Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) policy documents and current Ecosystem Status Report (ESR) indicators [1] were reviewed and aligned where possible, with gaps highlighted. Three key policy documents were reviewed in detail and aligned with existing indicators:
Additional policies identify species with EFH and HAPC potentially impacted by each activity, and identify specific threats, best management practices and research needs. These may be reviewed for alignment with existing indicators if time permits:
Policy objectives without current indicators were identified. Information gaps that might be filled with Citizen Science programs were then identified, along with what those programs would need to deliver.
All policy documents were reviewed by the author. Initial matches with ESR indicators were taken from the ESR summary which used Claude Sonnet 4.5 to produce a draft summary and R code to compile indicator descriptions as described here. After initial matches were made, pertinent ESR sections were reviewed by the author to validate matches and provide indicator details.
This document outlines 9 policies and 9 research and information needs.
Research needs are broader and so considered separate from policies here. Both are aligned with existing indicators in the following tables.
Policy | Brief Policy Description | Indicators Outlined in the Policy | Available Indicators | Potential Indicators | Potential Indicator Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forage Fisheries | Consider forage impacts on predator productivity when setting catch limits | Forage stock abundance and dynamics for important forage by FMP (Appendix A) | Forage fish (menhaden) abundance and estuarine crab and shrimp landings | Add food web estimated trends for aggregate forage | High: use current food web model |
Prey Importance | Classify important prey as ecosystem component species | Mass, occurrence, and degree of overlap among multiple predators | Average percent prey in diet by FMP (Appendix A) | Diet analysis to estimate prey mass, occurrence, and degree of overlap among multiple predators | Unknown, dependent on quality of existing food habits data |
Food Web Indicators | Consider food web targets and thresholds for management action | Not listed | Mean Trophic Level | Estimate from food web model | High: use current food web model |
Food Web Connectivity | Account for migratory species interactions across otherwise separate food webs | Not listed | None | Potentially from spatial food web model | Moderate: requires spatial update to food web model |
Trophic Pathways | Maintain diverse (bottom up and top down) energy pathways | Diversity of energy pathways | None | Estimate from food web model | High: use current food web model |
Food Web Models | Use food web models in multiple decision contexts where appropriate | Not listed | None | Identify desirable food web states and estimate from food web model | High: use current food web model, pending Council ecosystem objectives |
Ecosystem Component Species | Definition: otherwise unmanaged species important to achieving ecosystem management objectives | Not listed | None | Use indicators for Prey Importance | High: aggregate indicators available |
Invasive Species | Account for invasive species impacts in management actions | Lionfish predation on and competition with other reef species | None | Analysis of lionfish diet, distribution and abundance, potentially add to food web model | Moderate: published lionfish diet studies exist, requires abundance data and model update |
Contaminants | Consider human health and food web impacts | Not listed | None | Potentially from seafood safety monitoring | Low: published contaminant studies have limited spatial scope |
Overall, while two food web policy related indicators are reported in the 2021 ESR, at least 3 additional policies can be assessed with indicators derived from the existing food web model. Two others could potentially be addressed with more labor intensive updates to the existing food web model by integrating spatial capabilities and existing literature. Some literature information on invasive species diet is available [2,3]. Contaminant studies are not included in the ESR, perhaps due to limited work in the South Atlantic region [4–6].
Research | Available Indicators | Potential Council Actions | Potential Action Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
Climate Impacts on Productivity | CVA, Recruitment of Economically Important Species, Coral Bleaching | Prioritize and tailor to species based on CVA | Moderate: resource intensive depending on priority species |
Offshore Habitats for Estuarine Species | Surface and Bottom Temperature, FL Current Transport, Gulf Stream Position, Upwelling, Primary Productivity, Ocean Acidification | Prioritize and tailor existing indicators to species based on CVA | Moderate: resource intensive depending on priority species |
Role of Forage Species | Forage fish (menhaden) abundance and estuarine crab and shrimp landings | Habitat specific managed species diet | Unknown, dependent on quality of existing food habits data |
Fix Data Gaps | None | Ensure full use of ESR and CVA data, prioritize data for Citizen Science collection | Mixed: will vary by application |
Overarching Risks | CVA, Community CVA, Sea Level Rise, FL Current Transport, Gulf Stream Position, Upwelling | Consider FMP level risks to refine and align existing indicators with management | High: existing CVA and ESR applied by FMP |
Species Risk Assessments | CVA | Clarify additional factors to build on CVA | Moderate: depends on additional factors needed |
MSEs | Peterson et al 2025 | List/provide model code, inputs, and outputs across analyses | High: central repository for existing models |
Ecosystem Reference Points | None | Develop objectives before reference points | Moderate: requires Council objectives to test literature ELRPs |
Essential Fish Habitat | Wetlands and Forests, SAV, Oyster Reefs, Coral Demographics and Bleaching, Nearshore, Offshore Hard Bottom, and Coral Reef Fish Diversity and Abundance | Prioritize and tailor existing indicators to EFH and HAPC | High: many ESR indicators align with habitats |
Research and information needs are already partially addressed by existing CVA [7,8] and ESR indicators, and by current MSE efforts [9]. Collaboration between the Council and NOAA/other partners to identify clear priorities and objectives for research is a practical next step. Many current ESR indicators have the potential to address specific Council needs; collaboration to tailor the indicators for specific uses is recommended. A structured decision process to identify and analyze ecosystem issues (similar to Pacific FEP Initiatives, North Pacific Action Modules, or Gulf Fishery Ecosystem Issues) could help achieve these goals.
Reference material:
This document describes historical and projected ocean conditions in the South Atlantic, climate effects on fish, habitats, and fisheries, information gaps and research priorities, and relationships with SAFMC management. Here, stated management policies and research priorities are aligned with existing indicators. This policy was last updated in 2018, before the 2021 ESR and 2023 CVA were released.
Policy | Brief Policy Description | Indicators Outlined in the Policy | Available Indicators | Potential Indicators | Potential Indicator Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collaboration | Work across jurisdictions with multiple organizations and stakeholders | Species distribution shifts | None | Latitudinal and depth shifts for all or individual species | High: available on DisMAP website |
Climate Indicators | Develop and present climate indicators annually | Climate, ecological, social, and economic trends and status, environmentally driven fishery trends | 5 Climate, 13 Physical, 5 Habitat, 4 Low and 6 Upper Trophic Level, 8 Fishery, Social, and Economic indicator categories | Review and refine existing before considering additional indicators | High: prioritize available indicators for refinement |
Tradeoffs | Consider increased uncertainty and changing productivity in management | Uncertainty and stock productivity | Biomass and Recruitment of Commercially Important Species, Shrimp, Crab, and Oyster landings | Short term ocean forecasts including uncertainty, MSE with changing productivity | Moderate: resources required to integrate regional ocean forecasts and uncertainty in MSE |
Precautionary | Apply precautionary principle under uncertain future climate conditions | Not listed | None | Short term ocean forecasts including uncertainty | Moderate: resources required to process regional ocean forecasts |
New Fisheries | Manage new fishery development to avoid negative EFH impacts | Not listed | None | Landings of currently unmanaged species | Moderate: resources required to compile information from multiple sources |
Many current ESR indicators directly address Climate Variability and Fisheries policy statements. Current gaps related to species distribution shifts and forecast conditions could be filled with existing information. DisMAP indicators summarizing species distribution from the SEAMAP survey are available. Regional ocean model forecasts are available for the South Atlantic region, but resources are required to process, evaluate, and translate these outputs into indicators for management review. Some Councils already receive reports of unmanaged species landings compiled by NOAA Regional Offices. However, these reports focus on commercial landings because there are few information sources for recreational landings of unmanaged species.
Research | Available Indicators | Potential Council Actions | Potential Action Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
Climate Impacts on Productivity | CVA combined with many ESR indicators | Prioritize and tailor existing indicators to species based on CVA | Moderate: resource intensive depending on priority species |
Climate Impacts in Assessments | ESR indicators need refinement for assessment application | Prioritize and tailor existing ESR indicators to assessments based on CVA | Moderate: resource intensive depending on priority species |
3D Estuarine-Coastal-Ocean Observations | Surface and Bottom Temperature, FL Current Transport, Gulf Stream Position, Upwelling | Add ocean model reanalysis products (GLORYS) to existing indicators | High: apply methods and code developed in other regions |
Climate Robust MSE | Peterson et al 2025 | Consider standard climate scenarios in all MSEs | High: develop simple climate scenarios as robustness tests |
Socioeconomic Impacts and Fishery Responses | CVA, Community CVA, Sea Level Rise, FL Current Transport, Gulf Stream Position, Upwelling | Prioritize and tailor existing indicators | High: existing CVA, Community CVA, and ESR indicators |
Offshore Habitats for Estuarine Species | Surface and Bottom Temperature, FL Current Transport, Gulf Stream Position, Upwelling, Primary Productivity, Ocean Acidification | Prioritize and tailor existing indicators to species based on CVA | Moderate: resource intensive depending on priority species |
There are multiple ways to move forward with Climate Variability and Fisheries policies and research priorities given existing indicators and analyses. An initial step is collaborative Council and NOAA review of current indicators to prioritize a subset for refinement and annual updates. The CVA results could help identify a subset of species or a representative species for each FMP for initial focus. Considerable effort towards understanding the social and economic context and community climate vulnerability already exists [10,11] and can contribute to these efforts. Note that the last research priority here is identical to the second research priority identified in the Food Webs and Connectivity Policy.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) or seagrass is an important habitat in the South Atlantic, found primarily in North Carolina and Florida coastal waters. SAFMC has designated SAV to be Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for managed fish (snapper-grouper species and cobia) and invertebrates (Penaeid shrimp and spiny lobster), as well as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for snapper-grouper species.
The Council does not directly manage many of the activities and conditions that affect SAV. The overall policy goal in this document is to support actions that protect and restore SAV throughout the South Atlantic. These actions require collaboration with the four South Atlantic states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, as well as local authorities.
Policy | Brief Policy Description | Indicators Outlined in the Policy | Available Indicators | Potential Indicators | Potential Indicator Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monitoring | Monitoring is needed for assessment and management | SAV distribution and shifts, water quality | SAV extent and % change | Same indicator with more comprehensive data in space and time | Low-Moderate: depends on multiple states resources and coordination |
Planning | Establish goals, objectives, measures of success | Not listed | SAV extent and % change, Coastal salinity | Change in SAV distribution; habitat depth, sediment, light penetration, salinity, and wave energy | Mixed: depends on water quality information availability |
Management | Review existing human activity rules, water quality standards, and restoration guidelines | Not listed | Coastal salinity, Stream flow, Nutrient loading, Coastal and Urban land use | Habitat disturbance indicators (dredging, construction, bottom contact from boating and fishing) | Low-Moderate: resource intensive to collate information from many local sources |
Education and Enforcement | Analyze and communicate benefits of SAV protection, evaluate current enforcement | Not listed | Total ocean economy | Commercial and Recreational landings and value for SAV dependent species | High: subset of information from current indicators |
Existing ESR indicators for SAV, coastal habitat attributes, land use and ocean economy align with SAV policy. Additional indicators of SAV benefits to dependent managed species could be derived from current indicators for commercial and recreational landings and value. However, comprehensive SAV indicators and research would require dedicated effort from multiple partners.
Research | Available Indicators | Potential Council Actions | Potential Action Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
Standardize Mapping Protocols | None | Collaborate with partners to design and implement regional surveys | Moderate: resource intensive proces |
EFH GIS Database | SAV areal coverage and % change based on existing data | Expand Council EFH and HAPC maps | Moderate: resource intensive process |
Evaluate Water Quality | Stream Flow, Nutrient Loading, Precipitation and Drought | Prioritize existing indicators for further refinement | Moderate-High: may need additional indicators for water clarity |
Drivers of SAV Loss | SAV, Stream Flow, Nutrient Loading, Precipitation and Drought, Sea Level Rise, Storms and Hurricanes, Primary Productivity, Human Population, Coastal Land Use | Prioritize existing indicators for further refinement | High: many potential indicators for SAV drivers exist |
Restoration Efficacy | None | Collaborate with partners | Moderate: resource intensive process |
Climate Impacts on SAV | SAV, Surface and Bottom Temperature, Primary Productivity, Ocean Acidification | Consider habitat climate vulnerability assessment | Moderate: resource intensive process |
In general, research priorities for SAV require more coordination and collaboration with state and local partners relative to the priorities above for food web connectivity and climate fisheries interactions. However, the research objectives are clearly stated and well focused. Initial steps could include evaluation and prioritization of ESR indicators for relevance to SAV extent and % change. A longer term project could consider habitat-climate vulnerability analysis as was done for Northeast US Atlantic habitats [12], which would apply not just to SAV but to all Council designated EFH and HAPC.
May contain some useful information but more marsh focused: https://www.conservationgateway.org/collections/land/resilient-coastal-sites-for-conservation-in-the-south-atlantic-us/