Challenges, Opportunities and Future 

Directions to Advance NOAA Fisheries 

Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs): 

Report of the National ESR Workshop

Wencheng L. Slater, Geret DePiper, Jamison M. Gove, Chris J. Harvey, 

Elliott L. Hazen, Sean M. Lucey, Mandy Karnauskas, Seann D. Regan, 

Elizabeth C. Siddon, Ellen M. Yasumiishi, Stephani G. Zador, Margaret 

M. Brady, Michael D. Ford, Roger B. Griffis, Rebecca L. Shuford, 

Howard M. Townsend, Todd D. O'Brien, Jay O. Peterson, Kenric E. 

Osgood, and Jason S. Link

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-174 

September 2017 
 
Challenges, Opportunities and Future Directions to Advance 

NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs): 

Report of the National ESR Workshop

Wencheng L. Slater, Geret DePiper, Jamison M. Gove, Chris J. Harvey, Elliott L. Hazen, Sean 

M. Lucey, Mandy Karnauskas, Seann D. Regan, Elizabeth C. Siddon, Ellen M. Yasumiishi, 

Stephani G. Zador, Margaret M. Brady, Michael D. Ford, Roger B. Griffis, Rebecca L. Shuford, 

Howard M. Townsend, Todd D. O'Brien, Jay O. Peterson, Kenric E. Osgood, and Jason S. Link 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-174

September 2017

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Benjamin Friedman, Acting NOAA Administrator 

 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
ii 

Recommended citation:

Slater, W. L., G. DePiper, J. M. Gove, C. J. Harvey, E. L. Hazen, S. M. Lucey, M. Karnauskas, S. 

D. Regan, E. C. Siddon, E. M. Yasumiishi, S. G. Zador, M. M. Brady, M. D. Ford, R. B. Griffis, 

R. L. Shuford, H. M. Townsend, T. D. O'Brien, J. O. Peterson, K. E. Osgood, and J. S. Link, 

2017. Challenges, Opportunities and Future Directions to Advance NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem 

Status Reports (ESRs): Report of the National ESR Workshop. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-F/SPO-174, 66 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

Office of Science and Technology 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1315 East-West Highway, F/ST 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Or online at:

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/
iii 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................................... 3

Current Status of Ecosystem Status Reports ................................................................................... 6

Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................... 11

Action Items and Next Steps......................................................................................................... 18

Regional Plans for the Next Round of ESRs ................................................................................ 19

Five-Year Plan for the Northeast Ecosystem Status Report ..................................................... 20

The Gulf of Mexico IEA Ecosystem Status Report .................................................................. 24

Five-Year Plan for the California Current Ecosystem Status Report ........................................ 27

Five-year Plan for Alaska’s Ecosystem Status Reports ............................................................ 31

Five-year Plan for West Hawai‘i’s Ecosystem Status Report ................................................... 34

References ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A - Workshop Agenda .................................................................................................. 39

Appendix B - Participants list ....................................................................................................... 41

Appendix C - Pre-Workshop Survey and Responses .................................................................... 43

Appendix D – Acronyms Table ..................................................................................................... 65

 
iv 

Executive Summary 

Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs) are synthesized scientific products that provide information 

on the past and possible future conditions of marine ecosystems based on suites of indicators. 

This information provides vital context for a range of decisions affecting marine ecosystems 

and supports an ecosystem approach to marine resource management. Advancing ESRs is a 

goal of the NOAA Fisheries and one of the core components called for the NOAA Fisheries 

Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Road Map, NOAA Fisheries Climate Science 

Strategy (NCSS), the NOAA Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) regional plans, and the 

National Responses to the FY 2016 Reviews of NOAA Fisheries’ Ecosystem-Related Science 

Programs. 

In May 2017, NOAA Fisheries held a workshop in Silver Spring to review the status of ESRs, 

develop plans to meet emerging requirements, and examine how to track progress in ESRs 

within each region. This workshop involved a pre-meeting assessment of current ESR efforts 

and was the first time the leads for all the ESRs across the country (the national ESR team) 

gathered for cross-regional collaboration and planning. This effort identified key challenges, 

opportunities and future efforts to advance ESRs in each region over the next five years. 

ESRs provide timely and holistic ecosystem context as a background for stock assessments and 

other marine resource management. With indicators on socio-economic, biological, physical, 

and chemical aspects of ecosystems, the ESRs provide comprehensive system descriptions and 

valuable information on past, current and projected states of U.S. large marine ecosystems 

(LMEs) for marine resource managers and stakeholders such as NOAA Fisheries scientists and 

managers, Fishery Management Councils (FMCs), regional fishery commissions, state and 

tribal governments, and National Marine Sanctuaries. 

During the workshop, participants identified goals for enhancing and expanding the 

applicability of ESRs, specifically focusing on ESR production, ecosystem indicator selection 

and development, ESR delivery, and how to evaluate the effectiveness of ESRs. Workshop 

participants valued the opportunity to share their experiences and explore best practices offered 

by each of the Science Center representatives. At the end of the workshop, each regional ESR 

representative identified their priorities and next steps for addressing current, emerging, and 

future ecosystem science and management objectives. The national ESR team developed the 

following guidelines for improving ESRs: 

1) Establish a platform for information exchange, tool sharing, and data repository. 

2) Incentivize engagement with and contribution to ESRs within NOAA Fisheries, across 

NOAA Line Offices, and beyond. 

3) Develop strategies for streamlining ESR production and incorporation into the decisionmaking process. 

4) Increase analytic capacity of indicator reporting. 

5) Improve the ability to project future states of the system. 
v 

6) Develop appropriate indicators for human dimensions, recruitment strengths, ocean 

acidification, management complexity and for harmful algal blooms and other unusual 

events. 

7) Broaden communication with multiple users, including NOAA Fisheries Regional Offices. 

8) Develop a metrics and evaluation process to measure the effectiveness and uptake of ESR 

products. 

Implementing ESRs in all NOAA Fisheries’ regions is a critical step towards implementing 

EBFM and other key strategies and mandates. While additional efforts are needed—including 

increasing staff time and other resources, organizing targeted workshops and working groups, 

leveraging expertise and experiences across regions, engaging with the broader community, and 

increasing collaboration among NOAA focal components—the national ESR team will 

continue advancing ESRs as a key tool for promoting healthy and resilient ecosystems and 

productive and sustainable fisheries. 
vi 

Acknowledgements 

This workshop was supported by the Fisheries and the Environment (FATE) and IEA programs 

at NOAA Fisheries. The authors thank the NOAA Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

NOAA National Weather Service and NOAA Office of the Chief Administrative Officer for their 

techical support and use of the venue. We especially thank Vernon Cooper, Kelvin James, and 

Camille Jones for arranging the conference room, setting up the AV system, and gathering 

meeting materials. We appreciate the rapporteuring efforts from 2017 Knauss fellows Taylor 

Armstrong and Amber Bellamy. Special thanks go to John Thibodeau, Adina Gewirtz, and the 

Economics and Social Analysis Division of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and 

Technology for their professional editing. Finally, we thank the NOAA Fisheries Office of 

Science and Technology for overall assistance and funding support for the workshop. 
1 

Background 

NOAA Fisheries has recently codified its support for ecosystem-based management with the 

release of its EBFM Policy (NMFS, 2016a) and Road Map (NMFS, 2016b) in November 2016. 

As NOAA Fisheries strives to meet its multiple mandates, account for environmental changes, 

and assess trade-offs for actions that impact multiple resources, there is an increasing demand for 

information on past, current and future conditions of ocean and coastal ecosystems. In order to 

effectively manage resources in a changing environment, decision-makers need ecological 

information provided through a coordinated, holistic approach that addresses issues across 

species and mandates. NOAA Fisheries has recognized this critical need, calling for improved 

understanding of ecosystem processes to better inform marine resource management. 

To assist decision-makers coping with changing ocean conditions and complex issues that 

confront our valuable marine ecosystems, each ESR regional team endeavors to provide 

ecosystem context for marine resource management. In collaboration with other NOAA 

facilities, academics, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), NOAA Fisheries scientists 

analyze environmental and socioeconomic data and synthesize biological, physical, chemical, 

and socioeconomic indicators with support from the FATE program, the IEA program, and other 

ecosystem science-related programs in NOAA. ESRs take advantage of the confluence of 

scientific disciplines to generate our best thinking on ecosystem conditions, and many of the 

indicators developed by ESR regional teams have been used in regional IEAs, state resource 

management, and fishery stock assessments. 

By providing system context and highlighting the status and trends of indicators, ESRs are 

instrumental in supporting ecosystem-level advice for marine resource management. What began 

as an organic assembly in a few NOAA Fisheries Science Centers, today has propagated across 

the country to become a key product in all five NOAA IEA program regions. By producing 

summaries of ecosystem dynamics, including pressures and responses, ESRs provide 

comprehensive information for Fishery Management Councils, regional fishery commissions, 

state and tribal governments, National Marine Sanctuaries, and other marine resource 

management organizations. Currently published and routinely updated ESRs are: 

 The Ecosystem Status Report for the Northeast (NE) Shelf LME (including the Current 

Conditions and the Climate update) (NEFSC, 2017a, b, c, d); 

 The Gulf of Mexico (GOM) IEA Ecosystem Status Report (Karnauskas et al., 2017); 

 The California Current (CC) Ecosystem Status Report (Harvey and Garfield, 2017); 

 The Alaska (AK) Marine Ecosystem Considerations (including Eastern Bering Sea ESR, 

Gulf of Alaska ESR, and Aleutian Islands ESR) (Zador, 2016; Zador and Siddon, 2016; 

Zador and Yasumiishi, 2016); and 

 The West Hawai‘i (WH) IEA Ecosystem Trends and Status Report (Gove et al., 2016). 

ESRs play a significant role in aggregating disparate science programs and providing scientific 

information to support marine resource management. Successfully meeting the information 

demands requires understanding the status of ecosystem properties in each region, identifying 

clear goals, developing plans to meet the requirements, and tracking progress over time. To 
2 

address near-term issues and provide long-term planning, NOAA Fisheries held an ESR 

workshop in Silver Spring, MD from May 16 to 19, 2017. This workshop aligned with priorities 

of the FATE and IEA programs: to develop and apply ecosystem science to fishery stock 

assessment and NOAA’s growing and diverse marine management partners’ needs. This 

workshop also addressed calls to advance ESRs in Action Items 15 and 16 of the National 

Responses to the FY 2016 Reviews of NOAA Fisheries’ Ecosystem-Related Science Programs 

(NMFS, 2016c), Action Item 2bi of the EBFM Road Map (NMFS, 2016b), and Objective 6 of 

the NCSS (Link et al., 2015). 

 
3 

Terms of Reference 

Background 

Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs) are being developed in all NOAA Fisheries regions. With high 

and growing demand for information on ecosystem conditions from many sectors, ESRs are 

becoming important in supporting holistic approaches to management and are useful to NOAA 

Fisheries and other marine resource managers. To address the increasing demand for 

comprehensive information, NOAA leadership must understand the present state of ESRs in each 

region so that it can develop plans to meet new requirements and measure success. All current 

regional ESRs can be found at https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/transferknowledge/science-supporting-ecosystem-status.html. 

Goal 

The goal of the ESR workshop was to analyze the current state and application of ESRs, assess 

requirements for enhancing and expanding ESR applicability, and identify next steps to address 

current, emerging, and future ecosystem science and management objectives. 

Objectives 

1. Describe the current state of reporting and evaluate ESRs in each NOAA Fisheries region in 

terms of report goals, content, use, and success. Discuss particular strengths, limitations, and 

lessons learned that could be applied across regions, focusing on both the scientific and 

management uses of ESRs. 

2. Determine how ESRs should address the requirements for the NCSS, the EBFM Road Map, 

regional IEA work plans, and other ecosystem needs. 

3. Develop a plan to continue advancing ESRs. The plan should include a five-year timeline 

and mechanisms for integration/cross-pollination across all regions. Consider future 

directions for ESRs that address new thinking, needs, and drivers, and focus on delivering 

ESR information to fisheries and other relevant management processes. 

ESR Workshop Design 

A three-day workshop was held at NOAA Headquarters (Silver Spring, MD) on May 16–18, 

2017. The attendees included 1) experts involved in the development of ESRs, 2) senior leaders, 

related specialists, or stakeholders identified by each of the regional ESR experts, and 3) 

ecosystem program managers from headquarters. Participants from each Science Center 
4 

developed introductory material before the workshop. The workshop was divided into two main 

parts, described below. 

Part 1: Current State 

The first portion of the workshop reviewed the current state of ESRs. Participants provided 

materials in advance, and during the session shared goals and objectives, design considerations, 

underlying science, and delivery mechanisms. Participants also discussed the nature of 

communication between ESR producers and users to understand how this information is being 

used in fisheries and ecosystem management. 

Some specific questions included: 

1. What are the goals and objectives of the ESR? 

a. What are the overall goals and objectives? 

b. What needs/requirements are we trying to address? 

c. Who are the target audiences/users? 

d. What impact are we trying to have? 

2. What are the contents of the ESR currently in place? What should an ESR contain and what 

is outside its boundaries? 

a. Do ESRs address similar indicators? (e.g., EBFM Road Map action item 2b) 

b. What are the management and science mandates that ESRs address? 

c. What management needs are not met by current ESRs? Should they be part of a future 

 ESR? 

3. What is the mode of delivery of ESRs between NOAA Fisheries and users? 

a. What are effective ways to report data? 

b. Are there advantages to using similar formats across regional ESRs? 

c. To what extent should we try to standardize ESR format and content across regions? 

4. Who is using the ESRs, how are they using them, and what are the impacts? 

a. Who is using them? 

b. How are they being used (e.g., what management decisions are being informed?) 

c. How are those decisions influenced? 

d. What impact is this having? Can we assess the impacts? 

e. Are there existing or new requirements that are not being met effectively? 

5. What changes to ESRs (timing, format, content, mode of presentation and dissemination, etc.) 

might improve their efficacy? 

a. What are the top five challenges/weaknesses of the current ESR that need to be addressed 

to better achieve its goal and objectives? 

b. What are the key changes needed to better meet the ESR goals and objectives? 
5 

Part 2: Future State 

The second portion of the workshop aimed to improve the ESR to better meet current and new 

goals, objectives, and requirements. Participants explored these capabilities and asked why they 

are needed, what they entail, and how to achieve them. Participants explored what changes to 

ESRs might improve their efficacy, identified the key capabilities that need to be included or 

expanded, and examined the key steps to advancing ESRs over the next five years. 

Some specific capabilities to consider include: 

1. The incorporation of key indicators to serve as early warning signals and to adequately track 

and forecast climate-related ecosystem changes. 

2. The inclusion of human dimensions indicators to advance plans for an integrated socioecological system approach. 

3. The use of new statistical techniques to isolate signals in time-series data. 

4. Exploring the role of spatial scale in ESRs. For example, are there available datasets that are 

underrepresented in regional ESRs? What are the overlap and divergence in indicators 

among ESRs? 

5. Expansion of ESR applicability to meet NOAA Fisheries and other ecosystem management 

needs. 

6. Ability to meet Science Center indicator information needs. 

7. Expansion of ESR capacity to be diagnostic of ecosystem conditions (e.g., indicators across 

ecosystem components). 

8. Expansion of ESR capacity to include analyses of risk as well as prediction of future states. 

9. Development of online frameworks and formats (e.g., interactive data interface, customized 

indicator plots and data access) for improved efficiencies in ESR creation and delivery. 
6 

Current Status of Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs) 

The Marine Ecosystem Division of the Office of Science and Technology organized a preworkshop survey and a pre-workshop webinar to assess the strengths, weaknesses, best 

practices and future needs of the current ESR systems. Major strengths across ESRs were 

quality and quantity of information and the tailoring of applications to local resource 

management. On the other hand, participants identified shared challenges to the ESR 

production cycle, including insufficient staff time and limited resources, issues of spatial and 

temporal relevance, data management, timing of the ESR release, and the difficulty of 

strategically updating ESRs. Best practices that could be applied across regions include 

providing an ESR template and standardizing data formats, streamlining the internal reviewing 

process, adopting narrative writing rather than simple reporting, providing content and short 

summaries before giving a science presentation to end-users, openly and broadly 

communicating with users, identifying users who can quickly facilitate science-to-management 

actions, and tailoring ESR messages for different users. 

Production 

The production periods and releases of ESRs vary among regions. AK ESRs (Zador, 2016; Zador 

and Siddon, 2016; Zador and Yasumiishi, 2016) and CC ESR (Harvey and Garfield, 2017) are 

updated annually, and they have established a routine schedule of ESR production that

coordinates with their Fishery Management Councils (Table 1). The GOM ESR (Karnauskas et 

al., 2017) is currently updated every four years. West Hawai‘i published their first ESR (Gove et 

al., 2016) in September 2016 and will potentially update their ESR every two to three years 

depending on resources. The Northeast has a suite of products that include a Current Conditions 

(NEFSC, 2017c) and Climate Update (NEFSC, 2017d) that are issued twice a year, as well as 

two annual State of the Ecosystem reports (NEFSC, 2017 a, b) for the two FMCs they serve. 

The common challenges in ESR production are scales and scopes, timing, and limited resources 

(i.e., staff time and funding). Both the spatial and temporal scales and the scopes of ESRs need to 

be matched with management relevance, and the timing and frequency of releases and updates 

should be coordinated with decision-making time frames. Meeting production deadlines is 

challenging due to the limited availability of resources needed to process large amounts of data 

in a timely fashion. In general, there is insufficient staff time and funding, and in some regions, 

such as GOM and WH, the ESR production heavily relies on regional ecosystem scientists. 

Staffing dedicated to the development of ESRs would be tremendously beneficial to meet the 

growing demand for these ESR products. 

 
7 

Table 1. Annual ESR production time line in California Current and Alaska regions

California Current region Alaska region 

Jan Experts provide short interpretation 

Feb Edit figures and sections and submit to 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC) 

Mar Present to the Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC), various council 

advisory bodies, and the full PFMC. 

Apr Collect data from spring to fall 

May 

Jun 

Jul Indicator update requests; final solicitation of 

Aug new indicators (otherwise occurs year-round)

Sep Technical review of select indicators and

analyses by SSC 

Primary presentation to the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA) groundfish plan teams 

Oct  Compile data from long-term 

monitoring programs 

 Implement recommendations from 

SSC 

 Generate contents, conduct time-series 

analysis, and update website 

Submit report 

Nov Final presentation to the BSAI and

GOA groundfish teams 

Dec Present to the Science and Statistical 

Committee, Advisory Panel and the council, post reports and update website 

Indicators

The regional ESR teams focus on providing the best available science for marine resource 

management, and ESRs have indicators covering physical, chemical, biological, and 

socioeconomic factors. There are common indicators across regions, but each region also 

carries unique indicators for their end-users’ needs (Table 2). Indicators are selected based on 

expert opinions, manager feedback, peer-reviewed literature like Kershner et al. 2011 and Zador 

et al. 2017. At the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), the indicator selection was 

also informed by the output of ecosystem models (Anderson et al., 2002; Hoegh-Guldberg, 

2009; Hughes et al., 2010; McClanahan et al., 2011; Guillemot et al., 2014). NOAA Fisheries 

Science Centers also consider statistics like redundancy analysis, feedback from managers, and 

data availability when refining their indicator suites. An example of incorporating feedback 

from managers was provided by the CC team, which collaborated with the PFMC to improve 

the CC ESR using a formal process under the Council’s Fishery Ecosystem Plan (Box 1). 

 
8 

Table 2. Select common and unique indicators from the regional ESRs. 

Common Indicators Unique Indicators 

Physical: Sea Surface Temperature (SST), sea 

level, and large-scale climate 

indicators (e.g., Gulf Stream North 

Wall, Atlantic Multidecadal 

Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation (PDO), El Niño-Southern 

Oscillation (ENSO), etc.)

Upwelling (CC), snowpack (CC),

streamflow (CC), eddy kinetic 

energy (AK and WH), wave power 

(WH) 

Chemical: Ocean acidification (OA), dissolved 

oxygen/hypoxia 

Eutrophication (GOM) 

Biological: Primary production, zooplankton 

abundance, biodiversity, fish 

abundance, biomass ratios 

Landings by aggregate groups (NE 

and CC), mean-trophic level (GOM 

and CC), bird abundance (GOM 

and CC), bird productivity (AK), 

bird diets (AK), fur seal pup 

production (AK), Macroalgae 

cover (WH), coral disease (WH), 

and invasive species (WH) 

Social and

Economic: 

Fishery revenue, recreational fishing, 

coastal population, community social 

vulnerability indicators 

Human population and growth 

(GOM, AK, and WH), school enrollment (AK), unemployment 

trends (AK), habit disturbance by 

trawls (AK), number of 

visitors (WH), shoreline modification (WH), on-site disposal system 

(WH) 

Delivery and communication

Most regions target FMCs as their primary audiences. WH, on the other hand, targets state 

managers. Some regions also regard scientists and NGOs as their end users as well. All regions 

provide their ESRs in the Portable Document Format (PDF) format, and most regions distribute 

the ESRs via the Science Center’s website and deliver presentations to their core users. Lack of 

travel funding is an issue for directly delivering to and communicating with the end users. The 

CCIEA team is planning to use a pre-recorded webinar for people who can’t attend presentations 

and to engage with more audiences. 

The ESR teams face challenges in formatting when FMCs request a short, written format, but 

some information is better presented in 3D or on web-based applications. In addition, managers 

may not have enough time to explore all ecosystem considerations, and the ESR report could be 

challenging for individuals to digest in a short time. Therefore, providing a “so-what” message 

(why the users should care) in addition to broader reports is often key to enhancing delivery 

efficacy. 
9 

Evaluating the effectiveness of ESRs 

ESRs directly influence decision making in marine resource management. For example, the 

2016 salmon harvest decision in the Pacific Fishery Management Region was influenced by the 

snowpack information in the 2015 CC ESR (Harvey and Garfield, 2017), and the tier level for 

harvest specifications in the Alaska region is adjusted according to the AK ESRs (Zador, 2016; 

Zador and Siddon, 2016; Zador and Yasumiishi, 2016). In Hawai‘i, the Coral Bleaching 

Recovery Plan (State of Hawai‘i, 2017a) and the 30x30 plan (State of Hawai‘i, 2017b) are 

informed by the WH ESR. ESRs also indirectly influence decision making by promoting 

ecosystem awareness in resource management. For example, Gulf of Mexico-wide ecosystem 

reorganization was discovered after the publication of the first GOM ESR (Karnauskas et al., 

2013), and this has influenced the management view on data streams in the region. 

Most regional ESR teams evaluate the effectiveness of their ESRs by noting how often end 

users respond to the ESR through direct feedback or by citing the report. The regional ESR 

teams follow up with end users and observes whether they have continually engaged with the 

report, requested updates, and if they have taken the advice offered in the ESR into account 

when making decisions. In addition, the GOM team has also adopted Google Analytics to track 

users of its ESR website and to evaluate the website’s effectiveness. 
10 

Box 1. Improvements to the California Current ESR under the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) 

In some cases, ESR end users may have processes in place that facilitate improvements to 

an ESR, ideally in collaboration with ecosystem scientists. Recently, the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC) and the California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment 

(CCIEA) team engaged in a collaboration to better the CC ESR. The effort stemmed from a 

special initiative under the PFMC’s Fishery Ecosystem Plan (PFMC 2013). 

The FEP provides guidance on using ecosystem science to enhance single-species 

management activities under the PFMC’s four Fishery Management Plans. It was in this 

FEP, in fact, that the PFMC first formally requested that NOAA Fisheries produce an annual 

ESR. While that formal request had guidelines on ESR format and content, it offered few 

specifics on which indicators should be included, and at what scales they should be 

summarized. The CCIEA team did its best to author ESRs that fit PFMC needs, but after 

numerous discussions decided that the CC ESR could be better aligned to PFMC needs. 

The PFMC’s FEP includes an “initiative” process, which directs studies issues that are 

relevant to two or more Fishery Management Plans. In 2015, the PFMC adopted the 

“Coordinated Ecosystem Indicator Review Initiative” to improve the ESR and make it a 

more effective decision-support document. Under this Initiative, an Ecosystem Working 

Group made up of representatives from state, tribal and federal fisheries agencies led a twoyear process of reviewing and refining the physical, chemical, biological and 

socioeconomic indicators in the CC ESR. This process included CCIEA scientists, PFMC 

technical committees, and advisory bodies that represent a breadth of stakeholder groups. 

Highlights of this initiative process included: 

 A series of five webinars, broadly publicized by the PFMC, in which CCIEA scientists provided detailed descriptions of the indicators; each webinar concluded with an extended session of questions and comments from webinar attendees. 

 An extensive review of the CC ESR and webinars by the PFMC technical committees and 

advisory bodies, coordinated by the Ecosystem Working Group. 

 An annotated table of recommended changes to the CC ESR compiled by the Ecosystem 

Working Group and provided to both the CCIEA team and to the PFMC. 

 A timeline for implementing recommended changes, developed collaboratively by the 

CCIEA team and the Ecosystem Working Group. 

Further details on this initiative process are available at http://www.pcouncil.org/ecosystembased-management/coordinated-ecosystem-indicator-review-initiative/. 

The process has led to many insights on the types of indicators, data visualizations, and 

spatiotemporal scaling that are most helpful to the PFMC. Moreover, dialogue between the 

CCIEA team and PFMC bodies has increased substantially. This engagement will not only 

improve the alignment of the CC ESR to PFMC needs, it will also help the CCIEA team to 

more clearly understand existing and emerging PFMC priorities. This understanding should 

lead to more useful synthesis-level products, such as risk assessments and scenario 

analyses, which the CCIEA team will be developing in the years ahead. 
11 

Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations 

Internal Communication 

Workshop participants regarded leveraging expertise and experiences across regions as a 

valuable goal, especially with respect to reducing duplicate efforts. They recognized the need to 

build an internal communication and collaboration platform for information exchange and tool 

sharing. Establishing a group email and a shared drive or a code repository were therefore 

proposed during the discussion. 

Although ESR teams meet at various workshops, this was the first time that all regional 

representatives gathered to discuss improving ESRs. Participants expressed the need for frequent 

meetings and dedicated time to discuss ESRs. Post-workshop meetings at the upcoming 2017 

National IEA meeting in June and the 2017 FATE Science Meeting in September were proposed 

to extend the conversations among ESR regional teams. 

Recommendations

● Build a communication framework and foster information sharing. 

● Establish tool exchange mechanisms across regions. 

● Establish a national ESR team and continue engagement with each other beyond this 

workshop. 

Production 

Timing, in regard to both releases and updates, is one of the common challenges in ESR 

production. Production time frames are not easy to synchronize with managers’ decision-making 

processes. For example, with no single decision-making time frame in the New England FMC or 

Mid-Atlantic FMC, the Northeast ESR team produces reports in April, which may not be the best 

time for some management decisions. Participants concurred that those producing ESRs should 

coordinate with their users to enhance the report’s application and influence, and specific 

updating strategies should be developed based on the local decision-making process. 

Ideally, ESRs would be updated frequently as soon as new information is available, however 

each region updates ESRs at different intervals based on team capacity and management 

readiness and need. Production could be accelerated by common tools that could combine 

indicators e.g. multivariate analysis and automated functions, as well as by conducting 

redundancy analysis or related multivariate statistical analyses to delineate indicator groupings. 

To alleviate the burden of data processing and expedite the updates of ESRs, participants 

suggested developing codes for automatic real-time updating and adopting a standardized report 

format. Improved automation, particularly of readily available data, would allow for synthesis 

across LMEs and on a national level that is currently difficult to achieve. 
12 

Another challenge is choosing proper spatial and temporal scales. ESRs often cover extensive 

geographic areas and contain various elements, from fisheries to human communities. Even 

within the same region, users request various ESR products over different spatial scales and time 

frames. For example, a Gulf of Mexico-wide indicator may not be the best fit for an unusual 

local event like an oil spill. To make ESRs more applicable, the group emphasized the 

importance of matching with management scales. A long-term goal would be to produce 

customized ESRs targeted to specific stakeholders and management questions, which would be 

produced more frequently, more quickly and at finer scales; however, with the current resources 

available this is unrealistic. Instead, we recommend publishing a comprehensive ESR once every 

few years while more frequently updating several addenda ESRs to specific users. The 

participants concluded that strategic updating of ESRs and the inclusion of primary users in the 

production process would help ensure the products meet regional needs. 

Currently there are a number of ecosystem science efforts at NOAA Fisheries, including climate 

Regional Action Plans, EBFM Road Map, IEA, and ESRs, but there were concerns that a small 

number of people involved in ecosystem science are being tapped for these multiple efforts. It 

remains critical moving forward to align these groups and efforts. In addition, staff resources 

towards ecosystem science and management vary by region; some regions have big teams, but 

some only have a few people. Regardless of team size, people working on ESRs can only devote 

a portion of their time to producing them, and thus dedicated staff time will greatly enhance ESR 

production. Meanwhile, the approval process of ESR reports takes different lengths of time in 

different regions. It could be up to several months in some regions. 

The participants concluded that streamlining the process by standardizing formats, adopting 

automation, increasing staff time on ESRs, expediting approval processes, developing update 

strategies and coordinating various ecosystem efforts would significantly smooth the production 

cycle of ESRs. It would also shorten the timing gaps between ESR production and the FMCs’ or 

other users’ decision-making process. 

Recommendations

● Examine needs for improving automation. 

● Develop strategies for routine updates. 

● Develop a plan for incorporating priority users into the production process. 

● Develop a plan for streamlined production and standard internal review and approval 

processes. 

● Formally include staff’s contributions to ESRs in their performance plans and national 

recognition. 

Indicators 

While traditional ESRs cover vast areas, requests for more subregional scale ESRs are 

increasing, and each region has specific needs. For some regions this means improving the 
13 

spatial resolution of data collection and resultant ESRs. Information and data are often lacking, 

however, which limits the capability to produce local indicators. For example, there are more 

data available from the Eastern Bering Sea region than the other regions in Alaska. More regionspecific data and adaptive sampling are needed to support producing ESRs at finer scales. 

Participants recommended gap analysis as the first step in increasing the resolution of ESRs, as 

well as expanding ESRs to include new indicators tailored to each region’s management needs. 

More indicators for management complexity, distribution and patchiness of parameters, harmful 

algal blooms or other unusual events, ocean acidification, recruitment strength, 

aggregate/synthetic measures, and general predictive capability will be developed according to 

regional needs. 

ESR representatives emphasized the importance of developing more human dimension indicators 

to increase the applicability to management. Participants proposed both developing indicators of 

coastal vulnerability and management complexity and increasing coordination with economics to 

strengthen the human dimension component of ESRs. The group also proposed incorporating 

traditional and local ecological knowledge in future ESRs to include the fine-scale information 

held by indigenous communities, commercial and recreational fishermen, and other resourceuser groups. While each of these indicators would be LME specific, developing them nationally 

would be a great best practice from the ESR working group. 

Participants recommended determining whether a standardized time period or indicator-specific 

time period is appropriate when examining state and trends. For example, some regions use the 

most recent five years to assess whether a statistical trend exists, while longer periods might be 

better for indicators of slower processes, such as population trends in marine mammals or 

dynamics of decadal-scale climate indicators. Another recommendation was to conduct 

comparative analysis to determine whether standard time periods or process-specific time 

periods are appropriate. 

To continue improving current indicators, participants concluded that cross-regional data science 

and statistics workshops are needed to hone analytical skills, especially on trend analysis, 

selecting and vetting indicators, short-term predictability, determining thresholds, network 

analysis, and indicator synthesis. One of the cross-region needs that was discussed for enhancing 

current indicators in ESR is acquiring a common Chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) indicator or source of 

indicators from satellites. ESR leads will work with the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and 

Technology, which is actively working with multiple offices within NESDIS and with NOAA 

Fisheries satellite oceanographers. Together, they can provide ESR developers with the specific 

satellite data most relevant to their region and deliver with the right frequency and latency. In 

general, to advance current biological understanding, ESRs should cover more ecological 

interactions and species conditions. The ESRs would also benefit from the use of integrative, 

aggregate, or synthetic indicators. 

Other issues discussed during the workshop included quantifying uncertainty, bundling 

indicators, and identifying thresholds. By improving the standardization, synthesis, and analysis 

of the current indicators and developing more broad-scale multivariate-type indicators, the ESR 

team will enhance existing indicators and add new ones based on end-user feedback, which will 

in turn enhance ESR applicability. 
14 

Recommendations

● Identify data gaps needed to develop/report on indicators. 

● Continue work with Office of Science and Technology and engage with satellite 

requirements processes (NOAA and National Aeronautics and Space Administration) e.g. 

for Chl-a data and other common needs. 

● Examine ways to develop human dimension indicator(s) of management complexity. 

● Examine ways to foster development of additional human-dimensions indicators with 

national comparability (when possible). 

● Explore synthetic/aggregate/integrative measures. 

● Examine ways to develop indicators for recruitment strength, harmful algal blooms or 

other unusual events and monitor pH, nutrients, and dissolved oxygen. 

● Examine ways to include prediction or leading indicators in ESRs. 

● Explore traditional ecological knowledge and consider incorporating into ESRs. 

● Arrange workshops to expand and enhance indicators and analytical skills. 

Delivery and Communication 

ESR teams noted that some graphics are more descriptive for end users than time-series plots. 

For example, the CC ESR team shared a “quad plot” figure that summarizes recent trends from 

multiple time series, and reported that quad plots have been well-received by the PFMC. Some 

ESR teams have also observed that presenting the data in a map format helps users visualize and 

understand the information, thus Geographic Information System (GIS) expertise would be 

beneficial. Participants proposed the establishment of working groups or webinars to share 

experience on data presentation and to improve data visualization. 

Long-format, comprehensive ESRs can often lose the “so what” message. The Northeast ESR 

team rearranged their reports to the New England FMC and the Mid-Atlantic FMC to start with 

human dimensions and work down to the base of the food chain and physical/climate indicators. 

This allowed managers to see the things that resonate most with them first, while the rest of the 

document provided context for why they may be seeing certain trends. The reaction to this 

change has been overwhelmingly positive. More generally, ESR teams saw the value in 

providing a short summary with a “so-what” message, building a user-friendly data delivery 

platform, and providing better tailor-made content to different end users to improve the delivery 

effectiveness. Cooperation with Regional Offices is also recommended to integrate their 

expertise, knowledge, and relationships and facilitate better communication with FMC users. 

Besides FMCs, there are many potential users, and participants agreed on the need to 

communicate to them with the languages and platforms they use. Social media has been 

instrumental in publicizing information and has resulted in rapid user uptake. For example, after 

a popular Facebook video highlighted the dangers of oxybenzone, a common UV absorber, to 

coral reefs, lawmakers proposed a bill to ban the sale of the ingredient in sunscreen sold in 
15 

Hawai‘i. In the future, ESR teams may explore forms of information delivery other than PDFs on 

websites to amplify the influence of ESRs by engaging with broader audiences. 

Participants suggested wider-ranging advertisement of ESRs and other ecosystem activities to 

support other potential users. Promotion activities could include announcing ESR updates with 

news releases, and continuing to publish ESR results in peer-review journals. The national team 

discussed writing a joint paper about common indicators and national trends. Participants 

concluded that they would work on improving data visualization, web utilization, advertising 

ESRs and communicating with stakeholders. 

Recommendations

● Develop visual depiction and description of ecosystem data, status and trends. 

● Work closely with Regional Offices and advisory bodies to better understand their needs 

for ESRs and improve effectiveness. 

● Increase the exposure of ESRs and related ecosystem products by publishing peerreviewed papers and news releases. 

● Develop plans to improve communication and relevance with a broader audience. 

Evaluating Impact and Applications 

Most regions have published ESRs on websites, and participants noted the need to track and 

evaluate interest or visits to website products. The Gulf of Mexico ESR team uses Google 

Analytics to track users of the website, and other ESR teams expressed interest in employing this 

tool. Participants proposed a demonstration webinar so other teams could learn and evaluate the 

tool. 

Participants suggested tracking the uptake and application of ecosystem science products into 

management processes and decision making both directly and indirectly. We can track the direct 

influence of ESRs by tracing the impacts of scientific documents, citations, and downloads. 

Other direct measures include whether information from ESRs was used as context in decisionmaking, whether ESR data has been included in stock assessments, risk assessment, or 

Biological Opinions, and whether ESRs were directly cited in various management plans and 

scientific literature. We may also consider the evaluation process and the progress measurement 

matrix from other science-to-management programs and organizations like the Stock Assessment 

program and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. 

ESRs and many other ecosystem efforts together contribute to indirect impacts like raising 

awareness and changing perspectives. For example, there was no consideration of “community 

vulnerability” in management decisions decades ago, but it has become common now because of 

the awareness developed through ecosystem-based management and many other ecosystem 

efforts. Similarly, key words such as “risk assessments” or “climate vulnerability” can be 

discussed in management documents without mentioning inspirations from products such as 

ESRs or other ecosystem-related products. We could be creative when the linkage between ESRs 

and impact on management is indirect. For example, a proposed way to quantify the indirect 
16 

impact of ESRs is to analyze ecosystem-related keywords in Science Center publications, gray 

literature, and FMC meeting minutes and other documents. 

Participants concluded it is beneficial to track and measure the influence of ESRs since proper 

evaluation is helpful to substantiate resource requirements regionally and nationally, and to keep 

ESR efforts moving forward. 

Recommendations

● Examine ways to adopt Google Analytics to better identify users and evaluate delivery 

effectiveness. 

● Research possible criteria and measures to quantify progress and success in ESR 

application and influence on management. 

● Evaluate the impact of ESRs on management by researching instances of management 

basing decisions on ecosystem science and by analyzing FMC documents and reports 

(e.g. Scientific and Statistical Committee minutes), gray literature and Science Center 

publications for evidence of influence. 

Institutional Support 

Participants raised concerns that within Science Centers, ESRs often get less support than more 

routinely produced scientific products (e.g., stock assessments) and therefore are not given 

sufficient staff time or recognition within employee performance plans. As a result, ESR leaders 

experience difficulties getting input from other NOAA Fisheries employees, who are already 

quite busy and may perceive little personal gain in contributing time and effort to these reports. 

ESR teams also encounter obstacles obtaining the survey data from certain taxa-oriented groups. 

Since many highly migratory species are economically important, marine mammals have 

protected status, and marine sanctuaries are a target user of ESRs, increasing collaboration with 

scientists and managers working in these areas would enhance data access and prompt ESR 

applications. The participants concluded that ESR producers need support from leadership to 

incentivize employees to work on ESRs and other ecosystem portfolio components like stock 

assessment and habitat science in order to break barriers among focal components. 

Other desirable national support areas include 1) a database framework for indicators and 

narratives, 2) a full time IT employee for data organization, front-end development, and tool 

programming, 3) outreach and stakeholder engagement specialists, and 4) GIS specialists. With 

this institutional support, the national ESR team would be able to build a national-level database, 

produce standardized graphics, retain knowledge, stay updated on current technology, raise 

awareness and promote engagement, and most importantly, be able to focus on science and boost 

the overall efficiency of ESR production. 

 
17 

Recommendations

● Examine ways to incentivize staff engagement, participation, and contribution. 

● Examine ways to incorporate ESRs and other ecosystem portfolios into performance 

plans. 

● Broaden promotion of ESRs and other ecosystem priorities, including relevance to stock 

assessments. 

● Broaden engagement with other focal components within NOAA. 
18 

Action Items and Next Steps 

1. Build a communication platform and foster information sharing and tool exchanges 

across regions. 

2. Establish a national ESR team and have members continue engagement with each other 

beyond the time period of the workshop. 

3. Organize a national workshop on common analytical techniques: 

• Develop a proposal. 

• Arrange workshops to improve indicators. 

• Write a paper on ESR common indicators. 

4. Examine needs for improving automation: 

• Develop a proposal. 

5. Work closely with Regional Offices and advisory bodies to better understand their needs 

for ESRs, to improve effectiveness and to engage these partners: 

• Develop a list of partners currently being engaged, partners’ teams hope to 

engage, or other partnerships. 

6. Arrange a Google Analytics webinar to better identify users and evaluate delivery 

effectiveness. 

7. Continue work with Office of Science and Technology for Chl-a data and other common 

needs. 

8. Research possible criteria and tools to measure progress and success in ESR application 

and influence on management. 

 
19 

Regional Plans for the Next Round of ESRs 
20 

Five-Year Plan for the Northeast Ecosystem Status Report 

Mission/Vision 

The Northeast Ecosystem Status Report is a suite of products designed to inform stakeholders of 

recent and long-term trends in the ecosystem. It is meant to provide living marine resource 

managers the physical, ecological and social context needed for decision-making. 

Goals and Objectives 

The goal of the Northeast Ecosystem Status Report is to generate products useful for living 

marine resource managers. The products are tailored to provide information at different spatial 

and temporal scales. The most recent product, the State of the Ecosystem report, is tailored for 

the specific management council for which it is being produced. Ideally, reports will be 

representative of species, activities, and processes within the system that are most relevant to the 

management body receiving them. 

Progress 

The Northeast Ecosystem Status Report is actually a suite of products produced at different 

intervals. It includes a static encyclopedic webpage on the Ecology of the Northeast Shelf, a 

Climate Change webpage that is updated as new information becomes available, a Current 

Conditions webpage that is updated twice a year, and the annual State of the Ecosystem reports 

generated for the Mid-Atlantic and New England FMCs. The actual “Ecosystem Status Report,” 

which was a product that was meant to be updated every two to three years, is also on the 

website but has not been updated since 2014. All of the products with the exception of the State 

of the Ecosystem reports can be found on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Ecosystem 

webpage (https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/). 

The strength of the approach by the Northeast is the extensive list of indicators represented 

across the range of products. Together they represent a fairly comprehensive list of indicators for 

the Northeast Shelf. Some of the products are updated quite frequently (twice a year for Current 

Conditions), while others have become more static. A new strength of the State of the Ecosystem 

Reports is reproducibility. The Northeast has recently adopted the use of the R Markdown file 

format and a standard data format, which not only ensures reproducibility, but also allows new 

reports to be generated quickly. 

Key challenges with the current approach are the lack of a clear message, stagnant content, and 

effective visualization. Managers are most interested in the “so what” message. With so many 

products, it can be difficult to coordinate the message, or the message may get lost in the volume 

of data. It is also difficult to identify the key audience for the products. Different audiences 

require different delivery methods, with more scientific audiences interested in graphs, while the 

public may prefer maps or other forms of visualization. 

 
21 

Top Priorities for the Next Five Years

1. Automation 

A core challenge in the Northeast is the time commitment necessary to produce the State of the 

Ecosystem reports on an annual basis, as requested by Northeast’s two core clients (New England Fishery Management Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). By standardizing the data formatting and automating core components of ESR analysis, the team hopes 

that effort can be shifted from production to research and interpretation in order to better develop 

the proactive management advice requested by clients. In support of this, the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center is transitioning to platforms such as GitHub and software including R Markdown 

to streamline the production process. This will increase process transparency and reproducibility 

while decreasing the time investment necessary to produce the ESR on an ongoing basis. 

2. Statistical analyses 

Historically, the Northeast ESR has relied on the mean-variance tickertape representation of time 

series originally developed in the Alaska ESR. In the most recent iteration, the Northeast has 

transitioned to nonparametric Mann-Kendall statistical trend analyses to focus attention on significant trends. Ultimately, however, the Northeast is working towards multivariate and spatial 

analysis to extend the ability to develop proactive management advice and develop a more nuanced assessment of the system. 

3. Redesigned web interface 

The suite of Ecosystem Status Report products is housed on the Northeast Fishery Science Center’s Ecosystem website. Most of the products were developed independently and contain overlapping content. Some of the data is outdated and needs to be replaced. In the coming years the 

Northeast plans to overhaul the website to have better coordination between the products. This 

should enhance the delivery to stakeholders and result in better integration of the information by 

management. 

4. Becoming more inclusive 

The current production of Ecosystem Status Report products is handled by the Ecosystems Dynamics and Assessment Branch of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. One goal is to make 

the Ecosystem Status Report more of a Center-wide product by involving more branches and 

divisions across the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. A State of the Ecosystem workshop was 

held in July 2017 where various branches were represented to discuss the production of the 

council reports. Further collaborations are planned for the remainder of the year leading up to 

the production of new reports. 

Expected Impact/Outcomes/Products

The ESR team expects closer cooperation with branches throughout the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center to make the suite of Ecosystem Status Report products more of a Center-wide 

product. The Northeast will develop a clear “so what” message for the relevant management 

bodies, and coordinate the various products to support that message. The revamped website will 
22 

also offer a more coordinated message with less redundant data and updated information 

whenever it becomes available. Expected products include: 

1. Tech memo of approach (statistical representation, metadata, etc.) for citation, reproducibility, and scientific rigor. 

2. Paper on alignment of indicators to objectives, redundancy analysis, and multivariate 

analysis. 

3. Tailored annual State of the Ecosystem reports (Regional for councils, others ad hoc). 

4. Mid-Atlantic Risk Assessment based on indicators contained within the State of the Ecosystem Report. 

Timeline and Approaches/Actions 

Activity/Priority Approach/Action Timeline 

Automation Develop R Markdown for 

State of the Ecosystem Reports 

Completed April 2017 

Develop standard format to 

receive data 

Completed April 2017 

Statistical Analysis Explore statistical tests for 

linear and non-linear time 

series 

Winter 2017/2018 

Explore methods for indicator 

selection 

Fall 2018 

Redesign Web Interface Examine content for redundancy Fall 2017 

Develop new organization for 

content 

Winter 2017/2018 

Populate website based on 

new organizational scheme 

Spring 2018 

Becoming More Inclusive Create process for developing 

reports and incorporating new 

indicators 

Completed July 2017 

Hold State of the Ecosystem 

workshop 

Summer each year 

Hold focus group meetings 

with branches across the Center 

Summer each year 
23 

Hold Center-wide meeting to 

develop synthesized message 

across indicators 

January each year 

Deliver State of the Ecosystem Reports Provide a PDF of the report 

as well as present at each 

council’s meeting 

April each year 

Create citable document Develop a NOAA Tech 

Memo that details the methods used to generate the various indicators 

Summer 2018 

Develop reports for other 

entities 

Develop similar State of the 

Ecosystem reports for organizations other than the Fishery 

Management Councils as 

needed 

As needed but no earlier than 

2019 

Aid in Mid-Atlantic risk assessment Provide the most recent status 

and trends from the State of 

the Ecosystem report for the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s risk assessment 

October 2018 

Continue support of other 

ESR products 

Continue to add content to 

climate change website and 

bi-annual updates of Current 

Conditions 

Spring/Fall each year 
24 

The Gulf of Mexico IEA Ecosystem Status Report 

Mission/Vision 

The overall mission of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) IEA program is to “balance the needs of 

nature and society through integrated science for current and future generations.” The GOM 

ESR is intended to support this mission by tracking status and trends in order to understand the 

influence of ecosystem stressors and determine the impact of various management actions. 

Goals and Objectives 

● To synthesize information on a wide range of ecosystem components, including human 

communities, in a concise and readable report. 

● To provide scientific knowledge of the Gulf of Mexico integrated ecosystem, and transfer that 

knowledge to scientists and managers. 

● To provide a broad-level overview of the current state of the Gulf of Mexico with respect to 

recent and historical trends. 

Progress 

An initial GOM ESR was published in 2014, and the first update report was published in 2017. 

The update report was structured based on informal feedback from managers and users of the 

initial report. Indicator selection was based on this scoping effort, as well as other criteria such as 

data accessibility, statistical redundancy, conceptual basis, and representation in temporal, 

spatial, and societal dimensions. The update report included a reduced and more refined suite of 

indicators that were thought to be responsive to management needs. Another major strength of 

both reports was the highly diverse author group, and in particular, the update report contained 

strong social science representation that resulted in a thorough section on human dimensions 

indicators. Finally, a web version of the update report was used to communicate a subset of the 

indicators, with the thought that multiple communication formats would broaden the potential 

audience. 

Both versions of the GOM ESR reported indicators largely at basin-wide, national, or regional 

scales, which is a challenge for uptake in management, as larger scales may not be relevant to 

management bodies. For example, a state agency may be a target audience, but not all of the 

indicators can be interpreted as representing processes relevant to the scales they manage. 

Further exploration of relevant spatial scales would be useful. Also, uncertainty estimates 
25 

reported with each indicator would be useful for understanding the significance of observed 

trends. 

Top Priorities for the Next Five Years 

1. Complete follow-up analyses based on indicators from the 2017 Update Report. This includes 

analyses of effects of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill and Bayesian network analysis 

to predict fish responses to climate change and their vulnerability on a local scale in response 

to management changes. 

• Publish online appendices to the 2017 ESR on website. Includes the analyses described 

in (1), plus single-species recruitment predictions (red snapper and gag grouper). 

2. Begin addressing research recommendations with respect to refining some indicators. This 

includes leveraging expertise from the National Centers for Environmental Information to 

identify better satellite data sources, updating indicators on estuarine productivity, and 

improving indicators derived from eBird data. Consider reformatting delivery of indicators so 

that they align with legislative objectives, as is done by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

(NEFSC). 

3. Update online-only indicators annually and post to website. 

4. Explore and, as necessary, create improved data archiving and metadata system. 

5. Explore opportunities for outreach of ESR material and extended analyses. 

6. Carry out scoping, fully overhaul ESR and publish subsequent update report. 

Timeline and Approaches/Actions 

Action Deadline 

Complete analyses on effects of DWH oil spill. December 2017 

Complete Bayesian network analysis to predict fish responses to climate 

change. 

September 2017 

Complete single-species recruitment predictions. July 2017 

Publish online appendices to 2017 ESR on website. Ongoing 
26 

Leverage expertise from the National Centers for Environmental Information 

to identify better satellite data sources. 

Ongoing 

Update indicators on estuarine productivity. 2018 

Improve indicators derived from eBird data. 2018 

Align indicators with legislative objectives. 2018 

Update online-only indicators annually and post to website. March of every 

year 

Explore and, as necessary, create improved data archiving and metadata 

system. 

Ongoing 

Explore opportunities for outreach of ESR material and extended analyses. Ongoing 

Carry out scoping, fully overhaul ESR and publish subsequent Update 

Report. 

2022 

Expected impact/Outcomes/Products 

Expected outcomes include: 

● Peer-reviewed papers and conference presentations on DWH impacts and fish-climate 

responses. 

● Online appendices summarizing important findings from follow-up analyses. 

● Refined indicators to be used in subsequent update of ESR. 

● Improved access to indicator data from ESR. 

● Increased consumption of ESR by management bodies, particularly the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

● Increased awareness of Gulf of Mexico ecosystem processes and linkages by target audiences 

 (scientists, managers, and general public). 
27 

Five-Year Plan for the California Current Ecosystem Status Report 

Mission/Vision 

The present mission for the California Current ESR is to ensure that the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC) understands the physical, ecological, and social conditions that 

form the ecosystem context for fisheries management and decision making. The vision for the 

future is that the ESR will provide contextual information for a broader suite of stakeholders and 

end-users (states, tribes, National Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA Regional Office partners), and that 

it will expand to include synthesis products such as risk assessment and predictive analyses. 

Goals and Objectives 

The current objective of the California Current ESR is to provide the PFMC with an annual 

update of the status, trends, and variability of a broad suite of ecosystem indicators related to 

climate, oceanographic, chemical, biological, fisheries, and socioeconomic attributes. These 

indicators are intended to be analyzed at spatiotemporal scales that are directly relevant to PFMC 

management activities and legislative mandates. Based on specifications outlined in the PFMC 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), the report should be concise, timely, and designed to help the 

PFMC incorporate ecosystem considerations into decision-making. 

Progress 

The California Current ESR is produced by the California Current Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessment (CCIEA) team, made up of scientists from the Northwest, Southwest and Alaska 

Fisheries Science Centers. The ESR has been released in March each year since 2013. It includes 

a written report (~20 pages, plus appendices) for the PFMC March Briefing Book, and a ~30-

minute presentation during an open session of the annual March PFMC meeting. Through an 

FEP Initiative in 2015–2017 and annual meetings with the PFMC Scientific and SSC, the ESR 

team has received regular feedback to tailor content and improve statistical analyses and data 

visualization. These interactions have improved the quality of the ESR and strengthened twoway communication between ecosystem scientists and the PFMC. 

Other strengths of the report include: leveraging a broad and extensive network of monitoring 

programs and time series along the West Coast; a quantitative approach to indicator evaluation; 

participation of scientists ranging from climate scientists and oceanographers to social scientists; 

and the debt of leadership owed to the AFSC for the example set by its longstanding 

“Ecosystems Considerations” reports. 

Key issues include: report staffing/production effort; data/monitoring gaps; the challenges of data 

availability, data quality and data visualization at fine, management-relevant spatial scales; 

developing a complementary web-based ESR that can be updated more frequently; and how to 

best incorporate higher-level products such as quantitative risk assessments associated with 
28 

important ecosystem pressures. The regular system of feedback between the ESR team and the 

PFMC provides a means by which these and other emerging issues can be prioritized. 

Top Priorities for the Next Five Years 

1. Closing gaps in data and analyses. The most pressing data gaps are for coastal pelagic species, 

highly migratory species, whales, seabirds and human systems. A key analytical gap is in time 

series analyses that separate underlying trends from observation error. Emergent gaps and 

needs are inevitable and require flexibility. 

2. Improving the efficiency of report production (e.g., automation of figures, formatting) and the 

quality of graphics. This includes launching a semi-automated, web-based ESR with the most 

up-to-date data. 

3. Refining the spatial scale at which indicators are analyzed, to match the needs of the PFMC. 

4. Incorporating higher-level analytical products, such as risk assessments, ecosystem-based 

reference points, and analyses with a short- to medium-term prediction skills. 

5. Implementing these improvements without making the report significantly longer or 

sacrificing effective narrative flow in the text. 

6. Developing a complementary, concise, web-based ESR for a broader, multisector audience, 

without sacrificing the quality of the present ESR or its value to the PFMC. This will be done 

in collaboration with regional partners (state and federal agencies, tribes, etc.). 

7. Providing targeted ESRs that leverage web-based delivery, in order to address finer-scale 

applications and issues as they arise, e.g., PFMC Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation 

(SAFE) reports, and quarterly/event-based updates, if possible. 

Timeline and Approaches/Actions 

Activity/Priority Approach/Action Timeline

Generate ESR for 

PFMC 

Update/compile/analyze present current 

indicators; write accompanying text. 

October-March 

each fiscal year 

Close data and analysis 

gaps 

Meet with PFMC SSC for technical reviews of 

indicators and analytical methods. 

September each 

year 
29 

Address gaps and requests identified in the 

2015–2017 FEP Initiative process. 

Ongoing 

Improve efficiency of 

ESR production 

Automate report generation using the R 

Markdown coding environment. 

Starting in 

March 2018 

Migrate all indicator data and figure generation to 

common, coast-wide platform (SWFSC 

Environmental Research Division’s Data Access 

Program (ERDDAP)). 

Fall 2018 

Launch web-based ESR, customized for PFMC 

and containing automated indicator data updates. 

Spring 2019 

Refine spatial scale of 

indicators 

Engage in annual discussions with PFMC, SSC, 

West Coast Region, and other partners to identify 

questions, scales, analyses, and visualization 

methods. 

Ongoing 

Incorporate higherlevel analytical 

products 

Engage in annual discussions with PFMC, SSC, 

West Coast Region, and other partners to identify 

management priorities, scales, analyses, and 

visualization methods. 

Ongoing 

Provide products specific to future FEP initiatives 

or other requests from regional partners. 

As needed 

Maintain concise 

narrative report 

Engage in annual discussions with PFMC, SSC, 

West Coast Region, and other partners. 

Ongoing 

Create companion 

multi-sector ESR 

Scope needs of broader community of sectors that 

rely upon the California Current for ecosystem 

services or individual, community or cultural 

values. 

2018, if new 

resources are 

available 

Begin regular production of concise multisector 

ESR (web-based indicator portfolio and 

document). 

2019, if new 

resources are 

available 

Target ESR content to 

specific needs 

Provide ESR content for specific needs, such as 

PFMC SAFE documents, or following major 

events in the ecosystem. 

As needed, 

if resources are 

available 
30 

Expected Impact/Outcomes/Products 

The team will continue to produce annual ESRs that will improve in value and alignment with 

PFMC priorities. If resources support expansion to include other uses and sectors, future ESRs 

will increasingly support the needs of other regional partners as well. The impact of these 

improvements will be better science support for ecosystem-based management at spatial and 

temporal scales relevant to multispecies fisheries, protected species conservation, coastal zone 

management, water quality, and climate change. 

The ESR team expects multiple scientific publications to result from this process each year. 

These publications will stem from: the need for peer review of methods that support ESR 

development; synthesis products that contribute to or derive from the ESR; novel or emerging 

science needs identified during ESR generation; and “perspectives” publications that draw from 

accumulated experiences. Such publications will be informative for future ESR development in 

the California Current region, and are of potential value to teams producing ESRs elsewhere. 

 
31 

Five-year Plan for Alaska’s Ecosystem Status Reports 

Mission/Vision 

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) has produced ecosystem status (“Ecosystem 

Considerations”) reports (ESRs) since 1999, as part of fulfilling the agency mission to provide 

sound science to support ecosystem-based fisheries management. The ESRs aim to strengthen 

links between ecosystem research and fishery management and to spur new understanding of the 

connections between ecosystem components by bringing together the results of many diverse 

research projects. 

Goals and Objectives 

Alaska’s ESRs are produced annually to compile and summarize information about the status of 

the Alaska marine ecosystems for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), the 

scientific community and the public. As of 2016, there are separate reports for the Eastern Bering 

Sea, Aleutian Islands, the Gulf of Alaska, and Arctic (forthcoming). These reports include 

ecosystem report cards, ecosystem assessments, and ecosystem and ecosystem-based 

management indicators. The objective of these ESRs is to provide context for ecosystem-based 

fisheries management in Alaska. 

Progress 

Current state: Separate reports by Large Marine Ecosystem were produced in 2016 and presented 

to the Plan Teams, Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and Advisory Panel (AP) of the 

NPFMC. These reports ranged in length from 110 to 210 pages and included between 21 and 48 

ecosystem indicator contributions. In 2016, the reports included between two and 11 new 

indicator contributions, demonstrating the continued effort to expand the ESRs to cover diverse 

aspects of the ecosystem. 

Strengths: The Alaska ESRs are tightly connected to the Council process; reports are presented 

annually to the Plan Teams, SSC, and AP. To highlight the connection between the ESRs, 

management decisions (e.g., quota setting), and operationalized ecosystem-based fisheries 

management, in 2016 walleye pollock was managed as a Tier 3 species (more conservative) as 

opposed to a Tier 1 species, because multiple ecosystem indicators suggested deleterious 

conditions for growth and survival of juvenile pollock. Quota was reduced under the more 

conservative Tier 3 approach, demonstrating that consideration of ecosystem indicators impacted 

management decisions. 

Key issues: A key issue in Alaska is the spatial area covered by each ESR. Splitting the ESRs by 

LME was a vast improvement that was well-received by the Council; however, each LME 

encompasses broad geographic areas and diverse marine landscapes. The Council supports, to 

the extent possible, including region-specific ecosystem indicators within the broader LME 
32 

ESRs. For example, the Aleutian Islands ESR presents indicators and assessment by three 

ecoregions: western, central, and eastern Aleutian Islands. 

An additional issue is limited staffing. Options for reducing the timeline of product delivery to 

the Council was discussed with the AFSC Science Director. The option decided for 2017 was to 

postpone updating the Aleutian Islands ESR until 2018. 

Top Priorities for the Next Five Years 

1. Continue to produce ESRs for each LME in Alaska as stand-alone products. This includes 

modifying current or developing new indicators at appropriate spatial scales within each 

LME, filling indicator gaps in regional ecosystem report cards, organizing ecosystem 

assessments at ecoregion scales, and minimizing redundancies among reports where possible. 

2. Revisit the short list of indicators in ecosystem report cards on a rotating schedule reflecting 

when initial lists were selected and/or major advancements in ecosystem understanding. For 

example, the Eastern Bering Sea Report Card indicators should be revisited as part of the 

current Eastern Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan development. 

3. Enhance human dimensions sections. This may include: 

a. Developing indicators of traditional ecological (or local) knowledge. Leveraging 

efforts of cooperative organizations (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and various Alaska Native Associations). 

b. Restructuring current human dimensions-related indicators (“EBFM Indicators”) 

using the objective-driven process used by the March 2017 Mid-Atlantic ESR. 

4. Develop a plan for unanticipated and unneeded indicators that may be submitted. 

5. Continue work on the conceptual model of the Eastern Bering Sea being developed in 

conjunction with the integrated into the Eastern Bering Sea ESR, and ecosystem indicators will 

be linked to that diagram. The conceptual model and the proposal to structure the 2018 Eastern 

Bering Sea around this model will be presented to the Council for review and feedback in Fall 

2017. 
33 

Timeline and Approaches/Actions 

ESR Action Timeline

Eastern Bering Sea Produce 2017 ESR. Summer, Fall 

2017 

Aleutian Islands Postpone annual production of ESR. For 2017. 

Resume 

production 2018 

Gulf of Alaska Produce 2017 ESR. Summer, Fall 

2017 

Arctic Postpone production. Indefinitely, but 

no more than 

three years 

Expected Impact/Outcomes/Products 

Annual production of the Eastern Bering Sea ESR, annual or biennial production of the Gulf of 

Alaska ESR, biennial production of the Aleutian Islands ESR, occasional production of the 

Arctic ESR. 

 
34 

Five-year Plan for West Hawai‘i’s Ecosystem Status Report 

Mission/Vision 

The West Hawai‘i Ecosystem Status Report aims to provide information that forms the underlying basis and context for ecosystem-based management and decision making in the region. 

Goals and Objectives 

The current objective of the West Hawai‘i Ecosystem Status Report is to assess the status, 

trends, and variability of a broad suite of ecosystem indicators in West Hawai‘i, including 

climate, oceanographic, chemical, biological, fisheries, and socioeconomic attributes. 

Ecosystem indicators and associated analysis are intended to inform current and future resource 

management decisions in the region. 

Progress 

The first West Hawai‘i Ecosystem Status Report was released in September 2016. The report 

presents a general overview of the region and 29 ecosystem indicators across several broad 

categories: social, ecological, climate and ocean. To date, it is the most comprehensive report of 

West Hawai‘i and is informing current research and management processes underway in the 

region. Contributors were diverse and spanned the federal government, the state, and key nongovernmental organizations in the region. However, there were some key issues with the report 

that will need to be overcome for future updates, including (but not limited to): lack of 

automation, limited data availability, issues with data quality, numerous data gaps, limited 

staffing to produce the report, poor data visualization with a lack of web-based content, no real 

avenues for feedback, and additional, more tailored products needed. 

Top Priorities for the Next Five Years 

1. Including additional indicators to provide a more comprehensive assessment on the status 

and trends of West Hawai‘i’s social-ecological system. 

2. Improving the efficiency and automation of ESR production. 

3. Establishing a web-based ESR presence, including real-time updates on indicators (where 

data allows). 

4. Incorporating higher-level analytical products, such as risk assessments, ecosystem-based 

reference points, and analyses with short- to medium-term prediction skill. 

5. Providing additional analysis and products at relevant spatial scales for specific resource 

management needs. 
35 

Timeline and Approaches/Actions 

Activity/Priority Approach/Action Timeline

Expand indicators Collect/compile/locate additional data on key aspects 

of West Hawai‘i’s Social-Ecological System. 

Ongoing 

Improve efficiency and 

automation of ESR production 

Identify indicators that can be regularly updated (e.g., 

SST) and work with data providers (e.g., OceanWatch) 

and web managers to provide real-time, up-to-date 

indicator information. 

Fall 2018 

Switch to a common system of production used by 

other regions (e.g., R Markdown). 

2018-2019 

Establish a web-based 

presence 

Produce content suitable for web posting and work 

with local and national web managers on content posting. 

2019-2020 

Incorporate higher-level 

analytical products 

Identify management priorities, scales, analyses, and 

visualization methods. 

Ongoing 

Work with other regions and assess which products are 

most useful and relevant. 

Ongoing 

Maintain concise narrative report Conduct annual discussions with the Western Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council, the Scientific and 

Statistical Committee, West Coast Region, and other 

partners. 

Ongoing 

Address specific management needs Have continued discussions with resource managers in 

the region, including the state and the Council, to ensure the ESR meets their needs. 

Ongoing 
36 

References 

Anderson D. M., P. M. Glibert, J. M. Burkholder, 2002. Harmful algal blooms and 

eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25:704-726. 

Gove J. M., J. J. Polovina, W. J. Walsh, A. Heenan, I. D. Williams, L. M. Wedding, R. J. 

Ingram, J. Lecky, K. L. L. Oleson, H. Walecka, S. F. Heron, C. S. Couch, E. A. 

Howell, 2016. West Hawai'i integrated ecosystem assessment: ecosystem trends and 

status report. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Special Publication, SP16-004, 46 p. Also available at https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/SP-PIFSC-16-004. 

Guillemot N., P. Chabanet, M. Kulbicki, L. Vigliola, M. Léopold, I. Jollit, O. Le Pape, 2014. 

Effects of fishing on fish assemblages in a coral reef ecosystem: From functional 

response to potential indicators. Ecological Indicators 43:227-235. Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.015. 

Harvey C. and T. Garfield (Eds), 2017. California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment 

(CCIEA) California Current Ecosystem Status Report. A report of the NOAA CCIEA 

Team to the Pacific Fishery Management Council, March 8, 2017. Also available at 

http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/F1a_NMFS_Rpt1_2017IEA_Main

_Rpt_Final_Mar2017BB.pdf 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral, 

Marine and Freshwater Research, 50:839-866. 

Hughes T. P., N. A. J. Graham, J. B. C. Jackson, P. J. Mumby, R. S. Steneck, 2010. Rising to 

the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25:633 

- 365 

Link, J. S., R. B. Griffis, S. Busch (Eds.), 2015. NOAA Fisheries climate science strategy (p. 

70). US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Also available at 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/climate/documents/NCSS_Final.pdf 

Karnauskas, M., M. J. Schirripa, C. R. Kelble, G. S. Cook, J. K. Craig (eds.) 2013. Ecosystem 

status report for the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC653, 52 p. Also available at www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/ocdweb/ESR_GOMIEA/ 

Karnauskas, M., C. R. Kelble, S. Regan, C. Quenée, R. Allee, M. Jepson, A. Freitag, J. K. 

Craig, C. Carollo, L. Barbero, N. Trifonova, D. Hanisko, G. Zapfe, 2017. 2017 

Ecosystem status report update for the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-706, 51 p. Also available at 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/ocdweb/ESR_GOMIEA/ 

Kershner, J., J. F. Samhouri, C. A. James, and P. S. Levin, 2011. Selecting indicator portfolios 

for marine species and food webs: a Puget Sound case study. PLoS one, 6(10), e25248. 

McClanahan, T. R., N. A. J. Graham, M. A. MacNeil, N. A. Muthiga, J. E. Cinner, J. H. 

Bruggemann, S. K. Wilson, 2011. Critical thresholds and tangible targets for ecosystembased management of coral reef fisheries, Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 108:17230-17233. 

 
37 

NEFSC, 2017a. State of the Ecosystem - Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. A report to the New 

England Fishery Management Council, April, 2017. Ecosystems Dynamics & 

Assessment Branch, Northeast Fishery Science Center, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Also available 

at http://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/2_2016-State-of-the-Ecosystem-Report.pdf 

NEFSC, 2017b. State of the Ecosystem - Mid-Atlantic. A report to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, March, 2017. Ecosystems Dynamics & Assessment Branch, 

Northeast Fishery Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Also Available 

at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/58de8227bf629a

46b8ab35ad/1490977355678/Tab02_2017-04_State-of-the-Ecosystem-and-EAFM.pdf 

NEFSC, 2017c. Current Conditions of the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem -Spring 2017 Update. 

Ecosystems Dynamics & Assessment Branch, Northeast Fishery Science Center, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Also available at 

https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/current-conditions/ 

NEFSC, 2017d. Climate Change. Drivers of Climate Change and Variability on the Northeast 

Shelf. Ecosystems Dynamics & Assessment Branch, Northeast Fishery Science Center, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Also available at 

https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/climate-change/ 

NMFS, 2013. NOAA Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) Program 3-year Plan (2014-

2016). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Also available at 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/science_program/ecosystem-programreview/IEA/NOAA%20Integrated%20Ecosystem%20Assessment%20(IEA)%20Progra

m%203-year%20Plan%202014-2016.pdf 

NMFS, 2016a. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Policy of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. NMFS Policy Directive 01-120. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Also available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/01/01-

120.pdf 

NMFS, 2016b. NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Road Map. NMFS 

Policy Directive 01-120-01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Also 

available at 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/ebfm/EBFM_Road_Map_final.pdf 

NMFS, 2016c. National Responses to the FY 2016 Reviews of NOAA Fisheries’ EcosystemRelated Science Programs. Also available at 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/science_program/NationalProgramReviewRespon

se_2016_final.pdf 

PMFC, 2013. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California 

Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. Also available at 

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/FEP_FINAL.pdf 

State of Hawai‘i, 2017a. Coral Bleaching Recovery Plan. Department of Land and 

Natural Resources. Also available at https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/reefresponse/ 

files/2016/09/CoralBleachingRecoveryPlan_final_newDARlogo.pdf 
38 

State of Hawai‘i, 2017b. World Conservation Congress Legacy Commitment: “Hawai‘i 30 by 

30 Oceans Target”. Sustainable Hawaii Initiative. Also available at 

https://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/30x30-Effective-MarineManagement_FINAL.pdf 

Zador, S. G. (Ed.), 2016. Ecosystem Considerations 2016 Status of the Aleutian Islands Marine 

Ecosystem. Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Also available at 

https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/Docs/2016/ecosysAI.pdf 

Zador, S. G. and E. C. Siddon (Eds.), 2016. Ecosystem Considerations 2016: Status of the 

Eastern Bering Sea Marine Ecosystem. Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Also available 

at https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/Docs/2016/ecosysEBS.pdf 

Zador, S. G. and E. C. Yasumiishi, (Eds.), 2016. Ecosystem Considerations 2016: Status of the 

Gulf of Alaska Marine Ecosystem. Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Also available at 

https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/Docs/2016/ecosysGOA.pdf 

Zador, S. G., K. K. Holsman, K. Y. Aydin, and S. K. Gaichas, 2017. Ecosystem considerations 

in Alaska: the value of qualitative assessments. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74(1), 

421-430. 
39 

Appendix A - Workshop Agenda 

Day 1 (May 16)

Time Activity People

9:00 – 9:05 Welcome Slater

9:05 – 9:15 Opening Remarks Osgood

9:15 – 9:35 ESR & EBFM Link

TOR 1: Analyze the Current State and Applications of ESRs

9:35 – 10:15 ESR Summary Centers

10:15 – 10:30 Break

10:30 – 10:55 Case study 1: 

Improving ESRs through the FEP Initiative 

Process in the California Current Region

Hazen / Harvey

10:55 – 11:20 Case study 2: 

Alaska Marine Ecosystem Considerations & North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council

Zador

11:20 – 12:00 Discussion: 

Review the Current State of ESRs

Facilitator: Slater

Rapporteur: Townsend

12:00 – 1:30 Lunch

TOR 2 & 3: Where do we need to go? Goals, Requirements & Next Steps

1:30 – 2:00 Discussion: What Changes to ESRs Might 

Improve their Efficacy?

Facilitator: Slater

Rapporteur: Peterson 

2:00 – 4:30 Building block 1: Scope, Scale, and Production Facilitator: Brady

Rapporteur: Armstrong

3:15–3:30 Break

 

4:40- 4:55 Summary

4:55 – 5:00 Announcement Slater

5:00 Adjourn

6:00 Happy Hour

 
40 

Day 2 (May 17)

Time Activity People

9:00 – 9:05 Opening Slater

9:05 – 12:00 Building Block 2: Indicators 

(short break from 10:30 – 10:45)

Facilitator: Griffis

Rapporteur: Bellamy

12:00 – 1:30 Lunch

1:30 – 1:45 Summary

1:45 – 4:45 Building block 3: Delivery and Use

(short break from 3:15 – 3:45)

Facilitator: Peterson

Rapporteur: Armstrong

4:45 – 5:00 Summary

5:00 Adjourn

Day 3 (May 18) 

Time Activity People

9:00 – 9:05 Opening Slater

9:05 – 10:05 Building block 4: Evaluation Facilitator: Brady 

Rapporteur: Shuford

10:05 – 10:15 Summary

10:15 – 10:30 Break

10:30 – 12:00 How do we get there? The Plan for Next Gen 

ESRs

Facilitator: Shuford 

Rapporteur: O’Brien

12:00 – 1:30 Lunch

1:30 – 3:00 Small working groups: Synthesis/Plan development Centers 

3:00 – 3:15 Break

3:15 – 3:45 Regional report Centers 

3:45 – 4:45 Open Discussion All 

4:45 – 5:00 Closing remarks Link 

5:00 Adjourn
41 

Appendix B - Participants list 

Name NOAA Fisheries Office E-mail 

Ellen Yasumiishi AFSC ellen.yasumiishi@noaa.gov 

Elizabeth Siddon AFSC elizabeth.siddon@noaa.gov 

Stephani Zador AFSC stephani.zador@noaa.gov 

Sean Lucey NEFSC sean.lucey@noaa.gov 

Geret DePiper NEFSC geret.depiper@noaa.gov 

Jason Link OAA jason.link@noaa.gov 

Chris Harvey NWFSC chris.harvey@noaa.gov 

Jamison Gove PIFSC jamison.gove@noaa.gov 

Frank Parrish PIFSC frank.parrish@noaa.gov 

Seann Regan SEFSC seann.regan@noaa.gov 

Mandy Karnauskas SEFSC mandy.karnauskas@noaa.gov 

Kevin Craig SEFSC kevin.craig@noaa.gov 

Elliott Hazen SWFSC elliott.hazen@noaa.gov 

Andrew Leising SWFSC andrew.leising@noaa.gov 

Anastasia Vvedenskaya ST anastasia.vvedenskaya@noaa.gov 

Howard Townsend ST howard.townsend@noaa.gov 

Jay Peterson ST jay.peterson@noaa.gov 

Katherine Slater ST katherine.slater@noaa.gov 

Kenric Osgood ST kenric.osgood@noaa.gov 

Michael Ford ST michael.ford@noaa.gov 

Peg Brady ST peg.brady@noaa.gov 

Rebecca Shuford ST rebecca.shuford@noaa.gov 

Roger Griffis ST roger.griffis@noaa.gov 

Taylor Armstrong ST c.taylor.armstrong@noaa.gov 

Todd O'Brien ST todd.obrien@noaa.gov 

Tony Marshak ST tony.marshak@noaa.gov 

Amber Bellamy ST amber.bellamy@noaa.gov 

Karen Abrams SF karen.abrams@noaa.gov 

Wendy Morrison SF wendy.morrison@noaa.gov 

43 

Appendix C - Pre-Workshop Survey and Responses 

A. Goals and Objectives

1. What are the overall goals and objectives of your ESR?

Region Responses

NE The goal of the Northeast ESR is to inform stakeholders of the recent and long-term 

trends in the ecosystem. 

GOM 1. To provide scientific knowledge of the Gulf of Mexico integrated ecosystem, and 

transfer that knowledge to scientists and managers. 

2. To provide a broad-level overview of the current state of the Gulf of Mexico with 

respect to recent and historical trends. 

CC At present, the overall goal of the CCLME ESR is to inform the PFMC of the status, 

trends and variability of a broad suite of ecosystem indicators related to physical, 

chemical, biological, fisheries, and socioeconomic attributes. The purpose is to ensure 

that the Council understands the climate conditions, ecological dynamics, and social 

systems that form the ecosystem context for fisheries management and decisionmaking. The Council FEP is structured such that ecosystem information can be 

included by adding appendices to the foundational document. Concurrently, we are 

working with National Marine Sanctuary partners to develop a focused ESR from the 

IEA for their sanctuary condition reports. 

AK - 

WH The 2016 West Hawai‘i Trends and Status Report was the first report of its kind for 

the West Hawai‘i IEA and PIFSC. Our principle goals were to provide a concrete 

overview and background on the West Hawai‘i IEA; to present the Conceptual 

Ecosystem Model results, which both identified the principle pressures and drivers of 

the ecosystem state and helped support the selection of ecosystem indicators; and to 

present the status, trends and variability of ecosystem indicators related to key 

physical, chemical, biological, and social aspects of the region. 

2. In general, how well do you think the ESR is meeting these goals and objectives now? 

Region Responses

NE I believe that our ESR is a comprehensive list of various drivers, pressures, and states 

in the ecosystem. The real question is how that information is being received by the 

stakeholders and/or being incorporated into management. 

GOM Pretty well; the new update report was tailored specifically based on feedback from 

our management audience so we have some confidence it is meeting managers’ needs. 

CC The ESR is meeting these goals and objectives well, and continues to make iterative 

improvements with direct feedback from the Council and its advisory bodies. There 
44 

are, of course, many areas for improvement in reporting, broader reach to a wider 

variety of end-users, and greater impact of the ESR as a means of decision support. 

Long-term goals of portability, e.g., a full ESR for the California Current with the 

ability to make subsetted ESRs for specific regional bodies are underway. 

AK - 

WH I think we achieved our goals with the first report. I also think that there are clear gaps 

in the report that should be filled if/when we produce an updated report. 

B. Production

3. What are the ESR products and how often are they produced (e.g., an annual ESR, 

quarterly advisories, etc.)?

Regions Responses

NE Recently the Northeast ESR has morphed into a series of products. The base ESR was 

migrated to a web version in the last iteration. The reasoning behind that was to 

continuously update the information. However, that has not happened. We do, 

however, provide what we call “Current Conditions” which are bi-annual updates on 

various indicators, mostly biological oceanographic ones. There is also a “climate 

update” section of our website that is maintained more frequently than the base 

ESR. For various Councils, we have recently begun production of annual State of the 

Ecosystem reports. It is the goal of these reports to be similar to an executive 

summary of the ESR and give the Councils the big picture of what is occurring in 

their region. 

GOM An ecosystem status report, which is published as an Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center (SEFSC) Tech Memo, when the IEA team has “spare time” – currently once 

every four years. 

CC The ESR products consist of an annual written report (~20 pages, plus a ~40 page 

supplement of appendices) and an annual presentation (~30-40 min.) to the PFMC 

and its advisory bodies. There is a web-based portfolio of tools 

(https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/regions/california-currentregion/indicators/climate-and-ocean-drivers.html) that provides the backbone for data 

access and status/trend plot generation. These products are delivered at the PFMC 

meeting each March. There have been other products on an ad-hoc basis, such as a 

series of webinars in early 2016 that described the process by which the ESR is 

developed. The web-based tools and the conceptual diagrams have been adapted for 

use in the West Coast National Marine Sanctuaries. 

AK Annual ESR for the Eastern Bering Sea; annual ESR for the Gulf of Alaska; annual 

ESR for the Aleutian Islands. 

WH ESR products consist of one 45-page report that was released in September 2016. The 

report was delivered in a number of presentations to local management agencies, 

including the Western Pacific Fishery Council and West Hawai‘i Fisheries 

Management Council. We also generated a series of interactive, web-based products 
45 

to facilitate exploration and understanding of the report, but owing to lack of 

resources and a backlog of requests, this material has not yet been posted to the 

PIFSC website. 

4. If you could make changes to the ESR product line, what changes would you make and 

why (e.g., Change timing? Change content? Produce other products?)? 

Regions Responses

NE We are planning on overhauling our Ecosystem Considerations webpage, which 

houses the ESR and other products mentioned above. The goal is to fix the legacy 

issues surrounding the separate development of various products to create one product 

that is served in different formats based on the audience. We are also trying to 

standardize the time frame and process for assembling the necessary data and 

producing the reports. 

GOM More frequent updates would be ideal, but only if we had some support for it. The 

ESR product line would benefit from a platform for data delivery to stakeholders; this 

likely would require designated staff support. Organizing and packaging data for 

stakeholders takes time, and an automated data management system would help speed 

this effort. 

CC The timing of ESR products could certainly be improved so that it accounts for the 

decision-making schedule of the annual PFMC calendar. For example, the PFMC 

oversees four different Fishery Management Plans (FMP), but it is not clear that 

delivering the ESR in March of each year is well-timed to inform the decision-making 

process for any one particular FMP, let alone all four of them. Further development of 

web-based products could allow for more near-real-time updates as data become 

available. 

The content could be improved as well so that it focused not just on the status and 

trends of indicators, but also on how those indicators were trending relative to 

particular thresholds of risk, so that it was clearer to end-users that there were 

potential consequences of (as well as uncertainty around) the trajectories of particular 

ecological indicators and stressors. Incorporating risk assessment into the ESR is an 

essential next step. 

Another useful addition would be the inclusion of outputs from ecosystem models 

that put indicators more fully into context. Presumably this would be a useful first 

step toward engaging the PFMC in the process of interactive management strategy 

comparisons and testing. 

More broadly, the ESR could be tailored to other end-users in addition to the PFMC. 

Examples include West Coast states, National Marine Sanctuaries, and the NOAA 

West Coast Region Protected Resources Division. 

Additionally, the ESR development helps to identify critical gaps in our ecosystem 

understanding. 

AK More web-based content. 
46 

WH Timing: I believe we should produce the West Hawai‘i ESR at some regular interval, 

possibly every three to five years, depending on resources allocated towards its 

production. 

Content: Our ESR was not as comprehensive as it could have been. For example, our 

list of social indicators could certainly be broadened. We also could expand our suite 

of indicators to track additional biological components important to the Council, such 

as bottom fish. 

Products: In addition to the ESR document, we should provide a two to three page 

Summary for Policy Makers document, in which we highlight the key findings and 

their relevance to local management issues. We should also have a comprehensive 

web presence, allowing individuals to explore the report, as well as access the report 

via mobile devices. 

5. What important indicators/contributions (physical/chemical/biological/social) does your 

ESR include/address? 

(In this question, we would like to compare indicators across regions and find out what 

indicators are generally included and what are only included in some regions. No need to 

list all indicators, but pick some significant or special ones. You can use this table below or 

other formation you like.)

Physical Chemical Biological Social

NE ● Bottom 

temperature 

● Stratification 

● North wall of 

the gulf stream 

● Other largescale climate 

on web, not in 

the State of the 

Ecosystem 

● OA (in 

progress) 

● Salinity 

● Primary 

productivity 

● Biovolume of 

zooplankton 

● Survey biomass 

trends of aggregate 

groups 

● Biodiversity 

(expected number 

of species) 

● Fish condition 

● Fish productivity 

● Landings by 

aggregate groups 

(included in human 

dimensions) 

● Biomass/abundance 

of species of 

concern 

● Revenue from 

fisheries 

● Recreational 

fishery 

participation 

● Coastal 

community 

fishery 

engagement and 

reliance 

● Coastal 

community 

vulnerability to 

climate risk 

● Fleet diversity 

GOM ● AMO 

● SST 

● Sea level rise 

● Eutrophication 

● Hypoxia 

● OA 

● Habitat cover 

(natural and 

artificial) 

● Net Primary 

Productivity 

● Human 

population 

● Population 

density 

● Coastal urban 
47 

● Zooplankton 

biomass 

● Forage fish 

● Biodiversity 

● Mean trophic level 

● Fish abundance 

● Bird abundance 

● Overfishing status 

land use 

● Ocean economy 

● Commercial 

revenue 

● Social 

connectedness 

● Fishing 

engagement 

● Recreational 

fishing effort 

CC ● Basin-scale 

temperature 

and circulation 

indices 

● Regional 

temperatures at 

surface and 

depth 

● Regional 

upwelling 

● Regional 

snowpack 

● Regional 

streamflow 

maxima and 

minima 

● Dissolved 

oxygen 

● Aragonite 

saturation 

state 

● Zooplankton 

community 

composition 

● Forage fish 

community 

composition 

● Salmon abundance 

● Groundfish 

abundance and 

fishing pressure 

● Pinniped 

abundance and 

condition 

● Seabird abundance 

and diversity 

● Fishery 

landings; gear 

contact with 

seafloor 

● Fishery 

revenues 

● Aquaculture 

production 

● Non-Fisheries 

human activities 

(shipping, 

energy 

extraction, 

nutrient loading, 

pollution, etc.) 

● Community 

Social 

Vulnerability 

Index 

● Fleet 

diversification 

AK - - - -

WH (Climate and Ocean) 

● PDO 

● ENSO 

● Rainfall 

● Sea level 

● Eddy Kinetic Energy 

● SST 

● Thermal Stress 

● Wave Power 

● Chl-a 

(Ecological ) 

● Total Reef Fish 

Abundance 

● Total Reef Fish 

Biomass 

● Mead Adult Reef 

Fish Length 

● Species Richness 

● Herbivore Biomass 

● Target Reef Fish 

Biomass 

● Juvenile Yellow 

Tang 

● Population 

Growth 

● Number of 

Visitors 

● Shoreline 

Modification 

● New 

Development 

● On-Site 

Disposal 

Systems: 

Effluent and 

Nutrient Flux 
48 

● Hard Coral Cover 

● Macroalgae Cover 

● Coral Disease 

● On-Site 

Disposal 

Systems: Total 

Number 

● Invasive Algae 

● Invasive Fish 

● Commercial and 

NonCommercial 

Fishing Pressure

6. What is the process of selecting indicators for use in the ESR (What criteria, selected by 

whom, etc.)?

Regions Responses

NE Most indicators were selected using expert opinion, but a more rigorous process is 

underway to refine the indicators we will be presenting. Multiple approaches are in 

progress, including the application of criteria used in the CCIEA and a similar process 

involving a subset of criteria combined with statistical redundancy analysis applied in 

Canada (Scotian Shelf). 

GOM The original 2013 Ecosystem Status Report for the Gulf of Mexico included over 100 

indicators representing various physical forces, ecosystem pressures, biological states, 

ecosystem impacts, and community responses in the region. For the 2017 Update Report, we carried out steps to refine the original list into a more robust and easily interpretable suite of indicators: 

 First, we engaged in informal feedback requests with regional managers and 

users of the report with an eye toward identifying deficiencies and understanding which indicators had most direct linkages to management. 

 Second, we took into account data accessibility and reliability issues, preferentially developing indicators based on long-standing data collection programs such that they can be routinely updated in future reports. 

 Third, we took into consideration statistical issues, such as redundancy and 

sensitivity. A multivariate analysis of the indicator suite from the 2013 report 

revealed that a large number of indicators changed in response to what was 

hypothesized to be a climate-driven ecosystem shift. The statistical analysis 

showed that many indicators were immediately responsive to this shift, and 

were thus sometimes highly correlated; in these cases, a single indicator can 

then be representative of a wide range of processes. 

 Finally, we reviewed the existing indicators for other common selection criteria, particularly regarding: 

o a strong conceptual basis 
49 

o representation of the appropriate spatial and temporal scales 

o track records of use in other regions 

o direct linkages to important societal dimensions. With respect to this 

latter attribute, it was recognized that the original Status Report lacked 

robust representation of human dimensions ecosystem components, 

and this update contains a much more focused representation of this 

sector. 

 In sum, the indicators reported within this document were selected by carefully balancing considerations regarding management linkages, data availability, statistical 

robustness, and representation in spatial, temporal, and societal dimensions. 

CC Most indicators went through an extensive indicator screening process (described by 

Kershner et al., 2011) to identify robust indicators that relate to the state of key 

ecosystem attributes. The indicators included in the first ESR (2012) were chosen by 

the California Current IEA (CCIEA) team; since then, there have been iterative 

changes to the indicators included, based on consultation and feedback from the 

PFMC, its advisory bodies, and an ad-hoc Ecosystem Work Group formed in 2015 as 

part of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan initiative on improving the ESR. 

AK For our Report Cards, indicator selection has been by expert group selection. All other 

indicators are requested, selected, discontinued or developed by the editor (Stephani 

Zador) and in the last year, with assistance by Ellen Yasumiishi and Ebett Siddon. 

WH Indicator selection was both informed by the outputs of the Conceptual Ecosystem 

Models and our current understanding of subtropical marine ecosystems (i.e. 

Anderson et al., 2002; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2009; Hughes et al., 2010; McClanahan et 

al., 2011; Guillemot et al., 2014). Data availability also factored into indicator 

selection. 

7. What is the basic process and timeline for producing the ESR products (data collection, 

assessment, figure generation, graphic design, synthesis, production, delivery, etc.)?

Regions Responses

NE The timeline for producing ESRs has been variable. They were originally scheduled 

for every two years but rarely were they produced on this time scale. The most recent 

version was published on the web with the idea that it would be continuously updated. 

However, that has not happened. At the moment, State of the Ecosystem reports are 

prepared annually for the management Councils. The Councils have requested these 

documents for their April Council meetings. The data for these documents take a 

while to compile. Our group is still trying to figure out the best practice for timing. 

GOM One person leads the process and does the bulk of the work processing data, 

generating figures, synthesizing information and writing the report. Other 

collaborators scramble to find spare time to contribute specific sections, as the 

development of the ESR is not part of their normal job duties (most tasks are 

completed on volunteered time). The process takes about a year. For the current 
50 

update we are working on a web version that was put together entirely by an 

individual with knowledge on web design. 

CC Data collection occurs through normal long-term monitoring programs (both within 

and outside of NOAA) mostly but not entirely from spring through fall. From October 

through January, the different CCIEA subject experts that handle particular indicators 

will compile their data and provide updates to the data and metadata that are housed 

by the SWFSC ERDDAP server. The data are processed through annually updated Rcode to generate error estimates, short-term means and trends, and time series plots 

that are automatically uploaded to indicator webpages on the CCIEA website. Subject 

experts provide short written interpretations of the updated time series by midJanuary. This process is overseen by the CCIEA leads and CCIEA coordinator. The 

CCIEA leads edit the figures and written sections into the final document and 

appendices by early February and submit it to PFMC staff for inclusion in the PFMC 

March Meeting Briefing Book. The CCIEA leads take core materials from the written 

report and appendices to create the presentation, which is delivered in early March, 

first to a series of advisory bodies (including the PFMC Scientific and Statistical 

Committee, the Ecosystem Advisory Subcommittee, and various other advisory 

panels and management teams) and then in a final version to the full Council. 

AK Consultation about indicators occurs year-round. Otherwise, the annual process 

follows the following schedule: 

● Late July–early August: indicator update requests begin 

● Early September: presentation of information so far to the BSAI and GOA 

Plan Teams 

● September–October: continued production 

● End October: report submission 

● Mid-November: complete presentation to the BSAI and GOA Plan Teams 

● Early December: presentations to the Scientific and Statistical Committee, 

Advisory Panel and the Council 

● Beginning mid-December: post reports and data to website. 

WH The West Hawai‘i IEA does not have a formal process in place for producing the 

ESR. Approximately 90% of the report was developed by one individual, including 

data assimilation and analysis, figure generation, and write-up. Additional support 

was provided with the layout design, indicator selection, figure generation, and 

specific portions of the write-up. 

8. What offices/groups/organizations provide data?

Regions Responses

NE Most of the data in the ESR are prepared locally by the NEFSC. However, data is 

collected by a number of partners. 

GOM Too many to be listed. Includes NOAA, other federal agencies (e.g., USGS), state 

agencies, academia and NGOs. 

CC ● West Coast NOAA Line Offices, particularly the Northwest Fisheries Science 
51 

Center (NWFSC), SWFSC and AFSC 

● NOAA Climate Prediction Center 

● NOAA Headquarters, Office of Science & Technology 

● The three NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System West Coast Regional 

Associations (the NW Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems, 

the Central and Northern California Ocean Observing System, and the 

Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System) 

● California Department of Water Resources 

● USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

● California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations 

● Multiple CA, OR, WA and ID state agencies charged with natural resource 

management 

● UC Santa Cruz and San Diego 

● University of Washington (UW) 

● Georgia Institute of Technology 

● Farallon Institute 

● Pt. Blue Institute 

● Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 

● U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 

AK ● AFSC 

● UW, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) 

● Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 

● Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS) 

WH ● State of Hawai‘i Department of Health 

● State of Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources 

● NOAA’S PIFSC (The Coral Reef Ecosystem Program, The Ecosystems and 

Oceanography Program) 

● The Nature Conservancy 

● ERDDAP 

9. What offices/groups/organizations provide analysis?

Regions Responses

NE Almost all of the analysis is done internally by NEFSC. 

GOM Mostly SEFSC, NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Atlantic Oceanographic 

and Meteorological Laboratory, and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

CC Most data analyses are limited to summary statistics or time-series analyses 

conducted by CCIEA subject experts. Analysis of some large-scale climate indicators 

is done by the NOAA Climate Prediction Center, the Georgia Institute of Technology, 

and the UW. Groundfish abundance and fishing pressure is analyzed by NWFSC and 

SWFSC stock assessors. Fishery diversification is analyzed at the AFSC. 

AK AFSC, UW, PMEL, ADF&G, SAHFOS 

WH NOAA PIFSC, State of Hawai‘i 
52 

10. What other indicators/information do you think needs to be added to the ESR to meet 

its goals and objectives? Which are the most important ones to add over the next three 

years?

Regions Responses

NE We have a lot of indicators already. Our priorities are gap analysis (aligning general 

objectives with current indicators suggests that habitat indicators are needed for 

quality, quantity, and diversity, and indicators for employment require updating), and 

synthesis across indicators to move from a list of indicators to an actual assessment. 

GOM We have a research recommendations section that describes these needs. Two are 

most generalizable: 1) standardization and centrality of data collection, archiving and 

access, and 2) measures of uncertainty reported with each indicator. 

CC The CC LME ESR needs to add indicators on (* = most important to add soon): 

● *any/all of the above indicators, but at ecologically and management-relevant 

spatial scales 

● *coastal pelagic species (sardine, anchovy, mackerels, squid) 

● highly migratory species (tunas, billfishes and sharks) 

● harmful algal blooms 

● ecological interactions and species condition; e.g., diets, reproductive success 

● economic indicators 

● *additional indicators of coastal community human wellbeing 

AK In general, it would be nice to see more broader-scale multivariate-type indicators to 

replace some of the single species and/or localized indicators that we use. This is 

especially needed for representing the lower trophic organisms. Also, marine 

mammals, particularly cetaceans, are not represented. 

WH ● Additional socioeconomic indicators, especially those that target ecosystem 

services and human wellbeing. 

● Additional information on economically and socially important fish groups, 

including bottom fish, coastal pelagics, and locally relevant pelagics. 

● Additional data analysis that informs the interplay between the physical, 

biological and social indicators. This could include performing some sort of 

threshold analysis and/or highlighting which indicators can be considered “early 

warning” for key ecosystem components. 

C. Key Audiences and Uses

11. Who are your target or intended audiences?

Regions Responses

NE The targets of the ESR are the general public and stakeholders, although we would 

like it to be useful to the scientific community as well. Scientists generally want links 

to references and actual data, while more general audiences can be distracted by these 

details. 
53 

GOM Broad scientific and management community within the Gulf of Mexico 

CC ● Pacific Fishery Management Council and its advisory bodies and committees 

● The stakeholder communities that are engaged in West Coast fishing 

AK Primary target is the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Additional 

audience is industry, scientists, teachers, and the public. 

WH Because many of the regionally important ecosystem components that comprise the 

West Hawai‘i IEA are < 3 nm from shore (i.e. corals and reef fish), State of Hawai‘i 

resource managers are the principal target audience. Additional target users include 

the Council, the West Hawai‘i Fisheries Management Council, and key non-profits 

and researchers that do a considerable amount of data collection and monitoring. 

NOAA users include Sanctuaries and the Habitat Blueprint Focus Area. 

12. Who are the actual users?

Regions Responses

NE It is unclear who is using the web version of the ESR. We are looking into Google 

Analytics as a means to better track this. The Fishery Management Councils are using 

the State of the Ecosystem Reports. 

GOM Broad scientific and management community within the Gulf of Mexico 

CC ● Pacific Fishery Management Council and its advisory bodies and committees 

● The stakeholder communities that are engaged in West Coast fishing 

● NGOs 

● West Coast NOAA line offices 

AK North Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

WH Actual users are the State of Hawai‘i (managers and scientists) and other researchers 

that work in the region. 

13. For the various users, what do they want/need from the ESR (do they have clear 

information needs/requirements)?

Regions Responses

NE Unknown, but scientists want indicator data to use in their own analyses. 

GOM This varies depending on the user. We have a large spreadsheet of compiled responses 

from managers that outlines what each would like from the ESR. 

CC The information needs for the ESR were formally outlined in Section 1.4 of the 

PFMC’s 2013 Fishery Ecosystem Plan: 

“Information in the report is intended to improve the Council and 

public’s general understanding of the status and functions of the CCE 

and is not tied to any specific management measures or targets for 

Council-managed species. When the Council receives future annual 

ecosystem reports, it anticipates continuing to review the reports’ 
54 

contents so that they may be tailored to best meet management needs.”

AK The Council wants a holistic description of current ecosystem state as well as 

indications of areas of concern for managers – in other words, the implications for 

Fisheries management. 

WH No clear articulation has ever been made with respect to the report. However, 

feedback has been provided that would help inform a subsequent report, including the 

development of a shorter (2–4 page) Summary for Policy Makers. 

14. How do they actually use the ESR (general information and examples welcome)?

Regions Responses

NE Unknown. We are in the process of iterating with Council SSCs and full Councils, so 

time will tell. 

GOM Many use it as a broad reference for the Gulf of Mexico, and it has been cited as 

such. The indicator data set has been used in at least three publications. 

CC The PFMC mainly uses the ESR for context in fisheries management decisionmaking; for example, information from the 2015 and 2016 reports describing the 

historically low snowpack of the winter of 2014–2015 was cited in the PFMC 

discussion about its 2016 salmon harvest management decisions. However, the ESR 

process has not evolved to a point where any specific PFMC decisions can be 

explicitly linked to contents of an ESR; for example, the 2016 harvest decisions do 

not mention the ESR in writing, nor are there ecosystem threshold indicators that 

trigger any decision rules. 

The information needs and requirements are iteratively evolving through 

collaboration between the CCIEA team, the Council-appointed Ecosystem Working 

Group, and PFMC advisory bodies. It is our hope that these interactions will lead to 

identification of specific indicators, analyses or applications where ESR information 

can provide explicit and valuable decision support. 

AK Our ESRs provide contextual information for the discussions of harvest 

specifications. Clear examples of information uptake include: adjusting allowable 

biological catches (up and down) in part because of ecosystem indicators/components 

and facilitating discussions of stock splitting. 

WH The West Hawai‘i ESR has helped inform two key management processes currently 

playing out at the state: The Coral Reef Bleaching Response Plan and the 30x30 Plan, 

in which 30% of all nearshore areas are expected to be effectively managed by 2030. 

 
55 

15. What are the main challenges/barriers audiences face in using the ESR information 

(e.g., access to the information, understanding how to use it, knowing what to do with it, 

scale or scope of information not useful to their decision time frame, trusting the 

information, or other)?

Regions Responses

NE Previous engagement with Council SSCs has been the lack of the “so what” 

message. We have done a good job at collecting a large and diverse amount of data, 

but have yet to deliver a message that is easily digested by the target audience. 

GOM ● Using indicators at spatial scales relevant to management bodies. For example, a 

state agency may be a target audience, but not all of the indicators can be 

interpreted as representing processes relevant to the scales they manage. 

● Specific to the Fisheries Council, the main barrier is that including ecosystem 

information more routinely equates to a reduction in throughput of assessments, a 

tradeoff that has not been seen as favorable. The stock assessment analysts do not 

have time or support for exploring ecosystem considerations; thus, the 

information is largely left out of the management process. 

CC The main challenge seems to be a mix of understanding how to use ESR information, 

knowing what to do with it, and matching the scale and scope of information to the 

decision time frame. The CCIEA team and the PFMC advisory bodies still have not 

had the kind of extensive scoping conversations that would serve to clearly identify 

and prioritize PFMC needs for which ESR indicators could be applied in a specific, 

targeted and timely manner, for example in support of specific assessments, or to 

assess impacts of and ways to mitigate against potential stressors, or to help choose 

between management alternatives. 

AK Making the scale or scope of information useful to their decision time frame is of 

great importance, but this is the responsibility of the editor. The main challenge is 

having clear quantitative thresholds for proscribed action; but even this would not be 

appropriate in all cases. 

WH Access and the total size of the report are key barriers to individuals using the ESR. I 

also think if we conducted some more in-depth analysis (e.g., multivariate analysis) it 

would aid in the interpretation and highlight the usefulness of the data sets presented. 

16. How do you identify target audiences and their requirements?

Regions Responses

NE The Councils requested a State of the Ecosystem report. Through work with the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) SSC, we have refined what is 

provided. We hope to engage in a similar process with the New England Fishery 

Management Council (NEFMC). We need to do a better job at assessing the needs of 

other stakeholder groups. 

GOM We carried out an informal feedback request process by emailing management bodies and 

scientists who were known to have used the report or thought to be target audiences. 
56 

CC We have mostly identified target audiences through agency mandates (i.e., doing 

applied science that focuses on fisheries issues, protected species, habitat, National 

Marine Sanctuary priorities, and other NOAA trust resources) and through the 

“inherent partnerships” (e.g., with the PFMC, Sanctuaries, related agencies, West 

Coast states, stakeholders) that arise from serving those mandates. There have been 

some cases, such as the state of Washington marine spatial planning effort, where 

partners have reached out to us. There are other cases, such as interactions with 

particular fishing sectors, coastal communities, tribes, NGOs, etc., where we have 

likely fallen short in identifying target audiences, due in large part to the relatively 

low numbers of social scientists whose research interests and agency mandates would 

create similar “inherent partnerships.” 

AK Annual review by the Council includes information requests. 

WH Reaching out to partners, community members and the state. Their respective 

requirements do not necessarily overlap; however, we’ve tried to balance their needs 

to deliver a product that is useful to as many end-users as possible. 

17. Based on your ESR experience, what are some key lessons or suggestions on 

understanding and meeting user needs? 

Regions Responses

NE Based on my experience, the ESR takes a long time to compile and even longer to 

sort out the message. It is the message that the users want, not necessarily the data. Be 

sure to give yourself plenty of lead time to produce one of these reports. Also, getting 

contributors used to a common format for data submissions and text as well as lead 

times and deadlines will be helpful. 

GoM Communicating with a wide range of end users is very important. Different audiences 

have different expectations for the report and a fine balance is required to meet 

multiple different needs. 

CC ● Seven years into our interaction with the PFMC, it only now feels like we are 

starting to have some impact, which indicates that simply showing up to give an 

ESR once a year is not enough for understanding and meeting management needs. 

It is informative to the Council, but much attention gets paid to making small 

tweaks to the report rather than to prioritizing and aligning science capacity with 

management needs. 

● We may be able to make more progress in making our ESR a managementapplicable product (as opposed to merely a management-relevant product) for the 

PFMC by putting greater emphasis on our interactions on the Council advisory 

bodies, management teams, etc., rather than expecting our report to the Council to 

be the catalyst for management uptake. 

● Meeting with the advisory groups may be the better way to have the “scoping” 

conversations to align our work with management needs and advance the ESR 

beyond simple indicator reporting and more toward integrative applications of 

indicators (e.g., risk assessments, threshold analyses, dynamic ocean 

management, management strategy evaluation). 
57 

● For other users, such as the West Coast Regional Office, there seems to be less 

“inertia” than there is in the Council, and that may facilitate more rapid alignment 

of science and need, more uptake of ESR-related science into management, etc. 

● Ensuring that there is some “narrative” form to the written version of the ESR 

seems to have improved its readability and reception by the PFMC and advisory 

bodies. 

AK Understand the user’s needs. In other words, the information needs to be useful in 

order to be used. In the Fisheries management context, this means matching the scale 

and timing of the ESR and presentations for maximum benefit. Information needs to 

be relevant to the time period of interest. In an annual management system, this mean 

ecosystem information needs to be up to date within the past year or two at the most. 

At a small scale, contextual information needs to be presented before discussion of 

harvest specifications; presentations following harvest specs discussions are 

ineffective. 

WH As mentioned above, if we presented a short Summary for Policy Makers, which 

synthesized the key findings of the report and presented it in a glossy, aesthetically 

pleasing format, it would be an important contribution that would facilitate use of the 

report. Expanding our list of indicators beyond those presented in the 2016 report 

would also help meet our user needs. 

D. Delivery

18. What mechanisms are used to deliver the ESR to your core users (e.g., regular meetings 

with Councils, presentations, webinars, PDFs, printed documents, websites, etc.)?

Regions Responses

NE The ESR itself resides on our Ecosystem Considerations webpage. The same is true 

for the Current Conditions and Climate Update reports. Presentations have been given 

at the MAFMC and NEFMC April meetings. These presentations are based on the 

State of the Ecosystem Report, which is provided in a PDF format. 

GOM Report in PDF form. For the 2017 update we have a web version. Meetings with 

target audiences would be ideal, but there is little to no travel support for this activity. 

CC ● Regular meetings with Council and advisory bodies. 

● Presentation and PDF report. 

● Webinars; also, this year we will experiment with a pre-recorded version of the 

presentation for advisory bodies whose members cannot attend our presentations 

in person. 

● CCIEA website, which we are presently improving so that indicators are updated 

continuously and can be used more interactively by users; we are also planning 

to develop customized pages of indicator suites tailored to specific end users. 

AK PDFs, regularly scheduled meetings 

WH At the initial release of the report (sent primarily as an email informing key partners, 

collaborators, and community members), I presented the findings to the SSC, the 
58 

Council, and the West Hawai‘i Fisheries Management Council. We also developed 

interactive content for the web, however, we are lacking support with web content 

posting. 

19. What are the main challenges you face in delivering the ESRs to core users? (Deadlines, 

format capacity, etc.)

Regions Responses

NE ESRs and similar reports take a fair amount of time and effort to prepare. Staff time 

required to execute them is at a premium. So the biggest challenge is creating them in 

a timely fashion with our limited resources. 

GOM Lack of funding to travel to relevant meetings. Also, the current update has a very 

nice web version but this was put together by a single contractor. If we lose this 

person, we will no longer have a nice web interface. 

CC ● Deadlines are difficult (they come relatively soon after winter holidays) 

● Formatting is also difficult because the PFMC is increasingly asking for new time 

series as well as maps and three-dimensional oceanographic plots, which are 

difficult to fit into the document with clarity and adequate fonts, given the ~20-

page limit they have requested. Something web-based for such figures would be 

better, but as of now that does not adhere to the format requirements of the PFMC 

briefing materials. 

AK A huge amount of information needs to be synthesized in a very short period of time. 

WH The principal challenge in producing a second ESR for the West Hawai‘i IEA is 

support. We are a small region with few employees focused on the IEA. As such, we 

would need institutional support (i.e. interdisciplinary collaborations, data 

management, web-delivery, graphic design, media outreach, etc.) at PIFSC to 

facilitate an updated version and expansion of our 2016 Report. 

20. What are the main challenges? What actions have you taken or want to take to improve 

delivery and use? Any lessons or suggestions for improving delivery and use? 

Regions Responses

NE The current iterations of the State of the Ecosystem reports are being prepared using 

R Markdown. We are also developing a standard data format. Both should help in 

reproducibility and timing of the product. 

GOM Lack of resources for producing regular reports. Also, once products are produced, 

lack of resources for actually incorporating the information into management. 

CC ● We have not made any changes to delivery. 

● To improve use, we have worked with the Council on refinement of the document 

under a specific initiative passed in 2015 under the PFMC Fishery Ecosystem 

Plan; we have worked with the ad-hoc Ecosystem Working Group, the Scientific 

and Statistical Committee, and other Council advisory bodies to iteratively review 
59 

and improve the content and presentation of materials in the report. 

● For future improvement, we plan to develop a page on our website that is tailored 

to the PFMC and the indicators it has identified as most useful. As we improve the 

speed, efficiency and frequency at which indicators are updated, we will promote 

this page to the PFMC as a closer-to-real-time ESR so that they can follow 

ecosystem indicators more interactively rather than relying on the March reports 

for all of their ecosystem status information. 

AK Not enough staffing resources. 

WH Having a dedicated team that is focused not only on content, but the layout and 

delivery of information, would be hugely helpful for developing a useful, relevant, 

and timely product that reaches as many diverse end-users as possible. 

E. Evaluation

21. What are the strengths of your ESR?

Regions Responses

NE It is a fairly comprehensive collection of information on the Northeast U.S. Shelf LME. 

GoM Highly diverse author group and indicators representing broad ecosystem 

components. The update report is particularly strong in the human dimensions 

category. The web version of the current update is also very well done. 

CC ● It covers a broad suite of physical, chemical, biological, ecological, and 

socioeconomic indicators. 

● It is reasonably concise (20 pages) and rich with information and informative 

figures. 

● It follows a consistent format of data presentation and status/trend determination 

(derived from the successful approach taken by the AFSC). 

● It uses a narrative approach to connect indicators (and ecosystem components). 

● It is a joint written report and presentation, which enables us to reach a broader 

audience with diverse learning styles. 

● It is explicitly requested by our main end user, and thus is a well-established 

process and part of their annual agenda. 

● A new addition to the ESR (for 2017) is a short section of “research 

recommendations,” which may help address some of the challenges above. 

AK They have developed with regular interaction and input with the main user and thus 

have been adaptive to their needs. 

WH ● The novelty of the information for the region 

● The comprehensive information presented for coral reef ecosystems, which is 

repeatedly stated as the most important ecosystem component for West Hawai‘i. 
60 

22. What are the challenges/weaknesses of your ESR?

Regions Responses

NE The weakness of our ESR products is that they tend to lack the overall take-home 

message that stakeholders are looking for. They could always use more synthesis 

across indicators. Another challenge is that the visualization of complex information 

requires help from visual information specialists to communicate messages. 

GOM The ESR is improved iteratively, by putting reports out and then understanding how 

people use them and seeking feedback on how they are used. We are still working on 

our first update so have had only one opportunity to improve content. Also, we need 

further exploration of the spatial scales that are relevant to report for various indicators 

and many indicators need a more in-depth analysis (e.g., is a Gulf-wide average the 

most useful metric?). 

CC ● Standard issues of people/resources being spread thinly, even as end users ask for 

improvements and additions. 

● Time lags between data collection and processing of data so that they can be 

reported; for many indicators, these lags are measured in years. 

● We face a great challenge in improving the spatial resolution of our time series so 

that we can report on conditions at the scale of sub-regions, species ranges, etc. 

● We are a long way yet from being able to provide indicators that are leading and 

support forecasts or predictions. 

● We do not have many social indicators, for example, indicators of human 

wellbeing that would enable better understanding of social tradeoffs that result 

from ecosystem changes. 

● We have several other key gaps, especially with regard to pelagic species. 

● We have not been able to add many broader, more integrative products into the ESR. 

● Finally and importantly, we still do not have a clear sense of the Council’s highest 

priorities for goals and objectives that need ecosystem-scale science for decision 

support, which hinders our ability to provide the best information in our ESR. 

AK The limited staff devoted to the production of the ESR limits the potential quality of 

the products. 

WH ● The lack of variety for ESR information accessibility. 

● Limited socioeconomic indicators. 

● Limited indicators for offshore (e.g., pelagic fishes) and deeper biological (e.g., 

bottom fish) communities. 

 
61 

23. How do you track whether current ESR is achieving its goal? What metrics do you 

think should be tracked?

Regions Responses

NE We do not have a method of tracking how the ESR is doing. I do not know what 

metrics should be tracked. 

GOM ● number of citations 

● number of times ESR data are used in publications, stock assessments, etc. 

● number of management decisions based on consideration of ESR 

CC There are a suite of metrics that can be used to assess ESR utility. The first being that 

the end-user continues to ask for updates to the ESR. The second being that the enduser has suggestions for updates to the report, showing continued engagement. The 

final would be whether the end-user is using the ESR directly in management 

decision-making. 

AK Documentation of any mention of ecosystem issues in Council notes 

WH The ESR is regularly discussed when I attend relevant management meetings, but 

beyond that, we honestly (and ironically) don’t have any indicators to track the use of 

our ESR. 

24. Are any important management needs NOT addressed by the current ESR? If so, any 

suggestions on how to address them?

Regions Responses

NE Right now the ESR is focused on fishery management needs. It would be great to 

broaden this perspective both for fisheries and other sectors as well. This would 

require greater collaboration with other federal and state agencies. 

GOM Most managers primarily have questions about process (e.g., how is SST influencing 

the migration of a stock under my jurisdiction). The ESRs tend to report on status and 

trends but do not interpret the causal linkages between processes. Thus, there are 

many management needs not addressed by the ESRs. Producing the necessary 

information requires a great deal of time and resources; I’m not sure that this is 

currently within the capacity of ESRs. 

CC Because the PFMC is our primary end-user, the ESR is heavily focused on the 

fisheries sector. We would like to address additional sectors but money and in turn 

people-time is a significantly limiting factor. 

AK - 

WH Many of the ecosystem components (e.g., bottom fish) I’ve mentioned above are not 

addressed and certainly should be. To overcome this for a second ESR, PIFSC would 

need to support the document’s development and assign an interdisciplinary team of 

researchers focused on pulling the ESR together. 
62 

25. What types of management decisions are being influenced by this ESR? Please describe 

(examples are great).

Regions Responses

NE At this time it is unclear whether the ESR has had any influence on management 

decisions. 

GOM After the publication of the first ESR, evidence of a Gulf of Mexico-wide ecosystem 

reorganization was discovered. This has influenced thinking on interpretation of 

various data streams in the region – for example, CPUE trends, and marine mammal 

stranding patterns. 

CC Example of salmon above, although the ESR was not directly mentioned. 

AK Tier level for harvest specifications are adjusted in light of ecosystem concerns. 

WH Two major state initiatives are underway. 

1. Coral Reef Bleaching Response Plan: In response to the 2015 coral bleaching 

event, the state is developing a management plan to promote recovery of corals 

from bleaching and resilience to future bleaching. The ESR is directly supporting 

this process. 

2. 30x30 plan: The state will be designing new management rules for 30% of 

nearshore areas by 2030. West Hawai‘i is considered one of the most intact 

nearshore ecosystems in the state, and the ESR is helping to inform what 

management is likely needed in this region. 

26. What are the top things you think need to be done to strengthen the ESR to better meet 

its goals and objectives? (List up to five)

Regions Responses

NE Overhaul the website to eliminate the legacy issues (e.g., redundancy) produced by 

the development of the various products. 

Increase the timeliness and regularity of production to ease the burden on staff. 

GOM ● More resources put toward development of ESR and dissemination of 

information. 

● Report estimates of uncertainty associated with each indicator. 

● More statistically rigorous treatment of trend analysis and synthesis. 

● Further exploration of relevant spatial scales for reporting indicators. 

CC ● Web-based tools to simplify updating time series. 

● Better integration with multiple Council subgroups 

● More complex analyses, ecosystem-based statuses. 

AK More staff, more staff, more staff, more staff, more staff. 
63 

WH ● Broaden the scope of the ESR to include additional ecosystem components and 

indicators of ecosystem services and human wellbeing. 

● Identify a project team that is responsible for leading the development of the ESR, 

including data assimilation, analysis, and figure generation. 

● Develop a communications and outreach plan that employs a variety of userfriendly methods, such as a Summary for Policy Makers, an interactive, webbased version of the ESR, social media, and other ways that facilitate broad 

dissemination of the report. 

● Provide the ability for stake-holder input both before and after the release of the 

ESR. 

 

27. If there is anything else you would like to share regarding your ESR, please describe 

here.

Regions Responses

NE - 

GoM - 

CC There are multiple N. Pacific ESRs including: 

● CCIEA for Council 

● The National Marine Sanctuary condition reports 

● The California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations State of the 

California Current report 

● PICES North Pacific Ecosystem Status Report 

There is a good bit of duplication of data, but plotting differences among status 

reports. Having a common backbone (data repository) and multiple web-based 

plotting tools would aid compatibility and reduce duplication of effort. Also, real-time 

updating (plots updating as data come in, ideally with interpretation) will take 

investment, but the payoff could be quite large as well. 

AK - 

WH The West Hawai‘i IEA is unique compared to other regions in that much of the 

management in the region falls on the state. As such, this is our primary “client,” so to 

speak. We could potentially think about expanding the ESR to include all of Hawai‘i 

or other areas within Hawai‘i (which has been suggested by the Council), but the 

indicator selection process and data assimilation would be dramatically different than 

those used in the previous ESR. 

 

65 

Appendix D – Acronyms Table 

Acronym Definition 

AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

AK Alaska complex region 

AMO Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation 

AOML Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory 

AP Advisory Panel 

BSAI Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

CC California Current 

CCIEA California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment 

Chl-a Chlorophyll-a 

DWH Deepwater Horizon 

EBFM Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management 

ENSO El Niño-Southern Oscillation 

ERDDAP Environmental Research Division’s Data Access Program 

ESRs Ecosystem Status Reports 

FATE Fisheries and the Environment 

FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan 

FMP Fishery Management Plans 

FMC(s) Fishery Management Council(s) 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GOA Gulf of Alaska 

GOM Gulf of Mexico 

IEA Integrated Ecosystem Assessment 

LME(s) Large Marine Ecosystem(s) 

MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

NCSS NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy 

NE Northeastern 

NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council 

NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

NGO Non-Governmental Organizations 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA Fisheries 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

OA Ocean Acidification 

PDF Portable Document Format 

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation 
66 

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council 

PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

SAHFOS Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science 

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee 

SST Sea Surface Temperature 

SWFSC Southwest Fishery Science Center 

TOR Terms of Reference 

UW University of Washington 

WH West Hawai‘i