class: right, bottom, my-title, title-slide .title[ # Ecosystem Information Review and Strategy Development for More Resilient Fisheries ] .subtitle[ ## SAFMC Project Oversight Team <br />18 March 2026<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> ] .author[ ### Sarah Gaichas, Hydra Scientific LLC ] --- class: top, left # Project Update: Objective 1 *Review the different types of ecosystem data and information including data products and decision-support tools (e.g. Ecosystem Status Reports, Climate Vulnerability Assessments, risk assessments) currently available to the regional management councils and evaluate how they are used in council management processes* .pull-left[ **Literature search:** *Complete* * August 2025-February 2026 * Council documents (policy guidance documents, FMPs/FEPs) * Data products (Ecosystem Status Reports, Climate Vulnerability Assessments) * Peer-reviewed literature All 8 Councils, including SAFMC, plus selected others Presented [Tool and Use summary](https://sgaichas.github.io/HSpresentations/20260115_SAFMC_WK_EcoInfoTools_Gaichas.html) at the Ecosystem Data Workshop 15 January ] .pull-right[ **Semi-structured interviews:** *Complete* * Key Council staff invited (2-4 per region) * Interviews December 2025-January 2026: * Review/validate/update data products and uses of record from lit review * Successes and challenges with current information and processes? * What might be done differently to better meet Council objectives? 35 Contacted, 15 Interviewed + 5 Correspondence 7/8 Councils participated ] Final Report for POT review circulated 25 February 2026 and [posted online](https://sgaichas.github.io/SAFMCindicators/AllCouncilDataReview.html) --- background-image: url("https://github.com/sgaichas/HSpresentations/raw/main/docs/images/RFMC+Map+2025.png") background-size: 430px background-position: top right ## Learning from the Councils: Diverse Ecosystem Approaches **1. FMP/Indicator-Based (North Pacific, Pacific, Mid-Atlantic, New England)** - High-value, data-rich stocks with complex assessments - Annual ecosystem reports, indicators can inform assessments - Risk tables and uncertainty frameworks integrate ecosystem considerations - Non-regulatory Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) provide actionable pathways **2. FEP/Geography-Based (Western Pacific, Caribbean)** - Human community connections to complex and data-limited fisheries - Place-based ecosystem or fishery management plans serve as operational management documents - Co-developed with stakeholders reflecting distinct regional conditions - Ecosystem considerations embedded in management structure **3. Developing Approaches (South Atlantic, Gulf)** - Recreational fishery dominance with fewer assessments relative to managed species - Species-based FMPs with expanding ecosystem integration - South Atlantic links Essential Fish Habitat with ecosystem efforts - Gulf developing Fishery Ecosystem Issues as action-oriented framework --- ## Common Management Concerns .pull-left[ **Forage Fish**: Multiple Councils have implemented protections for unmanaged forage species or developed harvest control rules accounting for ecosystem services. ] .pull-right[ **Climate Change**: All regions are addressing rapid ecosystem changes. Data-rich systems with long-term ecosystem reporting have experienced unexpected stock collapses, highlighting the need for climate-ready management approaches. ] -- ## Common Challenges **Complexity of Ecosystem Information**: Council staff emphasize the need to provide information in "digestible packets," with clear linkages to management processes and decisions. **Resource constraints**: Even data-rich regions identify capacity limitations for integrating ecosystem information into management. **Stakeholder perceptions**: In some regions, considering ecosystem information is viewed as only increasing restrictions, rather than expanding opportunities. --- ## Successful Practices **Iterative Co-Development:** Ecosystem reports have been restructured with Council feedback in several regions, enhancing report utility. Most FEPs emphasize collaborative development of problem statements, analyses, conceptual models, model scenarios, and indicators with fishers, managers, and scientists. -- **Risk-Based Frameworks:** North Pacific, Pacific, New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Caribbean are developing or have implemented indicator-based risk assessments to adjust catch advice and/or to support strategic decisions. -- **Actionable FEPs:** “Action modules” (North Pacific), “Initiatives” (Pacific), “Fishery Ecosystem Issues” (Gulf), and the EAFM approach in the Mid-Atlantic provide structured pathways from fishery ecosystem plans to management action for specific, Council-selected issues. -- **Multi-scale Ecosystem Information:** Regular reporting at the ecosystem scale provides context for decisions and familiarity with ecosystem data. Stock-specific ecosystem reports link environmental drivers to individual stock productivity for use in stock assessment and catch specification. A structured dialogue process between ecosystem and stock assessment scientists is producing similar stock-level information in the Pacific. --- ## SAFMC Unique Strengths * Habitat-Ecosystem Integration: Explicitly links EFH policies with ecosystem approaches through comprehensive policy statements * Citizen Science: Proactive incorporation of participatory data collection * Existing Products: Recent ESR, fish CVA, and fishing community CVA provide ready-to-use information * Modeling Investments: The regional food web model is poised to address Council questions The South Atlantic’s combination of habitat focus, existing ecosystem tools, and commitment to stakeholder engagement provides a strong foundation for advancing ecosystem-based fishery management in ways responsive to the region’s unique challenges and opportunities. .center[  ] --- ## Preliminary Recommendations for SAFMC * Hybrid Approach: Given mix of data-rich and data-limited stocks across diverse habitats, combining aspects of successful practices from different Councils has more potential than adopting a particular Council’s ecosystem approach * Leverage Existing Products: Align indicators from the South Atlantic ESR with objectives in EFH policy documents and CVA results to evaluate whether an integrated risk assessment framework could be developed * Formalize Action Process: Consider a process to develop explicit ecosystem initiatives or issues (similar to Pacific, North Pacific, Gulf) to move from planning to tangible management actions on priority topics * Update Reporting Frequency: Work toward more regular ecosystem reporting focused on Council-derived objectives and associated indicators produced with streamlined automation processes developed for the Caribbean ESR * Expand CVA Use: Consider climate vulnerability information in management processes where characterizing uncertainty is important (SSC ABC decisions) * Explore Novel Approaches: Evaluate multispecies management strategies using the existing food web model, considering both commercial yield and recreational fishing opportunity objectives --- # Project Update: Objective 2 *Identify opportunities and methods for incorporating identified ecosystem information into SAFMC management processes, including inter-jurisdictional management decision- making processes, and identify practical requirements for successful implementation (e.g. data quality, frequency of information updates, regional council process consistency, implementation timelines)* .pull-left[ **Initial focus on catch specification** * Climate vulnerability consideration in current SAFMC risk policy? * Utility of an ecosystem profile approach? * Risk table approaches used/piloted in other regions? * SSC meeting in April to discuss options **Prototype indicators from global sources** **Alignment of EFH/FEP policies and indicators** ] .pull-right[ **Broaden to other processes using a review of 3-5 years of Council actions** * Classify management decisions by data needs and process timelines * Develop a prioritized list of processes linked to ecosystem information * Recommend practical pathways for implementation **Feedback requested: priority management actions?** ] --- ## Opportunities within the [recently approved Comprehensive ABC Control Rule](https://safmc.net/documents/abccram_06052023_submittal-pdf/) .pull-left[ Dolphin-Wahoo, Golden Crab, Snapper Grouper <img src="20260318_SAFMC_POT3_Gaichas_files/figure-html/ABCSAFMC-1.png" width="504" /> ] .pull-right[ Council reviews SSC and AP advice on risk rating. Council can deviate, up or down, from default P* by up to 10%. Specific attributes that can inform risk of overfishing: * Biological: * Estimated natural mortality * Age at maturity * Human Dimension: * Ability to regulate fishery * Potential for discard losses * Annual commercial value * Recreational desirability * Social concerns * Environmental: * Ecosystem importance * Climate change * Other environmental variables ] ??? 2. Control Rule: Table 2.1.2 Risk Tolerance: Council specifies using Table 2.1.3 Overfished Stocks: ABC from Council’s specified rebuilding plan 2b. Council can deviate, up or down. from default P* by up to 10% 2c. Constant and annual ABC recommendations adjusting P* above the value set by the SSC should be infrequent and well-justified based on new scientific understanding and the Council’s risk tolerance. --- background-image: url("https://github.com/sgaichas/SAFMCindicators/raw/main/docs/images/NEFMC_RiskPolicy2026.png") background-size: 900px background-position: center bottom 45px ## Indicators in Risk Policy: New England (in development) Factors are scored, weighted, and combined for each stock to recommend risk tolerance Risk tolerance &rarr; proportion of maximum fishing rate in harvest control rules .footnote[ Source: [January 2026 Council Meeting](https://d23h0vhsm26o6d.cloudfront.net/8b.-Kerr_Council_RiskPolicy_1_28_26.pdf) ] --- background-image: url("https://github.com/sgaichas/SAFMCindicators/raw/main/docs/images/Honeycomb%20Graphic.png") background-size: 800px background-position: right ## Indicators in Catch Specification: North Pacific .pull-left-30[ ESR and or ESP &rarr; Stock Risk Table Since risk tables were introduced (2018): 14 stocks have had reductions from the maximum permissible recommended catch due to risk information regarding stock assessment, population dynamics, fishery concerns, and ecosystem concerns. .footnote[ See [Dorn and Zador 2020](https://spj.science.org/doi/10.1080/20964129.2020.1813634) ] ] .pull-right-70[ .footnote[ Figure courtesy Ebett Siddon, AFSC ] ] --- ## North Pacific Risk Tables (in use): Increased Risk &rarr; Increased Precaution <div class="tabwid"><style>.cl-8ab0e2d2{}.cl-8aad79a8{font-family:'Helvetica';font-size:11pt;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);background-color:transparent;}.cl-8aaf3ae0{margin:0;text-align:left;border-bottom: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-top: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);padding-bottom:5pt;padding-top:5pt;padding-left:5pt;padding-right:5pt;line-height: 1;background-color:transparent;}.cl-8aaf4738{width:2in;background-color:transparent;vertical-align: middle;border-bottom: 1.5pt solid rgba(102, 102, 102, 1.00);border-top: 1.5pt solid rgba(102, 102, 102, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;}.cl-8aaf4742{width:2in;background-color:rgba(255, 255, 255, 1.00);vertical-align: middle;border-bottom: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-top: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;}.cl-8aaf4743{width:2in;background-color:rgba(255, 255, 0, 0.31);vertical-align: middle;border-bottom: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-top: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;}.cl-8aaf4744{width:2in;background-color:rgba(255, 0, 0, 0.31);vertical-align: middle;border-bottom: 1.5pt solid rgba(102, 102, 102, 1.00);border-top: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;}</style><table data-quarto-disable-processing='true' class='cl-8ab0e2d2'><caption style="display:table-caption;margin:0pt;text-align:center;border-bottom: 0.00pt solid transparent;border-top: 0.00pt solid transparent;border-left: 0.00pt solid transparent;border-right: 0.00pt solid transparent;padding-top:3pt;padding-bottom:3pt;padding-left:3pt;padding-right:3pt;line-height: 1;background-color:transparent;"><span>North Pacific Risk Levels and Indicator Criteria</span></caption><thead><tr style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><th class="cl-8aaf4738"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Risk Level</span></p></th><th class="cl-8aaf4738"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Assessment-related Considerations</span></p></th><th class="cl-8aaf4738"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Population Dynamics Considerations</span></p></th><th class="cl-8aaf4738"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Ecosystem Considerations</span></p></th><th class="cl-8aaf4738"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Fishery-informed Stock Considerations</span></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><td class="cl-8aaf4742"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Level 1: Minimal Concern</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4742"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4742"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4742"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">No apparent environmental/ecosystem concerns.</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4742"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td></tr><tr style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><td class="cl-8aaf4743"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Level 2: Increased Concern</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4743"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4743"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4743"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Multiple indicators showing consistent adverse signals a) across the same trophic level as the stock, and/or b) up or down trophic levels (i.e., predators and prey of the stock).</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4743"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td></tr><tr style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><td class="cl-8aaf4744"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Level 3: Extreme Concern</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4744"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4744"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4744"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">Extreme anomalies in multiple ecosystem indicators that are highly likely to impact the stock; Potential for cascading effects on other ecosystem components.</span></p></td><td class="cl-8aaf4744"><p class="cl-8aaf3ae0"><span class="cl-8aad79a8">...</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div> Potential Action: Minimal Concern &rarr; No Catch Reduction from Maximum Allowed Increased Concern &rarr; <span style="background-color:#FFFF0050;">Some Catch Reduction</span> Extreme Concern &rarr; <span style="background-color:#FF000050;">More Catch Reduction</span> .footnote[ Source: [Draft 2025 Blue King Crab Risk Table](https://meetings.npfmc.org/CommentReview/DownloadFile?p=db212742-5381-4c72-b8cf-f95a7913d11e.pdf&fileName=PIBKC%20SAFE%202025%20Appendix%20B.pdf) ] --- ## Pacific Risk Tables (in testing): Two Way Street <div class="tabwid"><style>.cl-8acaac6c{}.cl-8ac7c5ec{font-family:'Helvetica';font-size:11pt;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);background-color:transparent;}.cl-8ac8cd8e{margin:0;text-align:left;border-bottom: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-top: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);padding-bottom:5pt;padding-top:5pt;padding-left:5pt;padding-right:5pt;line-height: 1;background-color:transparent;}.cl-8ac8d892{width:4in;background-color:transparent;vertical-align: middle;border-bottom: 1.5pt solid rgba(102, 102, 102, 1.00);border-top: 1.5pt solid rgba(102, 102, 102, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;}.cl-8ac8d89c{width:4in;background-color:rgba(0, 255, 0, 0.31);vertical-align: middle;border-bottom: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-top: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;}.cl-8ac8d89d{width:4in;background-color:rgba(255, 255, 255, 1.00);vertical-align: middle;border-bottom: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-top: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;}.cl-8ac8d8a6{width:4in;background-color:rgba(255, 0, 0, 0.31);vertical-align: middle;border-bottom: 1.5pt solid rgba(102, 102, 102, 1.00);border-top: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-left: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);border-right: 0 solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.00);margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;}</style><table data-quarto-disable-processing='true' class='cl-8acaac6c'><caption style="display:table-caption;margin:0pt;text-align:center;border-bottom: 0.00pt solid transparent;border-top: 0.00pt solid transparent;border-left: 0.00pt solid transparent;border-right: 0.00pt solid transparent;padding-top:3pt;padding-bottom:3pt;padding-left:3pt;padding-right:3pt;line-height: 1;background-color:transparent;"><span>Pacific Pilot Risk Levels and Indicator Criteria.</span></caption><thead><tr style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><th class="cl-8ac8d892"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Risk Level</span></p></th><th class="cl-8ac8d892"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Ecosystem and Environmental Conditions</span></p></th><th class="cl-8ac8d892"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Assessment Data Inputs</span></p></th><th class="cl-8ac8d892"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Assessment Model Fits and Structural Uncertainty</span></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><td class="cl-8ac8d89c"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Level 1: Favorable</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d89c"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Indicators not used in the stock assessment show medium to high level of agreement and moderate to strong evidence supporting high species productivity.</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d89c"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d89c"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">...</span></p></td></tr><tr style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><td class="cl-8ac8d89d"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Level 2: Neutral</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d89d"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Majority of indicators show no notable trends and/or no apparent environmental and ecosystem concerns.</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d89d"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d89d"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">...</span></p></td></tr><tr style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><td class="cl-8ac8d8a6"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Level 3: Unfavorable</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d8a6"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">Majority of indicators show medium to high level of agreement and moderate to strong evidence supporting low species productivity</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d8a6"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">...</span></p></td><td class="cl-8ac8d8a6"><p class="cl-8ac8cd8e"><span class="cl-8ac7c5ec">...</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div> Potential Action: Favorable Conditions &rarr; <span style="background-color:#00FF0050;">Decrease Risk Buffer (Higher Catch Recommendation)</span> Neutral Conditions &rarr; Keep Standard Risk Buffer (Standard Catch Recommendation) Unfavorable Conditions &rarr; <span style="background-color:#FF000050;">Increase Risk Buffer (Lower Catch Recommendation)</span> .footnote[ Source: [CCIEA Risk Table Report](https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2024/08/h-1-a-cciea-team-report-1-cciea-risk-table-report-on-fep-initiative-4.pdf/) ] --- .pull-left[ ## Prototype Ocean Indicators Regional ocean models and global ocean models already provide both hindcasts and forecasts of ocean temperature and salinity for the South Atlantic. * NOAA MOM6 model (https://psl.noaa.gov/cefi_portal/) * Copernicus ocean reanalysis (https://data.marine.copernicus.eu/products) NEFSC has developed code to derive indicators from these data sources for the region north of Cape Hatteras. The code could be modified to derive prototype indicators for the South Atlantic region. **Feedback requested: Is this worth persuing? What work has been done already?** ] .pull-right[ *2024 NEFSC SOE Report: Number of days at scallop-stressing bottom temperature in 2023* .center[  ] .footnote[ Image courtesy Joseph Caracappa, NEFSC ] ] --- background-image: url("https://github.com/NOAA-EDAB/presentations/raw/master/docs/EDAB_images/NCVAdolfinwahooCM.png") background-size: 600px background-position: right # Project Update: Objective 3 .pull-left[ *Identify opportunities to continue to expand cooperative, constituent-engaged data collection and research to improve the available ecosystem information in the South Atlantic region (e.g., study fleets, cooperative research, citizen science).* **Review existing SAFMC Citizen Science efforts** Prioritize potential cooperative data collections based on the analysis of SAFMC management processes most likely to benefit from ecosystem information noted under the previous objective, and outline opportunities for expansion to collect this priority data https://safmc.net/citizen-science/dolphin-wahoo-participatory-workshops/ .footnote[ https://safmc-shinyapps.shinyapps.io/NCVA_DolphinWorkshops2020/ ] ] .pull-right[ .center[ ] ] ???  --- ## Integration with Citizen Science One potential extension of existing South Atlantic cooperative data collection could be ocean temperature observations for comparison with regional or global ocean data products such as MOM6 and GLORYS. .pull-left[ Comparisons of vessel-collected temperature with model assimilated temperature can identify where improvements can be made to models as well as provide more direct information for management in near-real time. The Northeast U.S. eMOLT (Environmental Monitors on Lobster Traps and Large Trawlers) program regularly compares bottom temperature data collected aboard fishing vessels with regional ocean model bottom temperature predictions, highlighting both areas of agreement and areas where measurements and model predictions diverge. .footnote[ Source: weekly eMOLT update email, George Maynard, eMOLT coordinator ] ] .pull-right[  ] --- background-image: url("https://github.com/sgaichas/HSpresentations/raw/main/docs/images/StudyFleet_Infographic_v2_text.png") background-size: 800px background-position: right .pull-left-30[ ## Cooperative Research Multiple [cooperative research programs](https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/science-data/cooperative-research-southeast) exist in the Southeast. A [study fleet](https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/science-data/cooperative-research-northeast#study-fleet) could collect data for ecosystem indicators. Data collected by vessels participating in the NEFSC study fleet program have been used in species distribution modeling, biological studies, evaluation of potential ocean industry user conflicts, and as supporting data for stock assessment. This program also collects oceanographic indicators which are directly associated with haul level catch data, allowing analysis of habitat associations. ] .pull-right-70[ .footnote[ Source: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/science-data/cooperative-research-northeast ] ] ??? --- # Deliverables and Schedule **Project duration ~1 year, with regular Project Oversight Team updates** * **31 October 2025:** Interim Report on all Councils data products and approaches to Project Oversight Team for feedback and revision * **31 January 2026:** Draft Report on all Councils data products and approaches to Council and Presentation at Ecosystem Data Gaps Workshop * **30 April 2026:** Draft Report on Pathways for Integrating Ecosystem Information and Prototype Ocean Indicators to SSC and Council Committees for feedback and revision * **31 July 2026:** Final Report and summary for South Atlantic Bite to Council * **September 2026:** Present all project results at Council meeting .footnote[ Slides available at https://sgaichas.github.io/HSpresentations Contact: <sgaichas@hydrascientificllc.com> ] ???