment was completed in December 2022, which updated the previous
Span
A S A P
model to a state space
Span
W H A M
model. The Management Track assessment will add one additional year of data. Guild approach used to modify the
Span
C P U E
index and represents a novel approach. Significant change in constant natural mortality to age based natural mortality.
Span
S S B
target has been reduced by 50%. Regional estimation of discard weights, which accounts for regional differences.; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Deep-sea, red crab ;
Toni Chute ;
Level 2, Expedited, Review ;
Data poor species with no assessment model. This assessment will add 4 years of data (2019; to ; 2022). No issue with missing 2020 data since there were reported catches and some observed trips. The sexes segregate by depth and the fishery targets areas with higher densities of males. During the
Span
C A M S
review, there were issues with the discards for some gear types.
Span
C A M S
data are not used in the data update. A tagging project had low return rates indicating the potential for high mortality of tagged individuals, or a super abundant population. A Level 2 review of the available data and to highlight the limitations of analyses that have been attempted for this species is recommended to suggest potential approaches and generate useful research recommendations.; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Longfin, inshore squid ;
Lisa, Hendrickson ;
Level 2, Expedited, Review ;
This assessment will use the same methods as 2020 Management Track assessment including updating annual- ized
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
proxy and
Span
B[Threshold]
Span
with data, but will explore changing the baseline time period from 1976; to ; 2022 to 1997; to ; 2022. This change in the time period is a primary reason for recommending a Level 2 review. The
Span
A O P
would like to see results for both time periods presented to the peer review panel. The
Span
A O P
panel would like to see consideration of any changes caused by the
Span
C A M S
transition. Research recommendations from the peer reviewers will be important to contributing to the work of the planned 2026 Research Track assessment.; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Spiny dogfish ;
Dvora Hart ;
Level 3, Enhanced, Review ;
A Research Track assessment was completed in December 2022, which updated the previous stochastic estimator (swept area calculations) to a length based Stock Synthesis 3 model. The Management Track assessment will add three years of data (2020; to ; 2022). There was a significant change in natural mortality (
Span
Lorenzen
Span
M
), which resulted in a reduction in the females reaching maturity. There is a significant change in the length at maturity. There is a chance that there could be a status change to overfished. The
Span
A O P
encourages a careful look at the impacts of transitioning to the use of
Span
C A M S
catch (landings and discards). The
Span
A O P
recommends reporting the fishing mortality rate and biomass estimates for the male component of the population.; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Scup ;
Mark, Terceiro ;
Level 2, Expedited, Review ;
The management track will add three years of updated catch for 2020; to ; 2022 (
Span
C A M S
landings and discards;
Span
M R I P
recreational).
Span
C A M S
discards have a lot of uncertainty and it is unclear what the format of that data will look like and when they’ll be available. Revision to
Span
N E F S C
Span
Bigelow
indices (“by-tow” swept area). Minor changes in model input settings (
Span
C V
,
Span
E S S
). Near threshold for retro adjustments. Projections carrying forward using previously reviewed methods. ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Summer, flounder ;
Mark, Terceiro ;
Level 2, Expedited, Review ;
The assessment will update the fishery and survey catches for 2020; to ; 2022 using
Span
C A M S
estimates of landings and discards. It will revise the
Span
N E F S C
survey indices for 2009; to ; 2022 to include area swept adjustments by tow. In terms of model adjustments, plan to inflate input
Span
C V
s of a few survey indices (
Span
Connecticut
spring,
Span
N E A M A P
fall,
Span
Bigelow
fall) and recenter input catch
Span
E S S
to improve model diagnostics. Also plan to test split of terminal fishery selectivity blocks from 2008; to ; 2022 to 2008; to ; 2015 and 2016; to ; 2022.; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Individual Stock Discussion Summaries: ;
; named Paragraph : Atlantic mackerel (AOP Lead: Cate O'Keefe) ;
Span
A O P
Span
Lead: Cate O’Keefe)
Recommendation: Level 1 (Direct Delivery, Provisional)
Atlantic mackerel were last assessed in 2021 via a Management Track assessment; the most recent benchmark was in 2017 at
Span
S A W 64
. 2021 results indicated the stock was overfished based on
Span
S S B
in 2019 (
Span
42,862
Span
m t
) being 24% of the
Span
S S B[M S Y]
Span
proxy (
Span
Span
S S B [40 percent]
Span
=181,090
Span
m t
), and overfishing was occurring based on
Span
Span
F
Span
2019
(0.46) being 208% of the
Span
F[M S Y]
Span
proxy (
Span
Span
F[40% S P R ]
Span
=0.22
). The assessment included three indices: the
Span
N M F S
Spring bottom trawl survey Albatross years from 1968; to ; 2008; the
Span
N M F S
Spring bottom trawl survey
Span
Bigelow
years from 2009; to ; 2019; and a range wide
Span
S S B
index for 1977; to ; 2019 developed from theCanada
Span
D F O
dedicatedegg surveyand the
Span
N E F S C
Span
MAR M A P
and
Span
ECO MON
surveys. Theassessment assumed constant natural mortality (
Span
Span
M
=0.2
) and included one fishery fleet with time-invariant, flat- topped selectivity.
Kiersten Curti presented the proposed assessment plan for Atlantic mackerel in 2023, which will use the current
Span
A S A P
model configuration with no changes and updated fishery and survey data through 2022.
Span
C A M S
estimates of commercial landings and discards will be used for 2020; to ; 2022. Survey updates will include the 2021 and 2022
Span
N M F S
Spring bottom trawl survey (2020 survey was not conducted) and the
Span
S S B
index for 2021 and 2022, if available. Reference points will be updated using the
Span
S A W 64
projection approach with
Span
M S Y
level proxies of
Span
F[40% S P R ]
Span
and
Span
S S B [40 percent]
Span
. Rebuilding projections for 2023; to ; 2024 will be based on an assumed bridge year catch in 2023, two-stanza recruitment, and
Span
Span
F[Rebuild]
Span
=0.12
as defined in the Atlantic Mackerel Rebuilding Amendment 2.0. The proposed backup assessment approach is the
Span
I smooth
method using the
Span
S S B
index developed from egg surveys.
The
Span
A O P
raised questions about
Span
D F O
data to support the
Span
S S B
index and availability of data to support the assessment. Dr.Curti explained that the 2020
Span
S S B
index will be treated as missing, the 2021
Span
S S B
index is available, and the 2022 samples to support the
Span
S S B
index are currently in transit. She expects that the 2022
Span
S S B
index will be available to support the assessment but noted that delays are possible. The
Span
A O P
asked about model sensitivity to terminal year estimates and suggested that sensitivity analysis to examine the impacts of missing the terminal year
Span
S S B
index may be warranted if the index is not available. The
Span
A O P
also noted that this is the first iteration of the Atlantic mackerel assessment using
Span
C A M S
data and recommended comparisons of
Span
C A M S
landings and discards to outputs from previous methods to assess any substantial differences.
The
Span
A O P
raised questions about application of the two-stanza recruitment assumptions for refer- ence points and projections. Dr.Curti highlighted previous deliberations by the 2021 Management Track assessment process and the
Span
S S C
. She noted that there is no clear evidence of environmental conditions impacting recruitment. Despite high adult condition since the mid-2010s, recruitment has been low, but Dr.Curti indicated there is little evidence of a shift in environmental conditions. Research in Canada has indicated that
Span
S S B
and temporal/spatial overlap of larvae with preferred prey are significant drivers of strong year classes. Without clear evidence that recruitment is environmentally driven, the 2021 Man- agement Track assessment did not change the
Span
S A W 64
assumptions for reference points and there are no proposed changes for the 2023 Management Track assessment.
The
Span
A O P
supported continued development of the Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile (
Span
E S P
) for Atlantic mackerel, which describes ongoing examinations of natural mortality and stock productivity. The
Span
E S P
will be provided as supporting information in 2023 and results to date do not indicate that changes to the assessment model are warranted.
The
Span
A O P
recommended a provisional Level 1 review for Atlantic mackerel. The
Span
A O P
supported a direct delivery of the assessment to the
Span
S S C
based on the proposal to maintain the model configuration and update three years of fishery and survey data. The
Span
S S C
recommended that a Level 2 review may be warranted if the 2022
Span
S S B
index is not available for the assessment update or if large differences in
Span
C A M S
data are detected. The
Span
N E F S C
will consider all available data in the coming months and determine if the review needs to be elevated to a Level 2.
; named Paragraph : Bluefish (AOP Lead: Russ Brown) ;
Span
A O P
Span
Lead: Russ Brown)
Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)
Bluefish was last assessed in the Management Track in 2021 with data updated through 2019. That assessment utilized an
Span
A S A P
statistical catch at age model to conclude that the stock was overfished, but overfishing was not occurring. Bluefish completed a Research Track assessment that was peer reviewed in December 2022. The newly accepted assessment developed a
Span
W H A M
state space statistical catch- at-age model with deviations on the numbers at age estimates. Natural mortality, which was previously assumed constant at age-2, is now assumed to vary by age. The model employs two fishery fleets (recre- ational landings & discards and commercial landings), and 5 fleet selectivity blocks (2 commercial and 3 recreational). Three new indices were added to the model:
Span
M R I P
Span
C P U E
Guild Approach index (1985; to ; 2021),
Span
S E A M A P
Age-1 (1989; to ; 2021) and
Span
CHES M A P
Trawl survey (1985; to ; 2018). The 2022 Research Track assessment (data through 2021) concluded that the stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring.
The 2023 Management Track assessment will update the current Research Track assessment with one year of additional data (2022). To address concerns of Research Track peer reviewers, the assessment will shift from full
Span
multi nomial
age length keys to only using
Span
multi nomial
approaches to fill in holes in age length keys (consistent with the approach used by
Span
Stock Eff
). This may allow for exploration of alternate likelihoods for age compositions.
The assessment update will conduct short term projections in
Span
W H A M
, which allows for incorpora- tion of model uncertainty, auto-regressive processes and uncertainty in recruitment and numbers-at-age. Removals in 2023 will be assumed to be equal to the 2023
Span
A B C
(13,890
Span
m t
) and projections will be carried forward for years 2024; to ; 2026.
The
Span
A O P
was concerned that the spawning biomass target has declined by 50% and is likely caused by changes in
Span
M
using the
Span
Lorenzen
curve resulting in a reduction in the recruits to fishable sizes. How- ever, the previous target had never been achieved in the fishery and was likely overinflated. This approach may represent a more reasonable level of reference points. It was noted that the
Span
S S C
was concerned that the average weight of discards has disparities between the
Span
M R I P
and angler surveys, likely due to higher average weights of large discarded fish. It was noted that the
Span
N E F S C
and
Span
G A R F O
have agreed to use the same values in setting specifications. Previously, the approach was overestimating discards, particularlyin the south (southern fish are generally smaller). The use of regionally stratified estimates is considered to be a more realistic and appropriate approach. The
Span
A O P
recommended a Level 2 review for bluefish due to the significant reduction in the biomass target and proposed changes to the age-length key approach.
; named Paragraph : Deep-sea red crab (AOP Lead: Russ Brown) ;
Span
A O P
Span
Lead: Russ Brown)
Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)
Deep-sea red crab is a data poor species that has not been considered in previous Management Tracks. A specifications update was completed in 2019 to set specifications for fishing years 2020; to ; 2023. This update included a time series from 2002; to ; 2019 including landings data from the limited access fleet, inci- dental landings,
Span
L P U E
estimates for the limited access fleet and biological information from port samplers and observed trips. There is no assessment model, no biological reference points for this stock and none will be developed during this Management Track cycle.
This data update will add 4 years of data (2019; to ; 2022) including landings;
Span
L P U E
estimates; port sampled carapace lengths for landed males; observer sampled carapace lengths for males; females and discarded males; and observer data on egg-bearing females and discards. There are no issues with missing 2020 survey data since the update relies on reported catches and some observed trips. The sexes segregate by depth and the fishery targets areas with higher densities of males. During the
Span
C A M S
review, there were issues with the discards for some gear types. However,
Span
C A M S
data are not used in the data update. A tagging project had low return rates indicating the potential for high mortality of tagged individuals, or a super abundant population. A Level 2 review of the available data and to highlight the limitations of analyses that have been attempted for this species is recommended to suggest potential approaches and generate useful research recommendations.
; named Paragraph : Longfin inshore squid (AOP Lead: Paul Rago) ;
Span
A O P
Span
Lead: Paul Rago)
Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)
Longfin squid was last assessed in 2020 at a Management Track assessment. The overfishing status was unknown, but the stock was not overfished. The “not overfished" status was based on a comparison of the average of the 2018 and 2019 annualized,
Span
q
-adjusted swept area biomass estimates (i.e., averages of the
Span
N E F S C
spring and fall survey biomass for each year),
Span
63,349
Span
m t
, to the threshold
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
proxy (
Span
B[Threshold]
Span
) based on a long-term average (1976; to ; 2019). The threshold
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
proxy is 50% of the
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
target (i.e.,
Span
0.5×42,405
Span
m t
=21,203
Span
m t
). It was also noted that the
Span
N E A M A P
fall survey biomass estimates are added to those from the
Span
N E F S C
fall survey.
Lisa Hendrickson’s presentation highlighted the complexity of longfin squid life history and the sea- sonal nature of the fishery which has both inshore and offshore components. Unlike Illex squid, longfin squid are neritic (i.e. residents of shelf waters). Hence, both the spring and fall
Span
N E F S C
bottom trawl surveys likely sample most of the stock inhabiting
Span
United States
waters. The
Span
S A R C 51
(2010) assessment approach considered the seasonal dynamics of the fisheries by calculating exploitation rates (catch/survey biomass) between the seasonal surveys.
Span
S A R C 51
concluded that annualized survey biomass estimates were more appropriate. Dr.Hendrickson noted cohort-based estimates of biomass and exploitation rates have alwaysbeen computed for squid caught in the spring versus fall surveys because the two cohorts have different growth rates and productivity levels. Although an approach based on analyzing each intra-annual cohort independently would be more realistic since it would capture the reliance of summer and fall fisheries on the recruits produced from the spring stock estimates, this approach has been deemed not permissible un- der the Management Track and will be suggested for exploration under the next Research Track. Similarly, the winter and spring fisheries depend on recruits produced from the fall survey stock estimates. Such a model would also allow inclusion of seasonal differences in growth rates.
Dr.Hendrickson recommended a change in the time series used to compute the
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
average from 1976; to ; 2008 to 1997; to ; 2022. The rationale was based on consideration of rapid warming and other changes in environmental conditions, and possibly productivity in recent years. Changes in fleet characteristics, data quality (i.e. mandatory fishery data reporting as of 1997), and in-season management as of 2000 were also considered relevant by the assessment lead to this proposed change. Questions from the
Span
A O P
addressed the basis for the proposed change in years to compute the
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
average and whether there was any evidence of trends in the surveys. No trends have been observed but further analyses are needed. The selection of appropriate stanzas of years for projections or measures of productivity are always controver- sial, so justifying any changes should be data driven and well supported.
Additional questions from the
Span
A O P
and other meeting attendees included the methods used to es- timate catchability in the trawl surveys, comparisons with assessments of species similarly impacted by environmental changes (e.g., Atlantic mackerel), and whether any preliminary changes had been detected. To account for diel vertical migrations, abundance and biomass estimates are based on daytime tows where “daytime" is defined by solar zenith angle because the species is most available to bottom trawls during the daytime. These values vary with location and date. The exclusion of tows outside the solar zenith angle ranges for the
Span
N E F S C
spring and fall surveys reduces the frequency of low and zero tows, and generally improves precision but also reduces sample sizes within strata. The
Span
N E A M A P
fall trawl survey swept area estimates will be updated because they are added to those of the
Span
N E F S C
fall surveys. The
Span
N E A M A P
spring survey’s intermittent encounters of longfin squid are attributed to varying availability of squid to the survey area; the stock is generally farther offshore in the spring.
Collectively, these considerations led the
Span
A O P
to recommend a Level 2 review and a continuation of the current assessment methodology. The selection of an alternative basis for the
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
average should be fully explored and compared to the existing span of years. Results of both approaches should be presented to the
Span
M T A
reviewers. The inclusion of newly developed
Span
C A M S
estimates of landings and particularly discards, should be fully explored. Finally,
Span
M T A
review can lay the groundwork for the Research Track assessment now scheduled for 2026. The groundwork could include any pending or required research on basic biology, alternative modeling approaches, and required data streams from the commercial fleets. The Terms of Reference for the assessment have not been set; the newly chartered Research Track Steering Committee of the
Span
N R C C
will likely be involved in this process.
; named Paragraph : Spiny dogfish (AOP Lead: Cate O'Keefe) ;
Span
A O P
Span
Lead: Cate O’Keefe)
Recommendation: Level 3 (Enhanced Review)
A Research Track assessment for spiny dogfish was peer reviewed in December 2022. The Stock Synthesis 3 (
Span
S S 3
) model was used with a time series of 1989; to ; 2019. The stock was not overfished based onReproductive Output in 2019 (239.9 million pups) being 65% of the
Span
S S B[M S Y]
Span
proxy (Reproductive Output Target
Span
=370.8
million pups), and overfishing was occurring based on
Span
Span
F
Span
2019
(0.032) being 128% of the
Span
F[M S Y]
Span
proxy (
Span
Span
F[60% S P R ]
Span
=0.025
). The assessment included the
Span
N M F S
Spring and Fall bottom trawl survey indices and lengths, two landings fleets and three discard fleets,
Span
Lorenzen
natural mortality estimates, and two maturity-growth relationship blocks. Dvora Hart presented the proposed assessment plan for spiny dogfish in 2023, which will use the current
Span
S S 3
model configuration with explorations and potential modification to the influence of the stock-recruit relationship and updated fishery and survey data through 2022.
Span
C A M S
and
Span
S B R M
derived estimates of commercial landings and discards and
Span
M R I P
estimates of recreational landings will be used for 2020; to ; 2022. Landed and discarded length and sex data by gear type will be updated based on available information. Survey updates include the 2021 and 2022 (2020 survey was not conducted)
Span
N M F S
Spring and Fall bottom trawl survey indices and lengths. Reference points will be updated using the Research Track approach with
Span
M S Y
level proxies based on
Span
60 percent of S P R
Span
. The projection method will be investigated to consider disproportional landings and discards. The proposed backup assessment approach is the previously used Stochastic Estimator model, which estimates
Span
F
and
Span
S S B
using swept area from the
Span
N M F S
Spring survey with propagation of uncertainties.
The
Span
A O P
raised questions about the backup assessment plan and potential challenges with applying reference points from the
Span
S S 3
model to the outputs from the Stochastic Estimator model. The
Span
A O P
noted that it is unlikely that the
Span
S S 3
model would be rejected during the Management Track Peer Review as it was recently approved during the Research Track assessment. Dr.Hart noted that the new
Span
B R P
s were approved through the Research Track assessment and would remain in place. The
Span
A O P
asked about the influences of changes in natural mortality assumptions and age information included in the
Span
S S 3
assessment. Dr.Hart commented that the use of the
Span
Lorenzen
Span
M
provides better results from the model and is more biologically realistic. Estimates of
Span
M
range from 0.3 for newborn pups to 0.08 for large adult females, which influence the per recruit calculations and result in less females reaching the reproductive age. She noted that the only ageing study with a large scope was conducted
Span
≈40
years ago and there is evidence that growth rates have changed. Length at maturity has decreased suggesting that either growth has slowed, or females are maturing at earlier ages. Smaller, slower growing females indicate reduced reproductive output. The 2022 Research Track assessment suggested that reproductive output has rapidly declined in recent years, and the stock may be approaching an overfished status.
The
Span
A O P
and other meeting attendees inquired about providing estimates of
Span
F
and biomass for males. Dr.Hart commented that this question has been raised in the past and she could provide these estimates but does not propose deriving reference points for males.
The
Span
A O P
recommended a Level 3 review for spiny dogfish. The
Span
A O P
supported the proposed explo- rations and potential changes to the assessment and recommended that ample time be allotted for presenta- tion and review during the Management Track Peer Review. The
Span
A O P
noted the need for review of
Span
C A M S
data and the potential for a change in stock status. They also highlighted that the 2023 Management Track is the first iteration of the
Span
S S 3
assessment since the Research Track in 2022 and highlighted major changes in estimates of natural mortality and length at maturity.
; named Paragraph : Scup (AOP Lead: Paul Rago) ;
Span
A O P
Span
Lead: Paul Rago)
Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)
Scup were most recently assessed in 2021 via a Management Track assessment; the most recent benchmark assessment was in 2015 at
Span
S A W 60
. Mark Terceiro presented the proposed assessment plan for scup in 2023 that will rely on the model structure (
Span
A S A P
) but include updated fishery and survey data through 2022.
Span
C A M S
estimates of commercial landings and discards will be used for 2020; to ; 2022, but questions remain about the commercial discard estimates.
Span
N E F S C
trawl survey indices will include “by tow" area swept estimates but the effect of such changes on general trends are negligible. Some minor changes in tuning parameters will be used to improve model diagnostics. These parameters include the Coefficients of Variation (
Span
C V
) for some state abundance indices. Population projections will assume a catch in 2023 equal to the approved
Span
A B C
of
Span
13,458
Span
m t
.
The
Span
A O P
inquired about the potential effects of missing
Span
N E F S C
survey data in 2020 and the effects of large year classes now moving into the plus group of the population. Such factors can increase the likelihood of retrospective patterns. Dr.Terceiro acknowledged these concerns and noted that noisy indices might cause problems in future years. The model also includes a dome shaped selectivity pattern for the fishery. This creates a large “cryptic" biomass. Consideration of age-based natural mortality rates might be necessary in future benchmarks for this species.
Additional questions from the
Span
A O P
inquired about the potential utility of methods to aggregate sev- eral indices to detect relative abundance and trend. Dr.Terceiro noted that various GLM approaches had been explored but previous reviewers expressed concerns about over-smoothing of abundance estimates outside of the assessment model. In theory, modern models are designed to address competing signals in the composite likelihood function, but they do not address the spatial arrangement of the indices or their covariance. Recent recruitment indices have been low, but attempts to estimate a parametric stock recruitment relationship have not been successful. The low values in recent years do not seem sufficient to support a change in the stanza of years used for stock and catch projections. Moreover, in view of Dr.Terceiro’s responsibilities for summer flounder at the June
Span
M T A
, the analyses to justify such a change are unlikely to be completed.
No
Span
R T A
are currently planned for scup but likely topics for consideration include the aforementioned topics of age-specific
Span
M
and aggregation of young of the year indices as well as concerns about discard estimates in the earlier decades of the assessment. The model currently starts in 1963, but estimates of age structure only began in 1984. There appears to be sufficient contrast in recent survey indices such that the earlier years of the time series could be dropped. The tradeoff between contrast in the surveys and uncertainty in the discards and age composition of earlier years may justify truncation at an
Span
R T A
. The
Span
A O P
unanimously endorsed a Level 2 review for Scup.
; named Paragraph : Summer flounder (AOP Lead: Mike Celestino) ;
Span
A O P
Span
Lead: Mike Celestino)
Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)
The currently approved stock assessment model for summer flounder is a 2021 Management Track assessment (
Span
M T A
) with data through 2019, that builds on the 2018
Span
S A W 66
benchmark assessment. This is an
Span
A S A P
model with four fishery fleets, three selectivity periods, and a variety of federal, state, and academic fishery surveys. Results of the 2021
Span
M T A
indicated the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.
New sources of information considered for the 2023
Span
M T A
include an update of fishery and survey catches for 2020; to ; 2022.
Span
C A M S
will be queried for commercial landings and discards for these same years; Mark Terceiro noted that preliminary comparisons of
Span
S B R M
and
Span
C A M S
for 2018; to ; 2021 were within 10%, likely due to differences in stratification, while differences in landings were trivial. Revision of the
Span
N E F S C
trawl survey indices for the
Span
Bigelow
years (2009; to ; 2020) to include “by-tow” swept area calculations are also proposed. Model configuration changes that are proposed as part of this
Span
M T A
include changes to survey input
Span
C V
s and adjustments to input catch
Span
E S S
; each expected to have minor changes on assessment results, but result in improved model diagnostics. Dr.Tercerio noted that if time allows (depending on exactly when data are available), he will experiment with splitting the terminal fishery selectivity blocks from 2008; to ; 2022 to 2008; to ; 2015 and 2016; to ; 2022 to determine impacts on model performance.
Consistent with past summer flounder assessments,
Span
B R P
s will be derived from projections that in- clude recruitment estimates that use the entire time series (1982; to ; 2022), while
Span
O F L
projections will extend the
Span
S S C
-recommended low-recruitment time series that started in 2011 (2011; to ; 2022). For 2024; to ; 2025
Span
O F L
projections, Dr.Terceiro will assume catch in 2023 as the final
Span
A B C
(
Span
15,023
Span
m t
), and follow
Span
M A F M C
risk policy for
Span
A B C
(e.g.,
Span
O F L
Span
C V
Span
=60%
).
Dr.Terceiro is proposing as a backup assessment plan, should one be necessary, of either recent trends in all normalized survey indices (e.g., the
Span
S S C
data update procedure) or
Span
I smooth
using the
Span
N E F S C
Span
Bigelow
spring and fall indices.
The
Span
A O P
further inquired about the source(s) of differences between
Span
S B R M
and
Span
C A M S
, to which Dr.Terceiro noted that the differences were not consistent in one direction and that further diagnosis of specific differences will require a line-by-line, stratum-by-stratum examination of discards; he noted there may not be sufficient time to perform that analysis. The
Span
A O P
noted that highlighting differences to the review panel could be helpful. The
Span
A O P
supported extending the low recruitment timeseries for
Span
O F L
projections but inquired as to whether there was a contingency plan if one of the new recruitment estimates (2020; to ; 2022) was anomalously high to which Dr.Terceiro indicated that early signs suggest there is a low risk of this happening, but if it should, he is likely to explore an alternate projection run with the anomalous recruitment(s) removed. The
Span
A O P
also discussed whether exploration of revisions to historical selectivity blocks would elevate the assessment to Level 3, but the
Span
A O P
felt comfortable that should time allow for this exploration, given the other modest changes proposed for this assessment, there would be adequate review time under a Level 2 review; moreover, it appears as though past practice has been to maintain Level 2 assessments for this type of proposed change (e.g. scup).
The
Span
A O P
supported a Level 2 assessment review for summer flounder. Justification for this rec- ommendation included the notion that the time available for a Level 2 review is sufficient to address all proposed changes.
; start of unnumbered Section titled : AOP Meeting Conclusions: ;
The
Span
A O P
met on February 23, 2023 to review the stock assessment plans for 7 stocks scheduled for the June 2023 Management Track cycle. The panel concluded that a Level 1 review (Direct Deliv- ery) was warranted for Atlantic mackerel; Level 2 reviews (Expedited Review) for bluefish, deep-sea red crab, longfin inshore squid, scup and summer flounder; and Level 3 review (Enhanced Review) for spinydogfish. The Level 2 and 3 reviews will occur during the June 2023 Management Track Peer Review scheduled for June 26; to ; 28, 2023. In the case of spiny dogfish, the
Span
N R C C
decided to delay the review until the September Management Track peer review. Changes in the required review level would be triggered by a Northeast Fisheries Science Center request to increase the review level for a given stock. The
Span
A O P
could concur to increase the review level via email or request to reconvene the
Span
A O P
panel to have further discussions with the stock assessment lead. In the case of Atlantic mackerel, if the 2022 egg/biomass index is not available, the
Span
A O P
agreed to raise the review level to Level 2 (Expedited Review) via corre- spondence. Any need to reconvene the panel would be a publicly announced meeting and any subsequent changes to the review level would be publicized to assessment partners and stakeholders.
Appendix A.1. ; start of Appendix Section at level 3: titled : Meeting participants ;
Panel, February 2023:
Russ Brown ; as ;
Span
A O P
Chair (
Span
N E F S C
),
Paul Rago ; as ;
Span
A O P
(
Span
M A F M C
),
Mike Celestino ; as ;
Span
A O P
(
Span
A S M F C
),
Cate O’Keefe ; as ;
Span
A O P
(
Span
N E F M C
),
Michele Traver ; as ;
Span
N E F S C
Online Attendees and Presenters, February 2023:
Abigail Tyrell ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Alex Dunn ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Andy Jones ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Anthony Wood ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Brandon Muffley ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
,
Charles Adams ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Charles Perretti ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Chelsea Tuohy ; from ;
Span
A S M F C
,
Chris Kellogg ; from ;
Span
N E F M C
,
Chris Legault ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Cynthia Jones ; from ; Old Dominion University (June
Span
M T
peer review chair),
David McCarron ; from ;
Span
N E F M C
,
Dvora Hart ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Emily Bodell ; from ;
Span
N E F M C
,
Eric Reid ; from ; Fisheries Consultant,
Greg DiDomenico ; from ; Lund’s Fisheries,
Haley Clinton ; from ;
Span
North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries,
Hannah Hart ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
,
James Boyle ; from ; University of Miami,
Jamie Cournane ; from ;
Span
N E F M C
,
Jason Boucher ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Jason Didden ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
,
Jeff Kaelin ; from ; Lund’s Fisheries,
Jon Deroba ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
Jui-Han Chang ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Julie Nieland ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Karson Cisneros ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
,
Kathy Sosebee ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Katie Almeida ; from ; Town Dock,
Katie Drew ; from ;
Span
A S M F C
,
Kiersten Curti ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Lisa Hendrickson ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Mark Terceiro ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Meghan Lapp ; from ; Sea Freeze,
Melanie Griffin ; from ;
Span
Massachusetts
Marine Fisheries Institute,
Michael Waine ; from ; American Sportfishing Association,
Paul Nitschke ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Steve Cadrin ; from ;
Span
S M A S T
,
Susan Wigley ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Toni Chute ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
Appendix B. ; start of Appendix Section at level 4: titled : Management Track Stock Assessment Terms of Reference ;
; start of Enumerated List ; ; Item 1. ;
Estimate catch from all sources including landings and discards.
; ; Item 2. ;
Evaluate indices used in the assessment (e.g., indices of relative or absolute abundance, recruitment, state surveys, age-length data, etc.).
; ; Item 3. ;
Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment and stock biomass (both total and spawning stock) as possible (depending on the assessment method) for the time series using the approved assessment method and estimate their uncertainty. Include retrospective analyses if possible (both historical and within-model) to allow a comparison with previous assessment results and projections, and to examine model fit.
; start of Enumerated List ; ; Item a. ;
Include bridge runs to sequentially document each change from the previously accepted model to the updated model proposed for this peer review.
; ; Item b. ;
Prepare a backup assessment approach that would serve as an alternative for providing scien- tific advice to management if the analytical assessment were to not pass review.
; ; Item 4. ;
Re-estimate or update the
Span
B R P
s as defined by the management track level and recommend stock status. Also, provide qualitative descriptions of stock status based on simple indicators/metrics (e.g., age- and size-structure, temporal trends in population size or recruitment indices, etc.).
; ; Item 5. ;
Conduct short-term stock projections when appropriate.
; ; Item 6. ;
Respond to any review panel comments or
Span
S S C
concerns from the most recent prior research or management track assessment.
Note: Major changes from the previous stock assessment require pre-approval by the Assessment Over- sight Panel.
Appendix C. ; start of Appendix Section at level 4: titled : June 2023 Management Track Peer Review meeting attendees. ;
Panel, June 2023:
Cynthia Jones ; as ; Chair,
Alexei Sharov ; as ; Panel,
John Wiedenmann ; as ; Panel,
Katie Drew ; as ; Panel
NEFSC Leadership:
Russ Brown ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Michele Traver ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
Online Attendees and Presenters:
Alan Bianchi ; from ;
Span
N C D M F
,
Alex Dunn ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Alex Hansell ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Allison Murphy ; from ;
Span
G A R F O
,
Ben Levy ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Brandon Muffley ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
staff,
Brian Linton ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Charles Adams ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Charles Perretti ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Chelsea Tuohy ; from ;
Span
A S M F C
,
Chris Kellogg ; from ;
Span
N E F M C
staff,
Chris Legault ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Cynthia Ferrio ; from ;
Span
G A R F O
,
Gary Nelson ; from ;
Span
M A D M F
,
Greg DiDomenico ; from ; Lund’s Fisheries,
Hannah Hart ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
staff,
Jason Boucher ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Jessica Blaylock ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Jon Deroba ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Jose Montanez ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
staff,
Karson Cisneros ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
staff,
Kate Wilke ; from ; Nature Conservancy (Virginia),
Kathy Sosebee ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Kiersten Curti ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Kiley Dancy ; from ;
Span
M A F M C
staff,
Kristan Blackhart ; from ;
Span
N M F S
Office of Science and Technology,
Lauran Brewster ; from ;
Span
U MASS
Dartmouth,
Lisa Hendrickson ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Mark Grant ; from ;
Span
G A R F O
,
Mark Terceiro ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Michael Waine ; from ; American Sportfishing Association,
Mike Celestino ; from ;
Span
New Jersey
Bureau of Shellfisheries
Paul Nitschke ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Rachel Feeney ; from ;
Span
N E F M C
staff,
Sefatia Romeo Theken ; from ; Deputy Commissioner,
Span
Massachusetts
Department of Fish and Game,
Sharon Benjamin ; from ;
Span
G A R F O
,
Steve Cadrin ; from ;
Span
S M A S T
,
Susan Wigley ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Toni Chute ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Tony Wood ; from ;
Span
N E F S C
,
Willy Goldsmith ; from ; Pelagic Strategies
Span
L L C
,
Will Poston ; from ; American Saltwater Guides Association
Aerial view of the buildings and wharves at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Mass.
Aerial view of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,MA
; photo ©WHOI
Appendix D. ; start of Appendix Section at level 4: titled : Realized Agenda for June 2023 Management Track peer review ;
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; Time ;
; ; head cell ; ; Subject ;
; ; head cell ; ; Lead; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Tuesday, June 26, 2023; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 9:30; to ; 9:45am ;
Welcome/Logistics/Conduct, of Meeting ;
Michele Traver, Russ Brown,, Cynthia Jones, Chair ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 9:45; to ; 11:15am ;
Deep Sea Red Crab, Discussion/Questions ;
Toni Chute, Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 11:15; to ; 11:30am ;
— Break — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 11:30; to ; 12:00pm ;
Discussion/Summary ;
Panel; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 12:00; to ; 12:15pm ;
Public Comment ;
Public; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 12:15; to ; 1:15pm ;
— Lunch — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 1:15; to ; 3:30pm ;
Scup Discussion/Questions ;
Mark Terceiro, Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 3:30; to ; 3:45pm ;
— Break — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 3:45; to ; 4:15pm ;
Discussion/Summary ;
Panel; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 4:15; to ; 4:30pm ;
Public Comment ;
Public; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 4:30pm ;
— Adjourn — ;
( blank cell )
; ; multi head cell ; ; Wednesday, June 27, 2023; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 9:30; to ; 9:35am ;
Welcome/Logistics ;
Michele Traver, Cynthia Jones, Chair ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 9:35; to ; 11:15am ;
Longfin inshore squid, Discussion/Questions ;
Lisa Hendrickson, Panel; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 11:15; to ; 11:30am ;
— Break — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 11:30; to ; 12:00pm ;
Discussion/Summary ;
Review Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 12:00; to ; 12:15pm ;
Public Comment ;
Public; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 12:15; to ; 1:15pm ;
— Lunch — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 1:15; to ; 3:30pm ;
Summer flounder, Discussion/Questions ;
Mark Terceiro, Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 3:30; to ; 3:45pm ;
— Break — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 3:45; to ; 4:15pm ;
Discussion/Summary ;
Review Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 4:15; to ; 4:30pm ;
Public Comment ;
Public; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 4:30pm ;
— Adjourn — ;
( blank cell )
; ; multi head cell ; ; Thursday, June 28, 2023; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 9:00; to ; 10:00am ;
Closed session ;
Panel; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 10:00; to ; 12:00am ;
— No session — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 12:00; to ; 1:00pm ;
— Lunch — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 1:00; to ; 2:30pm ;
Bluefish, Discussion/Questions ;
Tony Wood, Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2:30; to ; 2:45pm ;
— Break — ;
( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 2:45; to ; 3:15pm ;
Discussion/Summary ;
Panel; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 3:15; to ; 3:30pm ;
Public Comment ;
Public; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 3:30; to ; 4:30pm ;
Report Writing ;
Review Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 4:30pm ;
— Adjourn — ;
( blank cell )
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
2. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Atlantic Bluefish ;
; Report Author: ; Anthony Wood
; Report Summary: ;
This assessment of the Atlantic Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix
) stock is a management track update assessment of the existing 2022 research track assessment (
Span
N E F S C
2022). Stock status for bluefish from the research track assessment (data through 2021) found the stock was not overfished, and overfishing was not occurring. The current assessment updates commercial fishery catch data, recreational fishery catch data, research survey indices of abundance, and the analytical state-space
Span
W H A M
assessment model and reference points through 2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025.
Span
State of Stock:
Based on this updated assessment, the Atlantic Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix
) stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring (Figures
Reference
1
; to ;
Reference
2
). Retrospective bias in model results was considered minor and retrospective adjustments were not necessary. Spawning stock biomass (
Span
S S B
) in 2022 was estimated to be 52,747 (
Span
m t
) which is 60% of the biomass target (
Span
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
=88,131
(
Span
m t
); Figure
Reference
1
). The 2022 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.152 which is 64% of the overfishing threshold (
Span
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
=0.239
; Figure
Reference
2
).
Table 3:
Catch and status table for Atlantic Bluefish. All weights are in
Span
m t
, recruitment is in
Span
thousands
and
Span
F[Full]
Span
is the fishing mortality on fully selected ages (age-2). Model results are from the current updated
Span
W H A M
assessment.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2013 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recreational landings ;
15,732 ;
12,324 ;
13,725 ;
10,634 ;
15,620 ;
5,857 ;
6,800 ;
5,923 ;
5,471 ;
5,002; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recreational discards ;
2,472 ;
2,880 ;
3,690 ;
1,838 ;
1,794 ;
1,578 ;
1,702 ;
1,253 ;
1,391 ;
1,400; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Commercial landings ;
1,977 ;
2,251 ;
1,917 ;
1,946 ;
1,876 ;
1,105 ;
1,359 ;
1,112 ;
1,090 ;
1,025; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Commercial discards ;
12 ;
18 ;
14 ;
14 ;
7 ;
8 ;
10 ;
7 ;
12 ;
9; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch for Assessment ;
20,194 ;
17,473 ;
19,345 ;
14,431 ;
19,297 ;
8,548 ;
9,871 ;
8,294 ;
7,963 ;
7,436; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Model Results; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Spawning Stock Biomass ;
67,325 ;
53,698 ;
46,283 ;
43,981 ;
41,153 ;
35,152 ;
41,702 ;
42,811 ;
44,979 ;
52,747; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
;
0.34 ;
0.353 ;
0.438 ;
0.345 ;
0.495 ;
0.232 ;
0.231 ;
0.196 ;
0.19 ;
0.152; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recruits (age-0) ;
136,314 ;
120,570 ;
101,743 ;
69,713 ;
112,997 ;
111,734 ;
68,541 ;
74,543 ;
97,120 ;
137,139; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Span
Projections:
Short-term projections were conducted in
Span
W H A M
, and incorporate model uncertainty, auto-regressive processes and uncertainty in recruitment and numbers-at-age. Removals in 2023 were as- sumed to be equal to the 2023
Span
A B C
(
Span
13,890
Span
m t
), and projections were carried forward for years 2024; to ; 2025 at
Span
Span
F[Rebuild]
Span
=0.183
. The
Span
M A F M C
council risk policy (
Span
Span
C V
=100%
) was used to develop
Span
A B C
values in each year, and the projection was re-iterated using these values as annual removals in place of
Span
F[Rebuild]
Span
. Projected
Span
A B C
catch in 2024 and 2025 based on this approach is
Span
7,929
Span
m t
and
Span
9,903
Span
m t
, respectively.
The projection uses 5-year averages for natural mortality, maturity, fishery selectivity and weights- at-age. The 5-year average was selected for those parameters to capture the most recent conditions while still smoothing some interannual variability. Projections were not retrospectively adjusted, as the adjusted terminal year estimates of
Span
F
and
Span
S S B
fell within the 90% confidence intervals of the unadjusted values.
Table 4:
Comparison of reference points estimated in the 2022 research track assessment and from the current assessment update. An
Span
F[35 percent]
Span
proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and was based on
Span
S P R
calculations. The
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
is calculated using the value of
Span
F[35% S P R ]
Span
and mean recruitment.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2022 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
;
0.249 ;
0.239 (0.199; to ; 0.287); ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B[M S Y]
Span
(
Span
m t
) ;
91,987 ;
88,131 (65,576; to ; 118,445); ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
M S Y
(
Span
m t
) ;
19,618 ;
18,979 (14,025; to ; 25,684); ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Median recruits (age-0) (
Span
thousands
) ;
103,133 ;
108,035; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ;
No ;
No; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ;
No ;
No; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Table 5:
Short term projections of total fishery catch and spawning stock biomass for Atlantic Bluefish based on a harvest scenario assuming annual
Span
A B C
values calculated from
Span
F[Rebuild]
Span
(0.183) and the
Span
M A F M C
risk policy between 2024 and 2025. Catch in 2023 was assumed to be the previously established
Span
A B C
value of 13,890 (
Span
m t
).
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; Year ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch (
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B
(
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2023 ;
13,890 ;
59,135 (39,120; to ; 89,391) ;
0.239; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Year ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch (
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B
(
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2024 ;
7929 ;
66,706 (41,439; to ; 107,379) ;
0.121; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2025 ;
9903 ;
75,757 (43,303; to ; 132,534) ;
0.137; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Span
Special Comments:
; start of Itemized List ; ; Item ;
What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass,
Span
F
, recruitment, and population projections).
Some of the important sources of uncertainty relate to assessment data inputs and the availability of information that would help better understand the dynamics of bluefish. Research recommendations from the recent research track assessment fully detail these uncertainties and data needs. A list of some of the research ideas designed to improve the bluefish stock assessment and reduce some of the uncertainties include:
; start of Enumerated List ; ; Item 1. ;
Expanding the collection of recreational release length frequency data. The bluefish assessment stratifies recreational release lengths by region, and data in the southern region is lacking. These southern fish tend to be smaller and improved information pertaining to the size distribution of the southern fish would help refine the estimate of recreational discard weight.
; ; Item 2. ;
Addressing the uncertainty around temporal availability of bluefish to the fisheries and surveys. The research track assessment made significant advancements in developing an index of bluefish availability based on forage fish in the diets of bluefish like predators. This forage fish index was incorporated into a companion assessment model as a covariate on
Span
M R I P
Span
C P U E
catchability. Further developing this index will help improve the assessment model fit to the
Span
M R I P
Span
C P U E
information, which is an important index that helps scale biomass estimates from the model.
; ; Item 3. ;
Develop fishery dependent or independent sampling programs to provide information on larger, older bluefish. The dynamics of this size class are not well sampled or understood.
; ; Item 4. ;
Develop an updated recreational release mortality study to derive a more informed estimate of recreational discard mortality. Recreational discards are a significant proportion of the total catch so reducing the uncertainty around the release mortality is important.
; ; Item ;
Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted
Span
S S B
or
Span
F[Full]
Span
lies outside of the approximate joint confidence region for
Span
S S B
and
Span
F[Full]
Span
).
The 7-year Mohn’s
Span
rho
, relative to
Span
S S B
, was 0.14 in the 2022 assessment and was 0.22 in this assessment. The 7-year Mohn’s
Span
rho
, relative to
Span
F
, was 0.10 in the 2022 assessment and was 0.14 in this assessment. This is considered a minor retrospective pattern for both
Span
S S B
and
Span
F
because the
Span
rho
-adjusted estimates of 2022
Span
S S B
(
Span
Span
S S B [rho]
Span
=43,235
) and 2022
Span
F
(
Span
Span
F[rho]
Span
=0.177
) were within the approximate 90% confidence regions around
Span
S S B
(36,194; to ; 76,871) and
Span
F
(0.105; to ; 0.219).
; ; Item ;
Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Population projections for Atlantic Bluefish are reasonably well determined. Shifting to
Span
W H A M
for model projections has allowed for the incorporation of model uncertainty, auto-regressive processes, and the uncertainty in recruitment and numbers-at-age. The retrospective pattern in
Span
F
and
Span
S S B
is considered minor (within the 90%
Span
C I
of both
Span
F
and
Span
S S B
), however, the
Span
rho
values of
Span
F
and
Span
S S B
have increased when compared to the previous research track assessment.
The Atlantic Bluefish stock is in a rebuilding plan with a rebuild date of 2028.
Span
F[Rebuild]
Span
was re-calculated using a projection that assumes a constant
Span
F
strategy, such that biomass in 2028 has a 50% chance of exceeding the
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
;
Span
F[Rebuild]
Span
was calculated to be 0.183. The
Span
M A F M C
risk policy was applied using this
Span
F[Rebuild]
Span
strategy in short term projections to generate
Span
A B C
values that are consistent with the rebuilding schedule for the next two years.
; ; Item ;
Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status.
A change to the way the age-length keys (
Span
A L K
) were developed from the research track, which used full
Span
multi nomial
age-length keys, was implemented for this Atlantic Bluefish assessment update. Instead of using full
Span
multi nomial
age-length keys, a hybrid approach was used, and the holes in the
Span
A L K
were filled with the
Span
multi nomial
model fits. This approach to filling
Span
A L K
holes isnow consistent with the methodology used for other
Span
N E F S C
stock assessments and with the
Span
N E F S C
Span
Stock Eff
program. This new method resulted in minor changes to the results of
Span
S S B
and
Span
F
compared to the 2022 research track assessment results.
; ; Item ;
If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
Stock status of Atlantic Bluefish has not changed from the status determined in the research track assessment.
; ; Item ;
Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The Atlantic Bluefish stock has experienced a slight increase in
Span
S S B
over the past 5 years, coinciding with a decrease in
Span
F
. Recruitment has increased each year since 2019, and the terminal year recruitment (137 million fish) is the highest value since 2005. Both commercial and recreational fisheries have had low catches since 2018, all well below the time series average of
Span
26,386
Span
m t
. With the low catches since 2018, fishing mortality has decreased and remained well below
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
(0.239). The low catches in recent years are partially a result of bag limit implementation as part of the rebuilding plan. However, these lower catches could also be due to decreased bluefish availability. Anecdotal evidence suggests larger bluefish stayed offshore and inaccessible to most of the recreational fishery in recent years.
; ; Item ;
Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this stock assessment in the future.
The recent bluefish research track identified several new research recommendations that would improve our understanding of bluefish dynamics and help better assess the population through the current or future models. These recommendations include: expand collection of recreational release length frequency data, continue development and refinement of the forage fish / availability index as well as incorporation of this index into a base model for bluefish management advice, initiate additional fisheries-independent surveys or fishery-dependent sampling programs to provide information on larger, older bluefish, continue coastwide collection of length and age samples from fishery-independent and -dependent sources, refinement and development of indices of abundance, and develop a recreational demand model.
; ; Item ;
Are there other important issues?
Span
W H A M
allows for incorporation of environmental covariates on the catchability of survey indices, and a companion model was developed for the research track that leveraged this capability. The companion model investigated a forage fish index as a covariate on catchability of the
Span
M R I P
Span
C P U E
and showed promise for continued development. The covariate led to an overall decreasing trend in catchability over time. This model will be further developed leading up to the 2025 management track assessment, at which time it could be considered for the primary model.
2.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Atlantic Bluefish ;
A Research Track Assessment (
Span
R T A
) was recently completed for Atlantic bluefish (Pomatomus salta-
trix
) in 2022. Bluefish had previously been assessed using
Span
N O A A
ToolBox Age-Structured Assessment Program (
Span
A S A P
). The
Span
R T A
accepted the
Span
W H A M
model, a state-space model, for use in bluefish assess- ments. The 2023 update used
Span
W H A M
and included one year of data (2022). Commercial and recreational landings have declined through the time series. Recreational landings of
Span
5,002
Span
m t
are below the series av- erage of
Span
19,625
Span
m t
and are a series low. Total catch in 2022 was
Span
7,436
Span
m t
, a series low. Eighty-six percent of the catch are from the recreational fishery.
The model also included new indices: an
Span
M R I P
Span
C P U E
index based on a guild approach which considered a bluefish trip either when bluefish or a species associated with bluefish was caught,
Span
S E A M A P
age-1, and the calibrated
Span
CHES M A P
Trawl Survey. Other new input data include recreational discards by season and region, the use of
Span
multi nomial
age-length keys to fill in missing values and 2 selectivity blocks for Commercial landings and 3 for Recreational. An improvement to the analysis is the use of lengths and weights of southern bluefish to estimate discard weights. There was concern that using lengths and weights from only northern fish would overestimate discards but also because the model fits both landings and discards. These modifications resulted in significant changes in natural mortality (
Span
M
is now age- specific) and reduced the target
Span
S S B
by 50%. The model retrospective
Span
S S B
and
Span
F
fell within the 95% confidence bands and were not adjusted.
The Management Track Assessment (
Span
M T A
) in 2021 which used the
Span
A S A P
model and determined that bluefish was overfished and overfishing was not occurring. The 2023 data update estimated a total bluefish population of 217 million, a moderate increase. Recruitment is estimated at 137 million, above the average and highest since 2005. The 2022
Span
S S B
is estimated to be
Span
52,747
Span
m t
, above the
Span
S S B[Threshold]
Span
of
Span
44,066
Span
m t
and below the 2022
Span
S S B[Target]
Span
of
Span
88,131
Span
m t
. The
Span
F[35 percent]
Span
% reference point was
Span
0.239
. In the 2021
Span
A S A P
assessment the
Span
S S B[Target]
Span
was greater than twice the
Span
S S B[Target]
Span
in the
Span
R T
2022
Span
W H A M
model with the resulting
Span
S S B[Threshold]
Span
in 2022 half that from the previous assessment. Those results in 2021 were twice the values from the previous assessment (
Span
S A W 60
) (
Span
N E F S C
2021) and believed to be the result of the
Span
M R I P
calibration that scaled up recreational catch. The change in reference points presented in the
Span
M T A
2023 are believed to be the result of the use of
Span
W H A M
that has less reliance on
Span
M R I P
, uses a guild
Span
C P U E
and inclusion of different indices used. The modeling also used a decreased discard mortality rate (15%; to ; 9.4%), discard lengths by season and region, and
Span
Lorenzen
Span
W A A
to produce age-specific natural mortality. The
Span
M T A
2023 update resulted in evaluation that Atlantic bluefish was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring. The recent fishing mortalities were among the lowest in the series, as was the catch in both the commercial and recreational fisheries.
Short-term projections were done in
Span
W H A M
using Removals were assumed to be
Span
13,890
Span
m t
, the 2023
Span
A B C
and were projected with the
Span
F[Rebuild]
Span
(0.183) under the
Span
M A F M C
100% risk policy. The projected
Span
S S B
increased from
Span
59,135
Span
m t
in 2023 to
Span
75,757
Span
m t
in 2025.
The Panel concluded that the
Span
T O R
s had been met. The Panel discussed the value of the
Span
W H A M
model to further explore environmental variables that might be driving availability of bluefish. Of particular interest is the episodic spatial distribution of large bluefish. Their presence inshore and availability to the fishery is inconsistent with attributed numbers and the drivers of this availability uncertain. Another concern of the Panel was the estimate of higher recruitment given that it is among the highest in recentyears. It falls within the confidence intervals but the model evidenced a tendency to overestimate
Span
R
.
The Panel had some research recommendations: Obtaining better data on recreational discard lengths would be valuable. This endeavor relies on volunteer angler reporting such as was done pre- viously in South Carolina.
Span
N M F S
should consider developing an app that can be used by anglers to report discard lengths. Because self-reporting can introduce bias, the statistical issues should also be explored. The Panel also commented that the
Span
M
was high on young fish and evaluating the underlying causes might be a valuable project for funding.
The Panel concluded that the 2022 assessment update for Atlantic bluefish fulfilled the recommenda- tions of the
Span
A O P
, is technically sufficient to provide scientific advice and meets the Terms of Reference for the stock’s assessment.
Pomatomus saltatrix, commonly known as Bluefish, Tailor, Snapper, Baby blues, Choppers, Elfs.
Span
Pomatomus saltatrix
, Bluefish.
; start of References ;
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2022. 2022 Bluefish Research Track Assessment
Span
N O A A
Fisheries, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. XXX; 116p. ; link to ; https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/saw/sasi.php
; end of link ;
Spawning stock biomass trends over time for Atlantic bluefish.
Figure 1:
Trends in spawning stock biomass of Atlantic Bluefish between 1985 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) research track assessment and the corresponding
Span
S S B[Threshold]
Span
(
Span
half
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
; horizontal dashed line) as well as
Span
S S B[Target]
Span
(
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2023 assessment. The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
Fully selected fishing mortality trends over time for Atlantic bluefish.
Figure 2:
Trends in the fully selected fishing mortality (
Span
F[Full]
Span
) of Atlantic Bluefish between 1985 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) research track assessment and the corresponding
Span
F[Threshold]
Span
(
Span
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
=0.239
; horizontal dashed line). The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
Estimated trends in recruitment of Atlantic bluefish.
Figure 3:
Trends in Recruits (age-0) (
Span
thousands
) of Atlantic Bluefish between 1985 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) research track assessment. The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
Total catch of Atlantic bluefish.
Figure 4:
Total catch of Atlantic Bluefish between 1985 and 2022 by fleet (Recreational and Commercial) and disposition (landings and discards).
; end of float block ;
Abundance indices for Atlantic bluefish.
Figure 5:
Atlantic Bluefish indices of abundance for the most important regional and state surveys. The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
3. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Deep sea red crab ;
; Report Author: ; Toni Chute
; Report Summary: ;
A data update for deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens
) occurs every four years during the specifications-setting process. The last data update occurred in 2019 when the specifications for fishing years 2020; to ; 2023 were set. The data updates do not result in a determination of the stock status as there are no biological reference points for red crab. Commercial fleet landings, incidental landings, estimated fleet
Span
L P U E
, and port sampled length frequencies are compiled for this update. Data from observed red crab trips are also updated.
; The State of Stock is not yet relevent for this fish stock. ;
Table 6:
Catch table for deep-sea red crab. All weights are in
Span
m t
.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2010 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2011 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2012 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2013 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data: landings; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Commercial fleet ;
1,412 ;
1,625 ;
1,180 ;
928 ;
985 ;
1,613 ;
1,387 ;
1,366 ;
1,631 ;
1,670 ;
1,952 ;
1,559 ;
2,067; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Incidental ;
2 ;
1 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
1 ;
0 ;
2 ;
1 ;
4 ;
3 ;
5; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Table 7:
Estimated reference points for deep sea red crab
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ;
Unknown ;
Unknown; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ;
Unknown ;
Unknown; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
; The Stock Projection is not yet relevent for this fish stock. ;
Span
Special Comments:
; Response ; ; point ;
What are the most important sources of uncertainty in red crab data?
Estimates of
Span
L P U E
are made in two ways: per trap hauled, and per day fished. The two estimates generally track each other well. In the case of per day fished, steam time is not considered which increases uncertainty. In the case of traps hauled, the number of traps per string noted in the
Span
V T R
trip entry is not always the number of traps emptied per haul due to a number of causes normal for fishing, which increases uncertainty.
Especially in a potentially food-limited environment, there also may be uncertainty in calculating
Span
L P U E
in a baited trap fishery. If the pot is left to soak long enough, it can attract enough crabs to fill the pot and appear as if the population has not changed in density over time. The crabs must travel longer distances to reach the bait.
There is very little uncertainly in landings due to the specialized fleet and processing needs.
; ; point ;
Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major?
Span
n a
; ; point ;
Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Span
n a
; ; point ;
Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status.
Span
n a
; ; point ;
If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
Span
n a
; ; point ;
Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
Span
n a
; ; point ;
Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this stock assessment in the future.
After implementation of the
Span
F M P
in 2002, the red crab fishery was restricted to five full-access permits. The vessels fish cooperatively and over a wide area. The footprint of the fishery stretches from the Hague line to Virginia. The fishery is, by regulation, male-only. Landings include some females landed under an
Span
E F P
during the years 2010 and 2011 but this did not continue. Red crabs are known to segregate loosely by sex and perhaps even size, with the smallest individuals being found further down the continental slope in deeper water. This is one aspect of the fishery that makes discarding highly variable, as the fishing vessels find areas where there is a high concentration of large males but there are always a certain number of females and undersized males which are discarded depending on where the pots are set.
Red crab is considered a data-poor species. They live outside the range of
Span
N E F S C
surveys (they are sometimes caught in the northern shrimp survey and non-random deep stations in the bottom trawl survey, but in very small numbers) so there is no fishery-independent index of abundance.
Almost nothing is known about deep-sea red crab growth and longevity, and methods of crustacean ageing are still in development and highly uncertain. There have been some studies on mating behavior of captive red crabs, but they do not live long in captivity so controlled growth studies have not been possible. A tagging study for growth was attempted in 2010 with poor results. Very few tagged crabs were ever recovered, for reasons unknown.
There have been two surveys of the deep-sea red crab resource in the past; one in 1974 (Wigley, Theroux and Murray, 1975) and another during the summers of 2003; to ; 2005 (Wahle et al. 2008). The first survey was undertaken soon after the fishery began and the second shortly after the deep-sea red crab
Span
F M P
was implemented in 2002. The methods used by the two surveys were the same, and the 2003; to ; 2005 survey attempted to replicate the survey gear used in 1974 as closely as possible. At some stations a benthic sled equipped with a camera and strobe light was towed along the bottom for 30; to ; 75 minutes, taking a picture every 10 seconds. The area of bottom illuminated in the images was estimated, and counting the red crabs visible in each image, then extrapolating thatnumber out to the area of the survey resulted in an estimate of swept-area abundance. At other stations, a trawl net was deployed to determine red crab sex ratios, weights and length frequencies by sex. Mean weights were used to estimate swept-area biomass.
After the second survey, it was possible to see the effect the fishery had on red crab population structure. As would be expected, the number of large male crabs was reduced. However, the number of smaller males and females appeared to have increased. After the results of the second survey were presented at the Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group in 2008 (citation below), the potential for sperm limitation in the red crab population caused concern. It was noted in the mating studies and seen in the benthic sled images that male red crabs needed to be about 50% larger than the females to be able to mate, since the male carries the female underneath his body during the process. If the larger males were being removed from the population, there was concern that the largest females with the highest repoductive potential would not be able to find mates and recruitment would diminish.
There have been efforts to estimate
Span
M S Y
for red crab, most recently also at the Northeast Data Poor Working Group meeting. The group tried several models and methods at the time, and reviewed estimates that had taken place in the past. Specifically the models were the depletion-corrected average catch (
Span
D C A C
) model and the two-point boundary model. The
Span
D C A C
model works from the idea that for a new fishery, in calculating average catch for an estimate of sustainable yield, the windfall at the start of a fishery will represent a certain number of units of sustainable yield and increase beyond the actual number of years of fishing, with that increase being based on an estimate of natural mortality. The two-point boundary model estimates the average recruitment needed to sustain the catch time series based on mature biomass at two points in time defined as the initial and final survey values, then estimates equilibrium catch based on recruitment, final biomass and survival. At the end of the day there was not one widely accepted value due to many factors, and the group determined there was substantial uncertainty in any potential
Span
B R P
estimates that came out of the workshop based on current information about the stock. Survey-based
Span
B R P
s were also relying on assumptions that the population was stationary and the fishing area did not extend beyond the surveyed area.
In terms of other effects of the fishery on the population, the percent mortality for discarded crabs is unknown. Crabs apparently survive being brought to the surface and returned to the bottom still contained in a special crab hotel at a high percentage, but method of discard (dropping vs. sliding) can increase mortality (Tallack 2007). Little is known about the survival of crabs discarded from a vessel that must descend down through hundreds of meters of water without protection after handling.
Since the
Span
F M P
was put in place, the information originally available to assess the sustainability of the fishery has been total landings and port sampled carapace widths from which estimates of
Span
L P U E
could be made and the size of landed crabs could be monitored. Estimates of
Span
L P U E
used as a proxy for abundance can be uncertain in a pot fishery (see above). There are also economic and/or market factors that may affect culling patterns, fishing effort, location and catch for red crab. The fishery is market-driven and annual variations in landings reflect this.
In recent years (2016+) observer coverage of the red crab fishery has increased substantially and the data observed trips provide have allowed us to look at other aspects of red crab biology and thefishery. Since we never had information about undersized males that were discarded at sea, their numbers and length frequencies recorded by observers give us some information about recruitment. Since we never had information about females as they were all discarded at sea, their length frequencies and reproductive status (egg) data recorded by observers give us some information about the potential for sperm limitation. Most of the egg observations have been presence/absence but there have been some observers who stage the eggs, which determines if they are viable; important to note on the larger females especially where sperm limitation is a concern. The measurements of females, which have not had the same level of fishery removals as the males, have provided evidence that the crabs caught at the southern end of the fishery footprint reach greater maximum sizes than those caught in the more northern regions. Anecdotally, the red crabs found in the Gulf of Maine are the smallest, so there is likely a latitudinal size gradient.
Based on this information and previous recommendations, questions for research are listed below. They include the recommendations from the 2008 Northeast Data-poor Stocks Working Group report, past assessments, Tallack (2007) and Wahle et al. (2008).
; Response ; ; point ;
What is the lifespan of a red crab?
; ; point ;
How often do red crabs molt, and what is the percent increase in body size after a molt? Do red crabs, especially females, have a terminal molt? Molt frequency of females would be especially important too, as they mate during the molt period.
; ; point ;
Do red crabs store sperm and if so for how long? Although some crabs are known to store sperm from a single mating to produce several clutches of eggs, it is unclear whether red crabs have this ability.
; ; point ;
What percent of females with eggs are carrying viable eggs? Unmated females may produce clutches of unfertilized eggs.
; ; point ;
How long do red crabs incubate their eggs? This would be useful to know in conjunction with molt frequency and sperm storage capability as it could relate to how many clutches of eggs a female could have in an intermolt period.
; ; point ;
How many eggs are carried in a clutch and how does this vary by the size of the crab? Are there patterns that might indicate sperm storage?
; ; point ;
Can we gather additional information on the relative sizes of mating pairs and any possible effects on reproductive potential? Could simulation modeling be used to explore the response of population sex ratios and size ratios to different fishing patterns? Is there a way to evaluate the importance of large male red crabs in reproduction considering the size distribution of females?
; ; point ;
How can we design a successful tagging study to explore red crab growth rates, fishing mortality rates and molt frequencies in situ?
; ; point ;
Are there any new, innovative ageing methods that might work for red crab?
; ; point ;
What is the main food source for red crabs? Are they cannibalistic?
; ; point ;
How much and when do red crabs move about their range? Is there a seasonal migration of one or both sexes?
; ; point ;
Can we improve estimates of total discard mortality by considering seasonality, predation and displacement?
; ; point ;
Could gear design studies help reduce discard and increase efficiency in the red crab fishery?
; ; point ;
Could soak time studies help reduce uncertainty in
Span
L P U E
as an estimate of abundance?
; ; point ;
Traditional reference points for the deep-sea red crab stock are difficult to estimate due to lack of basic information. Are there non-traditional reference points that could be used to determine stock status? Could
Span
B R P
s based on size and sex ratios be useful due to the importance of preventing sperm limitation? It would require regular surveying.
; ; point ;
How do economic factors alter the distribution and interpretation of fishing effort for the red crab fishery?
; ; point ;
Can we collect biological data from a large number of red crabs over a wide area, crabs that have not been selected by a commercial trap (say, with a trawl) and are therefore more representative of the population at large? What questions could that help us answer: percentage of females with eggs, sperm storage, percentage in different shell conditions and states of molting, degree of segregation of the population by sex and size?
; ; point ;
Would regular surveys of the red crab population provide useful information on the continuing effects of the fishery and the current population structure? What methods could be used? Can we get a better understanding of the habitat; to ; abundance relationship for allocation of effort for any potential survey?
; ; point ;
Are there other important issues?
None.
Chaceon quinquedens, also known Deep-Sea Red Crab.
Span
Chaceon quinquedens
, Atlantic Deep Sea Red Crab.
3.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Deep sea red crab ;
Deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens
) is a data-poor species with little known of its growth or longevity. They are found in areas outside the
Span
N E F S C
surveys and so there is no fishery-independent estimate of abundance. A tagging study was attempted in 2010 but tag returns were very low and insuffi- cient to derive any information about the species. The fishery is small with only 5 license holders and by regulation is a male-only fishery. Data input included the calculation of
Span
L P U E
based on 3 methods: 1) per trap, 2) per day, and 3) per day with constant steam time.
Management advice for deep-sea red crab is based on
Span
D C A C
, the depletion-corrected average catch model used for data poor stocks, and historical landings.The best estimate of
Span
M S Y
was based on 2 surveys conducted in 1974 and 2003; to ; 2005. The second survey showed a depletion of large males, potentially impacting mating success. The 2023 Management Tract Assessment (
Span
M T A
) updates the last 2019 data update. This 2023 data update includes all information through 2022 including: landings,
Span
L P U E
, carapace length of landed males, and observer data of length of kept and discard crabs and egg status of females.
An
Span
M S Y
estimated from the
Span
D C A C
ranged from
Span
1785; to ; 1862
Span
m t
and the 2-point boundary model estimated
Span
1987; to ; 2044
Span
m t
. The range of 1700; to ; 1900 is now being used as the best estimate of
Span
M S Y
. Natural mortality used for
Span
M S Y
estimates are between 0.05; to ; 0.15.
ThePeerReviewPanel(Panel)discussedtheimportanceofevaluatingthetimeseriesofsize-frequencies quantitatively to see patterns for landed males but also to evaluate discard lengths of smaller males and fe- males for any patterns. We are aware that high grading may add some bias to results. They also discussed the availability of other modeling approaches to improve data input, such as the use of
Span
G L M
s. The Panel also felt that the observer data was a valuable source of information for estimating female reproductive productivity.
Research suggestion: The assessment report included a number of research recommendations, all of which the Panel agreed would be useful information to obtain. However, the Panel prioritized the collection of growth and natural mortality information, the refinement of the
Span
L P U E
index, and simulation modeling to develop reference points appropriate for this species’ life history as the most important areas of research to move the assessment to a more analytical approach. The Panel emphasized the importance of obtaining basic information of growth and, if possible, age. The Panel suggests that use of a
Span
G L M
might be a better way to develop the
Span
L P U E
indices that improve information on stock status. The Panel suggests that one way to improve the consistency of
Span
V T R
reporting going forward would be to contact the license holders to address how they fill out these reports because there are only 5 of them. This would also help improve the
Span
L P U E
calculations. Additionally, the Panel suggested the potential value of a boundary model simulation, a quasi-
Span
Bayes
approach, and the fisheries behavior of similar species. Finally, the Panel emphasizes the importance of undertaking recommendations made since 2008 because deep-sea red crab is a valuable food resource.
The Panel concluded that the 2023 assessment update for deep-sea red crab fulfilled the recommen- dations of the
Span
A O P
, is the Best Scientific Information Available evaluate stock status and meets the Terms of Reference for the stock’s assessment (
Span
T O R
s 3; to ; 5 were not evaluated because this is a data poor stock).
Measuring a deep-sea red crab.
Measuring the size of a deep-sea red crab.
; start of References ;
Wigley, Roland L., Roger B. Theroux and Harriett E. Murray, 1975. Deep-sea red crab,
Span
Geryon quinquedens
, survey off northeastern United States. Marine Fisheries Review 37:8, 1; to ; 21. 1975 ; link to ; MFRev:3781
; end of link ;
Wahle, RichardA., Charlene E.Bergeron, Antonie S.Chute, Larry D.Jacobson, and Yong Chen, 2008. The Northwest Atlantic deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens
) before and after the onset of harvesting.
Span
I C E S
J Mar Sci. 65: 862; to ; 872. ; link to ; JMS:fsn058
; end of link ;
Tallack S.M.L, 2007. Escape ring selectivity, bycatch and discard survivability in the New England fishery for deep-water red crab, (Chaceon quinquedens
).
Span
I C E S
J Mar Sci. 64: 1579; to ; 1586. ; link to ; JMS:fsm107
; end of link ;
The Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group Report, December 8; to ; 12, 2008 meeting. Part A. Skate species complex, Deep sea red crab, Atlantic wolffish, Scup and Black sea bass. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 09-02; 496p. ; link to ; CRD09-02
; end of link ;
Total catch of Deep-sea red crab.
Figure 6:
Total annual (calendar year) landings of deep-sea red crab since the
Span
F M P
was implemented and the fleet was limited to five permits. Incidental landings are so small they are not visible in this plot.
; end of float block ;
Abundance surveys for Deep-sea red crab.
Figure 7:
Estimated mean annual
Span
L P U E
for the deep-sea red crab fleet in units of landings (
Span
pounds
.) per trap hauled. Trips with less than 1000 pounds of catch were excluded, and one vessel that fished shorter trips from 2016 to 2020 was excluded.
; end of float block ;
4. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Longfin inshore squid ;
; Report Author: ; Lisa Hendrickson
; Report Summary: ;
This Level 2 Management Track Assessment of longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
) is an update of the 2020 Level 3 peer-reviewed Management Track Assessment. The methodologies used to conduct the 2010 benchmark assessment during
Span
S A R C 51
(
Span
N E F S C
, 2011a;
Span
N E F S C
, 2011b) were used in this assessment as well as the 2017 and 2020 assessment updates. Based on the 2020 assessment results the stock was not overfished and overfishing was unknown during 2019 (
Span
N E F S C
, 2020). This assessment provides updates of commercial fishery catches (Table
Reference
8
, Figure
Reference
10
),
Span
q
-adjusted, swept- area biomass estimates, and exploitation indices (catch/biomass) through 2022 (Figure
Reference
11
). Cohort- specific biomass was estimated separately for the
Span
N E F S C
spring surveys versus
Span
N E F S C
fall +
Span
N E A M A P
fall surveys. Annualized biomass estimates, recommended by the
Span
S A R C 51
Working Group as annually av- eraged spring and fall survey biomass estimates, were also updated. Cohort-specific exploitation indices (Jan.; to ; June catch/spring survey biomass versus July; to ; December catch/fall survey biomass) and annual- ized exploitation indices (annual catch/annually averaged spring and fall survey biomass) were updated as well.
Span
State of Stock:
Based on this updated assessment, the annualized stock status for longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
) is not overfished and overfishing is unknown. The annualized catchability-adjusted, swept-area biomass in 2022 (defined as the two-year moving average of the 2022 and 2021 annually averaged
Span
N E F S C
spring and fall survey biomasses) was estimated to be
Span
121,836
Span
m t
(
Span
80%
Span
C I
=106,748; to ; 136,923
) (Figure
Reference
8
), which was more than five times greater than the threshold
Span
B[M S Y proxy]
Span
of
Span
21,203
Span
m t
. Overfishing status could not be determined because there are no approved fish- ing mortality Reference Points for the stock. The 2022 annualized exploitation index (2022 catch divided by
Span
121,836
Span
m t
) was estimated to be 0.155 (Figure
Reference
9
), which was 20.1% less than the 1987; to ; 2021 median of 0.195. However, as recommended by the 2020 assessment review panel, cohort-specific biomass and biomass Reference Points should be used to determine stock status. The recommended stock status for the cohorts caught in both the spring and fall
Span
N E F S C
surveys is not overfished and overfishing is un- known. The catchability-adjusted, swept-area biomass in 2022 was estimated to be
Span
46,336
Span
m t
(
Span
80%
Span
C I
=42,545; to ; 50,128
) (Figure
Reference
10
) for the spring survey cohort and
Span
197,335
Span
m t
(
Span
80%
Span
C I
=167,403; to ; 227,268
) (Figure
Reference
10
) for the fall survey cohort, both of which were well above the threshold
Span
B[M S Y proxy]
Span
of
Span
11,152
Span
m t
for the spring survey cohort and
Span
56,268
Span
m t
for the fall survey cohort.
Table 8:
Catch and biomass assessment results for longfin inshore squid. All weights are in
Span
m t
.
Span
D W F
landings are the landings from the Distant Water Fleets. Total biomass estimates in this table were not used for stock status determination because they are the two-year moving averages of the annualized
Span
q
-adjusted, swept-area biomass estimates for the
Span
N E F S C
spring and fall bottom trawl surveys (i.e., averages of the two surveys). Exploitation indices represent the catch in year
Span
y
divided by the two-year moving average of the annualized biomass estimate in year
Span
y
.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2012 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2013 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
United States
Landings ;
12,820 ;
11,090 ;
12,070 ;
11,953 ;
18,182 ;
8,188 ;
11,632 ;
12,458 ;
9,449 ;
10,759 ;
18,489; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
D W F
Landings ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0 ;
0; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
United States
Discards ;
368 ;
246 ;
208 ;
97 ;
498 ;
131 ;
134 ;
315 ;
586 ;
580 ;
447; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch for Assessment ;
13,187 ;
11,336 ;
12,278 ;
12,050 ;
18,680 ;
8,319 ;
11,766 ;
12,773 ;
10,035 ;
11,339 ;
18,936; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Model Results; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Total Biomass ;
93,975 ;
109,573 ;
Span
n a
;
Span
n a
;
73,762 ;
Span
n a
;
Span
n a
;
63,349 ;
Span
n a
;
Span
n a
;
121,836; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Exploitation Index ;
0.14 ;
0.103 ;
( blank cell )
( blank cell )
0.253 ;
( blank cell )
( blank cell )
0.195 ;
( blank cell )
( blank cell )
0.155; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Table 9:
Comparison of Reference Points estimated in the 2020 and current assessment updates.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
;
Span
n a
;
Span
n a
; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
B[M S Y proxy]
Span
;
42,405 ;
42,405; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
M S Y
(
Span
m t
) ;
Span
n a
;
Span
n a
; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ;
Unknown ;
Unknown; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ;
No ;
No; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Span
Projections:
Near-term stock size projections were not possible due to the lack of an analytical assessment model that accounts for the species unique life history.
Span
Special Comments:
; Response ; ; point ;
What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass,
Span
F
, recruitment,and population projections).
For the estimation of biomass using
Span
N E F S C
bottom trawl survey data, the most important source of uncertainty is the apparent productivity differences between the two intra-annual cohorts. The biomass of the cohort caught during the fall surveys is about five-fold higher than the biomass of the cohort caught in the spring surveys (
Span
N E F S C
, 2011a; 2011b). However, the mean exploitation rate for the Jan.; to ; June fishery was more than three times higher on the apparently less productive spring survey cohort. Using annualized biomass and exploitation rates to determine stock status does not account for these differences, and therefore, may impact resource sustainability. The review panel for the 2020 Level 3 assessment of this stock agreed and concluded that Annual averaging of the spring and fall survey biomasses assumes that a single population is being exploited and does not account for the large difference in apparent productivity of the two intra-annual cohorts. Cohort-specific stock size estimates and Reference Points are required to determine the stock status of cephalopod species with subannual lifespans because maturation and growth rates of intra-annual cohorts exhibit a high degree of seasonal and interannual variability (Arkhipkin et al. 2020). Because the generation time for longfin squid is only 6; to ; 8 months, overfishing of a single cohort potentially could jeopardize stock sustainability due to recruitment overfishing.
During the 2020 assessment, cohort-specific biomass Reference Points were derived separately for squid caught in the
Span
N E F S C
spring versus fall bottom trawl surveys because annualized biomass estimates and Reference Points (i.e., averages of the spring and fall survey biomasses) do not account for the apparent productivity differences that exist between the two intra-annual cohorts caught during these surveys.
; ; point ;
Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted
Span
S S B
or
Span
F[Full]
Span
lies outside of the approximate joint confidence region for
Span
S S B
and
Span
F[Full]
Span
).
These questions are not applicable to the subject assessment because an analytical model was not utilized.
; ; point ;
Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Projections were not possible, because there is no anaytical model from which to do so. The stock is not currently subject to a rebuilding plan but has been in the past.
; ; point ;
Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status.
The 2009; to ; 2020
Span
N E F S C
spring and fall survey biomass indices now include actual rather than nominal tow distances, at the request of the
Span
N T A P
. This resulted in minor changes to the indices that did not affect stock statuses for either cohort. For example, the difference between the two-year moving average biomass estimates for 2019 during this assessment versus the 2020 assessment represented a 3.5% increase of
Span
2,290
Span
m t
which is inconsequential in relation to the magnitude of the 2019 biomass estimate in relation to the threshold
Span
B[M S Y proxy]
Span
.
The other assessment methodology change involved the discard estimates for 2020; to ; 2022. Since the 2007 implementation of trimester-based quotas, discards have represented a minor portion of the catch; an average of 1.6% during 2007; to ; 2019. Nevertheless, the 2020; to ; 2022 discards were estimated using a new method with data from a new database, both of which differ from those used to estimate the 1989; to ; 2019 discards for the 2020 assessment. The new database, the
Span
C A M S
database, was created and is maintained by
Span
G A R F O
. Some of the major differences between the two discard estimation methods and comparisons between the discard estimates for each method, during 2019; to ; 2021, are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 of the 2023 longfin squid tables file at
Span
S A S Inf
(see ; link to ; 2023_DORY_UNIT_TAB.pdf
; end of link ; ). The 2019 landings were compared between the two discard estimation methods, as were the 2019; to ; 2021 discards, but only the
Span
C A M S
discard estimates were available for 2022. The 2019
Span
C A M S
landings (
Span
12,489
Span
m t
) were only
Span
31
Span
m t
(0.25%) higher than the 2019 landings from the Area Allocation database formerly used in the discard estimation method as the denominator (kept weight of all species). The higher 2019
Span
C A M S
discard estimate (
Span
357
Span
m t
,
Span
Span
C V
=0.18
) was more precise than the discard estimate based on the former discard estimation method (
Span
315
Span
m t
,
Span
Span
C V
=0.32
. However, only the
Span
C A M S
discard estimates for 2020; to ; 2022 were used in this assessment, because 2019 was the terminal year of the previous assessment and the 2019 discard estimate was accepted for use in the stock status determination. When the 2019; to ; 2021
Span
C A M S
discard estimates were compared with those from the former discard estimationmethod, most of the
Span
C A M S
estimates were slightly higher, but most fell within the 90% confidence interval of the discards estimated using the former method.
; ; point ;
If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
Overfishing status is unknown for this stock because an analytical model could not be developed by the most recent benchmark assesment Working Group given the available data. There has been no change in the overfished status of longfin inshore squid since the 2020 operational assessment, for either of the two cohorts or for both cohorts combined (i.e., based on annualized biomass and biomass Reference Points). Under the current assessment process, however, stock status for this subannual species is always reported for the prior year (i.e., for multiple generations past) and this stock status is assumed to remain the same for the next three years when the next Management Track Assessment occurs. It is imperative that both squid stocks be assessed annually so that the timing of their stock status updates are appropriate for their short lifespans.
; ; point ;
Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The use of conventional stock assessment models to assess squid stocks such as longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
), is inappropriate because they do not account for the species’ subannual lifespan and semelparous reproduction. This neritic species has a lifespan of 6; to ; 8 months, and like many other loliginids, there are two dominant intra-annual cohorts; winter-hatched and summer-hatched cohorts that have different growth rates and median sizes-at-maturity (Brodziak and Macy 1996; Macy and Brodziak 2001). Length-based models are not generally used to assess squid stocks because time-consuming, expensive aging (counting of daily increments in statoliths) must be used to identify the intra-annual cohorts due to the high plasticity in individual growth rates (Arkhipkin et al., 2015). Like most squid stocks, stock size estimates of longfin inshore squid exhibit high interannual variability because each year, the population relies on new recruits to each intra-annual cohort, and recruitment levels depend on the favorability of environmental conditions (Brodziak and Hendrickson 1999; Hatfield et al. 2001).
; ; point ;
Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this stock assessment in the future.
Based on the
Span
N R C C
assessment schedule, this stock is currently assessed every three years. Instead, it is recommended that this subannual species be asssessed on an annual basis, as was done historically. A Research Track Assessment is scheduled for review in 2026, following two years of research dedicated to developing a stock assessment model and Reference Points that account for the life history of this semelparous species and its two intra-annual cohorts. The research topics identified here and in previous assessments should be reviewed and prioritized prioritized by the Working Group prior to conducting any research on the stock.
During the upcoming longfin squid Research Track Assessment, the top priority should be the development of a cohort-specific assessment model that incorporates, for example, their different growth rates and median ages-at-maturity, along with spawning and non-spawning spawning natural mortality rates.
Simulation testing should be conducted to evaluate the model’s ability to accurately and precisely estimate stock conditions under a wide range of scenarios, including process and measurement errors.
A method that accounts for the species’ semelparous reproduction should be used to estimate separate
Span
M S P
based Biological Reference Point proxies for each of the two intra-annual cohorts to ensure adequate spawner escapement.
Annual pre-season biomass estimates for each cohort will be necessary to set cohort-specific Annual Biological Catches and quotas. This requires a streamlined regulatory process that allows for rapid implementation of the cohort-specific quotas in order to avoid foregone yield during years of high stock size and to avoid recruitment overfishing of either cohort during years when stock size is low.
Extend the work that has been conducted on estimation of the
Span
N E F S C
bottom trawl catchability of this species in both the spring versus fall bottom trawl surveys (
Span
N E F S C
2011a; Jacobson et al. 2015). Additional empirical data for estimating these catchabilities are needed to investigate the apparent productivity differences between the two cohorts caught in the
Span
N E F S C
spring versus fall bottom trawl surveys. Biomass estimates for the fall
Span
N E A M A P
surveys were only a small percentage of the total fall biomass, averaging 5.5% during 2009; to ; 2022, but a comparison of longfin squid catchability differences between the
Span
N E A M A P
and
Span
N E F S C
fall surveys might also be useful.
; ; point ;
Are there other important issues?
Life history, life history, life history!
Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii, commonly known as Longfin Squid.
Span
Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
, Longfin Squid.
4.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Longfin inshore squid ;
This Level 2 Management Track Assessment of longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
) is an update of the 2020 Level 3 peer-reviewed Management Track Assessment. The assessment method- ology has been consistent since the 2010 benchmark assessment
Span
S A W
/
Span
S A R C 51
(
Span
N E F S C
, 2011a;
Span
N E F S C
, 2011b), followed by the 2017, 2020 and this management track update.
The assessment uses catchability corrected swept area biomass to estimate stock size. A threshold equal to half of the
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
proxy estimate (
Span
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
=42,405
Span
m t
) is used to define the overfished status of the stock. A measure of relative stock exploitation rate is calculated as a ratio of total removals to biomass, but no reference point for fishing mortality or exploitation rate is currently employed and the overfishing status is not determined.
This assessment satisfactorily updated commercial fishery harvest and discards, catchability adjusted, swept-area biomass estimates, and exploitation indices (catch/biomass) through 2022. Catches and dis- cards for 2020; to ; 2022 were derived using the
Span
C A M S
database. The indices for both surveys were corrected for the actual tow distances for each trawl tow rather than using nominal value. These corrections did not result in any significant changes.
Annualized biomass estimates as annually averaged spring and fall survey biomass estimates and annualized exploitation indices (annual catch/annually averaged spring and fall survey biomass), were also updated. Cohort-specific biomass was estimated separately for the
Span
N E F S C
spring surveys versus
Span
N E F S C
fall +
Span
N E A M A P
fall surveys. Cohort-specific exploitation indices (Jan; to ; June catch/spring survey biomass versus July; to ; December catch/fall survey biomass) were updated as well. The 2022 annualized exploitation index was estimated to be 0.155 (Figure 2), which was 20.1% less than the 1987; to ; 2021 median of 0.195.
The current assessment approach does not allow the estimation of recruitment, complete retrospective analysis or do bridge runs. A Plan B assessment was not possible for this stock. Short-term projections were not conducted because there is no accepted assessment model for longfin squid.
There are currently no accepted fishing mortality reference points available for this stock. The biomass reference point
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
proxy was defined in the past based on the historic data set when the population was lightly exploited and therefore cannot be redefined within the management track assess- ment. The
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
proxy remained the same as the 2010, 2017 and 2020 assessments. Although cohort specific estimates are not currently used for the definition of the status of the stock, results suggested that neither of two cohorts were overfished.
The Review Panel supports an alternative to the annualized stock size approach for using cohort- specific reference points to provide annual stock status.
The Panel concludes that the 2023 management track assessment fulfilled the recommendations of the
Span
A O P
and is technically sufficient to evaluate stock status for biomass. The assessment represents the
Span
b s i a
for this stock for management purposes and meets the Terms of Reference applicable for the stock’s assessment. The Panel agrees with the assessment report that longfin squid is not overfished. The panel further notes that while the overfishing status is unknown, due to the lack of an
Span
F[M S Y]
Span
orproxy reference point, exploitation rates generated by the historic removals resulted in both cohort and annualized estimates of biomass near or above the
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
target values in recent years. The Panel concurs with the previous peer review recommendation to consider cohort-specific reference points based on the understanding of two dominant and largely non-overlapping intra-year cohorts of longfin squid, at the next research track assessment.
Recommendations:
; Response ; ; point ;
The Review Panel recommends considering further an option of cohort-specific reference points for determining stock status in addition to the annualized single stock
Span
B R P
s.
; ; point ;
The Review Panel recommends continuing development of a stock assessment approach that is specifically tailored to the squid life cycle and data availability to develop biologically-based es- timates of
Span
B[M S Y]
Span
and
Span
F[M S Y]
Span
instead of the historical proxy used currently.
; ; point ;
It is important to understand the growth and mortality of each of the two major cohorts to determine their contribution to the total stock biomass within the season, on a monthly, or other appropriate timestep. This will also help to address the question at what stage of biomass development each cohort is intercepted by the spring and the fall survey and how changes in survey timing may affect the biomass estimates.
; ; point ;
The Panel noted that in some years the exploitation rate was above 1 when the biomass estimates from the spring survey were used. This raises an issue of the appropriateness of current gear effi- ciency coefficient, since we can not be removing the entire cohort in the spring. Population biomass from the spring survey is likely to be underestimated. Survey catchability and stock distribution needs to be explored in further detail to evaluate true contribution of spring cohort to stock biomass.
Well camouflaged on the sandy bottom.
Well camouflaged on the sandy bottom.
; start of References ;
Arkhipkin, Alexander I., Paul G.K. Rodhouse, Graham J. Pierce, Warwick Sauer, Mitsuo Sakai, Louise Allcock, Juan Arguelles, John R. Bower, Gladis Castillo, Luca Ceriola, Chih-Shin Chen, Xinjun Chen, Mariana Diaz-Santana, Nicola Downey, Angel F. Gonzalez, Jasmin Granados Amores, Corey P. Green, Angel Guerra, Lisa C. Hendrickson, Christian Ibnez, Kingo Ito, Patrizia Jereb, Yoshiki Kato, Oleg N. Katugin, Mitsuhisa Kawano, Hideaki Kidokoro, Vladimir V. Kulik, Vladimir V. Laptikhovsky, Marek R. Lipinski, Bilin Liu, Luis Maritegui, Wilbert Marin, Ana Medina,Katsuhiro Miki, Kazutaka Miyahara, Natalie Moltschaniwskyj, Hassan Moustahfid, Jaruwat Nabhitabhata, Nobuaki Nanjo, Chingis M. Nigmatullin, Tetsuya Ohtani, Gretta Pecl, J. Angel A. Perez, Uwe Piatkowski, Pirochana Saikliang, Cesar A. Salinas-Zavala, Michael Steer, Yongjun Tian, Yukio Ueta, Dharmamony Vijai, Toshie Wakabayashi, Tadanori Yamaguchi, Carmen Yamashiro, Norio Yamashita and Louis D. Zeidberg. 2015. World squid fisheries. Rev in Fish Sci and Aquacult. 23:2, 92; to ; 252. ; link to ; RevFSA:2015.1026226
; end of link ;
Brodziak J.K.T., and Macy W.K. III. 1996. Growth of long-finned squid,
Span
Loligo pealeii
, in the northwest Atlantic. Fish Bull. 94: 212; to ; 236. ; link to ; GEOMAR:2932
; end of link ;
Arkhipkin A.I., Hendrickson L.C., Pay I., Pierce G., Roa-Ureta R., Robin J-P. and Winter A. 2020. Stock assessment and management of cephalopods: advances and challenges for short-lived fishery resources.
Span
I C E S
J Mar Sci. 78(2): 714; to ; 730. ; link to ; JMS:fsaa038
; end of link ;
Brodziak J.K.T. and Hendrickson L.C. 1999. An analysis of environmental effects on survey catches of squids
Span
Loligo pealei
and
Span
Illex illecebrosus
in the northwest Atlantic. Fish B-NOAA 97(1): 9; to ; 24. ; link to ; CRD97-03
; end of link ;
Hatfield E.M.C., Hanlon R.T., Forsythe J.W. and Grist E.P.M. 2001. Laboratory testing of a growth hypothesis for juvenile squid
Span
Loligo pealeii (Cephalopoda: Loliginidae)
. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 58: 845; to ; 857. ; link to ; CJFAS:f01-030
; end of link ;
Jacobson L.D., Hendrickson L.C. and Tang J. 2015. Solar zenith angles for biological research and an expected catch model for diel vertical migration patterns that affect stock size estimates for longfin inshore squidDoryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 72: 1329; to ; 1338. ; link to ; CJFAS:2014-0436
; end of link ;
Macy, W.K. III and Brodziak J.K.T. 2001. Seasonal maturity and size at age of
Span
Loligo pealeii
in waters of southern New England.
Span
I C E S
J Mar Sci. 58 (4): 852; to ; 864. ; link to ; JMSC:2001.1076
; end of link ;
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [
Span
N E F S C
], 2020. Longfin inshore squid 2020 Assessment Update Report. 10p. ; link to ; StockSMART:10792
; end of link ;
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [
Span
N E F S C
], 2011a. 51
Span
st
Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51
Span
st
Span
S A W
) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-02, 856p. ; link to ; CRD11-02
; end of link ;
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [
Span
N E F S C
], 2011b. 51
Span
st
Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51
Span
st
Span
S A W
) Assessment Summary Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-01, 70p. ; link to ; CRD11-01
; end of link ;
Spawning stock biomass trends over time for Longfin inshore squid.
Figure 8:
Trends in the two-year moving averages of annualized
Span
q
-adjusted, swept-area biomass (i.e., annually averaged
Span
N E F S C
spring and fall survey biomasses, in
Span
m t
) of longfin inshore squid from the current assessment (solid line) and the 2020 assessment updates (dashed line). Biomass estimates are shown as interpolated values for years where biomass could not be estimated due to inadequate survey sampling coverage of longfin squid habi- tat (i.e., 2014 and 2020 spring and 2017 and 2020 fall surveys). The 80% confidence limits (106,748; to ; 136,923) are shown for the 2022 biomass estimate (
Span
121,836
Span
m t
) in relation to the
Span
B[M S Y proxy]
Span
(
Span
42,405
Span
m t
) and
Span
B[Threshold]
Span
(
Span
21,203
Span
m t
).
; end of float block ;
Fully selected fishing mortality trends over time for Longfin inshore squid.
Figure 9:
Trends in annualized exploitation indices (annual catch/two-year moving average of the annualized
Span
N E F S C
spring and fall survey biomass estimates) of longfin inshore squid during the
Span
United States
fishery time period (between 1987 and 2022 from the current assessment (solid line) and the 2020 assessment updates (dashed line). Exploitation rates are shown as interpolated values for years with only a single biomass estimate due to inadequate survey sampling coverage of longfin squid habitat (i.e., the 2014 and 2020 spring and 2017 and 2020 fall surveys).
; end of float block ;
Total catches of Longfin inshore squid.
Figure 10:
Total catches of longfin inshore squid between 1963 and 2022 by fleet (commercial) and disposition (landings or discards).
Span
D W F
landings are the Distant Water Fleet landings, but the discards for this fleet are unknown.
; end of float block ;
Abundance indices for Longfin inshore squid.
Figure 11:
Swept-area,
Span
q
-adjusted biomass estimates (
Span
m t
) for longfin inshore squid between 1976 and 2022 for the
Span
N E F S C
spring and fall bottom trawl surveys (top panels), annualized
Span
N E F S C
survey biomass (i.e., averages of the biomass estimates for these two surveys) and two-year moving averages of the annualized biomass estimates. Due to inadequate survey sampling coverage of longfin squid habitat during the 2014 and 2020 spring surveys and the 2017 and 2020 fall surveys, biomass estimates during these years are not shown in the two top panels, but have been interpolated in the biomass time series shown in the bottom panels.
; end of float block ;
5. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Summer flounder ;
; Report Author: ; Mark Terceiro
; Report Summary: ;
This assessment of the Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus
) stock is an update of the existing 2021 Management Track Assessment (
Span
N E F S C
2022). Based on the previous assessment the stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring. This 2023 Management Track Assessment updates fishery catch data, research survey indices of abundance, the
Span
A S A P
assessment model, and biological reference points through 2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025.
Span
State of Stock:
Based on this updated assessment, the Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus
) stock is not overfished and overfishing is occurring (Figures
Reference
12
; to ;
Reference
13
). Retrospective adjustments were not made to the model results. Spawning Stock Biomass (
Span
S S B
) in 2022 was estimated to be
Span
40,994
Span
m t
which is 83% of the biomass target for this stock (
Span
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
=49,561
; Figure
Reference
12
). The 2022 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.464 which is 103% of the overfishing threshold proxy (
Span
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
=0.451
; Figure
Reference
13
).
Table 10:
Catch and model results for Summer flounder. All weights are in
Span
m t
, recruitment is in
Span
thousands
, and
Span
F[Full]
Span
is the fishing mortality on fully-selected age-4. Model results are unadjusted values from the current updated
Span
A S A P
assessment.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2013 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Commercial landings ;
5,696 ;
4,989 ;
4,858 ;
3,537 ;
2,644 ;
2,787 ;
4,109 ;
4,282 ;
4,936 ;
5,683; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Commercial discards ;
863 ;
830 ;
703 ;
772 ;
906 ;
979 ;
783 ;
1,163 ;
873 ;
680; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recreational landings ;
8,806 ;
7,364 ;
5,366 ;
6,005 ;
4,565 ;
3,447 ;
3,537 ;
4,571 ;
3,092 ;
3,916; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recreational discards ;
2,119 ;
2,092 ;
1,572 ;
1,482 ;
1,496 ;
1,003 ;
1,379 ;
1,141 ;
997 ;
1,336; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch for Assessment ;
17,483 ;
15,275 ;
12,498 ;
11,796 ;
9,611 ;
8,216 ;
9,808 ;
11,157 ;
9,898 ;
11,615; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Model Results; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Spawning Stock Biomass ;
52,155 ;
47,841 ;
42,424 ;
39,209 ;
37,040 ;
37,599 ;
38,846 ;
43,024 ;
41,615 ;
40,994; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
;
0.473 ;
0.439 ;
0.427 ;
0.428 ;
0.345 ;
0.304 ;
0.37 ;
0.417 ;
0.371 ;
0.464; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recruits (age-0) ;
35,208 ;
38,700 ;
27,000 ;
30,551 ;
38,876 ;
43,028 ;
39,933 ;
35,629 ;
42,323 ;
38,371; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Table 11:
Comparison of biological reference points estimated in the previous assessment and from the current assessment update. An
Span
F[35 percent]
Span
proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and
Span
S S B
and
Span
M S Y
proxies were based on long-term stochastic projections.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
;
0.422 ;
0.451; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B[M S Y]
Span
(
Span
m t
) ;
55,217 ;
49,561 (38,181; to ; 64,301) ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
M S Y
(
Span
m t
) ;
15,872 ;
14,097 (11,020; to ; 18,114) ; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Median recruits (age-1) (
Span
thousands
) ;
49,954 ;
46,966; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ;
No ;
Yes; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ;
No ;
No; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Span
Projections:
Short term projections of catch (
Span
O F L
) and Spawning Stock Biomass (
Span
S S B
) were derived by sampling from an empirical cumulative distribution function of the 12 most recent recruitment estimates from the
Span
A S A P
model results (2011; to ; 2022). The annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and mean weights-at-age used in projections are the most recent 5-year averages; no retrospective adjustments were applied in the projections.
Table 12:
Short term projections of total fishery catch (
Span
O F L
) and Spawning Stock Biomass (
Span
S S B
) for Summer flounder based on a harvest scenario of fishing at
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
between 2024 and 2025. Catch in 2023 was assumed to be 15,023 (
Span
m t
).
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; Year ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch (
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B
(
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2023 ;
15,023 ;
37,233 (30,000; to ; 46,000) ;
0.622; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Year ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch (
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B
(
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2024 ;
10,422 ;
38,541 (32,000; to ; 46,000) ;
0.451; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2025 ;
10,839 ;
39,127 (33,000; to ; 46,000) ;
0.451; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Span
Special Comments:
; start of Itemized List ; ; Item ;
What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass,
Span
F
, recruitment, and population projections).
Declining trends in growth rates and changes in the sex-ratio at age may change the productivity of the stock and in turn affect estimates of the biological reference points. Changes in growth, maturity, and recruitment may be environmentally mediated but mechanisms are unknown.
; ; Item ;
Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted
Span
S S B
or
Span
F[Full]
Span
lies outside of the approximate joint confidence region for
Span
S S B
and
Span
F[Full]
Span
).
The 7-year Mohn’s
Span
rho
, relative to
Span
S S B
, was 0.03 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.06 in this assessment. The 7-year Mohn’s
Span
rho
, relative to
Span
F
, was 0.01 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.03 in this assessment. No retrospective adjustment of
Span
S S B
or
Span
F
in 2022 was required.
; ; Item ;
Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Population projections for Summer flounder are reasonably well determined.
; ; Item ;
Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status.
No major changes, other than the addition of three years of data, were made to the Summer flounder assessment for this update. Minor changes to the survey input
Span
C V
s and fishery and survey input Effective Sample Sizes improved model diagnostics but had limited affects on the model results.
; ; Item ;
If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
Overfishing status has changed since the last assessment for Summer flounder. The stock status remains as not overfished but overfishing is occurring.
; ; Item ;
Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The current fishing mortality rate is near the threshold, and so recent near-average recruitment has resulted in relatively stable
Span
S S B
.
Span
S S B
is projected to remain relatively stable in the short term at current fishing rates.
; ; Item ;
Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this stock assessment in the future.
The Summer flounder assessment could be improved with more intensive and comprehensive sampling of the fishery catch by sex.
; ; Item ;
Are there other important issues?
Sufficient length and age sampling of the fishery catch needs to be maintained.
Paralichthys dentatus, commonly known as Summer Flounder, Fluke, Northern fluke, Hirame.
Span
Paralichthys dentatus
, Summer Flounder.
5.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Summer flounder ;
The 2023 assessment of the summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus
) stock is the Management Track update of the 2021 management track assessment (
Span
N E F S C
2022). The last benchmark assessment for this stock was in 2018 (
Span
N E F S C
2018). This assessment uses the
Span
N O A A
ToolBox Age-Structured Assessment Program (
Span
A S A P
) and updates commercial and recreational fishery catch data, research survey indices of abundance, weights and maturity at age, and reference points through 2022. Stock projections have been updated through 2025. Splitting the final selectivity block for all fleets was also explored, but it resulted in marginally worse diagnostics and was not included in the final model.
Retrospective adjustments of the model results were not necessary. Spawning stock biomass (
Span
S S B
) in 2022 was estimated to be 40,994
Span
m t
which is 83% of the biomass target for this stock (
Span
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
=49,561
Span
m t
). The 2022 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.464 which is 103% of the overfishing threshold proxy (
Span
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
=
Span
F[35% S P R ]
Span
=0.451
). Based on this updated assessment, the summer flounder stock is not overfished but overfishing is occurring.
Short term projections were conducted in
Span
AGE PRO
. For projection specifications, 2023 removals were assumed equal to the 2023
Span
A B C
of
Span
15,023
Span
m t
, as approximately 96% of the
Span
A B C
has been caught in recent years, and then fishing mortality was set equal to
Span
F[35% S P R ]
Span
for 2024; to ; 2025. The projections used the most recent 5-year averages for the annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and mean weights at age; no retrospective adjustments were applied in the projections. The estimated
Span
O F L
s from the short term projections were
Span
10,422
Span
m t
for 2024 and
Span
10,839
Span
m t
for 2025.
The Panel concluded that the 2023 assessment update for Summer flounder fulfilled the recommen- dations of the
Span
A O P
, is technically sufficient to evaluate stock status and provide scientific advice and meets the Terms of Reference for the stock’s assessment. The assessment represents Best Scientific Information Available for this stock for management purposes.
The Panel discussed the change in the estimated size of the 2018 year-class from the 2021 Man- agement Track Assessment to this assessment, the potential decline in productivity in recent years due to decreasing weight-at-age and proportion female-at-age, and the resulting impact on stock status and catch advice. The 2021 assessment estimated the 2018 year-class at 61 million fish, well above the time-series average, while the 2023 assessment estimated it at 43 million fish, more in line with recent estimates of recruitment and below the time-series average. The estimates of
Span
S S B
in recent years were also revised downwards, a function of the minor retrospective pattern that this model exhibits. Lower estimates of abundance in recent years, the lower estimate of the 2018 year-class, and the lower mean weight-at- age in recent years combined to produce
Span
O F L
estimates that were lower than the 2021; to ; 2023
Span
O F L
s from the 2021 assessment. The increasing trend in biomass from 2017 onwards was somewhat arrested from 2020; to ; 2022 by the higher
Span
F
and lower weights-at-age, but the stock remains above the biomass threshold, consistent with the increasing trends in survey indices and the expanded age-structure of the catch, espe- cially for males. The Panel discussed concerns raised by previous panels about the impact of increasing size limits on a species where females grow faster and reach larger sizes than males do. The proportion of females in the survey data has declined since the start of the time series, but has stabilized at about 50% for all ages in recent years; more older males have been observed in the survey and catch data as well, indicating that the lower overall
Span
F
rate on the population has allowed the males to survive to older agesand may balance out the potential negative effects of the higher size limit on females.
The Panel agreed with the analyst’s conclusion not to split the final selectivity blocks, as it did not improve model performance and there was no evidence presented for changes in the fisheries to justify the split.
The Panel recommended reevaluating the suite of indices used to fit the model in the next research track assessment, as the model currently includes 14+ indices, some of which provide conflicting informa- tion and end up being down-weighted to get a
Span
R M S E
near one.
Summer Flounder on pebbly bottom.
Summer Flounder on pebbly bottom. Photo credit:NOAA
Fisheries.
; start of References ;
Span
N E F S C
. 2022. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Management Track Assessment June 2021. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 22; to ; 10; 79p. ; link to ; CRD22-10
; end of link ;
Spawning stock biomass trends over time for Summer flounder.
Figure 12:
Trends in spawning stock biomass of Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding
Span
S S B[Threshold]
Span
(
Span
half
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
; horizontal dashed line) as well as
Span
S S B[Target]
Span
(
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2023 assessment. Biomass adjusted for a retrospective pattern is shown in red, but not used for stock status or projections. The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
Fully selected fishing mortality trends over time for Summer flounder.
Figure 13:
Trends in the fully selected fishing mortality (
Span
F[Full]
Span
) of Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding
Span
F[Threshold]
Span
(
Span
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
=0.451
; horizontal dashed line).
Span
F[Full]
Span
adjusted for a retrospective pattern is shown in red, but not used for status or projections. The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
Estimated trends in recruitment of Summer flounder.
Figure 14:
Trends in Recruits (age-0) (
Span
thousands
) of Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment.
; end of float block ;
Total catch of Summer flounder.
Figure 15:
Total catch of Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 by fishery (commercial and recreational) and disposition (landings and discards).
; end of float block ;
Abundance indices for Summer flounder.
Figure 16:
Indices of biomass for the Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (
Span
N E F S C
)
Span
Albatross
(ALB) and
Span
Henry B. Bigelow
(BIG) spring and fall research bottom trawl survey series. The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
6. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Scup ;
; Report Author: ; Mark Terceiro
; Report Summary: ;
This assessment of the Scup (Stenotomus chrysops
) stock is an update of the existing 2021 Manage- ment Track Assessment (
Span
N E F S C
2022). Based on the previous assessment the stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring. This 2023 Management Track Assessment updates fishery catch data, re- search survey indices of abundance, the
Span
A S A P
assessment model, and biological reference points through 2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025.
Span
State of Stock:
Based on this updated assessment, the Scup (Stenotomus chrysops
) stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring (Figures
Reference
17
; to ;
Reference
18
). Retrospective adjustments were made to the model results. Adjusted Spawning Stock Biomass (
Span
S S B
) in 2022 was estimated to be
Span
193,087
Span
m t
which is 246% of the biomass target for this stock (
Span
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
=78,593
; Figure
Reference
17
). The adjusted 2022 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.098 which is 52% of the overfishing threshold proxy (
Span
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
=0.19
; Figure
Reference
18
).
Table 13:
Catch and model results for Scup. All weights are in
Span
m t
, recruitment is in
Span
thousands
, and
Span
F[Full]
Span
is the fishing mortality on fully-selected age-4. Model results are unadjusted values from the current updated
Span
A S A P
assessment.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2013 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Commercial landings ;
8,105 ;
7,239 ;
7,725 ;
7,147 ;
7,007 ;
6,064 ;
6,252 ;
6,177 ;
5,944 ;
5,507; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Commercial discards ;
1,350 ;
981 ;
1,718 ;
2,778 ;
4,733 ;
3,293 ;
2,779 ;
2,611 ;
1,895 ;
2,171; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recreational landings ;
5,739 ;
4,659 ;
5,527 ;
4,536 ;
6,143 ;
5,887 ;
6,403 ;
5,863 ;
7,540 ;
7,875; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recreational discards ;
568 ;
480 ;
581 ;
862 ;
1,079 ;
644 ;
560 ;
541 ;
653 ;
738; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch for Assessment ;
15,762 ;
13,359 ;
15,550 ;
15,322 ;
18,961 ;
15,888 ;
15,994 ;
15,192 ;
16,032 ;
16,291; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; multi head cell ; ; Model Results; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Spawning Stock Biomass ;
229,544 ;
224,345 ;
202,517 ;
224,568 ;
242,893 ;
240,870 ;
226,966 ;
216,046 ;
184,801 ;
159,050; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
;
0.105 ;
0.093 ;
0.118 ;
0.094 ;
0.1 ;
0.08 ;
0.09 ;
0.092 ;
0.129 ;
0.171; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Recruits (age-0) ;
145,750 ;
360,860 ;
569,175 ;
256,961 ;
119,279 ;
138,889 ;
64,735 ;
118,918 ;
124,873 ;
106,037; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Table 14:
Comparison of biological reference points estimated in the previous assessment and from the current assessment update. An
Span
F[40% S P R ]
Span
proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and
Span
S S B
and
Span
M S Y
proxies were based on long-term stochastic projections.
( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
;
0.200 ;
0.190; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B[M S Y]
Span
(
Span
m t
) ;
90,019 ;
78,593 (55,125; to ; 113,507); ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
M S Y
(
Span
m t
) ;
12,671 ;
11,959 (8,447; to ; 17,427); ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Median recruits (age-1) (
Span
thousands
) ;
123,492 ;
129,293; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ;
No ;
No; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ;
No ;
No; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Span
Projections:
Short term projections of catch (
Span
O F L
) and Spawning Stock Biomass (
Span
S S B
) were derived by sampling from an empirical cumulative distribution function of the time series of recruitment estimates from the
Span
A S A P
model results for 1984; to ; 2022. The annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and mean weights at age used in projections are the most recent 5-year averages; retrospective adjustments were applied in the projections.
Table 15:
Short term projections of total fishery catch (
Span
O F L
) and Spawning Stock Biomass (
Span
S S B
) for Scup based on a harvest scenario of fishing at
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
between 2024 and 2025. Catch in 2023 was assumed to be 13,458 (
Span
m t
).
; ; start of table ; ; head cell ; ; Year ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch (
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B
(
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2023 ;
13,458 ;
209,407 (155,000; to ; 286,000) ;
0.115; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; Year ;
; ; head cell ; ; Catch (
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
S S B
(
Span
m t
) ;
; ; head cell ; ;
Span
F[Full]
Span
; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2024 ;
20,295 ;
185,475 (138,000; to ; 252,000) ;
0.190; ; end of row ; ; ;
; ; head cell ; ; 2025 ;
18,363 ;
162,716 (121,000; to ; 221,000) ;
0.190; ; end of last row ; ; ;
; ; end of table ; ; ; end of float block ;
Span
Special Comments:
; Response ; ; point ;
What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass,
Span
F
, recruitment, and population projections).
Declining trends in growth rates and maturity at age may change the productivity of the stock and in turn affect estimates of the biological reference points. Changes in growth, maturity, and recruitment may be environmentally mediated but mechanisms are unknown.
; ; point ;
Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted
Span
S S B
or
Span
F[Full]
Span
lies outside of the approximate joint confidence region for
Span
S S B
and
Span
F[Full]
Span
).
The 7-year Mohn’s
Span
rho
, relative to
Span
S S B
, was
Span
−0.14
in the 2021 assessment and was
Span
−0.21
in this assessment. The 7-year Mohn’s
Span
rho
, relative to
Span
F
, was 0.20 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.42 in this assessment. There was a major retrospective pattern for this assessment because the
Span
rho
-adjusted estimates of 2022
Span
S S B
(
Span
Span
S S B [rho]
Span
=193,087
) and 2022
Span
F
(
Span
Span
F[rho]
Span
=0.098
) were outside the approximate 90% confidence regions around
Span
S S B
(131,720; to ; 192,050) and
Span
F
(0.14; to ; 0.208). A retrospective adjustment was made for both the determination of stock status and for projections of catch and biomass in 2024 and 2025. The retrospective adjustment changed the 2022
Span
S S B
from 159,050 to 193,087 and the 2022
Span
F[Full]
Span
from 0.171 to 0.098.
; ; point ;
Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Population projections for Scup are reasonably well determined.
; ; point ;
Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status.
No major changes, other than the addition of three years of data, were made to the Scup assessment for this update. Minor changes to the survey input
Span
C V
s and fishery and survey input Effective Sample Sizes improved model diagnostics but had limited affects on the model results.
; ; point ;
If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
As in recent assessments for Scup the stock status remains as not overfished and overfishing not occurring.
; ; point ;
Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The current fishing mortality rate is relatively low, but recent below average recruitment has resulted in a decrease in
Span
S S B
.
Span
S S B
is projected to continue to decrease in the short term.
; ; point ;
Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this stock assessment in the future.
The Scup assessment could likely be improved with more intensive sampling of the fishery catch.
; ; point ;
Are there other important issues?
Sufficient length and age sampling of the fishery catch needs to be maintained.
Stenotomus chrysops (Scup), also known as Porgy, Maiden, Fair maid, Ironsides, Northern porgy.
Span
Stenotomus chrysops
, Scup.
6.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Scup ;
The 2023 assessment for scup (Stenotomus chrysops
) updates the 2021 management track
Span
A S A P
assessment (
Span
N E F S C
2022). This assessment updates recreational and commercial fishery catch (landings and discards), survey indices of abundance, the analytical
Span
A S A P
model, and reference points through 2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025. There was a retrospective pattern in both
Span
S S B
and
Span
F
(
Span
Span
S S B [rho]
Span
=−21%
;
Span
Span
F[rho]
Span
=+43%
) that required adjustments to the terminal estimates in the model, as the adjusted values fell outside the 90% confidence interval estimates from the model. The adjusted spawning biomass in 2022 of
Span
193,097
Span
m t
is 246% of the biomass target (
Span
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
=78,593
Span
m t
), and the adjusted fully-selected
Span
F
of 0.098 was 52% of the overfishing threshold (
Span
Span
F[M S Y]
Span
=0.19
). Based on these estimates from the updated model, scup is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.
Short-term projections of biomass were done, starting with the retrospectively-adjusted terminal abundance. Future recruitments were sampled from a cumulative distribution function of updated model estimates (1984; to ; 2022 year class), and future selectivity, maturity, and weight-at-age were based on the most recent five year averages (2018; to ; 2022). Projections were run with
Span
Span
F
=
Span
F[M S Y]
Span
to determine the
Span
O F L
in 2024 and 2025 for use in the Mid-Atlantic control rule. The estimated
Span
O F L
from the projection was
Span
20,295
Span
m t
in 2024, and
Span
18,363
Span
m t
in 2025.
The Panel concluded that the 2023 assessment update for scup fulfilled the recommendations of the
Span
A O P
, is technically sufficient to evaluate stock status and provide scientific advice and meets the Terms of Reference for the stock’s assessment. The assessment represents Best Scientific Information Available (
Span
b s i a
) for this stock for management purposes.
The Panel noted that the retrospective pattern has increased from previous assessments, and there was some discussion about the possible causes. The analyst noted that possible mechanisms include decreasing
Span
M
, overestimated catches, and changes in catchability. The panel feels that exploration into these mechanisms is warranted if the retrospective pattern continues, but acknowledges that it is very challenging to quantify changes in
Span
M
and bias in catch estimates. The model currently uses a combined index of abundance of the
Span
N E F S C
survey (
Span
Albatross
and
Span
Bigelow
), and splitting the survey time series into two may help address the retrospective pattern.
Port sampling of commercial landings has declined for scup in recent years, with the lowest number of samples in 2022. This reduced port sampling is affecting all commercially-exploited stocks, but the Panel is concerned that it may be particularly problematic for a stock like scup where older ages are primarily collected in the commercial fishery.
The Panel noted that all four fleets in the model (recreational and commercial landings and discards) had dome-shaped selectivity. The Panel recommends continued exploration of the functional form of the selectivity across fleets, and whether there could be a mechanistic explanation for the dome across fleets.
Scup has exhibited declines in mean weights-at-age over time, and these declines contributed to the large change in
Span
S S B[M S Y]
Span
from the previous assessment. The analyst noted that the declines in weight-at- age were coincident with increases in scup biomass, and the Panel agrees that exploration of the potential for density-dependent growth is worthwhile, as it might allow for more accurate forecasts of weight in the projections.
; start of References ;
Span
N E F S C
. 2022. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Management Track Assessment June 2021. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 22-10; 79p. ; link to ; CRD22-10
; end of link ;
Scup catch, in a basket.
Scup catch, in a basket. Photo credit:NOAA
Fisheries.
Spawning stock biomass trends over time for Scup.
Figure 17:
Trends in
Span
S S B
of Scup between 1984 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding
Span
S S B[Threshold]
Span
(
Span
half
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
; horizontal dashed line) as well as
Span
S S B[Target]
Span
(
Span
S S B[M S Y proxy]
Span
; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2023 assessment.
Span
S S B
was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment is shown in red. The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
Fully selected fishing mortality trends over time for Scup.
Figure 18:
Trends in the fully selected fishing mortality (
Span
F[Full]
Span
) of Scup between 1984 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding
Span
F[Threshold]
Span
(
Span
Span
F[M S Y proxy]
Span
=0.19
; horizontal dashed line) based on the 2023 assessment.
Span
F[Full]
Span
was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment is shown in red. The approximate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
Estimated trends in recruitment of Scup.
Figure 19:
Trends in Recruits (age-0) (
Span
thousands
) of Scup between 1984 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment.
; end of float block ;
Total catch of Scup.
Figure 20:
Total catch of Scup between 1984 and 2022 by fishery (commercial and recreational) and disposition (landings and discards).
; end of float block ;
Abundance indices for Scup.
Figure 21:
Indices of biomass for Scup between 1984 and 2022 for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (
Span
N E F S C
) spring and fall research bottom trawl survey series calibrated to
Span
Albatross
equivalents. The approxi- mate 90%
Span
log-normal
confidence intervals are shown.
; end of float block ;
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Photo Gallery ;
Here is provided descriptive text for the photographs and artwork that are scattered throughout the preced- ing pages.
; Glossary-item ; ; LongFinSquidLive ;
Span
Longfin squid well camouflaged on the sandy bottom. Photo
Reference
N O A A
. On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 43
; Glossary-item ; ; NMFSaerial ;
Span
Aerial view of the
Reference
N M F S
building and surrounds, Woods Hole Laboratory,
Reference
Massachusetts
. The enclosed body of water behind is Eel Pond. Photo
Reference
W H O I
. On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 9;
; Glossary-item ; ; RedCrabRuler ;
Span
Measuring the size of a deep-sea red crab. Photo
Reference
N O A A
. On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 34
; Glossary-item ; ; ScupBasket ;
Span
Scup catch, in a basket. Credit:
Reference
N O A A
Fisheries. On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 63
; Glossary-item ; ; SeafoodOnIce ;
Span
Fresh seafood on ice, ready for sale. Credit: Shutterstock. On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 4;
; Glossary-item ; ; SeafoodPlate ;
Span
Shrimp, mussels, scallop, and fish dish. Credit: iStock. On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; roman 2;
; Glossary-item ; ; SummerFlounderLive ;
Span
Summer Flounder on pebbly bottom. Photo
Reference
N O A A
. On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 53
; Glossary-item ; ; WHOIaerial ;
Span
Aerial view of the buildings and wharves at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
Reference
Massachusetts
. Two research vessels are docked for re-supply. Photo
Reference
W H O I
. On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 15
; Glossary-item ; ; zAtlanticDeepSeaRedCrab ;
Span
Chaceonquinquedens
(AtlanticDeep-SeaRedCrab), alsoknownasRedCrab; range: NewEngland/Mid- Atlantic. Artwork from
Reference
N O A A
; link to ; atlantic deep-sea red crab website
; end of link ; . On pages
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 32
; Glossary-item ; ; zBluefish ;
Span
Pomatomus saltatrix
, commonly known as Bluefish, Tailor, Snapper, Baby blues, Choppers, Elfs; range: New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast. Artwork from
Reference
N O A A
; link to ; bluefish website
; end of link ; . On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 22
; Glossary-item ; ; zLongfinSquid ;
Span
Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
, commonly known as Longfin Squid, Longfin inshore squid, Loligo, Winter squid, Boston squid; range: New England/Mid-Atlantic. Artwork from
Reference
N O A A
; link to ; longfin squid website
; end of link ; . On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 41
; Glossary-item ; ; zScup ;
Span
Stenotomus chrysops
(Scup), also known as Porgy, Maiden, Fair maid, Ironsides, Northern porgy; range: New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast. Artwork from
Reference
N O A A
; link to ; scup website
; end of link ; . On pages
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 61
; Glossary-item ; ; zSummerFlounder ;
Span
Paralichthys dentatus
, commonly known as Flounder, Fluke, Northern fluke, Hirame; range: New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast. Artwork from
Reference
N O A A
; link to ; summer flounder website
; end of link ; . On page
Reference
; occurs on page: ; 51
; end of Glossary ;
; start of Inside back-cover block ;
; H2: ; Procedures for Issuing Manuscripts in the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document (CRD) Series
Span
Span
and the Technical Memorandum (TM) Series
The mission of
Span
N O A A
’s National Marine Fisheries Service (
Span
N M F S
) is “stewardship of the nation’s ocean resources and their habitat.” As the research arm of the
Span
N M F S
’s Greater Atlantic Region, the North- east Fisheries Science Center (
Span
N E F S C
) supports the
Span
N M F S
’s mission by “conducting ecosystem-based research and assessments of living marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and long-term sustainability of these resources and to generate social and economic opportuni- ties and benefits from their use.” Results of
Span
N E F S C
research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the
Span
N E F S C
occasionally releases its results in its own media.
; H3: ; NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE
This series is issued irregularly. The series typically in- cludes: data reports of long-term field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports of overall assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature surveys of important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated bibliographies. All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.
; H3: ; NORTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER REFERENCE DOCUMENT
This series is issued irreg- ularly. The series typically includes: data reports on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected abstracts of, and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive copy editing.
; H3: ; Clearance
All manuscripts submitted for issuance as
Span
C R D
s must have cleared the
Span
N E F S C
’s manuscript/abstract/ webpage review process. If your manuscript includes material from another work which has been copyrighted, then you will need to work with the
Span
N E F S C
’s Edito- rial Office to arrange for permission to use that material by securing release signatures on the “NEFSC Use-of- Copyrighted-Work Permission Form.”
For more information,
Span
N E F S C
authors should see the
Span
N E F S C
’s online publication policy manual, “Manuscript/abstract/webpage preparation, review, and dissemination:
Span
N E F S C
Author’s Guide to Policy, Pro- cess, and Procedure.”
; H3: ; Style
The
Span
C R D
series is obligated to conform with the style contained in the current edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual; however that style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific manuscripts. The
Span
C R D
series relies more on the
Span
C S E
Style Manual. Manuscripts should be prepared to con- form with both of these style manuals.
The
Span
C R D
series uses the Integrated Taxonomic Infor- mation System, the American Fisheries Society’s guides and the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s guide for ver- ifying scientific species names.
For in-text citation, use the name-date system. A spe- cial effort should be made to ensure that all necessary bibliographic information is included in the list of refer- ences cited. Personal communications must include date, full name, and full mailing address of the contact.
; H3: ; Preparation
Once your document has cleared the review pro- cess, the Editorial Office will contact you with publica- tion needs—for example, revised text (if necessary) and separate digital figures and tables if they are embedded in the document. Materials may be submitted to the Edi- torial Office as email attachments or intranet downloads. Text files should be in Microsoft Word, tables may be in Word or Excel, and graphics files may be in a variety of formats (JPG, GIF, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.).
; H3: ; Production and Distribution
The Editorial Office will perform a copy-edit of the document and may request further revisions. The Edito- rial Office will develop the inside and outside front cov- ers, the inside and outside back covers, and the title and bibliographic control pages of the document.
Once the
Span
C R D
is ready, the Editorial Office will con- tact you to review it and submit corrections or changes before the document is posted online. A number of or- ganizations and individuals in the Northeast Region will be notified by e-mail of the availability of the document online.