1 executive summary - national oceanic and atmospheric ... · 1 executive summary ... (table1) in...

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Process

Assessments for 191 of the 20 groundfish stocks (Table 1) in the New England Fishery Manage-ment Council’s (NEFMC) Multispecies Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan were updated andreviewed during September 11-15, 2017 at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), WoodsHole, MA. This represents the fifth assessment of the status of groundfish stocks since 2001. Thefirst three assessments were produced through the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM)process (NEFSC 2002, 2005, 2008). Thirteen of the groundfish stocks were updated through theOperational Assessment process in 2012 (NEFSC 2012). All 20 groundfish stocks were updatedusing operational assessments in 2015 (NEFSC 2015). Operational assessments, first describedby the Northeast Regional Coordinating Council (NRCC) in 2011, rely on decisions of previousbenchmarks for model formulation and definition of biological reference points (BRPs). The termsof reference for the operational assessments are provided in Section 21.1. The efficiency of theOperational Assessment process increases the frequency of assessments, but reduces the ability tomodify model structure either in response to new data or external inputs. Major modifications ofthe assessment models are restricted to benchmark assessments that can incorporate a much greaterrange of information but for far fewer stocks. The scope of admissible changes in the assessment isdescribed in Section 21.4 and in guidelines that were initially developed by the NRCC in 2015 andrevised in 2017 through collaborative discussions among the NEFSC, NEFMC, and the AssessmentOversight Panel. The Assessment Oversight Panel (AOP) considered those guidelines in its July24, 2017, review of the plans for each assessment prepared by the individual analysts, making rec-ommendations regarding both planned changes to the assessments as well as plans for how scientificadvice would be provided for each stock if the primary analytical assessment was not accepted bythe peer review panel (sometimes referred to as “Plan B” assessment advice). See Section 21.3 fora summary of the AOP meeting.

Of particular note this year, newly available cooperative research on survey catchability of flatfishspecies was incorporated into the process, with modified catchability coefficients applied directlyin several assessments that use empirical models and catchability information shared for contextand diagnostic consideration for several assessments that use analytical models (Appendix 21.4).Prior to its use in these assessments, the cooperative research study was peer reviewed on July 18,2017 (summary available online). Those reviewers concluded the cooperative research surveys werewell designed, the results well supported, and sample sizes were generally appropriate for use inestimating catchability for flatfish species in the 2017 Operational Assessments. The Peer ReviewPanel for the Operational Assessments did not repeat this earlier peer review of the catchabilitystudies; rather it considered how the results were applied in relevant empirical assessments andtheir use in diagnostic evaluations of relevant analytical assessments.

In August and September, 2017 the NEFSC held 8 port-based outreach meetings for fishermen andother stakeholders. These occurred in Maine (Portland), New Hampshire (Portsmouth), RhodeIsland (Narragansett), New York (Montauk) and Massachusetts (Gloucester, Plymouth, New Bed-ford, and Chatham). NEFSC personnel met with attendees at each location to learn more about

1Atlantic halibut is being assessed separately

Groundfish Operational Assessments 2017 2 Executive Summary

https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2017/docs/2017_Groundfish_Operational_Assessments_Allowable_Changes_v8-28-2017.pdf

https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2017/docs/panel-summary-report-final-2.pdf

recent observations from the fleet and ports that might help focus future research to improve as-sessments and interpret patterns in the current assessments. Each meeting started with a briefintroduction on the timeline for the assessments, what new information would be considered, andhow the results would be reviewed before use in the fishery management process.

A summary report of the outreach meetings discusses relevant insights from those meetings, whichwere shared during the peer review. Much of the substantive feedback from the outreach meetingsfocused on future research needs and opportunities as well as stakeholder questions about process,data, and outputs.

Following the established process associated with groundfish operational assessments, the NEFSCprovided a data-rich dedicated website to supplement the information provided in individual speciesassessment reports.

The Peer Review Panel (i.e., Panel) consisted of the following individuals:

• Pat Sullivan (Co-chair), Cornell University, NEFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee

• Patrick Lynch (Co-chair), NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, MD.

• Gary Nelson, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Gloucester, MA

• Jim Berkson, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, MD.

The Panel was responsible for reviewing each of the stock assessments. Primary and supportingdocuments for each assessment were available prior to the meeting. Each lead assessment scien-tist (Table 2) prepared a short presentation to describe the past and updated assessment resultsand address key sources of uncertainty (see agenda). Following the presentation, the Panel wasresponsible for addressing five terms of reference (TOR):

• Accept/ Not Accept the assessment as a basis for setting Overfishing Limit (OFL).

• If the assessment is not accepted, then recommend an alternative basis for setting OFL.

• Include qualitative written statements about the condition of the stock that will help to informNOAA Fisheries about stock status.

• Identify key sources of uncertainty.

• Identify important research needs.

If an assessment was not considered suitable for estimation of OFL the Panel was responsible forrecommending an alternative basis. Additionally, the Peer Review panel was asked to recommendwhat the stock status appears to be without reference to analytical assessment results. NOAAFisheries has final responsibility for making the stock status determination based on best avail-able scientific information, which in the absence of an accepted quantitative assessment, may bequalitative.


https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2017/docs/groundfish-operational-assessment-2017-appendix-outreach.pdf

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2017/

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2017/agenda.html

The individual assessment sections within this report are standardized and designed to capture themost relevant information for reviewers and fishery managers. The report structure was developedwith, and approved by, a subcommittee of the NRCC, followed by NRCC feedback about the reportstructure. Each assessment is supported by an online set of companion tables, figures and maps,which provide primary users of the assessment information (e.g., Plan Development Teams, Scienceand Statistical Committee) with necessary details. The online data portal (SASINF) also containsmodel inputs and outputs that can be used directly in NOAA Fisheries Toolbox applications.

The meeting was broadcast as a webinar using Adobe Connect and all sessions were open to thepublic. The meeting agenda included a daily public comment period. Members of the audience andindividuals on the phone were included in the discussions of the panel at the discretion of the PanelCo-chairs. However, the tight timeline for completing the assessments required a strong adherenceto the terms of reference and the description of the operational assessment process developed bythe NRCC. Onsite participants in Woods Hole are listed in Section 21.5.

1.2 Data

The groundfish updates used the following standard procedures for updating data from landings,discards and surveys (Table 3). The US commercial landings are estimated by market categoryfrom the area allocation (“AA”) tables, which combine dealer and vessel trip reports to deter-mine where fish were caught. The US commercial discards are estimated by gear types using theStandardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM), which combines observer data (includingat-sea monitors) and dealer landings. The US recreational landings and discards come from theMarine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), including recent revisions to historical data.Both commercial and recreational discards have species-specific discard mortality rates applied tothe discarded fish. Catch-at-age is estimated using age-length keys applied to expanded lengthfrequency distributions. For white hake, which is landed headed, the age-length key is applied topredicted lengths based on dorsal fin to caudal fin length. Additional sources of catch for somespecies come from Canadian or other foreign fishing.

The NEFSC spring and fall bottom trawl surveys are the most common source of information forpopulation trends (Table 3). These surveys are calibrated to “Albatross units” in most cases toallow for the longest time series possible. NOAA ship Henry B. Bigelow replaced the Albatross IV asthe primary bottom trawl survey vessel in spring 2009. In some instances the calibration coefficientvaries by length but in others a simple scalar adjustment is applied to all length classes. Othersurveys used include the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries spring and fall bottom trawlsurveys, the Maine-New Hampshire spring and fall bottom trawl surveys, the Canadian Departmentof Fisheries and Oceans February survey, and some additional state surveys. Catch per unit effortis not typically used as a source of population trends due to the many regulatory changes that haveoccurred over time in the Northeast that influence fishing behavior and catch rates. All updatedassessments used a consistent quality assurance criterion (known as TOGA; Politis et al. 2014) forsurveys conducted by the NOAA ship Henry B. Bigelow.


https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/sasi/sasi_report_options.php

http://nft.nefsc.noaa.gov/

https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0818/

https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1707/crd1707-text.pdf

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/index

1.3 Models

Based on previous 2015 operational assessments (Table 4; NEFSC, 2015), there are 12 stocksassessed with an age-based approach. Eight use the statistical catch-at-age model ASAP while4 others use virtual population analysis (VPA). For the 4 VPA stocks, the 2017 spring surveyinformation was included in the model. The remaining 7 stocks are assessed with a range of modeltypes including length-based (SCALE), index (AIM), and direct survey expansion. The referencepoints for the age- and length-based assessments were derived from stochastic projections of theFMSY (or FMSY proxy) for many years (typically 100), while the other assessment types usestock-specific rules for deriving the reference points. Technical descriptions of the biomass, fishingmortality and reference point estimators used for each stock are shown in Table 4. Informationfrom a newly revived industry-based cod survey in the Gulf of Maine was considered for context ina few relevant assessments and discussed with the Peer Review Panel but was not directly includeddue to limited time series and Operational Assessment guidelines.

1.4 Results

Operational Assessments were conducted in 2017 for 19 of the 20 stocks in the Northeast Multi-species Fishery Management Plan (Table 1). The updates replicated the methods recommendedin the most recent benchmark decisions, as modified by any subsequent operational assessmentsor updates (Table 2). Information supplemental to the assessment report for each stock can befound on the Stock Assessment Support Information (SASINF) website. The Panel accepted all ofthe assessments as a scientific basis for management and provided catch advice for all 19 stocks.Recommended stock status did not change for 18 of the 19 stocks, and improved for 1 stock (Table5).

Each of the 19 species chapters contains the assessment results provided to the Panel for peer reviewfollowed by a section entitled “Reviewer Comments,” which describes final Panel decisions at theconclusion of the peer review. In this Executive Summary, tables and figures related to stock statusfrom the 2017 review reflect the Panel recommendations (Tables 5 - 6; Figures 1 - 2).

The number of stocks with retrospective adjustments (also called rho adjustments) applied increasedfrom the last assessment from 7 to 8 (Table 7). Decisions to apply a retrospective adjustment toestimates of terminal year biomass and fishing mortality rates were based on whether the rhoadjusted value was outside the 90% joint confidence region for the model estimates. This principlewas supported by the AOP and was applied to adjust biomass estimates for Georges Bank haddock,Southern New England yellowtail flounder, Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder, GeorgesBank winter flounder, American plaice, white hake, pollock and redfish (Table 8). Gulf of Maine codwas an exception because of earlier guidance from the SARC 55 review panel. Despite the presenceof a significant retrospective pattern at that meeting no adjustments were made; the OperationalAssessments panel followed that precedent.

Stock status recommendations for the 19 groundfish stocks are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Fourstocks are experiencing overfishing: Southern New England yellowtail flounder, Cape Cod Gulf ofMaine yellowtail flounder, Gulf of Maine cod and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. Ten groundfishstocks are overfished (Table 5). Based on these recommendations, the number of overfished stocks


http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/sasi/sasi_report_options.php

and stocks experiencing overfishing has generally decreased since GARM III in 2007 (Figure 3),and the magnitude of overfishing or depletion for several stocks has generally decreased (Figures 1and 2).

Simultaneous assessments of 19 groundfish stocks allowed a comprehensive examination of trendsin spring and fall survey indices (Figures 4 and 5, respectively). For the majority of stocks theaverage of the most recent 5 years is below the time series mean for that stock.

Estimates of overall (aggregate) groundfish minimum swept area biomass are at or near an all-timehigh (Figures 6 and 7). However, the current stock diversity of the overall groundfish biomass isless than that seen in the 1960s and 1970s. Current groundfish biomass is dominated by only a fewstocks. For example, the combined biomass of the Georges Bank haddock, Gulf of Maine haddock,pollock, and redfish stocks currently constitute more than 90% of the overall groundfish biomassobserved in NEFSC spring surveys (Figure 6). It is important to note that the minimum swept areabiomass estimates assume a common capture efficiency of 1.0 across all years. Actual biomasses,as derived from models, are adjusted for catchability and selectivity estimates and are higher thanthe minimum swept area estimates. Unfortunately model-based estimates are not available for allstocks over the entire time period of the surveys (i.e. since 1963); the primary limitation is theavailability of age information from the commercial catches that would be needed to support fullage-based assessments.

For 12 stocks, model-based biomass estimates can be computed from 1985 onward. The strikingincrease in abundance since 1985 is driven primarily by redfish, Georges Bank haddock, and pollock(Figure 8). Pollock biomass from the stock assessment is much higher than the swept area estimatesbecause of a dome-shaped selectivity pattern in both the survey and catch data. This suggests thata substantial fraction of the stock biomass is unavailable to either the fishery or survey gear. Thechapter describing the pollock assessment includes a sensitivity run in which the assumption ofdome-shaped selectivity is removed, resulting in a biomass estimate that is about half as large. Theincrease in model based estimates of overall biomass, with or without pollock, is consistent withthe trends revealed in the swept area estimates (Figures 6, 7 and 8).

An advantage of conducting multiple assessments simultaneously is that measures of productivitycan be compared over time. Reductions in average weight-at-age, declines in recruitment and shiftsin age-at-maturity all influence the estimated biomass at maximum sustainable yield and totalMSY . As such, the combined single species stock assessments provide valuable measures of ecosys-tem productivity, irrespective of the underlying environmental or ecological causes. Reductions inaverage weights-at-age have occurred for stocks at high abundance, such as Georges Bank haddock,but also for stocks at low abundance, such as witch flounder. Hence, density dependence alone isinsufficient to explain this across all stocks. Reductions in recruitment are often associated withdeclines in stock size but inter-annual variation often masks trends. Aggregate estimates of totalBMSY are available for 10 stocks over the past decade (Figure 9). Total BMSY for these stocksdeclined by 12% between 2008 and 2015 from 668 kt to 521 kt. Estimates further declined by about7% between 2015 and 2017 to 483 kt (Figure 9).

An ecosystem report provided a climate vulnerability assessment for each of the 19 groundfishspecies. Current ecosystem considerations were summarized in a risk analysis framework to pro-vide ecological context to the stock status of each species, including condition factor, productivityanalyses and habitat modeling as an alternative index of biomass. Potential impacts of the recent


https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2017/docs/2017_Ecosystem_Considerations.pdf

record high fall bottom and sea surface temperatures with subsequent thermal habitat reductionsand range shifts were assessed for each stock, taking into account each stock’s thermal preferencesand vulnerability to climate change.

1.5 Reviewer Comments: Overview

The operational assessment meeting that took place at the Northeast Fisheries Science CenterSeptember 11-15 went well and all of the individual operational assessments were approved for usein developing management decisions for the SSC and Council. However, in the process of evaluatingthe 19 groundfish stocks certain patterns were notable in the data and in the model responses tothat data. These patterns would suggest that some higher-level integrated analysis should takeplace in order to improve the assessment process as a whole while maintaining the integrity of theindividual assessments, which meet the requirements for the present. Among the patterns thatemerge were the number of assessments that displayed some kind of retrospective pattern and thatrequired a retrospective adjustment. Unfortunately, numerous factors can individually or in unioncause retrospective patterns to emerge in assessment estimates. Examples of such influential factorsinclude changes in natural mortality, changes in selectivity, changes in size at age, underreportingof landings or discards, immigration or emigration, as well as factors affecting recruitment.

One recognizes that the Ecosystem Group, who gave a short presentation the afternoon of the firstday of the week-long groundfish meeting, are in the position of providing at least some insighton environmental factors that could influence ecosystem health as well as those which might inother ways confound the assessment. The presentations focused on some general metrics likely toinfluence fish health and behavior, but more proactive approaches might also be considered. Duringthe meeting the review panel noticed general patterns in reductions in size at age across severalstocks. And while such changes could be driven by density-dependent effects, these changes mayalso be precipitated by ecosystem level changes. The management response to these two differentdeterminants could be very different. The panel also noted something that seemed to be commonknowledge, namely that 2013 stood out as it was a good year for producing strong recruitmentyear classes (other years, such as 2007, may also have been conducive to recruitment across stocks).Further, the review panel observed situations where fisheries stocks seemed unable to respondpositively to management restrictions on catch.

Broadly, these changes in the biology, in the ecosystem and in contrast to what is happening inmanagement suggest that an integrated approach that not only examines ecosystem trends butalso tries to account for other aspects of fisheries systems such as the quality and nature of thesurvey and catch data, the magnitude of unreported catch, and long term effects on fishing behaviorof changing management actions would be highly beneficial. On a related cross-assessment note,working towards assessments that better represent the level of uncertainty in the estimates wouldalso be of value. This will take time as this is an evolving area of research, but the outcome wouldlikely benefit fisheries management as the risk in decision making given constraints in how data arecollected and how the ecosystem is changing becomes better known.

The review panel was pleased to see the work coming out of the Cooperative Research SurveyProgram. In this review, the data were used to help validate existing model-based trends as well asprovide direct input into catchability estimates for empirical approaches when no integrated model


was available for use. The assessment community is encouraged to continue to use these data forsuch purposes. One must recognize, however, that such data are most useful when consideredin the longer term. More specifically, the review panel notes that individual surveys must beviewed in the context of long-term data collection efforts and extensive integrated assessment thatundergo ongoing review. One should not expect that a single experiment should overturn years ofsystematic analysis, but should be instrumental in providing validation and by contrast challengesto the existing methods. Such studies should also point to where additional work is needed.

References

Politis PJ, Galbraith JK, Kostovick P, Brown RW. 2014. Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottomtrawl survey protocols for the NOAA Ship Henry B. Bigelow. US Dept Commer, Northeast FishSci Cent Ref Doc. 14-06; 138 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 WaterStreet, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026. CRD14-06

Miller, T.J., Richardson, D.E., Politis P.J., Blaylock, J. In press. Northeast Fisheries Science Centerbottom trawl catch efficiency and biomass estimates for 2009-2017 for 8 flatfish stocks included inthe 2017 Northeast Groundfish Operational Assessments. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish SciCent Ref Doc. In press; 26 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street,Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2015. Operational Assessment of 20 Northeast GroundfishStocks, Updated Through 2014. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 15-24; 251p. CRD15-24

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2012. Assessment or Data Updates of 13 Northeast GroundfishStocks through 2010. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 12-06; 789 p. Availablefrom: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 CRD12-06

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2008. Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks through2007: Report of the 3rd Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III), Northeast FisheriesScience Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 4-8, 2008. US Dep Commer, NOAA FIsheries,Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 08-15; 884 p + xvii. CRD08-15

Mayo RK, Terceiro M, editors. 2005. Assessment of 19 Northeast groundfish stocks through 2004.2005 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (2005 GARM), Northeast Fisheries Science Center,Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 15-19 August 2005. U.S. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent.Ref. Doc. 05-13; 499 p. CRD05-13


http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd1406/





Table 1: List of stocks included in the 2017 groundfish operational assessment and the abbreviationsused for each in tables and figures in this document. Atlantic halibut has been excluded from thisdocument because it is being reviewed in a separate forum.

Stock Abbrev Stock NameCODGM Gulf of Maine codCODGB Georges Bank codHADGM Gulf of Maine haddockHADGB Georges Bank haddockYELCCGM Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounderYELSNEMA Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounderFLWGB Georges Bank winter flounderFLWSNEMA Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounderREDUNIT Acadian redfishPLAUNIT American plaiceWITUNIT Witch flounderHKWUNIT White hakePOLUNIT PollockCATUNIT WolffishFLDGMGB Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank windowpane flounderFLDSNEMA Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic windowpane flounderOPTUNIT Ocean poutFLWGM Gulf of Maine winter flounderYELGB Georges Bank yellowtail flounder


Tab

le2:

Lea

dsc

ien

tist

for

each

sto

ck(c

urr

ent/

prev

iou

sif

diff

eren

t),

info

rmat

ion

abou

tla

stas

sess

men

t,in

clu

din

g:th

efo

rum

for

revi

ewof

the

last

asse

ssm

ent

(For

um

),th

ety

pe

ofas

sess

men

td

one

(Typ

e),

pu

blic

atio

nye

ar(P

ub

.),

the

term

inal

year

ofth

eca

tch

dat

ain

clu

ded

(Ter

m.

yr.)

,ov

erfi

shed

/ove

rfish

ing

stat

us,

reb

uild

ing

stat

us,

and

refe

ren

ce.

Not

e:O

p.

Ass

ess

=O

per

atio

nal

Ass

essm

ent

Sto

ckL

ead

Foru

mT

yp

eP

ub.

Ter

m.

yr.

Over

fish

ed?

Over

fish

ing?

Reb

uild

statu

sR

efer

ence

CO

DG

MP

alm

erO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

Yes

By

2024

CR

D15-2

4C

OD

GB

Leg

ault/O

’Bri

enO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

Unknow

nB

y2026

CR

D15-2

4H

AD

GM

Palm

erO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

No

No

Reb

uilt

CR

D15-2

4H

AD

GB

Bro

oks

Op.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

No

No

Reb

uilt

CR

D15-2

4Y

EL

CC

GM

Ala

de

Op.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

Yes

By

2023

CR

D15-2

4Y

EL

SN

EM

AA

lade

Op.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

Yes

Reb

uilt

CR

D15-2

4F

LW

GB

Hen

dri

ckso

nO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

Yes

By

2017

CR

D15-2

4F

LW

SN

EM

AW

ood

Op.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

No

By

2023

CR

D15-2

4R

ED

UN

ITL

into

nO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

No

No

Reb

uilt

CR

D15-2

4P

LA

UN

ITT

erce

iro/O

’Bri

enO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

No

No

By

2024

CR

D15-2

4W

ITU

NIT

Wig

ley

SA

RC

62

Ben

chm

ark

2017

2016

Yes

Unknow

nB

y2017

CR

D17-0

3H

KW

UN

ITSose

bee

Op.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

No

No

By

2014

CR

D15-2

4P

OL

UN

ITL

into

nO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

No

No

Reb

uilt

CR

D15-2

4C

AT

UN

ITA

dam

sO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

No

Unknow

nC

RD

15-2

4F

LD

GM

GB

Chute

Op.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

No

By

2017

CR

D15-2

4F

LD

SN

EM

AC

hute

Op.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

No

No

Reb

uilt

CR

D15-2

4O

PT

UN

ITW

igle

yO

p.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Yes

No

By

2014

CR

D15-2

4F

LW

GM

Nit

schke

Op.

Ass

ess

Up

date

2015

2014

Unknow

nN

oU

nknow

nC

RD

15-2

4Y

EL

GB

Leg

ault

TR

AC

2017

Up

date

2017

2016

Yes

Unknow

nB

y2032

TR

AC

2017


http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1524/


















http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/trac/tsr_2017_gbytail.pdf

Tab

le3:

Dat

au

sed

inea

chas

sess

men

t.T

he

colu

mn

hea

ds

are

US

com

mer

cial

lan

din

gs(U

Sc-

lnd

),U

Sco

mm

erci

ald

isca

rds

(US

c-d

is),

US

recr

eati

onal

lan

din

gs(U

Sr-

lnd

),U

Sre

crea

tion

ald

isca

rds

(US

r-d

is),

Can

adia

nca

tch

(CA

cat)

,N

orth

east

Fis

her

ies

Sci

ence

Cen

ter

spri

ng,

fall

and

win

ter

surv

eys

(NE

S,

NE

Fan

dN

EW

),M

assa

chu

sett

ssp

rin

gan

dfa

llsu

rvey

s(M

AS

and

MA

F),

Mai

ne/

New

Ham

psh

ire

spri

ng

and

fall

surv

eys

(ME

/NH

San

dM

E/N

HF

)an

dC

anad

ian

Dep

artm

ent

ofF

ish

erie

san

dO

cean

sF

ebru

ary

surv

ey(D

FO

S).

Catc

hSurv

eys

Sto

ckU

Sc-

lnd

US

c-dis

US

r-ln

dU

Sr-

dis

CA

Cat

NE

SN

EF

NE

WM

AS

MA

FM

E/N

HS

ME

/N

HF

DF

OS

CO

DG

MY

esY

esY

esY

esN

oY

esY

esN

oY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oC

OD

GB

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

HA

DG

MY

esY

esY

esY

esN

oY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oH

AD

GB

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

YE

LC

CG

MY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oY

esY

esN

oY

esY

esY

esY

esN

oY

EL

SN

EM

AY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oY

esY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oF

LW

GB

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

FLW

SN

EM

AY

esY

esY

esY

esN

oY

esY

esY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oR

ED

UN

ITY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oP

LA

UN

ITY

esY

esN

oN

oY

esY

esY

esN

oY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oW

ITU

NIT

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

HK

WU

NIT

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

PO

LU

NIT

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

CA

TU

NIT

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

FL

DG

MG

BY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oF

LD

SN

EM

AY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oO

PT

UN

ITY

esY

esN

oN

oN

oY

esN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oF

LD

WG

MY

esY

esY

esY

esN

oY

esY

esN

oY

esY

esY

esY

esN

oY

EL

GB

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes


Tab

le4:

Ass

essm

ent

typ

ean

dre

fere

nce

poi

nts

from

2015

oper

atio

nal

asse

ssm

ent

CR

D15

-24.

Bio

mas

san

dyi

eld

valu

esar

ein

met

ric

ton

s.N

ote:

sp=

sto

chas

tic

proj

ecti

onan

dsu

rv.

B=

surv

eyb

iom

ass.

Sto

ckA

sses

s.T

yp

eF

def

.B

def

.F

MS

Yty

pe

FM

SY

valu

eB

MS

Yty

pe

BM

SY

valu

eM

SY

typ

eM

SY

valu

e

CO

DG

M(M

=.2

)A

SA

Page-

base

dF

Fu

llSSB

F40%

SP

R0.1

8sp

40,1

87

sp6,7

97

CO

DG

M(M

ra

mp)

ASA

Page-

base

dF

Fu

llSSB

F40%

SP

R0.1

8sp

59,0

45

sp10,0

43

CO

DG

Bem

pir

ical

smooth

edsu

rvey

ca

tch

su

rv.B

surv

.B

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

HA

DG

MA

SA

Page-

base

dF

Fu

llSSB

F40%

SP

R0.4

68

sp4,6

23

sp1,0

83

HA

DG

BV

PA

age-

base

dav

gF

ages

5-7

SSB

F40%

SP

R0.3

9sp

108,3

00

sp24,9

00

YE

LC

CG

OM

VP

Aage-

base

dav

gF

ages

4-6

SSB

F40%

SP

R0.2

79

sp5,2

59

sp1,2

85

YE

LSN

EM

AA

SA

Page-

base

dav

gF

ages

4-5

SSB

F40%

SP

R0.3

49

sp1,9

59

sp541

FLW

GB

VP

Aage-

base

dav

gF

ages

4-6

SSB

Fm

sy0.5

36

sp6,7

00

sp2,8

40

FLW

SN

EM

AA

SA

Page-

base

dav

gF

ages

4-5

SSB

Fm

sy0.3

25

sp26,9

28

sp7,8

31

RE

DU

NIT

ASA

Page-

base

dF

Fu

llSSB

F50%

SP

R0.0

38

sp281,1

12

sp10,4

66

PL

AU

NIT

VP

Aage-

base

dav

gF

ages

6-9

SSB

F40%

SP

R0.1

96

sp13,1

07

sp2,6

75

WIT

UN

ITem

pir

ical

surv

eyex

pansi

on

ca

tch

su

rv.B

surv

.B

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

HK

WU

NIT

ASA

Page-

base

dF

Fu

llSSB

F40%

SP

R0.1

88

sp32,5

50

sp5,4

22

PO

LU

NIT

(base

)A

SA

Page-

base

dav

gF

ages

5-7

SSB

F40%

SP

R0.2

7sp

105,2

2sp

19,6

7

PO

LU

NIT

(flat)

ASA

Page-

base

dav

gF

ages

5-7

SSB

F40%

SP

R0.2

5sp

54,9

0sp

10,9

9

CA

TU

NIT

SC

AL

Ele

ngth

-base

dF

Fu

llSSB

F40%

SP

R0.2

43

sp1,6

63

sp244

FL

DG

MG

BA

IMin

dex

ca

tch

su

rv.B

surv

.B

repla

cem

ent

rati

o0.4

50

MS

Ypro

xy

FM

SY

pr

ox

y1.5

54

med

ian

catc

h1995-2

001

700

FL

DSN

EM

AA

IMin

dex

ca

tch

su

rv.B

surv

.B

repla

cem

ent

rati

o2.0

27

MS

Ypro

xy

FM

SY

pr

ox

y0.2

47

med

ian

catc

h1995-2

001

500

OP

TU

NIT

index

index

ca

tch

su

rv.B

surv

.B

med

.F

1977−

1985

0.7

6m

ed.

surv

.B

1977−

1985

4.9

4F

MS

Y*

BM

SY

3,7

54

FLW

GM

empir

ical

surv

eyex

pansi

on

ca

tch

B30+

cm

surv

.B

F40%

from

YP

R0.2

3N

AN

AN

AN

A

YE

LG

Bem

pir

ical

surv

eyex

pansi

on

ca

tch

su

rv.B

surv

.B

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA



Table 5: Synopsis of recommended status by stock from the 2017 peer review. These recommendationswill be considered by NMFS in making final status determinations.

Recommended StatusStock Stock Name Overfishing? Overfished?CODGM Gulf of Maine cod Yes YesCODGB Georges Bank cod Unknown YesHADGM Gulf of Maine haddock No NoHADGB Georges Bank haddock No No

YELCCGMCape Cod/Gulf of Maine

yellowtail flounder Yes Yes

YELSNEMAS. New Eng./Mid-Atl. yellowtail

flounder Yes Yes

FLWGB Georges Bank winter flounder No No

FLWSNEMAS. New Eng./Mid-Atl. winter

flounder No Yes

REDUNIT Acadian redfish No NoPLAUNIT American plaice No No NoWITUNIT Witch flounder Unknown YesHKWUNIT White hake No NoPOLUNIT Pollock No NoCATUNIT Wolffish No Yes

FLDGMGBGulf of Maine/Georges Bank

windowpane flounder No Yes

FLDSNEMAS. New Eng./Mid-Atl.windowpane flounder No No

OPTUNIT Ocean pout No YesFLWGM Gulf of Maine winter flounder No Unknown

YELGBGeorges Bank yellowtail

flounder Yes Yes


Tab

le6:

Su

mm

ary

ofO

per

atio

nal

Ass

essm

ent

esti

mat

esof

bio

mas

ses

and

fish

ing

mor

talit

yra

tes

in20

16an

db

iolo

gica

lre

fere

nce

poi

nts

for

grou

nd

fish

sto

cks.

Ref

eren

cep

oin

tsar

en

otes

tim

able

for

som

est

ock

s.T

erm

inal

bio

mas

ses

tim

ates

for

CO

DG

Ban

dY

EL

GB

are

for

2017

rath

erth

an20

16.

Sto

ckM

odel

typ

eB

2016

(mt)

BM

SY

(mt)

B2016

BM

SY

F2016F

MS

YF2016

FM

SY

MSY

(mt)

ρadj?

Com

men

ts

CO

DG

MA

SA

P(M

=0.2

)3,0

46

40,6

04

0.0

80.2

28

0.1

71.3

17,0

49

No

CO

DG

MA

SA

P(M

-ram

p)

3,2

62

59,7

14

0.0

50.2

37

0.1

81.3

410,5

02

No

CO

DG

BE

mpir

ical

7.2

37

0.1

74

No

Sm

ooth

edsu

rvey

indic

esuse

dto

esti

mate

bio

mass

HA

DG

BV

PA

290,3

24

104,3

12

2.7

80.3

09

0.3

50.8

824,3

72

Yes

HA

DG

MA

SA

P47,8

21

6,7

69

7.0

60.1

37

0.4

60.3

01,5

47

No

YE

LC

CG

MV

PA

1,1

91

4,6

40

0.2

60.3

14

0.2

71.1

51,1

54

Yes

YE

LSN

EM

AA

SA

P152

1,8

60

0.0

81.0

90.3

43.2

0511

Yes

FLW

GB

VP

A3,9

46

7,6

00

0.5

20.1

17

0.5

20.2

23,5

00

Yes

FLW

SN

EM

AA

SA

P4,3

60

24,6

87

0.1

80.2

10.3

40.6

27,5

32

No

PL

AU

NIT

VP

A13,3

51

13,5

03

0.9

90.1

11

0.2

20.5

12,9

24

Yes

WIT

UN

ITE

mpir

ical

14,5

63

0.0

35

No

Aver

age

surv

eybio

mass

,ex

plo

itati

on

rati

ouse

dR

ED

UN

ITA

SA

P359,9

70

247,9

18

1.4

50.0

11

0.0

40.2

99,3

18

Yes

HK

WU

NIT

ASA

P21,2

76

30,9

48

0.6

90.0

66

0.1

80.3

64,8

67

Yes

PO

LU

NIT

ASA

P(b

ase

)183,9

07

105,5

10

1.7

40.0

36

0.2

60.1

419,4

27

Yes

Fla

tto

pse

lect

ivit

ym

odel

was

use

dfo

rse

n-

siti

vit

yte

stin

g

PO

LU

NIT

ASA

P(fl

at

top)

72,8

89

60,7

38

1.2

00.0

79

0.2

50.3

211,6

92

Yes

see

ab

ove

CA

TU

NIT

SC

AL

E652

1,6

12

0.4

00.0

02

0.2

20.0

1232

No

FL

DG

MG

BA

IM0.3

62.0

60.1

70.2

22

0.3

40.6

5700

No

Bio

mass

inkg/to

w.

Fva

lues

reflec

tex

-plo

itati

on

rate

FL

DSN

EM

AA

IM0.3

29

0.2

53

1.3

01.7

33

1.9

20.9

0500

No

Bio

mass

inkg/to

w.

Fva

lues

reflec

tex

-plo

itati

on

rate

OP

TU

NIT

Index

-base

d0.2

23

4.9

40.0

50.2

21

0.7

60.2

93,7

54

No

Bio

mass

inkg/to

w.

Fva

lues

reflec

tex

-plo

itati

on

rate

FLW

GM

Em

pir

ical

2,5

85

0.0

86

0.2

30.3

7N

o30+

cmbio

mass

,ex

plo

itati

on

rati

ouse

d

YE

LG

BE

mpir

ical

3,1

18

0.0

09

No

Aver

age

surv

eybio

mass

,ex

plo

itati

on

rati

ouse

d


Tab

le7:

Com

par

ison

ofb

iom

ass

(B)

and

fish

ing

mor

talit

yra

te(F

)M

ohn

’srh

ova

lues

(ρ)

byst

ock

bet

wee

nth

epr

evio

us

asse

ssm

ent

(ρlast)

and

the

2017

(ρ2016)

up

dat

es.

Th

eb

iom

ass

(B2016)

and

fish

ing

mor

talit

yra

te(B

2016)

poi

nt

esti

mat

esan

dρ

adju

sted

valu

es(A

dj.

)ar

epr

ovid

edfo

rth

e20

17op

erat

ion

alas

sess

men

ts.

Sto

cks

usi

ngρ

adju

sted

valu

esin

the

last

asse

ssm

ent

and

the

2017

asse

ssm

ents

(ρad

j.vs

.p

t.es

t.fo

rth

ose

sto

cks

that

did

not

use

theρ

adju

stm

ent)

are

iden

tifi

ed,

alon

gw

ith

the

typ

eofρ

adju

stm

ent

use

din

the

2017

asse

ssm

ent

(NA

A=

nu

mb

ers

atag

e,S

SB

=sp

awn

ing

sto

ckb

iom

ass

app

lied

toal

lag

es),

are

also

prov

ided

.O

nly

age-

bas

edan

dle

ngt

h-b

ased

sto

cks

that

cou

ldex

hib

itre

tros

pec

tive

pat

tern

sar

ein

clu

ded

inth

ista

ble

.M

issi

ngρ

valu

esin

dic

ate

am

inor

retr

osp

ecti

vep

atte

rnw

asfo

un

dan

dn

ore

tros

pec

tive

adju

stm

ents

wer

em

ade.

Sto

ckM

odel

typ

eρ

lastρ2016

B2016

Adj.

ρla

stρ2016F

2016

Adj.

Last

Ass

ess.

2017

Pro

j.A

dj.

CO

DG

MA

SA

P(M

=0.2

)0.5

40.5

33046

1,9

97

-0.3

1-0

.31

0.2

30.3

3pt.

est.

pt.

est.

none

CO

DG

MA

SA

P(M

-ram

p)

0.2

00.3

03262

2,5

02

-0.0

8-0

.17

0.2

40.2

8pt.

est.

pt.

est.

none

HA

DG

MA

SA

P-0

.04

47821

NA

0.0

30.1

4pt.

est.

pt.

est.

none

HA

DG

BV

PA

0.5

00.8

9549938

290,3

24

-0.3

4-0

.63

0.1

10.3

1ρ

adj.

ρadj.

SSB

YE

LC

CG

MV

PA

0.9

80.7

62093

1,1

91

-0.4

5-0

.39

0.1

90.3

1ρ

adj.

ρadj.

NA

AY

EL

SN

EM

AA

SA

P1.0

60.9

7300

152

-0.5

3-0

.47

0.5

81.0

9pt.

est.

ρadj.

NA

AF

LW

GB

VP

A0.8

30.5

46083

3,9

46

-0.5

1-0

.31

0.0

80.1

2ρ

adj.

ρadj.

SSB

FLW

SN

EM

AA

SA

P0.2

14360

NA

-0.2

50.2

1pt.

est.

pt.

est.

none

RE

DU

NIT

ASA

P0.2

60.2

1435852

359,9

70

-0.1

9-0

.18

0.0

10.0

1ρ

adj.

ρadj.

NA

AP

LA

UN

ITV

PA

0.3

20.1

415148

13,3

51

-0.3

2-0

.32

0.0

70.1

1ρ

adj.

ρadj.

NA

AH

KW

UN

ITA

SA

P0.1

80.2

025638

21,2

76

-0.1

3-0

.12

0.0

60.0

7pt.

est.

ρadj.

NA

AP

OL

UN

ITA

SA

P(b

ase

)0.2

80.2

3226371

183,9

07

-0.2

8-0

.28

0.0

30.0

4ρ

adj.

ρadj.

NA

AP

OL

UN

ITA

SA

P(fl

at)

0.4

1102571

72,8

89

-0.3

50.0

50.0

8ρ

adj.

ρadj.

NA

A


Table 8: The biomass (B) and exploitation rate (F ) values used for status determination may be adjustedto account for a retrospective pattern in some stocks. In general, when the B or F values adjustedfor restrospective pattern (Bρ and Fρ) were outside of the approximate 90% confidence interval (Conf.limits) of the model-estimated B2016 and F2016, the adjusted values were used to determine stock status(Adj. = Yes). There can be exceptions however, such as YELSNEMA and CODGM(M=0.2) in OA2017 and details regarding each decision can be found in the report and reviewer comments sectionsfor each stock in OA 2017. Only stocks that had both an estimable 7-year Mohn’s ρ for B and F andestimable approximate 90% confidence limits on terminal year B and F values are included here.

Stock B2016 Bρ Conf. limits F2016 Fρ Conf. limits Adj?CODGM(M=0.2) 3,046 1,997 2,464 - 4,025 0.228 0.332 0.169 - 0.316 No

CODGM(M ramp) 3,262 2,502 2,487 - 4,270 0.237 0.285 0.172 - 0.331 NoHADGB 549,938 290,324 383,166 - 801,643 0.113 0.309 0.079 - 0.164 Yes

YELSNEMA 300 152 217 - 459 0.58 1.09 0.362 - 0.843 YesYELCCGM 2,093 1,191 1,722 - 2,626 0.193 0.314 0.15 - 0.26 Yes

FLWGB 6,083 3,946 4,898 - 7,812 0.081 0.117 0.064 - 0.106 YesPLAUNIT 15,148 13,351 13,582 - 17,009 0.075 0.111 0.065 - 0.088 YesHKWUNIT 25,638 21,276 21,466 - 30,052 0.058 0.066 0.048 - 0.07 Yes

POLUNIT(base) 226,371 183,907 76,914 - 293,256 0.026 0.036 0.037 - 0.034 YesREDUNIT 435,852 359,970 394,927 - 481,018 0.009 0.011 0.008 - 0.01 Yes


Fig

ure

1:C

han

ges

inth

era

tio

offi

shin

gm

orta

lity

toF

MS

Ypr

oxy

from

2007

(GA

RM

III)

to20

16(O

A20

17)

for

sele

cted

Nor

thea

stM

ult

isp

ecie

sF

ish

ery

Man

agem

ent

Pla

ngr

oun

dfi

shst

ock

s.T

he

resu

lts

from

the

asse

ssm

ent

prio

rto

the

OA

2015

asse

ssm

ent

are

show

nfo

rea

chst

ock

topr

ovid

e’I

nte

rmed

iate

’va

lues

.S

tock

son

wh

ich

over

fish

ing

iso

ccu

rrin

gar

eth

ose

wh

ere

the

Fte

rm

in

al

FM

SY

pr

ox

yra

tio

isgr

eate

rth

an1.

Not

es:

(1)

the

GA

RM

III

asse

ssm

ents

did

not

incl

ud

ew

olffi

sh;

(2)

sto

ckst

atu

sin

the

’In

term

edia

te’

asse

ssm

ent

cou

ldn

otb

ed

eter

min

edfo

rG

ulf

ofM

ain

ew

inte

rfl

oun

der

orG

eorg

esB

ank

yello

wta

ilfl

oun

der

;an

d,

(3)

bas

edon

the

OA

2015

asse

ssm

ents

sto

ckst

atu

sco

uld

not

be

det

erm

ined

for

Gu

lfof

Mai

ne

win

ter

flou

nd

er,

Geo

rges

Ban

kye

llow

tail

flou

nd

eran

dG

eorg

esB

ank

cod

;(4

)th

eG

ulf

ofM

ain

eco

das

sess

men

tva

lues

show

nh

ere

are

for

the

M=

0.2

mo

del

.(5

)b

ased

onth

eS

AR

C62

ben

chm

ark

asse

ssm

ent,

stat

us

for

wit

chfl

oun

der

stat

us

cou

ldn

otb

ed

eter

min

ed.

Bec

ause

curr

ent

over

fish

ing

stat

us

for

Geo

rges

Ban

kco

dan

dw

itch

flou

nd

erar

eu

nkn

own

,th

eyw

ere

not

incl

ud

edin

this

figu

re.


Fig

ure

2:C

han

ges

inth

era

tio

ofst

ock

bio

mas

stoBMSY

prox

yfr

om20

07(G

AR

MII

I)to

2016

(OA

2017

)fo

rse

lect

edN

orth

east

Mu

ltis

pec

ies

Fis

her

yM

anag

emen

tP

lan

grou

nd

fish

sto

cks.

Th

ere

sult

sfr

omth

eas

sess

men

tpr

ior

toth

eO

A20

15as

sess

men

tar

esh

own

for

each

sto

ckto

prov

ide

’In

term

edia

te’

valu

es.

Sto

cks

that

are

over

fish

edst

ock

sar

eth

ose

wh

ere

the

Bte

rm

in

al

BM

SY

pr

ox

yra

tio

isle

ssth

an0.

5.N

otes

:

(1)

the

GA

RM

III

asse

ssm

ents

did

not

incl

ud

ew

olffi

sh;

(2)

sto

ckst

atu

sin

the

’In

term

edia

te’

asse

ssm

ent

cou

ldn

otb

ed

eter

min

edfo

rG

ulf

ofM

ain

ew

inte

rfl

oun

der

orG

eorg

esB

ank

yello

wta

ilfl

oun

der

;an

d,

(3)

bas

edon

the

OA

2015

asse

ssm

ents

sto

ckst

atu

sco

uld

not

be

det

erm

ined

for

Gu

lfof

Mai

ne

win

ter

flou

nd

er,

Geo

rges

Ban

kye

llow

tail

flou

nd

eran

dG

eorg

esB

ank

cod

;(4

)th

eG

ulf

ofM

ain

eco

das

sess

men

tva

lues

show

nh

ere

are

for

the

M=

0.2

mo

del

.(5

)b

ased

onth

eS

AR

C62

ben

chm

ark

asse

ssm

ent,

stat

us

for

wit

chfl

oun

der

stat

us

cou

ldn

otb

ed

eter

min

ed.

Bec

ause

Geo

rges

Ban

kco

dan

dw

itch

flou

nd

erd

on

otcu

rren

tly

hav

eq

uan

tita

tive

bio

mas

sre

fere

nce

poi

nts

,th

eyw

ere

not

incl

ud

edin

this

figu

re.


Fig

ure

3:S

tatu

so

fth

eN

orth

east

Mu

ltis

pec

ies

Fis

her

yM

anag

emen

tP

lan

gro

un

dfi

shst

ock

sin

20

07

(GA

RM

III)

and

20

16

(OA

20

17

)w

ith

resp

ect

toth

eF

MS

Yan

dB

MS

Ypr

oxie

s.T

he

’In

term

edia

teas

sess

men

t’re

pres

ents

the

last

sto

ckas

sess

men

tco

nd

uct

edpr

ior

toth

eO

A2

01

5as

sess

men

t(y

ear

vari

esby

sto

ck).

Sto

cks

on

wh

ich

ove

rfish

ing

iso

ccu

rrin

gar

eth

ose

wh

ere

the

Fte

rm

in

al

FM

SY

pr

ox

yra

tio

isg

reat

erth

an1

and

ove

rfish

ed

sto

cks

are

tho

sew

her

eth

eB

te

rm

in

al

BM

SY

pr

ox

yra

tio

isle

ssth

an0

.5.

Th

esc

ale

of

the

axes

was

rest

rict

edto

allo

wfo

rco

mp

aris

on

bet

wee

nye

ars.

Sto

cks

wit

hre

dm

arke

rsan

dte

xtex

ceed

edth

ese

limit

s(v

alu

esar

eav

aila

ble

inT

able

6).

No

tes:

(1)

the

GA

RM

III

asse

ssm

ents

did

no

tin

clu

de

wo

lffish

;(2

)fo

rth

ein

term

edia

teas

sess

men

tsst

ock

stat

us

cou

ldn

ot

be

det

erm

ined

for

Gu

lfo

fM

ain

ew

inte

rfl

ou

nd

er(O

A2

01

4)

orG

eorg

esB

ank

yello

wta

il(T

RA

C2

01

5);

and

,(3

)b

ased

on

the

OA

20

15

asse

ssm

ents

sto

ckst

atu

sco

uld

no

tb

ed

eter

min

edfo

rG

ulf

of

Mai

ne

win

ter

flo

un

der

and

Geo

rges

Ban

kye

llow

tail

flo

un

der

;(4

)th

eG

ulf

of

Mai

ne

cod

asse

ssm

ent

valu

essh

own

her

ear

efo

rth

eM

=0

.2m

od

el.

Inth

eO

A2

01

5as

sess

men

t,th

est

ock

stat

us

for

Geo

rges

Ban

kco

dre

mai

ned

ove

rfish

edan

do

verfi

shin

gis

occ

urr

ing

;h

owev

er,

sin

ceth

eas

sess

men

tw

asn

ot

acce

pte

d,

rati

os

of

term

inal

con

dit

ion

sto

refe

ren

cep

oin

tsca

nn

ot

be

det

erm

ined

.O

nly

sto

cks

wit

hkn

own

refe

ren

cep

oin

tsar

ein

clu

ded

inth

isfi

gu

re.


Figure 4: NEFSC spring bottom trawl survey index standardized anomalies (Z-score) for the NortheastMultispecies Fishery Management Plan groundfish stocks from 1968 to 2017. Note that both theGeorges Bank/Gulf of Maine and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic windowpane flounder stocks arenot included since the spring survey is uninformative as an index of abundance and not used in the stockassessment.


Figure 5: NEFSC fall bottom trawl survey index standardized anomalies (Z-score) for the NortheastMultispecies Fishery Management Plan groundfish stocks from 1963 to 2016. Note that ocean pout isnot included since the fall survey is uninformative as an index of abundance and not used in the stockassessment.


Figure 6: NEFSC spring bottom trawl survey minimum swept area biomass (mt) for the NortheastMultispecies Fishery Management Plan groundfish stocks from 1968 to 2017, by stock. Minimum sweptarea estimates assume a trawl swept area of 0.0112 nm2) (0.0384 km2) based on the wing spread of thetrawl net. Note that both the Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine and Southern New England/Mid-Atlanticwindowpane flounder stocks are not included since the spring survey is uninformative as an index ofabundance and not used in the stock assessment.


Figure 7: NEFSC fall bottom trawl survey minimum swept area biomass (mt) for for the NortheastMultispecies Fishery Management Plan groundfish stocks from 1963 to 2016, by stock. Minimum sweptarea estimates assume a trawl swept area of 0.0112 nm2 (0.0384 km2) based on the wing spread ofthe trawl net. Note that ocean pout is not included since the fall survey is uninformative as an index ofabundance and not used in the stock assessment.


Figure 8: Model-based spawning stock biomass estimates for 11 groundfish stocks, 1985-2016 based onthe Operational Assessments in 2017. Models without model-based biomass estimates are excluded.


Figure 9: Sum of BMSY estimates for nine stocks which had BMSY estimates in 2008 (662,166 mt),2015 (520,725 mt) and 2017 (482,841 mt) assessments. Pollock is not included since biomass targetsnot established until 2010 at SARC 50. BMSY estimates for Gulf of Maine winter flounder, witchflounder and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder are not available as both stock assessments are based onswept area expansions. The assessment model for Georges Bank cod was not accepted for catch advicein 2015 and is currently based on smoothed survey estimates.


1 executive summary - national oceanic and atmospheric ... · 1 executive summary ... (table1) in...

Documents