Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 20-01

Operational Assessment 

of the Black Sea Bass, Scup, 

Bluefish, and Monkfish Stocks, 

Updated Through 2018

by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

January 2020
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 20-01

Operational Assessment 

of the Black Sea Bass, Scup, 

Bluefish, and Monkfish Stocks, 

Updated Through 2018

by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 USA

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

January 2020
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Documents

Thisseriesis a secondary scientific series designed to assure the long-term documentation and 

to enable the timely transmission of research results by Center and/or non-Center researchers, 

where such results bear upon the research mission of the Center (see the outside back cover for 

the mission statement). These documents receive internal scientific review, and most receive 

copyediting. The National Marine Fisheries Service does not endorse any proprietary material, 

process, or product mentioned in these documents.

If you do not have Internet access, you may obtain a paper copy of a document by contacting 

the senior Center author of the desired document. Refer to the title page of the document for 

the senior Center author’s name and mailing address. If there is no Center author, or if there is 

corporate (i.e., non-individualized) authorship, then contact the Center’s Woods Hole 

Laboratory Library (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026).

Information QualityAct Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106-554, 

the Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed both technical and policy reviews for this 

report. These predissemination reviews are on file at the NEFSC Editorial Office.

This document may be cited as:

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2020. Operational assessment of the black sea 

bass, scup, bluefish, and monkfish stocks, updated through 2018. NEFSC Ref Doc 20-

01; 160 p. Available from: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/
Operational Assessment August 2019 2 Table of Contents

Contents

Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Preface............................................................................................................................................. 4

Report of the 2019 Operational Assessment Review Committee (OARC) (Aug. 2019) .............. 5

OARC Comments on 2019 Operational Assessment: Monkfish................................................ 6

OARC Comments on 2019 Operational Assessment: Black Sea Bass..................................... 10

OARC Comments on 2019 Operational Assessment: Scup ..................................................... 13

OARC Comments on 2019 Operational Assessment: Bluefish ................................................ 16

OARC Recommendations for Process Improvements .............................................................. 19

Stock Assessment Terms of Reference ......................................................................................... 20

A: Black Sea Bass Operational Assessment for 2019 .................................................................. 21

State of Stock ............................................................................................................................ 21

OFL Projections ........................................................................................................................ 21

Catch ......................................................................................................................................... 21

Catch and Status Table: Black Sea Bass ................................................................................... 22

Stock Distribution and Identification ........................................................................................ 23

Assessment Model .................................................................................................................... 23

Biological Reference Points (BRPs) ......................................................................................... 23

Qualitative status description .................................................................................................... 24

Research and Data Issues .......................................................................................................... 24

References ................................................................................................................................. 24

Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Figures....................................................................................................................................... 28

B: Scup Operational Assessment for 2019 ................................................................................... 32

State of Stock ............................................................................................................................ 32

OFL Projections ........................................................................................................................ 32

Catch ......................................................................................................................................... 32

Catch and Status Table: Scup ................................................................................................... 34

Stock Distribution and Identification ........................................................................................ 35

Assessment Model .................................................................................................................... 35

Biological Reference Points (BRPs) ......................................................................................... 35

Qualitative status description .................................................................................................... 36

Research and Data Issues .......................................................................................................... 36
Operational Assessment August 2019 3 Table of Contents

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

Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 37

Figures....................................................................................................................................... 40

C: Atlantic Bluefish Operational Assessment for 2019................................................................ 45

State of Stock ............................................................................................................................ 45

OFL Projections ........................................................................................................................ 45

Catch ......................................................................................................................................... 45

Catch and Status Table: Atlantic bluefish ................................................................................. 46

Stock Distribution and Identification ........................................................................................ 46

Assessment Model .................................................................................................................... 47

Biological Reference Points (BRPs) ......................................................................................... 47

Qualitative status description .................................................................................................... 47

Research and Data Issues .......................................................................................................... 48

References ................................................................................................................................. 48

Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 49

Figures....................................................................................................................................... 51

D. Monkfish Operational Assessment for 2019 ............................................................................ 56

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 56

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 57

TOR 1. Update data .................................................................................................................. 59

TOR 2. Estimate F, R, B ........................................................................................................... 64

TOR 3. Update BRPs ................................................................................................................ 65

TOR 4. Stock Status .................................................................................................................. 65

TOR 5. Population Projections ................................................................................................. 65

TOR 6. Research areas and data issues ..................................................................................... 65

References: ................................................................................................................................ 66

Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 71

Figures..................................................................................................................................... 113

Appendix 1. Summary of Assessment Oversight Panel Meeting (May 20, 2019) ..................... 153

Appendix 2. Operational Assessment, Aug. 5-7, 2019, Attendee List ....................................... 158

Appendix 3. Operational Assessment, Aug. 5-7, 2019, Meeting Agenda .................................. 159
Operational Assessment August 2019 4 Preface

Preface

This document represents the findings of an Operational Assessment of Black sea bass,

scup, bluefish, and monkfish. The meeting was held August 5-7, 2019 at the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA. The Review Panel

comprised Thomas Miller (chair), Jean-Jacques Maguire, Kate Siegfried, and Michael Wilberg. 

Dr. Siegfried is from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, while the other reviewers are 

members of the New England or Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils’ Science and

Statistical Committees. Comments by the Operational Assessment Review Committee are 

included in their entirety in this report.

The Terms of Reference for the Operational Assessments were based on the 2011 

Operational Assessment Process White Paper developed by the NRCC, with some revisions 

made by the NEFSC SAW Chair on June, 3, 2019. The Assessment Oversight Panel (AOP), 

which included Paul Rago, Mike Celestino, Jason McNamee, and Russ Brown, met on May 20, 

2019 to review the assessment plans. The full AOP report is attached as an Appendix to this 

report. 

Thanks to the assessment scientists and colleagues for their efforts to implement this 

operational assessment. I also thank the review panel and especially the Chair, for their timely 

and insightful reviews. This document is part of an overall program to streamline the stock 

assessment process and provide more timely information to the New England and Mid Atlantic 

Fishery Management Councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I thank the 

executive staff of the NEFMC and MAFMC for their efforts to identify, coordinate, and support 

the peer review panel. All meetings of the AOP and Review Panel were open to the public and 

we appreciate the valuable input we received. 

James Weinberg 

NEFSC Stock Assessment Workshop Chairman 

August 13, 2019 

Northeast Regional Coordinating Council (NRCC). 2011. A new process for assessment of 

managed fishery resources off the Northeastern United States. Unpublished white paper. 26 

pages. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 5 General OARC Report 

Report of the 2019 Operational Assessment Review Committee (OARC) (Aug. 2019) 

Thomas J. Miller1 , Jean-Jacques Maguire2 , Kate I. Siegfried.3, Michael J. Wilberg1 

1. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Chesapeake Biological

Laboratory, Solomons, MD. & Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Scientific

and Statistical Committee

2. Quebec City, Quebec, G1T 2E4, Canada & New England Fishery Management

Council Scientific and Statistical Committee

3. NOAA/NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Beaufort Laboratory

The 2019 Operational Assessment Review Committee (OARC) met at the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center in Woods Hole, MA on August 5-7th. The OARC were asked to provide 

technical reviews of operational assessments for monkfish (Lophius americanus), black sea bass 

(Centropristis striata), scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix). The 

assessments for these four species were prepared under guidelines prepared by 2019 Assessment 

Oversight Panel (AOP). These guidelines provided a structured pathway for transitioning 

assessments for each species from a previously accepted benchmark assessment to one that 

incorporates the most recent data and understanding of the biology of the species being assessed. 

The 2019 Assessment Oversight Panel considered monkfish to be a level 2 assessment and the 

other three species were considered level 3 assessments. As a result of this designation, the 

assessments for all four species required peer-review.

We wish to thank Dr. Russ Brown (Population Dynamics Branch Chief), Dr. Jim Weinberg 

(SAW/SARC Process Chair), and Michele Traver (Stock Assessment Coordinator) for their 

support during the meeting. We thank the staff of the Population Dynamics Branch at NEFSC 

for the open and collaborative spirit with which they engaged the OARC. Our thanks extend not 

only to the analysts directly responsible for each assessment, but to the members of the 

Population Dynamics Branch who participated actively during the meeting. Finally, the OARC 

also wishes to thank the IT and other staff at NEFSC for supporting the logistics during the 

meeting. 

The OARC endorsed the assessments for all four species presented at the meeting. An analytical 

assessment for monkfish was not possible as a result of challenges of ageing this species. 

Instead, the lead assessment analyst brought forward a swept area-based approach that estimated 

a multiplier that could be used to adjust the current ABC by the PDT, SSC and Council of the 

New England Fishery Management Council as was done in the previous stock assessment. 

Analytical assessments were produced for black sea bass, scup and bluefish, each of which used 

a statistical catch at age model. In each case the OARC endorsed the model and the inferences 

that resulted as representing the best scientific information available (BSIA), thereby providing a 

foundation for staff, the SSC and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to evaluate 

stock status and provide scientific advice. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 6 OARC Report about Monkfish 

OARC Comments on 2019 Operational Assessment: Monkfish

The OARC determined that the 2019 operational assessment for monkfish represents the best 

available scientific information and provides an appropriate foundation to provide scientific 

advice to managers. The assessment represents the BSIA for this stock for management 

purposes. No analytical model was presented because of challenges of aging monkfish and so no 

stock status determination was possible. The OARC agrees with the assessment report that an ad 

hoc approach to updating catch advice is appropriate for monkfish. 

A length-based analytical approach for monkfish using the SCALE program in the National 

Fishery Toolbox (NFT) was first accepted in 2007 (NEDPSWG 2007 a,b) and continued for 

monkfish at SARC 50 (NEFSC 2010). This model was used to evaluate stock status and 

biological reference points until age and growth work (Bank 2016) indicated that the growth 

information was in error. The 2016 Operational Assessment Panel concluded that the SCALE 

model used previously could no longer be considered a reliable basis to estimate stock status and 

provide management advice. 

The 2016 Operational Assessment Panel concluded that an ad hoc “Plan B” approach, using the 

changes in the most recent three years in the NEFSC Autumn and Spring biomass estimates to 

adjust the North and South management areas TACs should be used instead (Richards 2016). 

Adoption of this approach precludes a determination of stock status.

The 2019 OARC had no basis to disagree with the conclusions of the 2016 Operational 

Assessment Panel. The 2019 operational assessment for monkfish is an update of the ad hoc Plan 

B approach adopted in the 2016 operational assessment (Richards 2016). Applying this approach 

in 2016 implied essentially status quo in both management areas. This year, because of the 

recruitment of the strong 2015 year class, particularly in the north management area, the 

approach implies a relatively large (~20%) increase in the TAC for the north management area. 

While biomass (kg/tow) continued to increase through the 2018 autumn survey, abundance 

(numbers/tow) peaked in 2016 and decreased in later years. In the spring survey, both biomass 

and abundance indices peaked in 2018 and decreased in 2019. The OARC is concerned that 

biomass in the autumn survey may also have peaked in 2018 and that the approach might 

exaggerate the allowable increase in TAC for the north area. In the future it may be useful to 

evaluate approaches that would limit the variability in TAC adjustments as an alternate plan B. 

The 2019 OARC concludes that the ad hoc Plan B operational assessment for monkfish is 

sufficient to provide scientific advice, but might exaggerate the allowable increase in TAC for 

the north area. The OARC notes that the results of the 2019 Operational Assessment and the 

recommendations of this OARC report will be used by the NEFMC PDT to develop 

recommendations that will be reviewed by the NEFMC SSC. The Panel expects that these 

concerns will be taken into account by the PDT and SSC. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 7 OARC Report about Monkfish 

Operational Assessment Terms of Reference: Monkfish

Stock assessments normally include 6 Terms of references. Not all ToRs were met because the 

Operational Assessment for monkfish was based on the Plan B approach accepted in the 2016 

Operational Assessment, 

1. Update fishery-dependent data (landings, discards, catch-at-age, etc.) and fisheryindependent data (research survey information) that had been used in the previous accepted

assessment. Also, describe and present any new or revised data sets that are being used in

the assessment.

This ToR was completed successfully. No new data sources were added to the assessment. 

Commercial landings and fishery-independent survey data from the NEFSC spring and fall 

surveys were updated. 

2a. Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment, and stock size for the time series (“Plan 

A”). Include estimates of uncertainty, retrospective analyses (both historical and withinmodel), and bridge runs to sequentially document any changes from the previously accepted 

model to the updated model proposed for this peer review. 

This ToR was not met. An analytical, length-based assessment using the NFT SCALE 

assessment model could not be developed because of uncertainties in ageing of monkfish and 

thus in growth parameters which are essential to the application of SCALE. Accordingly, no 

estimates of F, recruitment, and stock size for monkfish were produced. 

2b. Prepare a “Plan B” assessment that would serve as an alternate approach to providing 

scientific advice to management. “Plan B” will be presented for peer review only if the 

“Plan A” assessment were to not pass review.

As agreed by the Assessment Oversight Panel, Plan B was used for monkfish as in the previous 

Operational Assessment in 2016. This ad hoc approach uses a slope value estimated from a 

regression analysis of the last three years of the fishery-independent surveys. Slope estimates for 

both the northern and southern regions are developed by appropriate sampling of stations from 

the NEFSC surveys. The exponentiated value of this slope is used as a multiplier to update the 

TAC for both the northern and southern regions. 

3. Update the values of biological reference points (BRPs) for this stock.

This ToR could not be met as there is no accepted assessment model for monkfish.

4a. Recommend what stock status appears to be based on comparison of assessment results to 

BRP estimates.
Operational Assessment August 2019 8 OARC Report about Monkfish 

There are no accepted biological reference points for monkfish and, thus, this ToR could not be 

met.

4b. Include qualitative descriptions of stock status based on simple indicators/metrics (e.g., ageand size-structure, temporal trends in population size or recruitment indices, etc.). 

This ToR was met.

5. Perform short-term (2-year) population projections. The projection results should include

an estimate of the catch at FMSY or at an FMSY proxy (i.e. this catch represents the

overfishing level, OFL) as well as its statistical distribution (i.e., probability density

function).

This ToR could not be met as there is no accepted assessment model for monkfish.

6. Comment on research areas or data issues to consider that might lead to improvements when

this stock is assessed again in the future. 

This ToR was met. SARC 34 (NEFSC 2002) recommended, “Surplus production modeling 

should continue with special emphasis placed on uncertainty in under-reported catches and 

population size prior to 1980.” SARC 50 (NEFSC 2010) concluded: -“Bayesian surplus 

production was explored unsuccessfully for SAW 40 (NEFSC 2005) and NDPSWG (2007).” The 

Data Poor Working Group for monkfish (NDPSWG 2007) concluded that long-term production 

models were inappropriate for status determination of monkfish because of the general lack of 

correspondence between reported catch and survey trends. 

Recent developments in general production modeling (JABBA, Winker et. al. 2018; SPiCT, 

Pedersen and Berg, 2016) may have addressed the concerns expressed in SARC 50. In 

particular, these modeling approaches allow for observation and process errors which make it 

possible to improve the estimate of the stock size and fit to the indices. The OARC suggests that 

these methods be investigated in the next research track assessment as an alternative to 

age/length based methods regardless of whether the age and growth problems have been 

resolved. 

The OARC also recommend that the next assessment review and revise, if appropriate, the Plan 

B approach based on approaches in the DLMtool (http://www.datalimitedtoolkit.org/) and on the 

approaches used by ICES 

(https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2018/2018/Introduction_to_advic

e_2018.pdf ).

Major sources of uncertainty: Monkfish

Recent studies using mtDNA did not find differences between the north and south management 

areas, suggesting that there is a single stock. This is not a major source of uncertainty under the 

current Plan B, but could become so if and when a new analytical approach is adopted. At that 
Operational Assessment August 2019 9 OARC Report about Monkfish 

time, stock structure should be evaluated carefully and both hypotheses (i.e., a single stock area, 

or a multiple area model) should be evaluated. 

As indicated above, the three-year smoother may be risky since recruitment after the 2015-year 

class is estimated to have been average or less. Given previous large fluctuations in biomass, an 

increase of 20% or more may not be sustainable if the recruitment remains below average. 

References

Bank, C. (2016). Validation of age determination methods for monkfish (Lophius americanus). 

Master of Science Thesis, School of Marine Science and Technology, Univ. Mass. 

Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group. 2007a. Monkfish assessment summary for 2007. 

US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 07-13; 12 p.

(Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group. 2007b. Monkfish assessment report for 2007. US 

Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 07-21; 232 p.Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center. (2002). Report of the 34th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (34th SAW): Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus 

summary of assessments. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 02-06; 346 p. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (2005). 40th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (40th SAW). 40th SAW assessment report. US Dep Commer, Northeast Fish 

Sci Cent Ref Doc. 05-04; 146 p. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. (2010). 50th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (50th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent 

Ref Doc. 10-17; 844 p. 

Pedersen, M. W. and Berg, C. W. (2017). A stochastic surplus production model in continuous 

time. Fish and Fisheries, 18(2):226–243. 

Richards RA. 2016. Monkfish Operational Assessment. US Dept Commer, North-east Fish Sci 

Cent Ref Doc. 16-09; 109 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 

Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at 

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

Winker, H., Carvalhoc, F. Kapurc, M. (2018). JABBA: Just Another Bayesian Biomass 

Assessment. Fisheries Research 204 (2018): 275-288. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 10 OARC Report about Black Sea Bass 

OARC Comments on 2019 Operational Assessment: Black Sea Bass

The operational assessment for black sea bass is an update to the 2017 benchmark assessment 

accepted by the SARC-62 Panel (NEFSC 2017). 

The OARC concludes that the 2019 operational assessment for black sea bass is technically 

sufficient to evaluate stock status and provide scientific advice. The assessment represents the 

BSIA for this stock for management purposes. The OARC agrees with the assessment report 

that black sea bass is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. 

In 2017, the SARC-62 Panel approved a single stock, two area model developed to determine 

stock status, biological reference points (BRPs) and proxies, and to project probable short-term 

trends. F40% proxy was recommended as a proxy for FMSY. Although the two-area model had a 

more severe retrospective pattern in opposite directions in each area sub-unit than when a single 

unit was assumed, it provides reasonable model estimates after the retrospective corrections and 

combining the two spatial units. Thus, even though reference points are generated and stock 

status determinations are conducted for each subunit, the combined projections should be used. 

Operational Assessment Terms of Reference: Black Sea Bass 

The 2019 operational assessment updated the SARC-62 model under guidelines provided by the 

2019 Assessment Oversight Panel (see appendix report from May 20, 2019) and the following 

Terms of references (TORs). 

1. Update fishery-dependent data (landings, discards, catch-at-age, etc.) and fisheryindependent data (research survey information) that had been used in the previous accepted

assessment. Also, describe and present any new or revised data sets that are being used in

the assessment.

This TOR was completed satisfactorily. The analyst updated all data streams consistent with the 

Benchmark, including the new MRIP estimates of recreational landings and discards. The new 

MRIP estimates are 9% to 161% larger than the previous estimates and are the only change in 

methodology for this TOR. 

2a. Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment, and stock size for the time series (“Plan A”). 

Include estimates of uncertainty, retrospective analyses (both historical and within-model), 

and bridge runs to sequentially document any changes from the previously accepted model 

to the updated model proposed for this peer review.

This TOR was completed satisfactorily. The uncertainty around SSB and F was provided. 

Although the two-area model had a moderate retrospective pattern in each area sub-unit (which 

mostly cancel one another out when the two areas are combined), it provides reasonable model 

estimates after the retrospective corrections. Using retrospective corrections is also consistent 

with the practices in the Benchmark.

2b. Prepare a “Plan B” assessment that would serve as an alternate approach to providing 

scientific advice to management. “Plan B” will be presented for peer review only if the 

“Plan A” assessment were to not pass review.
Operational Assessment August 2019 11 OARC Report about Black Sea Bass 

This TOR was completed satisfactorily. The OARC was provided a brief overview of the Plan B 

model, though it was not thoroughly discussed or considered for use.

3. Update the values of biological reference points (BRPs) for this stock.

This TOR was completed satisfactorily. The BRPs were carried over from the Benchmark and 

recalculated using the 2019 Operational Assessment model results. 

4a. Recommend what stock status appears to be based on comparison of assessment results to 

BRP estimates.

This TOR was completed satisfactorily. The report provides the biomass and fishing status based 

on the FMSY proxy (F40%). 

4b. Include qualitative descriptions of stock status based on simple indicators/metrics (e.g., 

age- and size-structure, temporal trends in population size or recruitment indices, etc.). 

This TOR was completed satisfactorily. The report provides a qualitative description of stock 

status based on species distribution, survey series trends, and recruitment.

5. Perform short-term (2-year) population projections. The projection results should include

an estimate of the catch at FMSY or at an FMSY proxy (i.e. this catch represents the

overfishing level, OFL) as well as its statistical distribution (i.e., probability density

function).

This TOR was completed satisfactorily. The report provides OFL projections using a 2019 ABC 

that has been adjusted to reflect the new MRIP estimates. The 2020 and 2021 projected catches 

are based on the F40% value from the Operational Assessment.

The OARC note the following important sources of scientific uncertainty 

i. The MRIP recalibrated data received a thorough examination by the 2019 OARC. The

lead assessment analyst drew attention to a large estimate in 2016 that was considered

implausible. The impact of this observation on overall model results is uncertain.

Various treatments of the anomalous MRIP data point (smoothing, exclusion, etc.) did

not qualitatively affect the overall model results. However, the uncertainty in the MRIP

estimates is not an input to the model.

ii. The reweighting of likelihood components during model fitting was not well described. It

is unclear what weights, if any, were applied to the likelihood components. This adds to

the uncertainty of the overall reliability of the model.

iii. As the weights-at-age have been changing over time, using a five year running average

may have an important effect on the reference points, adding uncertainty to the reliability

of model results.

iv. Uncertainty in the indices was characterized by the CVs of the standardization.
Operational Assessment August 2019 12 OARC Report about Black Sea Bass 

v. The retrospective pattern was large enough to need the corrections (outside the 90%

confidence intervals), and the additional uncertainty caused by applying the correction is

unclear. The model for the northern area has a larger retrospective pattern than the model

for the southern area.

vi. The combination of the values from the northern and southern areas is done without

weighting based on landings or biomass. It’s unclear whether or how the uncertainty

should be treated when the BRPs are combined using simple addition.

6. Comment on research areas or data issues to consider that might lead to improvements

when this stock is assessed again in the future.

This TOR was completed satisfactorily. The report outlines three main areas of research interest: 

examining recruitment events, distribution shifts and the changing environment, management 

strategy evaluations. 

The OARC note the following recommendations for future work. 

i. A re-evaluation of splitting the stock into two area subunits is warranted. This evaluation

should include evaluating:

a. Whether year classes can be tracked in a single stock model, as the inability to do this

was a major factor motivating the decision to use the two area subunits;

b. Genetic evidence on the structure of the population north of Cape Hatteras;

c. Movement estimates from traditional and acoustic tagging.

ii. The fishery-independent indices included in the model should be re-examined. Only the

ones that are a priori considered to capture the trends in the stock should be considered.

iii. Evaluation of natural mortality (M) used in the model. The protogynous life history of

black sea bass may suggest a constant M at age is not appropriate for this species.

iv. Consideration of the impacts of range expansion on coverage of the stock in surveys and

model applicability.

v. The 2011-year class was dominant in the northern area, whereas the 2015-year class was

strong throughout the stock area. Exploration of the causes of the pattern and magnitude

of recruitment in black sea bass is warranted.

References

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. (2017). 62nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (62nd SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent 

Ref Doc. 17-03; 822 p. doi: 10.7289/V5/RD-NEFSC-17-03
Operational Assessment August 2019 13 OARC Report about Scup 

OARC Comments on 2019 Operational Assessment: Scup

The Operational Assessment Review Committee (OARC) determined that the 2019 operational 

assessment for scup represents the best available scientific information and provides an 

appropriate foundation to a) provide stock status determination and b) provide scientific advice 

to managers. 

The OARC considered the analyses conducted within the guidelines provided to the NEFSC 

assessment scientists by the 2019 Assessment Oversight Panel (see appendix report from May 

20, 2019). Scup have been assessed within a statistical catch at age framework at the Data Poor 

Working Group assessment (NDPSWG 2009), the 60th SAW (NEFSC 2015) , in a 2017 model 

update and now at the 2019 Operational Assessment Review in all cases using ASAP. The 

structure of the SCAA model for scup has remained largely unchanged over these assessments. 

This most recent assessment added 2017-2018 fishery and research survey data which included 

new calibrated MRIP data for 1981-2018. 

Operational Assessment Terms of Reference: Scup

1. Update fishery-dependent data (landings, discards, catch-at-age, etc.) and fisheryindependent data (research survey information) that had been used in the previous accepted

assessment. Also, describe and present any new or revised data sets that are being used in

the assessment*.

This TOR was completed successfully. Incorporation of the new MRIP data indicated that the 

removals of scup are now comprised of ~60% commercial (landings and discards) and 40% 

recreational (landings and discards). The new calibrated MRIP data indicated relatively 

consistent increases in recreational catch and discard for the first 2/3 of the times series. 

However, MRIP recreational catch and discard levels diverge increasingly from the previous 

estimates after 2000, particularly so for recreational discards. This pattern of divergence was 

expected given the hypothesized causes for the differences between the MRIP mail and phone 

surveys. 

2a. Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment, and stock size for the time series (“Plan 

A”). Include estimates of uncertainty, retrospective analyses (both historical and withinmodel), and bridge runs to sequentially document any changes from the previously accepted 

model to the updated model proposed for this peer review. 

This TOR was completed successfully. The bridging of assessment models from the SAW 60 

assessment to the 2019 operational assessment was appropriate. Fit of the 2019 operational 

SCAA model to the new data revealed no substantially anomalous model diagnostics and 

accordingly, the model provides a suitable foundation for management. The 2019 Operational 

Assessment for scup indicates higher stock abundance and SSB and lower Fs than in earlier 

assessments. Neither internal retrospective biases, evaluated using a 7-year data peel, nor 
Operational Assessment August 2019 14 OARC Report about Scup 

external retrospective biases, evaluated using a comparisons of sequential assessments, were 

substantial and no bias corrections were necessary. 

2b. Prepare a “Plan B” assessment that would serve as an alternate approach to providing 

scientific advice to management. “Plan B” will be presented for peer review only if the 

“Plan A” assessment were to not pass review.

This ToR was completed successfully. The OARC reviewed the ad hoc “Plan B” approach, but 

considers the analytical statistical catch at age model a more reliable foundation for management 

3. Update the values of biological reference points (BRPs) for this stock.

This ToR was completed successfully. Biological reference points were estimated. The FMSY

proxy (F40%) estimate was similar to that estimated in earlier assessments. MSY and SSBMSY

were also similar to earlier estimates, although expected recruitments were higher. Based on 

model results, stock status for scup is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. 

4a. Recommend what stock status appears to be based on comparison of assessment results to 

BRP estimates.

The OARC agrees with the stock status determination for scup derived from the 2019 operational 

assessment that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. 

4b. Include qualitative descriptions of stock status based on simple indicators/metrics (e.g., ageand size-structure, temporal trends in population size or recruitment indices, etc.). 

This ToR was completed successfully.

5. Perform short-term (2-year) population projections. The projection results should include an

estimate of the catch at FMSY or at an FMSY proxy (i.e. this catch represents the overfishing 

level, OFL) as well as its statistical distribution (i.e., probability density function).

This TOR was completed successfully. Short term projections were made for 2020 and 2021. 

These projections assume the 2019 ABC will be caught (after adjustment of the recreational 

catch for the new MRIP estimates of recreational catch and discard), and relied on recruitments 

sampled from 1984-2018. 

The OARC notes the following Important Sources of Scientific Uncertainty 

1. Following the record 2015-year class, recruitments in 2016, 2017 and 2018 have all been

below the time series mean. If this trend continues, short-term projections, which assume

random values from the recruitment distribution over the 1983-2018 time series, may

become overestimate allowable catches.

2. The record high 2015-year class has contributed to high rates of discarding in the

commercial fishery. These can be expected to decline as this year class recruits to the

fishery and is fished down. The effects of this on estimates of SSB and F are uncertain.

3. The scup SCAA uses multiple selectivity blocks. The final selectivity block (2006-2018)

is the longest in the model. The applicability of the most recent selectivity block to the

current fishery condition is uncertain. If the fishery selectivity implied in this block
Operational Assessment August 2019 15 OARC Report about Scup 

changes, estimates of stock number, spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality 

become less reliable. 

4. Most of the fishery-independent indices used in the model provide estimates of the

abundance of scup < age 3. One consequence is that much of the information on the

dynamics of scup of older ages arise largely from the fishery catch at age and from

assumptions of the model and are not conditioned on fishery-independent observations.

As a result, the dynamics of these older fish remains uncertain. Knowledge of the

dynamics of these older age classes will become more important as the age structure

continues to expand.

6. Comment on research areas or data issues to consider that might lead to improvements when

this stock is assessed again in the future. 

The OARC notes the following recommendations for additional research or data collection. 

1. Explore the applicability of the pattern of fishery selectivity in the model to the most

recent catch data to determine whether a new selectivity block in the model is warranted.

2. Mean weights at age and age at maturity have declined in recent years. Continued

monitoring of both is warranted to determine if these are reversible density-dependent

responses or arise from a different mechanism.

3. It was conjectured that the increase in stock biomass since 2000 resulted from increased

recruitments resulting from the imposition of gear restriction areas (GRAs) to minimize

interactions between scup and squid fisheries and from increases in commercial mesh

sizes. Low frequency climate variations is a potential alternative explanation for

increased recruitments from 2000-20015. Research to explore the validity of both

hypotheses is warranted.

References

Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group. 2009. The Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working 

Group Report, December 8-12, 2008 Meeting. Part A. Skate species complex, deep sea 

red crab, Atlantic wolffish, scup, and black sea bass. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish 

Sci Cent Ref Doc. 09-02; 496 p. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. (2015). 60th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (60th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent 

Ref Doc. 15-08; 870 p. doi: 10.7289/V5W37T9T 
Operational Assessment August 2019 16 OARC Report about Bluefish 

OARC Comments on 2019 Operational Assessment: Bluefish

The operational assessment for bluefish is an update of the approach adopted in the 2015 

benchmark assessment. A statistical catch-at-age approach was adopted for bluefish at SARC 60 

(NEFSC 2015) and was updated for this operational assessment. 

The OARC concludes that the 2019 operational assessment for bluefish is technically sufficient 

to evaluate stock status and provide scientific advice. The assessment represents the BSIA for 

this stock for management purposes. The OARC agrees with the assessment report that bluefish 

is overfished but overfishing is not occurring. The OARC notes that if retrospective adjustments 

were applied to the assessment results, the stock biomass would be even further below the 

overfished definition. However, the standard procedures used by stock assessment analysts at 

the NEFSC would not call for the application of a retrospective correction as the retrospectively 

adjusted values do not exceed the 90% confidence intervals for the base model output. 

Terms of Reference: Bluefish

1. Update fishery-dependent data (landings, discards, catch-at-age, etc.) and fisheryindependent data (research survey information) that had been used in the previous accepted

assessment. Also, describe and present any new or revised data sets that are being used in

the assessment.

The OARC determined that TOR 1 was addressed sufficiently. The primary change to the 

previous benchmark was the updated estimates of recreational landings and discards. These 

estimates differed both in their magnitude and trend from the previous estimates, with the new 

estimates being higher in magnitude and showing a somewhat different trend in the most recent 

years. In addition, all the other data series were updated, and the model fits and diagnostics 

seemed reasonable.

The committee noted that the revised MRIP time series did not decrease to the original estimates 

in the early 80s as would be expected if the original MRFSS telephone survey was accurate. 

Additionally, the relative differences in catches were different for bluefish than for the other 

species reviewed. It was not clear why there was a large increase in the new MRIP estimates in 

the early 1980s. The difference between the old and new MRIP estimates was different for 

retained catch and discards. It was not clear why this difference occurred, but it was noted that 

supplemental data programs are used to describe the length composition of discards because 

discarded fish are larger on average than kept fish. 

Additionally, the committee noted that there was a recent increase in average weight at age. This 

increase may be due to changing availability of large offshore fish. Changing availability of 

these large fish may also explain the recent decrease in commercial catch.

2. a.) Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment, and stock size for the time series (“Plan

A”). Include estimates of uncertainty, retrospective analyses (both historical and within-
Operational Assessment August 2019 17 OARC Report about Bluefish 

model), and bridge runs to sequentially document any changes from the previously accepted 

model to the updated model proposed for this peer review. 

The OARC agreed that TOR 2 was met. The updated stock assessment included estimates of 

fishing mortality rates, recruitment and stock size. The updated stock assessment also included 

estimates of uncertainty, retrospective analyses and bridge runs to document changes from the 

benchmark. 

The largest change in the updated stock assessment was an increase in the scale of the population 

that was caused by the substantially higher estimates of recreational catch. Additionally, the 

stock assessment results indicated somewhat different trends in fishing mortality rates and 

biomass from the previous benchmark with fishing mortality rates remaining high (instead of 

decreasing) and biomass decreasing (instead of remaining relatively flat). These changes in the 

trends of fishing mortality and biomass were caused by the changes in the trends of the new 

recreational catch time series while the indices were unchanged.

2. b.) Prepare a “Plan B” assessment that would serve as an alternate approach to providing

scientific advice to management. “Plan B” will be presented for peer review only if the 

“Plan A” assessment were to not pass review.

The OARC looked at the plan B for information purposes only because the updated stock 

assessment was accepted.

3. Update the values of biological reference points (BRPs) for this stock.

The OARC agreed that this TOR was met. The fishing mortality rate reference point (F35%) was 

very similar to the estimate from the previous benchmark. However, the SSB reference points 

approximately doubled from the previous benchmark values. This increase in the SSB reference 

points was caused by the increased scale of the population estimates when the new MRIP 

estimates were used.

4. a.) Recommend what stock status appears to be based on comparison of assessment results to

BRP estimates.

b.) Include qualitative descriptions of stock status based on simple indicators/metrics (e.g., 

age- and size-structure, temporal trends in population size or recruitment indices, etc.). 

The OARC agreed that this TOR was met. The stock assessment results indicated that 

overfishing was not occurring, but the stock is overfished because of the increase BThreshold. The 

committee notes that adjusting the estimates for the model’s retrospective pattern resulted in the 

same determination of overfished for stock status (although the retrospective corrections were 

not applied because the adjusted values fell within the 90% confidence intervals). Qualitative 

descriptions of stock status were included.
Operational Assessment August 2019 18 OARC Report about Bluefish 

5. Perform short-term (2-year) population projections. The projection results should include an

estimate of the catch at FMSY or at an FMSY proxy (i.e. this catch represents the overfishing

level, OFL) as well as its statistical distribution (i.e., probability density function). 

The OARC agreed that this TOR was met. Projections were conducted to calculate potential 

OFLs and MCMC was used to characterize uncertainty in the OFL. Short term projections were 

made for 2020 and 2021. These projections assume the 2019 ABC will be caught. 

The revised MRIP estimates are an important new source of uncertainty. In particular, the trend 

of the recreational catch estimates has an important influence on recent estimates of biomass and 

on the stock status estimates. The revised MRIP estimates had a different trend (relative to the 

old estimates) than was present for the other species reviewed. The pattern in the new MRIP data 

are an important source of uncertainty in determination of stock status and in short term 

projections. 

The assumption that the 2019 ABC will be fully caught is a source of uncertainty in the model 

projections, as the bluefish ABC has not been attained in recent years. 

6. Comment on research areas or data issues to consider that might lead to improvements when

this stock is assessed again in the future.

The OARC agreed that this TOR was met. In addition to the research ideas presented in the 

report, the committee highlights that a primary source of uncertainty is the recreational catch 

time series. The MRIP trend does not seem consistent with hypothesized reasons for differences 

between the mail and phone surveys. This historical correction to the MRIP estimates for 

bluefish should be explored further to evaluate the causes of differences from other species and 

to consider their plausibility.

References

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2015. 60th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop 

(60th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 

15-08; 870 p. doi: 10.7289/V5W37T9T
Operational Assessment August 2019 19 OARC Report on Process Improvements

OARC Recommendations for Process Improvements

The OARC makes the following suggestions to improve the process for peer review of 

operational assessments.

1) Documentation of model fits and diagnostics. The Operational Assessment Review

Committee was asked to determine whether the operational assessments under consideration

were “technically sufficient to (a) evaluate stock status and (b) provide scientific advice.”

The OARC believe that such a determination requires access to appropriate statistics and

diagnostic plots of model fit. Without such information, the OARC believes it would not be

possible to evaluate the performance of the updated assessments required to make the

determinations requested of the committee. The model fit and diagnostic materials should be

provided routinely to OARC members in the future. These do not need to be included in the

assessment summary or in the presentations, but appropriate output files should be available

for the review committee to review. More specifically, there is a need to identify explicitly

descriptions of the decisions regarding likelihood components, coefficients of variation on

data inputs and restrictions on estimability of individual parameters.

2) The OARC received an assessment summary and a detailed presentation that provided many

of the technical details of the operational assessments under consideration. The OARC

believes strongly that both the assessment summary and the detailed presentations be

published as a record of the review meeting.

3) The terms of reference for this meeting did not specifically include a ToR that addressed

documenting and evaluating the principal sources of scientific uncertainty associated with the

assessment for each species. Such an evaluation would be very useful to the relevant SSCs

and Councils in developing management recommendations. The OARC recommends that a

ToR that explicitly addresses scientific uncertainty as it relates to biological reference points

and projections be added in the future.

4) In developing guidelines for each assessment, the AOP should charge the assessment team

to respond explicitly to the sources of uncertainty identified by the relevant SSC related to

the estimation to the distribution and point estimates of OFL associated with the previous

assessments. It is expected that the update assessment will not be able to address all

important sources of uncertainty identified by the SSC, deferring action on these questions to

a future research or benchmark assessment. In such cases, the update assessment report

would simply conclude “Action to address this source of uncertainty is beyond the scope of

an update assessment and is deferred to a subsequent research track assessment.” However,

where progress has been made, it should be noted and clearly reported to the staff, SSC and

members of the relevant Council.
Operational Assessment August 2019 20 Terms of Reference – All stocks

Stock Assessment Terms of Reference

Operational Stock Assessment TORs for Aug. 2019 Review 

(Based on: 2011 Operational Assessment Process White Paper, and NEFSC edits. v.6/3/2019) 

1. Update fishery-dependent data (landings, discards, catch-at-age, etc.) and fishery-independent

data (research survey information) that had been used in the previous accepted assessment.

Also, describe and present any new or revised data sets that are being used in the assessment*.

2. a.) Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment, and stock size for the time series (“Plan A”).

Include estimates of uncertainty, retrospective analyses (both historical and within-model), and

bridge runs to sequentially document any changes from the previously accepted model to the

updated model proposed for this peer review.

b.) Prepare a “Plan B” assessment that would serve as an alternate approach to providing

scientific advice to management. “Plan B” will be presented for peer review only if the “Plan

A” assessment were to not pass review.

3. Update the values of biological reference points (BRPs) for this stock.

4. a.) Recommend what stock status appears to be based on comparison of assessment results

to BRP estimates.

b.) Include qualitative descriptions of stock status based on simple indicators/metrics (e.g.,

age- and size-structure, temporal trends in population size or recruitment indices, etc.).

5. Perform short-term (2-year) population projections. The projection results should include an

estimate of the catch at FMSY or at an FMSY proxy (i.e. this catch represents the overfishing

level, OFL) as well as its statistical distribution (i.e., probability density function).

6. Comment on research areas or data issues to consider that might lead to improvements when

this stock is assessed again in the future.

* Major changes from the previous stock assessment require pre-approval by the Assessment

Oversight Panel.
Operational Assessment August 2019 21 Black Sea Bass

A: Black Sea Bass Operational Assessment for 2019

(Lead: Gary Shepherd)

State of Stock

This assessment of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) is an update through 2018 of 

commercial and recreational catch data, research survey and fishery-dependent indices of 

abundance, and the analyses of those data. The black sea bass stock was not overfished and 

overfishing was not occurring in 2018 relative to the updated biological reference points (Figure 

A1). Spawning stock biomass (retro adjusted SSB) was estimated to be 33,407 mt in 2018, about 

2.4 times the updated biomass target reference point SSBMSY proxy = SSB40% = 14,092 mt (Table 

A1, Figure A2). There is a 90% chance that SSB in 2018 was between 25,946 and 41,932 mt. 

Fishing mortality on the fully selected ages 6-7 fish was 0.42 in 2018 after adjusting for 

retrospective biases, which was 91% of the updated fishing mortality threshold reference point 

FMSY proxy = F40% = 0.46 (Table A1, Figure A3). There is a 90% probability that the fishing 

mortality rate in 2018 was between 0.32 and 0.60. The average recruitment from 1989 to 2018 is 

36 million fish at age 1. The 2011 year class was estimated to be the largest in the time series at 

144.7 million fish and the 2015 year class was the second largest at 79.4 million fish. 

Recruitment of the 2017 year class as age 1 in 2018 was estimated at 16.0 million, well below 

average (Table A1, Figures A2 & A4). The 2018 model estimates of F and SSB adjusted for 

internal retrospective error are outside the model estimate 90% confidence intervals and so the 

terminal year estimates have been adjusted for stock status determination and projections (Figure 

A1).

OFL Projections 

Projections using the 2019 Operational Assessment ASAP model (data through 2018) were made 

to estimate the OFL catches for 2020-2021. The projections assume that the 2019 ABC of 6,716 

mt in the north and 1,200 mt in the south (both adjusted for new MRIP estimates) will be taken 

in 2019 and sampled from the estimated recruitment for 2000-2018. The OFL projection for 

combined regions uses F2020-F2021 = updated FMSY proxy = F40% = 0.46. The OFL catches are 

8,795 mt in 2020 (CV =20%) and 7,377 mt in 2021 (CV =17%).

OFL for 2020-2021 

Catches and SSB in metric tons

Year Total Catch F SSB

2019 7,917 0.33 27,659

2020 8,795 0.46 22,699

2021 7,377 0.46 20,379

Catch 

Reported 2018 commercial landings were 1,515 mt = 3.338 million lbs. Estimated 2018 

recreational landings were 4,008 mt = 8.836 million lbs. Total commercial and recreational 

landings in 2018 were 5,522 mt = 12.174 million lbs. Estimated 2018 commercial discards were 

722 mt = 1.591 million lbs. Estimated 2018 recreational discards were 1,033 mt = 2.277 million 

lbs. The estimated total catch in 2018 was 7,277 mt = 16.043 million lbs.
Operational Assessment August 2019 22 Black Sea Bass

In July 2018, the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) replaced the existing 

estimates of recreational catch (‘Old’ MRIP) with a calibrated 1981-2017 time series (‘New’ 

MRIP) that corresponds to new survey methods that were fully implemented in 2018. For 

comparison with the existing estimates noted above, the New MRIP estimate of 2017 

recreational landings is 5,692 mt = 12.549 million lbs, 2.6 times the Old estimate. The New 

MRIP estimate of 2017 recreational discards is 1,634 mt = 3.603 million lb, 2.8 times the Old 

estimate. The New MRIP recreational catch estimates increased the 1981-2017 total catch by an 

average of 73% (from 1,687 mt = 3.719 million lb to 2,927 mt = 6.453 million lb), ranging from 

+9% in 1995 to +161% in 2017. The increase in 2017 was from 2,802 mt = 6.177 million lb to

7,327 mt =16.153 million lb. The 2019 updated assessment model includes the New MRIP

estimates of recreational landings and discards (Catch and Status Table below; Table A2).

Catch and Status Table: Black Sea Bass

(Weights in mt, recruitment in millions, arithmetic means, includes New MRIP estimates)

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Commercial 

landings 523 751 765 782 1,027 1,088 1,113 1,133 1,808 1,514

Commercial 

discards2 167 134 227 116 278 459 423 757 1,027 722 

Recreational 

landings 2,525 3,502 1,421 3,162 2,685 3,510 4,448 6,131 5,692 4,008 

Recreational 

discards2 623 733 358 1,048 749 839 985 1,391 1,634 1,033

Catch used in 

assessment 3,838 5,121 2,771 5,108 4,739 5,896 6,969 9,412 10,162 7,277

Spawning stock 

biomass

11,125 14,061 14,129 16,730 23,657 34,712 33,242 30,736 26,176 22,199

Recruitment (age 1, 

millions)

34.1 34.4 39.6 144.7 47.8 26.2 34.2 79.4 47.3 10.1

F full3 0.67 0.76 0.41 0.60 0.57 0.42 0.33 0.35 0.52 0.39

Year Min1 Max1 Avg1

Commercial landings 523 1,808 1,152

Commercial discards2 10 1,027 213

Recreational landings 681 6,131 2,399

Recreational discards2 99 1,634 583

Catch used in assessment 2,263 10,162 4,274

Spawning stock biomass 3,044 34,712 11,499

Recruitment (age 1, millions) 10.1 144.7 36.1

F full3 0.33 114 0.66

1 Years 1989-2018

2 dead discards

3 Average F on fully selected ages 6-7. Note that table values are not retro adjusted. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 23 Black Sea Bass

Stock Distribution and Identification

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (ASMFC) Fishery Management Plan for black sea bass defines the management 

unit as all black sea bass from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina northeast to the US-Canada border 

(MAFMC 1999). The stock was partitioned into two sub-units to account for spatial differences 

in the assessment model. The sub-units are not considered to be separate stocks.

Assessment Model

The assessment models (separate north and south models) for black sea bass is a complex 

statistical catch-at-age model (ASAP SCAA; Legault and Restrepo 1998; NFT 2013) 

incorporating a broad range of fishery and survey data (NEFSC 2017). The model assumes an 

instantaneous natural mortality rate (M) = 0.4. The fishery catch in each region is modeled as 

two fleets: trawl catch and non-trawl catch, which includes recreational landings, recreational 

discards, commercial fish pot and hand-line catch and catches from other non-trawl sources.

Indices of stock abundance for the north region used in the model were from NEFSC Albatross 

spring, MA DMF spring trawl, RI DFW spring trawl, CT DEEP spring Long Island trawl, New 

York DEC juvenile seine, NEFSC Bigelow spring, NEAMAP spring bottom trawl and MRIP 

catch per angler trip. The indices of abundance for the southern region were from NEFSC 

Albatross winter, NEFSC Albatross spring, New Jersey DEP spring trawl, DE DFW spring 

trawl, MD DNR spring coastal bays trawl, VIMS Chesapeake Bay juvenile trawl, NEAMAP 

spring trawl, NEFSC Bigelow spring trawl and MRIP catch per angler trip. Indices for both 

regions were comparable to those used in the 2016 benchmark assessment. 

There remains a significant retrospective pattern in both the northern and southern assessment 

models. The retrospective pattern in the north over-estimates F by 44% over the last 5 terminal 

years and under-estimates SSB by 43%. In the southern region, the opposite pattern prevails 

where F is under-estimated by 22% and SSB is over-estimated by 22%. The 2018 regional model 

estimates of F and SSB were adjusted for internal retrospective error (north F (0.46) adjusted for 

retrospective = 0.32, north SSB (15,924 mt) adjusted for retrospective = 28,063 mt; south F 

(0.38) adjusted for retrospective = 0.49, south SSB (6,539 mt) adjusted for retrospective = 5,361 

mt). Since the retrospective corrected values generally fell outside the 90% confidence intervals 

of the terminal year estimates, the retrospective adjusted values were used for status 

determination and OFL’s. The historical retrospective analysis (comparison between 

assessments) indicates that the trends in spawning stock biomass, recruitment and fishing 

mortality have been consistent between the benchmark assessment (2016) and the 2019 update. 

Biological Reference Points (BRPs) 

Reference points were calculated using the non-parametric yield and SSB per recruit long-term 

projection approach. The cumulative distribution function of the 2000-2018 recruitments 

(equivalent to years used in 2016 benchmark assessment) was re-sampled to provide future 

recruitment estimates for the projections used to estimate the biomass reference point.

The existing biological reference points for black sea bass are from the 2016 SAW 62 

benchmark assessment (NEFSC 2017). The reference points are F40% as the proxy for FMSY, and 

the corresponding SSB40% as the proxy for the SSBMSY biomass target. The F40% proxy for FMSY
Operational Assessment August 2019 24 Black Sea Bass

=0.36; the proxy estimate for SSBMSY = SSB40% = 9,667 mt = 21.312 million lbs; the proxy 

estimate for the 1⁄2 SSBMSY biomass threshold = 1⁄2 SSB40%=4,834 mt = 10.657 million lbs; and 

the proxy estimate for MSY = MSY40% = 3,097 mt=6.828 million lbs. 

The F40% and corresponding SSB40% proxy biological reference points for black sea bass were 

updated for this 2019 Operational Assessment. The update fishing mortality threshold F40% proxy 

for FMSY = 0.46. The updated biomass target proxy estimate for SSBMSY = SSB40% = 14,092 mt = 

31.067 million lbs. and the updated biomass threshold proxy estimate for 1⁄2 SSBMSY = 1⁄2 SSB40%

= 7,046mt = 15.534 million lbs. The update proxy estimate for MSY = MSY40% = 4,773 mt 

=10.522 million lbs. 

Qualitative status description

The distribution of the fishery and catches has shifted north over the past decade. Most survey 

aggregate biomass indices are near their time series high. Recent survey indices suggest the 

recruitment of a large 2011 year class in the northern region and a strong 2015 year class in both 

regions. Modest catches over the past few years would indicate that current mortality from all 

sources is lower than recent recruitment inputs to the stock, which has resulted in a spawning 

biomass that is well above the management target. Despite uncertainty associated with the most 

recent year estimates, exploitable biomass is expected to decrease in coming years due to poor 

recruitment by the 2017 cohort along with declining abundance of the 2015 cohort.

Research and Data Issues

The recent recruitment of large year classes in the assessment time series (the 2011 and 2015 

year class) has contributed to increases in catch, particularly in the northern region. Additional 

research examining recruitment events, distribution shifts and the changing environment should 

be explored.

Spatial differences in recruitment and fisheries have been accounted for with independent 

assessment models for north and south regions. A single model which tracks the spatial 

differences in the population dynamics should be developed.

Allocation issues continue to be an important management issue. Development of a Management 

Strategy Evaluation (MSE) model could be helpful in determining the best approach.

References

Legault CM, Restrepo VR. 1998. A flexible forward age-structured assessment program. 

ICCAT. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. 49:246-253.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (MAFMC). 1999. Amendment 12 to the summer 

flounder, scup, and black sea bass fishery management plan. Dover, DE. 398 p + appendix.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2017. 62th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (62th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref 

Doc. 17-03; 822 p.
Operational Assessment August 2019 25 Black Sea Bass

NOAA Fisheries Toolbox (NFT). 2013. Age Structured Assessment Program (ASAP) version 

3.0.11. (Internet address: http://nft.nefsc.noaa.gov).
Operational Assessment August 2019 26 Black Sea Bass

Tables

Table A1. Summary Black Sea Bass assessment results; Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) in 

metric tons (mt); Recruitment (R) at age 0 in thousands; Fishing Mortality (F) for age of peak 

fishery selection, ages 6-7. North-South averages, unadjusted for retrospective bias. 

SSB R F

1989 3,181 24,387 1.14

1990 3,044 29,781 1.09

1991 3,134 34,070 1.04

1992 3,433 29,042 0.93

1993 3,449 19,965 1.06

1994 3,475 28,660 0.87

1995 4,089 36,892 0.74

1996 4,308 26,613 0.92

1997 4,131 26,816 0.84

1998 4,636 22,880 0.60

1999 5,893 37,237 0.55

2000 7,483 46,765 0.54

2001 9,557 27,538 0.62

2002 10,081 31,597 0.66

2003 9,580 19,697 0.58

2004 8,247 15,713 0.57

2005 7,771 16,564 0.52

2006 6,443 30,816 0.55

2007 6,726 35,359 0.55

2008 9,544 45,513 0.49

2009 11,125 34,059 0.67

2010 14,061 34,419 0.76

2011 14,129 39,651 0.41

2012 16,730 144,684 0.60

2013 23,657 47,802 0.57

2014 34,712 26,240 0.42

2015 33,242 34,338 0.33

2016 30,736 79,373 0.35

2017 26,176 47,293 0.52

2018 22,199 10,058 0.39
Operational Assessment August 2019 27 Black Sea Bass

Table A2. Total catch (metric tons) of black sea bass from Maine through North Carolina. 

Includes the ‘New’ MRIP estimates of recreational catch. Recreational discards assume 15% 

mortality.

Commercial Commercial Recreational Recreational 

Landings Discards Landings Discards Total

1989 1,105 109 1,881 99 3,194 

1990 1,402 53 1,354 231 3,040 

1991 1,190 10 1,766 175 3,142 

1992 1,264 141 1,344 165 2,914 

1993 1,353 78 2,022 120 3,573 

1994 848 37 1,347 210 2,443 

1995 889 24 1,860 397 3,171 

1996 1,448 285 2,755 236 4,724 

1997 1,197 55 2,470 251 3,973 

1998 1,152 121 681 310 2,263 

1999 1,290 45 856 545 2,736 

2000 1,186 44 1,836 873 3,939 

2001 1,279 240 2,621 886 5,025 

2002 1,564 46 2,528 1,381 5,518 

2003 1,347 114 2,492 641 4,595 

2004 1,405 380 1,362 374 3,521 

2005 1,297 89 1,437 350 3,173 

2006 1,285 33 1,243 371 2,933 

2007 1,037 104 1,425 354 2,920 

2008 875 66 1,606 585 3,132 

2009 523 167 2,525 623 3,838 

2010 751 134 3,502 733 5,121 

2011 765 227 1,421 358 2,771 

2012 782 116 3,162 1,048 5,108 

2013 1,027 278 2,685 749 4,739 

2014 1,088 459 3,510 839 5,896 

2015 1,113 423 4,448 985 6,969 

2016 1,133 757 6,131 1,391 9,412 

2017 1,808 1,027 5,692 1,634 10,162 

2018 1,514 722 4,008 1,033 7,277 
Operational Assessment August 2019 28 Black Sea Bass

Figures

Figure A1. Estimates of black sea bass spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fully-recruited fishing 

mortality (F, peak at ages 6-7) relative to the updated 2019 biological reference points. Filled

circle with 90% confidence intervals shows the assessment point estimates. The open circle 

shows the retrospectively adjusted estimates.
Operational Assessment August 2019 29 Black Sea Bass

Figure A2. Black sea bass spawning stock biomass (SSB; solid line) and recruitment at age 0 (R; 

vertical bars) by calendar year. The horizontal dashed line is the updated SSBMSY proxy = 

SSB40% = 14,092 mt. 

Figure A3. Total fishery catch (metric tons; mt; solid line) and fishing mortality (F, peak at age 

6-7; squares) for black sea bass. The horizontal dashed line is the updated FMSY proxy = F40% =

0.46.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018

Recruitment (age 1, millions)

SSB (mt)

Year

R SSB SSBmsy

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Fishing Mortality (F)

Total Catch (mt)

Year

Total Catch F Fmsy=F40%=0.46
Operational Assessment August 2019 30 Black Sea Bass

Figure A4. Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and Recruitment (R) scatter plot for black sea bass.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

R (age 1, 000s)

SSB (mt)
Operational Assessment August 2019 31 Black Sea Bass

Figure A5. Historical retrospective of the 2016 (SAW 62; NEFSC 2017) and 2019 (Operational 

Assessment) stock assessments of black sea bass. The heavy solid lines are the 2019 Operational 

Assessment estimates that include the New MRIP recreational catch.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Fishing Mortality

Year

2019 Update

SAW62

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SSB (000s mt)

Year

2019 Update

SAW62
Operational Assessment August 2019 32 Scup

B: Scup Operational Assessment for 2019

(Lead: Mark Terceiro)

State of Stock 

This assessment of scup (Stenotomus chrysops) is an update through 2018 of commercial and 

recreational fishery catch data, research survey indices of abundance, and analyses of those data. 

The scup stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2018 relative to the 

updated biological reference points (Figure B1). Spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated 

to be 186,578 mt in 2018, about 2 times the updated biomass target reference point SSBMSY

proxy = SSB40% = 94,020 mt (Table B1, Figure B2). There is a 90% chance that SSB in 2018 

was between 159,746 and 221,281 mt. Fishing mortality on the fully selected age 3 fish was 

0.158 in 2018, 73% of the updated fishing mortality threshold reference point FMSY proxy = F40%

= 0.215 (Table B1, Figure B3). There is a 90% probability that the fishing mortality rate in 2018 

was between 0.123 and 0.195. The average recruitment from 1984 to 2018 is 134 million fish at 

age 0. The 2015 year class is estimated to be the largest in the time series at 326 million fish, 

while the 2016-2018 year classes are estimated to be below average. (Table B1, Figures B2, B4). 

The 2018 model estimates of F and SSB adjusted for internal retrospective error are within the 

model estimate 90% confidence intervals and so no adjustment of the terminal year estimates has 

been made for stock status determination or projections (Figure B1). The stock has sustained 

catches above MSY since 2013. However, stock biomass is projected to further decrease toward 

the target unless more above average year classes recruit to the stock in the short term.

OFL Projections 

Projections using the 2019 Operational Assessment ASAP model (data through 2018) were made 

to estimate the OFL catches for 2020-2021. The projections assume the 2019 ABC of 16,525 mt 

with recreational catch in ‘New’ MRIP equivalents will be taken in 2019, providing an estimated 

catch of 20,711 mt in 2019. The projections sample from the estimated recruitment for 1984-

2018. The OFL projection uses F2020-F2021 = updated FMSY proxy = F40% = 0.215. The OFL 

catches are 18,674 mt in 2020 (CV = 17%) and 15,696 mt in 2021 (CV = 16%).

OFL for 2020-2021 

Catches and SSB in metric tons

Year Total Catch Landings Discards F SSB

2019 20,711 16,642 4,070 0.208 183,137

2020 18,674 15,472 3,664 0.215 163,495

2021 15,696 12,530 3,714 0.215 149,089

Catch 

Reported 2018 commercial landings were 6,064 mt = 13.369 million lb. Estimated 2018 

recreational landings were 5,887 mt = 12.979 million lb. Total commercial and recreational 

landings in 2018 were 11,951 mt = 26.347 million lb. Estimated 2018 commercial discards were 

3,293 mt = 7.260 million lb. Estimated 2018 recreational discards were 644 mt = 1.420 million 
Operational Assessment August 2019 33 Scup

lb. The estimated total catch in 2018 was 15,888 mt = 35.027 million lb (Catch and Status Table 

below; Table B2). 

In July 2018, the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) replaced the existing 

estimates of recreational catch (‘Old’ MRIP) with a calibrated 1981-2017 time series (‘New’ 

MRIP) that corresponds to new survey methods that were fully implemented in 2018. For 

comparison with the existing estimates noted above, the ‘New’ MRIP estimate of 2017 

recreational landings is 6,143 mt = 13.543 million lb, 2.5 times the ‘Old’ estimate. The ‘New’ 

MRIP estimate of 2017 recreational discards is 1,079 mt = 2.372 million lb, 2.7 times the ‘Old’ 

estimate. The ‘New’ MRIP recreational catch estimates increased the 1981-2017 total catch by 

an average of 18% (from 9,575 mt = 21.109 million lb to 11,310 mt = 24.934 million lb), ranging 

from +1% in 1986 to +51% in 2000. The increase in 2017 was +30%, from 14,608 mt = 32.205 

million lb to 18,961 mt = 41.802 million lb. The 2019 updated assessment model includes the 

‘New’ MRIP estimates of recreational landings and discards (Catch and Status Table below; 

Table B2). 
Operational Assessment August 2019 34 Scup

Catch and Status Table: Scup

Catch weights in metric tons (mt); spawning stock biomass thousands of metric tons; recruitment 

in millions of age 0 fish; min, max and arithmetic mean values are for 1984-2018. Commercial 

catches are latest reported landings and estimated discards. Recreational catches are ‘New’ MRIP 

2018 calibrated landings and discard estimates.

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Commercial landings 3,721 4,866 6,819 6,751 8,105 7,239 7,725 7,147 7,006 6,064

Commercial discards 3,189 2,638 1,234 1,029 1,279 1,004 1,774 2,772 4,733 3,293

Recreational landings 2.851 5,660 4,682 3.751 5,739 4,659 5,527 4,536 6,143 5,887

Recreational discards 552 787 516 636 568 480 581 862 1,079 644

Catch used in 

assessment 10,313 13,951 13,252 12,166 15,692 13,382 15,606 15,317 18,961 15,888

Spawning stock 

biomass 194 234 237 237 237 224 191 200 193 187

Recruitment (age 0) 128 143 199 114 106 235 326 112 93 83

Fully selected F (age 4) 0.074 0.090 0.086 0.086 0.119 0.113 0.158 0.140 0.167 0.158

Year Min Max Mean

Commercial landings 1,207 8,105 4,887

Commercial discards 436 4,733 1,819

Recreational landings 824 6,430 3,893

Recreational discards 30 1,079 336

Catch used in assessment 3,485 18,961 11,430

Spawning stock biomass 3.5 237.5 93.1

Recruitment (age 0) 37.5 325.9 133.5

Fully selected F (age 4) 0.066 1.593 0.521
Operational Assessment August 2019 35 Scup

Stock Distribution and Identification 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (ASMFC) Joint Fishery Management Plan defines the management unit as all scup 

from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina northeast to the US-Canada border (MAFMC 1999). 

Assessment Model 

The assessment model for scup is a complex statistical catch-at-age model (ASAP SCAA; 

Legault and Restrepo 1998; NFT 2013) incorporating a broad range of fishery and survey data 

(NEFSC 2015). The model assumes an instantaneous natural mortality rate (M) = 0.2. The 

fishery catch is modeled as four fleets: commercial landings, recreational landings, commercial 

discards and recreational discards.

Indices of stock abundance from NEFSC winter, spring, and fall, Massachusetts DMF spring and 

fall, Rhode Island DFW spring and fall, University of Rhode Island Graduate School of 

Oceanography (URIGSO), RI Industry Cooperative trap, Connecticut DEEP spring and fall, New 

York DEC, New Jersey DFW, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) Chesapeake Bay, 

VIMS juvenile fish trawl, and NEAMAP spring and fall trawl surveys were used in the 2015 

SAW 60 benchmark assessment (NEFSC 2015) and the 2017 assessment update. All indices 

were updated for this 2019 Operational Assessment. 

There is not a major retrospective pattern evident in the scup assessment model. The minor 

internal model retrospective error tends to overestimate F by +26% and underestimate SSB by -

11% over the last 7 terminal years. The 2018 model estimates of F and SSB adjusted for internal 

retrospective error (F = 0.124; SSB = 213,721 mt) are within the model estimate 90% confidence 

intervals and so no adjustment of the terminal year estimates has been made for stock status 

determination or projections. The ‘historical’ retrospective analysis (comparison between 

assessments) indicates that the general trends in spawning stock biomass, recruitment, and 

fishing mortality have been consistent for the last decade (Figure B5).

Biological Reference Points (BRPs) 

Reference points were calculated using the non-parametric yield and SSB per recruit long-term 

projection approach. The cumulative distribution function of the 1984-2018 recruitment 

(corresponding to the period of input fishery catches-at-age) was re-sampled to provide future 

recruitment estimates for the projections used to estimate the biomass reference point.

The existing biological reference points for scup are from the 2015 SAW 60 benchmark 

assessment (NEFSC 2015). The reference points are F40% as the proxy for FMSY, and the 

corresponding SSB40% as the proxy for the SSBMSY biomass target. The F40% proxy for FMSY = 

0.220; the proxy estimate for SSBMSY = SSB40% = 87,302 mt = 192.468 million lbs; the proxy 

estimate for the 1⁄2 SSBMSY biomass threshold = 1⁄2 SSB40% = 43,651 mt = 96.234 million lbs; and 

the proxy estimate for MSY = MSY40% = 11,752 mt = 25.909 million lbs. 

The F40% and corresponding SSB40% proxy biological reference points for scup were updated for 

this 2019 Operational Assessment. The updated fishing mortality threshold F40% proxy for FMSY

= 0.215. The updated biomass target proxy estimate for SSBMSY = SSB40% = 94,020 mt = 

207.279 million lbs and the updated biomass threshold proxy estimate for 1⁄2 SSBMSY = 1⁄2 
Operational Assessment August 2019 36 Scup

SSB40% = 47,010 mt = 103.639 million lbs. The updated proxy estimate for MSY = MSY40% = 

12,927 mt = 28.499 million lbs. 

Qualitative status description

The age structure in current fishery and survey catches is greatly expanded compared to the 

truncated distribution observed in the early 1990s. Most survey aggregate biomass indices are 

near their time series high. Recent survey indices suggest the recruitment of several large year 

classes over the last 15 years. These simple metrics indicate that current mortality from all 

sources is lower than recent recruitment inputs to the stock, which has resulted in a spawning 

stock biomass that is well above the management target.

Research and Data Issues

The recent recruitment of the largest year class in the assessment time series (the 2015 year 

class) has contributed to recent high commercial fishery discards. The exploration of 

management actions to reduce discarding in the event of future high recruitment events might 

include modification of the commercial fishery Gear Restricted Areas and modified commercial 

mesh sizes.

There is evidence of a decreasing trend in mean weights at age and maturity, perhaps indicative 

of density dependent effects. Potential effects on reference points and projected fishery yield 

should continue to be closely monitored. 

The stock has sustained catches above MSY since 2013. However, spawning stock biomass is 

projected to further decrease toward the target unless more above average year classes recruit to 

the stock in the short term. 

References

Legault CM, Restrepo VR. 1998. A flexible forward age-structured assessment program. 

ICCAT. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. 49:246-253. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (MAFMC). 1999. Amendment 12 to the summer 

flounder, scup, and black sea bass fishery management plan. Dover, DE. 398 p + appendix. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2009. The Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working 

Group Report, December 8-12, 2009 Meeting. Part A: Skate species complex, deep sea red crab, 

Atlantic wolffish, scup, and black sea bass. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref 

Doc. 09-02; 496 p.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2015. 60th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (60th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref 

Doc. 15-08; 870 p.

NOAA Fisheries Toolbox (NFT). 2013. Age Structured Assessment Program (ASAP) version 

3.0.11. (Internet address: http://nft.nefsc.noaa.gov).
Operational Assessment August 2019 37 Scup

Tables

Table B1. Summary assessment results; Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) in metric tons (mt); 

Recruitment (R) at age 0 in millions; Fishing Mortality (F) for age of peak fishery selection (S = 

1) age 3.

Year SSB R F

1984 11,091 147 0.944

1985 14,688 134 1.053

1986 13,928 93 0.966

1987 11,667 70 1.017

1988 9,353 130 1.041

1989 8,809 75 0.922

1990 11,291 112 0.799

1991 9,290 99 1.321

1992 7,518 40 1.378

1993 5,713 40 1.316

1994 4,229 73 1.593

1995 3,548 43 1.248

1996 6,209 37 0.989

1997 6,505 96 0.727

1998 7,932 110 0.437

1999 16,868 231 0.279

2000 33,108 154 0.227

2001 61,166 143 0.124

2002 85,072 91 0.091

2003 106,588 92 0.125

2004 118,173 142 0.111

2005 121,024 226 0.069

2006 132,421 264 0.097

2007 145,789 262 0.093

2008 172,480 231 0.066

2009 194,081 128 0.074

2010 234,435 143 0.090

2011 236,631 199 0.086

2012 236,703 114 0.086

2013 237,483 106 0.119

2014 224,139 235 0.113

2015 191,237 326 0.158

2016 199,856 112 0.140

2017 193,258 93 0.167

2018 186,578 83 0.158
Operational Assessment August 2019 38 Scup

Table B2. Total catch (metric tons) of scup from Maine through North Carolina. Commercial 

landings include revised Massachusetts landings for 1986-1997. Commercial discards for 1981-

1988 calculated from the mean ratio of discards to landings for 1989-1991. Commercial discard 

estimate for 1998 is the mean of 1997 and 1999 estimates. Includes the ‘New’ MRIP estimates 

of recreational catch.

Year Commercial Commercial Recreational Recreational Total

Landings Discards Landings Discards Catch

1981 9,856 4,495 5,054 108 19,514

1982 8,704 3,970 3,908 169 16,751

1983 7,794 3,555 3,911 76 15,336

1984 7,769 3,543 1,489 34 12,836

1985 6,727 3,068 5,122 72 14,989

1986 7,176 3,273 6,430 86 16,965

1987 6,276 2,862 4,722 42 13,902

1988 5,943 2,710 3,191 38 11,882

1989 3,984 1,277 4,781 54 10,096

1990 4,571 2,466 3,254 59 10,350

1991 7,081 3,388 5,857 75 16,401

1992 6,259 1,885 4,288 63 12,496

1993 4,726 1,510 2,101 31 8,367

1994 4,392 962 1,964 30 7,348

1995 3,073 974 1,030 38 5,115

1996 2,945 870 2,004 55 5,874

1997 2,188 675 1,152 38 4,053

1998 1,896 705 824 60 3,485

1999 1,505 735 2,098 51 4,390

2000 1,207 592 5,167 249 7,216

2001 1,729 1,671 4,434 417 8,251

2002 3,173 1,284 2,826 427 7,710

2003 4,405 436 7,806 462 13,109

2004 4,209 1,324 5,819 620 11,972

2005 3,711 565 1,949 413 6,637

2006 4,081 896 2,688 639 8,304

2007 4,193 1,363 3,221 407 9,183

2008 2,370 1,693 2,613 608 7,284

2009 3,721 3,189 2,851 552 10,313

2010 4,866 2,638 5,660 787 13,951

2011 6,819 1,234 4,682 516 13,252

2012 6,751 1,029 3,751 636 12,166
Operational Assessment August 2019 39 Scup

Table B2 

Continued.

Year Commercial Commercial Recreational Recreational Total

Landings Discards Landings Discards Catch

2014 7,239 1,004 4,659 480 13,382

2015 7,725 1,774 5,527 581 15,606

2016 7,147 2,772 4,536 862 15,317

2017 7,006 4,733 6,143 1,079 18,961

2018 6,064 3,293 5,887 644 15,888
Operational Assessment August 2019 40 Scup

Figures

Figure B1. Estimates of scup spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fully-recruited fishing mortality 

(F, peak at age 3) relative to the updated 2019 biological reference points. Filled circle with 90% 

confidence intervals shows the assessment point estimates. The open circle shows the 

retrospectively adjusted estimates.
Operational Assessment August 2019 41 Scup

Figure B2. Scup spawning stock biomass (SSB; solid line) and recruitment at age 0 (R; vertical 

bars) by calendar year. The horizontal dashed line is the updated SSBMSY proxy = SSB40% = 

94,020 mt. Note this figure only shows years when fishery age data are available in the model.
Operational Assessment August 2019 42 Scup

Figure B3. Total fishery catch (metric tons; mt; solid line) and fishing mortality (F, peak at age 

3; squares) for scup. The horizontal dashed line is the updated FMSY proxy = F40% = 0.215. Note 

this figure only shows years when fishery age data are available in the model.
Operational Assessment August 2019 43 Scup

Figure B4. Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and Recruitment (R) scatter plot for scup. Note this 

figure only shows years when fishery age data are available in the model. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 44 Scup

Figure B5. Historical retrospective of the 2008 (Data Poor Stocks; NEFSC 2009), 2015 (SAW 

60; NEFSC 2015), 2017 (MAFMC SSC Update; unpublished) and 2019 (Operational 

Assessment) stock assessments of scup. The heavy solid lines are the 2019 Operational

Assessment estimates that include the ‘New’ MRIP recreational catch.
Operational Assessment August 2019 45 Bluefish

C: Atlantic Bluefish Operational Assessment for 2019

(Lead: Anthony Wood)

State of Stock 

This assessment of Atlantic bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is an update through 2018 of 

commercial and recreational catch data, research survey indices of abundance, and the analyses 

of those data. The bluefish stock was overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2018 

relative to the updated biological reference points (Figure 1). Spawning stock biomass (SSB) was 

estimated to be 91,041 MT in 2018, about 46% of the updated biomass target reference point 

SSBMSY proxy = SSB35% = 198,717 MT, and 92% of the SSBthreshold = 99,359 MT (Table 1, 

Figure 2). There is a 90% chance that SSB in 2018 was between 66,840 and 99,299 MT. Fishing 

mortality on the fully selected age 2 fish was 0.146 in 2018, 80% of the updated fishing mortality 

threshold reference point FMSY proxy = F35% = 0.183 (Table 1, Figure 3). There is a 90% 

probability that the fishing mortality rate in 2018 was between 0.119 and 0.205. The average 

recruitment from 1985 to 2018 was 46 million fish at age 0. The largest recruitment in the time 

series occurred in 1989 at 99 million fish, and the lowest recruitment was in 2016 at 29 million 

fish. Recruitment over the last decade has been below the time series average, except for 2013 

where recruitment was 48 million fish (Table 1, Figures 2 & 4). Recruitment in 2018 was 42 

million fish. The 2018 model estimates of F and SSB adjusted for internal retrospective error are 

within the model estimate 90% confidence intervals and so no adjustment of the terminal year 

estimates has been made for stock status determination of projections (Figure 1).

OFL Projections

Projections using the 2019 bluefish Operational Assessment ASAP model (data through 2018) 

were made to estimate the OFL catches for 2020-2021. Projections assumed that the 2019 ABC 

of 9,893 MT was harvested and sample from the estimated recruitment for 1985-2018. The 2019 

ABC was converted into ‘new MRIP’ units using a 5-year average ratio of new to old 

recreational estimates. The OFL projection uses F2020-F2021 = updated FMSY proxy = F35% = 

0.183. The OFL catches are 14,956 MT in 2020 (CV = 11%) and 16,016 MT in 2021 (CV = 

10%).

Atlantic bluefish OFL for 2020-2021

Catches and SSB in metric tons

Year Total Catch F SSB

2019 22,614 0.281 92,773

2020 14,956 0.183 98,353

2021 16,016 0.183 102,213

Catch 

Reported 2018 commercial landings were 1,105 MT = 2.435 million lb. Estimated 2018 

recreational landings were 5,695 MT = 12.556 million lb. Total commercial and recreational 

landings in 2018 were 6,800 MT = 14.991 million lb. Estimated 2018 recreational discards were 

4,489 MT = 9.896 million lb. Commercial discards are not considered significant and not 

included in the assessment. The estimated total catch in 2018 was 11,288 MT = 24.887million 

lb. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 46 Bluefish

In July 2018, the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) replaced the existing 

estimates of recreational catch with a calibrated 1981-2017 time series (‘New’ MRIP) that 

corresponds to new survey methods that were fully implemented in 2018. For comparison with 

the existing estimates noted above, the ‘New’ MRIP estimate of 2017 recreational landings is 

15,421 MT = 33.997 million lb, 3.3 times the ‘Old’ estimate. The ‘New’ MRIP estimate of 2017 

recreational discards is 10,111 MT = 22.291 million lb, 5.4 times the ‘Old’ estimate. The ‘New’ 

MRIP recreational catch estimates increased the 1985-2017 total catch by an average of 116% 

(from 13,578 MT = 29.935 million lb to 29,291 MT = 64.576 million lb), ranging from +63% in 

1986 to +291% in 2017. The increase in 2017 was 291%, from 6,532 MT = 14.400 million lb to 

25,532 MT = 56.288 million lb. The 2019 updated assessment model includes the ‘New’ MRIP 

estimates of recreational landings and discards (Catch and Status Table; Table 2).

Catch and Status Table: Atlantic bluefish

(Weights in mt, recruitment in thousands, arithmetic means, includes New MRIP estimates)

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Commercial 

landings 3,119 3,304 2,453 2,212 1,974 2,236 1,902 1,929 1,873 1,105 

Recreational 

landings 18,040 21,013 15,430 15,051 15,526 12,050 13,524 10,433 15,421 5,695 

Recreational 

discards2 10,071 11,965 14,606 11,039 9,537 9,848 6,953 8,008 10,111 4,489 

Catch used in 

assessment 31,231 36,281 32,489 28,303 27,037 24,135 22,379 20,370 27,404 11,288 

Spawning stock 

biomass 

121,382 118,142 115,427 112,703 110,627 94,203 85,924 96,805 92,794 91,041

Recruitment (age 

0, thousands) 

36,453 40,079 35,654 31,643 48,315 41,454 44,071 28,904 45,171 41,890

F full3 0.27 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.26 0.40 0.15

Min1 Max1 Avg1

Commercial landings 1,105 7,162 3,807

Recreational landings 5,695 74,988 21,012

Recreational discards2 1,440 14,850 7,717

Catch used in assessment 11,288 84,201 32,536

Spawning stock biomass 75,510 185,654 105,254

Recruitment (age 0, thousands) 28,461 98,997 46,159

F full3 0.15 0.58 0.35

1 Years 1985-2018

2 dead discards

3 F on fully selected age 2. Note that table values are not retro adjusted. 

Stock Distribution and Identification 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (MAFMC) jointly developed the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the 

bluefish fishery and adopted the plan in 1989 (ASMFC 1989, MAFMC 1990). The Secretary of 

Commerce approved the FMP in March 1990. The FMP defines the management unit as bluefish 

(Pomatomus saltatrix) in U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean.
Operational Assessment August 2019 47 Bluefish

Assessment Model 

The assessment model for Atlantic bluefish is a complex statistical catch-at-age model (ASAP 

SCAA; Legault and Restrepo 1998; NFT 2013) incorporating a broad range of fishery and 

survey data (NEFSC 2015). The model assumes an instantaneous natural mortality rate (M) = 

0.2. The fishery catch is modeled as two fleets: 1. Commercial landings, and 2. Combined 

recreational landings and recreational discards.

Indices of stock abundance included a recreational catch-per-unit-effort index developed from 

the MRIP intercept data. In addition, eight fishery-independent indices were included in the 

model. Age-0+ fishery-independent indices included the NEFSC fall Bigelow trawl survey, the 

New Jersey ocean trawl survey, the Connecticut Long Island Sound trawl survey, the NEAMAP 

fall inshore trawl survey, and the North Carolina Pamlico Sound independent gillnet survey. 

Young-of-year indices included the SEAMAP fall trawl survey and a composite index developed 

from state seine indices from New Hampshire to Virginia. In 2018, all indices except the 

composite seine juvenile survey showed a decrease from 2017 values. 

There is not a major retrospective pattern evident in the bluefish assessment model. The minor

internal model retrospective error tends to underestimate F by 18% and overestimate SSB by 

19% over the last 7 terminal years. The 2018 model estimates of F and SSB adjusted for internal 

retrospective error (F = 0.179; SSB = 76,312 MT) are within the model estimate 90% confidence 

intervals and so no adjustment of the terminal year estimates has been made for stock status 

determination or projections. The ‘historical’ retrospective comparison between the SARC60 

benchmark, a 2017 continuity run using old MRIP data, and this update, indicates similar trends 

for SSB, F, and recruitment for most of the time-series (Figure 5). The addition of the new 

calibrated MRIP data in 2019 resulted in the model scaling estimates of SSB, F, and recruitment 

higher compared to the using the old data. Near the end of the time-series low catch in 2016 and 

2018 leads to large drops in F. 

Biological Reference Points (BRPs) 

Reference points were calculated using the non-parametric yield and SSB per recruit long-term 

projection approach. The cumulative distribution function of the 1985-2018 recruitments 

(corresponding to the period of input fishery catches-at-age) was re-sampled to provide future 

recruitment estimates for the projections used to estimate the biomass reference point.

The existing biological reference points for bluefish are from the SSC review of the SAW 60 

benchmark assessment (NEFSC 2015). The reference points are F35% as the proxy for FMSY, and 

the corresponding SSB35% as the proxy for the SSBMSY biomass target. The F35% proxy for FMSY

= 0.19; the proxy estimate for SSBMSY = SSB35% = 101,343 MT = 223 million lbs; the proxy 

estimate for the 1⁄2 SSBMSY biomass threshold = 1⁄2 SSB35% = 50,672 MT = 112 million lbs; and 

the proxy estimate for MSY = MSY35% = 14,443 MT = 32 million lbs.

The F35% and corresponding SSB35% proxy biological reference points for bluefish were updated 

for this 2019 Operational Assessment. The updated fishing mortality threshold F35% proxy for 

FMSY = 0.183; the updated biomass target proxy estimate for SSBMSY = SSB35% = 198,717 MT = 

438 million lbs; the updated biomass threshold proxy estimate for 1⁄2 SSBMSY = 1⁄2 SSB35% = 

99,359 MT = 219 million lbs; and the updated proxy estimate for MSY = MSY35% = 29,571 MT 

= 65 million lbs. 

Qualitative status description
Operational Assessment August 2019 48 Bluefish

The bluefish stock has experienced a decline in SSB over the past decade, coinciding with an 

increasing trend in F. Recruitment has remained fairly steady, fluctuating just below the timeseries mean of 46 million fish. Both commercial and recreational fisheries had poor catch in 

2016 (20,370 MT), and 2018 (11,288 MT), resulting in the second lowest and lowest catches on 

record, respectively. As a result of the very low catch in 2018, fishing mortality was estimated 

below the reference point for the first time in the time-series. These lower catches are possibly a 

result of availability. Anecdotal evidence suggests larger bluefish stayed offshore and 

inaccessible to most of the recreational fishery during these two years. 

Research and Data Issues

The large increase in recreational landings and discards from the new MRIP calibration has 

further increased the importance of the recreational data to this assessment. Accurately 

characterizing the recreational discard lengths is an important component of the assessment and 

research that improves the methodology used to collect these data is recommended. 

References

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).1989. Fishery Management Plan for 

Bluefish. 81 pp. + append. 

Legault CM, Restrepo VR. 1998. A flexible forward age-structured assessment program. 

ICCAT. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. 49:246-253. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1990. Fishery management plan for the bluefish 

fishery. Dover, DE. 81 p. + append. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2015. 60th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (60th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref 

Doc. 15-08; 870 p.

NOAA Fisheries Toolbox (NFT). 2013. Age Structured Assessment Program (ASAP) version 

3.0.11. (Internet address: http://nft.nefsc.noaa.gov).
Operational Assessment August 2019 49 Bluefish

Tables

Table C1. Summary assessment results for Atlantic Bluefish; Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) in

metric tons (MT); Recruitment (R) at age 0 in thousands; Fishing Mortality (F) for age of peak 

fishery selection (S = 1) age 2.

Year SSB R F

1985 185,654 66,750 0.322

1986 165,351 52,276 0.491

1987 138,473 38,531 0.581

1988 102,815 47,993 0.547

1989 96,055 98,997 0.493

1990 85,487 48,818 0.534

1991 78,506 55,975 0.506

1992 75,510 28,461 0.447

1993 75,901 30,001 0.417

1994 77,018 42,217 0.350

1995 77,789 32,381 0.302

1996 76,446 42,664 0.304

1997 80,924 42,066 0.328

1998 94,032 40,385 0.299

1999 97,647 63,230 0.295

2000 107,896 35,554 0.297

2001 118,111 55,720 0.351

2002 101,029 44,238 0.288

2003 105,989 59,680 0.268

2004 117,967 31,811 0.267

2005 132,223 59,630 0.260

2006 107,584 67,106 0.303

2007 109,312 46,148 0.297

2008 131,873 44,782 0.229

2009 121,382 36,453 0.267

2010 118,142 40,079 0.324

2011 115,427 35,654 0.318

2012 112,703 31,643 0.324

2013 110,627 48,315 0.351

2014 94,204 41,454 0.381

2015 85,924 44,071 0.374

2016 96,805 28,904 0.257

2017 92,794 45,171 0.404

2018 91,041 41,890 0.146
Operational Assessment August 2019 50 Bluefish

Table C2. Total catch (metric tons) of Atlantic bluefish from Maine through Florida from 1985-

2018. Does not include commercial discards as they are not considered significant for this stock. 

Includes the ‘New’ MRIP estimates of recreational catch.

Year Commercial Recreational Recreational Total

Landings Landings Discards Catch

1985 6,124 47,376 1,655 55,154

1986 6,657 74,988 2,556 84,201

1987 6,579 63,834 3,198 73,610

1988 7,162 36,337 1,440 44,938

1989 4,740 36,250 2,029 43,019

1990 6,250 31,268 4,999 42,516

1991 6,138 26,485 6,137 38,760

1992 5,208 22,262 4,351 31,820

1993 4,819 16,170 5,955 26,943

1994 4,306 14,085 6,126 24,517

1995 3,629 13,228 4,400 21,257

1996 4,213 10,623 6,477 21,313

1997 4,109 12,516 7,829 24,455

1998 3,741 15,243 5,693 24,676

1999 3,325 10,501 11,809 25,634

2000 3,660 10,950 12,431 27,041

2001 3,953 14,888 14,850 33,691

2002 3,116 13,612 8,241 24,970

2003 3,359 14,758 7,281 25,398

2004 3,661 17,264 9,050 29,975

2005 3,211 17,661 9,571 30,443

2006 3,252 16,653 10,379 30,284

2007 3,390 18,077 10,136 31,603

2008 2,730 17,185 9,173 29,088

2009 3,119 18,040 10,071 31,231

2010 3,304 21,013 11,965 36,281

2011 2,453 15,430 14,606 32,489

2012 2,212 15,051 11,039 28,303

2013 1,974 15,526 9,537 27,037

2014 2,236 12,050 9,848 24,135

2015 1,902 13,524 6,953 22,379

2016 1,929 10,433 8,008 20,370

2017 1,873 15,421 10,111 27,404

2018 1,105 5,695 4,489 11,288
Operational Assessment August 2019 51 Bluefish

Figures

Figure C1. Estimates of Atlantic bluefish spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fully-recruited 

fishing mortality (F, peak at age 2) relative to the updated 2019 biological reference points.

Filled circle with 90% confidence intervals (dotted box) shows the assessment point estimates. 

The open circle shows the retrospectively adjusted estimates.
Operational Assessment August 2019 52 Bluefish

Figure C2. Atlantic bluefish spawning stock biomass (SSB; solid black line) and recruitment at 

age 0 (R; gray vertical bars) by calendar year. The horizontal dashed line is the updated SSBMSY

proxy = SSB40% = 198,717 MT, and the dotted black line is the SSBThreshold = 99,359 MT. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 53 Bluefish

Figure C3. Total fishery catch (metric tons; MT; solid line) and fishing mortality (F, peak at age 

3; squares) for Atlantic bluefish. The horizontal dashed line is the updated FMSY proxy = F35% = 

0.183. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 54 Bluefish

Figure C4. Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and Recruitment (R) scatter plot for Atlantic 

bluefish. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 55 Bluefish

Figure C5. Historical retrospective analysis of the 2015 (dotted), 2017 (continuity run: slim 

black line), and 2019 (bold black line) stock assessments of Atlantic bluefish. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 56 Monkfish

D. Monkfish Operational Assessment for 2019

(Lead: Anne Richards)

Executive Summary

Assessment data for northern and southern management units of monkfish were updated 

with minimal changes to the approaches of the previous index-based assessment (NEFSC 2016). 

No age data are available for monkfish, and the assessment does not include analytic models.

TOR 1. Update fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data from previous assessment.

Commercial fishery statistics for monkfish were updated for 2015-2018. In the north, landings 

and catch have fluctuated around a steady level since 2009, but increased after 2015. In the 

south, landings and catch had been declining since around 2000, but catch increased after 2015 

due to discarding of a strong 2015 year class.

Survey data updated through 2018 indicate an increasing trend in biomass in both management 

areas since 2014; exploitable biomass (43+cm total length) indices have more than doubled in 

both areas since 2015, reflecting growth of the strong 2015 year class. Abundance also increased, 

and remains relatively high but has been decreasing in most series since 2016. Recruitment 

indices were high in the north in 2015 and 2016, and in the south in 2015. 

New estimates of area-swept minimum biomass and abundance were developed using results 

from a study of relative efficiency of chain and rock-hopper sweeps on the net used for NEFSC 

bottom trawl surveys.The area-swept estimates are approximately 3 times (total biomass) or 5 

times (total abundance) higher than the un-adjusted estimates, but follow the same trends. 

TOR 2. Prepare an approach to providing scientific advice to management in the absence of an 

analytical model. 

The monkfish assessment does not include an analytical model because the aging method has 

been invalidated, thus invalidating the growth model that is the foundation for the previouslyapproved model. 

A simple model-free method previously used to derive Georges Bank cod catch limits was 

applied to current monkfish data. The method calculates the proportional rate of change in 

smoothed survey indices over the most recent 3 years for potential application to revising catch 

limits. In the NMA, the estimated rate of change was 1.2-1.3 depending on which surveys were 

included, and in the SMA, the estimated rate of change was 0.96-1.04. 

TOR 3. Update the values of biological reference points (BRPs) for this stock. 

BRPs defined in the management plan are dependent on output from the now-invalidated 

population model, therefore they have not been updated.

TOR 4. Include qualitative descriptions of stock status based on simple indicators/metrics.

Strong recruitment in 2015 fueled an increase in stock biomass in 2016-2018, though abundance 

has since declined as recruitment returned to average levels. Biomass increases were greater in 

the northern area than in the southern area, and biomass has declined somewhat in the south. 

TOR 5. Perform short-term (2-year) population projections. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 57 Monkfish

Not relevant to this assessment.

6. Comment on research areas or data issues that might lead to improvements in future stock

assessments.

Development of a growth curve and/or an accurate aging method would allow application of agebased models. A better understanding of stock structure and movement patterns, especially 

mxing between management areas, would be helpful. 

Introduction

Life History

The monkfish (Lophius americanus), also called goosefish, is distributed in the Northwest 

Atlantic from the Grand Banks and northern Gulf of St. Lawrence south to Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina (Collette and Klein-Macphee 2002). Monkfish may be found from inshore areas to 

depths of at least 900 m (500 fathoms). Seasonal onshore-offshore migrations occur and appear 

to be related to spawning and possibly food availability (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). 

Monkfish rest partially buried on soft bottom substrates and attract prey using a modified 

first dorsal fin ray that resembles a fishing pole and lure. Monkfish are piscivorous and can eat 

prey as large as themselves. Despite the behavior of monkfish as a demersal ‘sit-and-wait’ 

predator, recent information from electronic tagging suggests seasonal off-bottom movements 

which may be related to migration (Rountree et al. 2006). 

Growth rates of monkfish are not well understood and recent studies call into question the 

growth curves used in prior assessments (2007, 2010, 2013). One recent study has shown that the 

method currently used to age monkfish in the U.S. (counting rings on vertebrae) does not 

consistently identify the correct number of presumed-annual rings at the margin of the vertebra 

(Bank 2016). Further work conducted at the NEFSC has confirmed this using samples from the 

strong 2015 yearclass at presumed ages 1, 2 and 3 (Sandy Sutherland, NEFSC, personal 

communication). In addition, it appears that growth of immature monkfish may be much faster 

than previously understood. Growth estimated by modal progression of the 2015 yearclass 

suggests that monkfish may grow to ~25 cm by age 1 and reach the size at maturity (approximately 

40 cm) by age two (Figure D1). 

The estimated size at 50% maturity of monkfish is 41 cm for females and 37 cm for males 

(Richards et al. 2008). Few males are found larger than 70 cm, but females can reach sizes greater 

than 130 cm. Spawning takes place from spring through early autumn, progressing from south to 

north, with most spawning occurring during the spring and early summer (Richards et al. 2008). 

Females lay a buoyant mucoid egg raft or veil which can be as large as 12 m long and 1.5 m wide 

and only a few mm thick. The eggs are arranged in a single layer in the veil, and the larvae hatch 

after about 1-3 weeks, depending on water temperature. Females likely produce more than one egg 

veil per year (McBride et al. 2017). The larvae and juveniles spend several months in a pelagic 

phase before settling to a benthic existence at a size of about 8 cm (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 

2002). 

Stock Structure

The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) defines two management areas for monkfish 

(northern management area (NMA) and southern management area (SMA)), divided roughly by a 

line bisecting Georges Bank (Figure D2). The two assessment and management areas for monkfish 

were defined in the 1999 FMP based on differences in temporal patterns of recruitment (estimated 
Operational Assessment August 2019 58 Monkfish

from NEFSC surveys), perceived differences in growth patterns, and differences in the 

contribution of fishing gear types (mainly trawl, gill net, and dredge) to the landings. Since then, 

genetic studies using mitochondrial DNA have suggested a homogeneous population of monkfish 

off the U.S. east coast (Chikarmane et al. 2000; Johnson et al. in prep.); however research in 

progress using microsatellite DNA suggests a possible delination off Delaware Bay in the MidAtlantic Bight (Housbrouck et al. 2015). 

Monkfish larvae are distributed over deep (< 300 m) offshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight in March-April, and across the continental shelf (30 to 90 m) later in the year, but relatively 

few larvae have been sampled in the northern management area (Steimle et al. 1999). NEFSC 

surveys continue to indicate different recruitment patterns in the two management units in recent 

years. 

The perceived differences in growth in the two management areas were based on studies 

about 10 years apart and under different stock conditions (Armstrong et al. 1992: Georges Bank 

to Mid-Atlantic Bight, 1982-1985; Hartley 1995: Gulf of Maine, 1992-1993). Age, growth, and 

maturity information from the NEFSC surveys and the 2001, 2004 and 2009 cooperative monkfish 

surveys indicated only minor differences in age, growth, and maturity between the areas (Richards 

et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2008). However these growth studies used the vertebral aging method 

which is now called into question. 

The southern deepwater extent of the range of American monkfish (L. americanus) 

overlaps with the northern extent of the range of blackfin monkfish (L. gastrophysus; Caruso 

1983). These two species are morphologically similar, which may create a problem in 

identification of survey catches and landings from the southern extent of the range of monkfish. 

The potential for a problem however is believed to be small. The NEFSC closely examined winter 

and spring 2000 survey catches for the presence of blackfin monkfish and found none. The 

cooperative monkfish survey conducted in 2001 caught only eight blackfin monkfish of a total of 

6,364 monkfish captured in the southern management area. 

Fisheries Management

Commercial fisheries for monkfish occur year-round using gillnets, trawls and scallop 

dredges. No significant recreational fishery exists. The primary monkfish products are tails, livers 

and whole gutted fish. Peak fishing activity occurs during November through June, and value of 

the catch is highest in the fall due to the high quality of livers during this season.

U.S. fisheries for monkfish are managed in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) through 

a joint New England Fishery Management Council - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The primary goals of the Monkfish FMP are to end 

and prevent overfishing and to optimize yield and economic benefits to various fishing sectors 

involved with the monkfish fisheries (NEFMC and MAFMC 1998; Haring and Maguire 2008). 

Current regulatory measures vary with type of permit but include limited access, limitations on 

days at sea, mesh size restrictions, trip limits, minimum size limits and annual catch limits (Tables 

1 and 2). 

Biological reference points for monkfish were established in the original Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP), but were revised after SAW 34 (NEFSC 2002), after the Data Poor 

Stocks Working Group (DPSWG) in 2007 (NEFSC 2007a), and after SAW 50 in 2010. The 

overfishing definition on record is Fmax. Prior to 2007, Bthreshold was defined as one-half of the 

median of the 1965-1981 3-year average NEFSC autumn trawl survey catch (kg) per tow). After 

acceptance of an analytical assessment in 2007 (NEFSC 2007a), Btarget was redefined as the 

average of total biomass for the model time period (1980-2006) and Bthreshold as the lowest observed 

value in the total biomass time series from which the stock had then increased (termed “BLoss”). 

According to the earlier (survey index-based) reference points, monkfish were overfished and 
Operational Assessment August 2019 59 Monkfish

overfishing status could not be determined (NEFSC 2005); however, with adoption of the 

analytical assessment in 2007, monkfish status was changed to no longer overfished and 

overfishing was not occurring. Assessments in 2010 and 2013 (NEFSC 2010; 2013) also 

concluded that both stocks were not overfished and overfishing was not occurring, while 

recognizing the continuing significant uncertainty in the determination. With the invalidation of 

the growth curve and analytic assessment model, the estimated BRPs are no longer relevant. 

TOR 1. Update data: fishery-dependent data (landings, discards, catch-at-age, etc.) and 

fishery-independent data (research survey information) that had been used in the previous 

accepted assessment. Also, describe and present any new or revised data sets that are being 

used in the assessment.

Fishery-Dependent Data

Landings

Landings of monkfish tails are converted from landed weight to live weight, because a 

substantial fraction of the landings occur as tails only (or other parts). The conversion of landed 

weight of tails to live weight of monkfish in the NEFSC weigh-out database is made by multiplying 

landed tail weight by a factor of 3.32. 

Early catch statistics (before ~1980) are uncertain, because much of the monkfish catch 

was sold outside of the dealer system or used for personal consumption until the mid-1970s. For 

1964 through 1989, there are two potential sources of landings information for monkfish; the 

NEFSC ‘weigh-out’ database, which consists of fish dealer reports of landings, and the ‘general 

canvass’ database, which contains landings data collected by NMFS port agents (for ports not 

included in the weigh-out system) or reported by states not included in the weigh-out system (Table 

D3). All landings of monkfish are reported in the general canvass data as ‘unclassified tails.’ 

Consequently, some landed weight attributable to livers or whole fish in the canvass data may be 

inappropriately converted to live weight. This is not an issue for 1964-1981 when only tails were 

recorded in both databases. For 1982-1989, the weigh-out database contains market category 

information that allows for improved conversions from landed to live weight. The two data sources 

produce the same trends in landings, with general canvass landings slightly greater than weigh-out 

landings. It is not known which of the two measures more accurately reflects landings, but the 

additional data sources suggest that the general canvass is most reliable for 1964-1981 landings, 

whereas the availability of market category details suggests that the weigh-out database is most 

reliable for 1982-1989. 

Beginning in 1990, most of the extra sources of landings in the general canvass database 

were incorporated into the NEFSC weigh-out database. However, North Carolina reported 

landings of monkfish to the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and until 1997 these landings were 

not added to the NEFSC general canvass database. Since these landings most likely come from the 

southern management area, they have been added to the weigh-out data for the southern 

management area for 1977-1997 for the landings statistics used for stock assessment. 

Beginning in July 1994, the NEFSC commercial landings data collection system was 

redesigned to consist of vessel trip reports (VTR) and dealer weigh-out records. The VTRs include 

area fished for each trip which is used to apportion dealer-reported landings to statistical areas. 

The northern management area includes statistical areas 511-515, 521-523 and 561; and the 

southern management area includes areas 525-526, 562, 537-543 and 611-636 (Figure D2). 

Total U.S. landings (live weight) remained at low levels until the mid-1970s, increasing 

from less than 1,000 mt to around 6,000 mt in 1978 (Table D3, Figure D3). Annual landings 

remained stable at between 8,000 and 10,000 mt until the late 1980s. Landings increased from the 

late 1980s to over 20,000 mt per year during 1992-2004, peaking at 28,500 mt in 1997. Landings 
Operational Assessment August 2019 60 Monkfish

declined steadily after 2003, and stabilized around an average of 8,600 mt during 2009-2015. 

During 2008-2015, fishing year landings in the NMA remained well below the TAL, but during 

2016-2018 were close to or higher than the TAL (Table D2). In the SMA, fishing year landings 

have been below the TAL since 2009. The most recent TALs are ~50% higher in the SMA than in

the NMA.

Monkfish landings began to increase in the northern management region in the mid-1970s 

and in the late 1970s in the southern area. Most of the increase in landings during the late 1980s 

through mid-1990s was from the southern area. Historical under-reporting of landings should be 

considered in the interpretation of this series.

Trawls, scallop dredges and gill nets are the primary gear types that land monkfish (Table 

D4, Figure D4). Trawls have been the predominant gear in the north, accounting for approximately 

75% of the landings on average. In the south, trawls and dredges dominated the landings before 

about 2002, but were subsequently replaced by gillnets as regulations changed. Gillnets accounted 

for about 75% of the landings from the southern management area during 2016-2018. 

Until the late 1990s, total U.S. landings were dominated by landings of monkfish tails. 

From 1964 to 1980 landings of tails rose from 19mt to 2,302mt, and peaked at 7,191mt in 1997 

(Tables 5, 6). Landings of tails declined after 1997, but are still an important component of the 

landings. Landings of gutted whole fish have increased steadily since the early 1990s and are now 

the largest market category on a landed-weight basis. On a regional basis, more tails were landed 

from the northern area than the southern area prior to the late 1970s (Tables 5 and 6). From 1979 

to 1989, landings of tails were about equal from both areas. In the 1990's, landings of tails from 

the south predominated, but since 2000, landings of tails have been greater in the north. 

Beginning in 1982, several market categories were added to the system (Tables 5, 6). Tails 

were broken down into large (> 2.0 lbs), small (0.5 to 2.0 lbs), and unclassified categories and the 

liver market category was added. In 1989, unclassified round fish were added, in 1991 peewee 

tails (<0.5 lbs) and cheeks, in 1992 belly flaps, and in 1993 whole gutted fish were added. 

Landings of unclassified round (whole) or gutted whole fish jumped in 1994 to 2,045 mt and 1,454 

mt, respectively; landings of gutted fish continued to increase through 2003. The tonnage of 

peewee tails landed increased through 1995 to 364 mt and then declined to 153 mt in 1999 and 4 

mt in 2000 when the category was essentially eliminated by regulations. 

Foreign Landings

Landings (live wt) from NAFO areas 5 and 6 by countries other than the US are shown in 

Table D3 and Figure D3. Reported landings were high but variable in the 1960s and 1970s with 

a peak in 1973 of 6,818 mt. Landings were low but variable in the 1980s, declined in the early 

1990s, and have generally been below 300 mt since 1996. NAFO data for monkfish were not 

updated for this assessment update. 

Discard Estimates

Catch data from the fishery observer, dealer and VTR databases were used to investigate 

discarding frequencies and rates using standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM, Rago 

et al. 2005; Wigley et al. 2007). The number of trips with monkfish discards available for analysis 

varied widely among management areas and gear types (Tables 7, 8). As in previous monkfish 

assessments (NEFSC 2007a, NEFSC 2010, NEFSC 2013, NEFSC 2016), monkfish discards were 

estimated on a gear, half-year and management area basis using observed discard-per-keptmonkfish expanded to total discards for otter trawls and gillnets, and observed discard-per-allkept-catch to expand for scallop dredges and shrimp trawls. Discards for 1980-1988 (before 

observer sampling) were estimated by applying average discard ratios by management area and 
Operational Assessment August 2019 61 Monkfish

gear type (trawl, shrimp trawl, gillnet, dredge) from 1989-1991 to landings for 1980-1988 as 

follows: 

Area Shrimp 

Trawls

Trawls Gillnets Dredges

North

Years included 1989-1991 1989-1991 1989-1991 1992-1997

Number of trips 124 253 1191 54

South

Years included n/a 1989-1991 1991-1992 1991-1993

Number of trips 334 177 32

The proportion of discards in the northern area catch was about 13% in the 1980s, 7% 

during 2002-2006, became slightly higher on average (12%) during 2007-2009, was 14% for 2010-

2015 and 18% during 2016-2018 (Table D9, Figures 5, 6). The proportion of discards in the 

southern area catch has generally increased since the 1980s (average 16% 1980-1989), with an 

annual average of 29% during 2002-2006, 24% during 2007-2009, and 27% in 2010-2015 (Table 

D9, Figures 5 and 6). During 2016-2018, the proportion of discards in the catch was 51%, and 

estimated discards (mt) exceeded landings in 2017 and 2018. These high discard rates are due 

primarily to regulatory discards in the scallop dredge fishery (Table D8). Gill nets consistently 

have had the lowest discard ratios in both areas. 

Overall, discarding has increased steadily in both management areas since 2015 (Table 

D9). In 2015, a large increase in discarding of small fish was observed in southern area dredge and 

trawl fisheries (Figure D8), reflecting the strong 2015 recruitment event. This yearclass now 

appears to have grown into the exploitable size range (43+cm) (Figure D1). 

Size Composition of U.S. Catch 

Tail lengths were converted to total lengths using relations developed by Almeida et al. 

(1995). As in previous assessments, (NEFSC 2007a and later), length composition of landings 

and discard were estimated from fishery observer samples by management area, gear-type (trawls, 

dredges and gillnets), catch disposition (kept or discarded) and variable time periods (Table D11). 

Landings in unknown gear categories were allocated proportionately to the 3 major gear types 

before assigning lengths. The estimated length composition of landings and discard is shown in 

Figures 7-10. Age composition of the catch was not estimated. 

Effort and CPUE

Evaluating trends in effort or catch rates in the monkfish fishery is difficult for several 

reasons. Much of the catch is taken in multi-species fisheries, and defining targeted monkfish trips 

is difficult. There have been programmatic changes in data collection from port interviews (1980-

1993) to logbooks (1994-2009), and comparison of effort statistics among programs is difficult. 

Catch rates may not reflect patterns of abundance, because they have been affected by regulatory 

changes (e.g., 1994 closed areas, 2000 trip limits, 2006 reductions in trip limits). 

CPUE data have not been used in the assessment model for monkfish, therefore they were 

not examined for this assessment update. 

Fishery-Independent Data
Operational Assessment August 2019 62 Monkfish

Resource surveys used in the 2016 assessment were updated, including NEFSC spring and 

autumn offshore surveys, ASMFC northern shrimp surveys (NFMA only), ME/NH spring and fall 

inshore surveys, and scallop dredge surveys conducted by NEFSC and Viginia Institute of Marine 

Science (VIMS) (SMA only). Very few strata in the SMA were sampled during the 2017 fall 

survey, so indices were not calculated for the 2017 fall survey in the SMA. 

The NEFSC survey strata used to define the northern and southern management areas are:

Survey Northern Area Southern Area

NEFSC offshore bottom trawl 20-30, 34-40 1-19, 61-76

ASMFC Shrimp 1,3,5-8

Shellfish

6,7,10,11,14,15,18,19,22-31,33-

35,46,47,55,58-61,621,631

NEFSC spring and autumn bottom trawl survey indices for 1963-2008 were standardized 

to adjust for statistically significant effects of trawl type (Sissenwine and Bowman 1977) on catch 

rates. The trawl conversion coefficients apply only to the spring survey during 1973-1981. 

NEFSC indices derived from surveys on the FSV Henry Bigelow (starting spring 2009) 

were adjusted using calibration coefficients estimated during experimental work (Miller et al. 

2009). The FSV Henry B. Bigelow, which became the main platform for NEFSC research surveys 

in spring 2009, has significantly different size, towing power, and fishing gear characteristics than 

the previous survey platform (Albatross IV), resulting in different fishing power and catchability 

for most species. Calibration experiments to estimate these differences were conducted during 

2008 (Brown 2009, NEFSC 2007b,). Following guidelines developed by a peer-review panel 

(Anonymous 2009), monkfish catches were converted using a simple ratio estimator without a 

seasonal (spring vs. fall) or length-specific correction. The low catch rates of monkfish in the 

Albatross series made development of more detailed coefficients infeasible. The overall 

coefficients for monkfish were 7.1295 for numbers and 8.0618 for biomass (kg) (Anonymous 

2009; Miller et al. 2009). The Bigelow time series is also presented as an independent, uncalibrated 

series.

NEFSC spring and fall survey estimates of minimum biomass and abundance were derived 

using relative efficiency estimates for monkfish from a set of paired-tow experiments comparing 

chain sweep (industry standard on soft bottom) vs. rock hopper gear (used on all tows on the FSV 

Bigelow) (Miller et al. 2017a, 2017b, 2018). 

Northern Management Area (NMA)

Biomass indices from NEFSC autumn and spring research trawl surveys fluctuated without 

trend between 1963 and 1975, increased briefly in the late 1970's, but declined thereafter to near 

historic lows during the 1990's (Tables 12-13, Figures 11 and 12). From 2000 to 2003, indices 

increased, reflecting recruitment of a relatively strong 1999 yearclass. Subsequently, biomass 

indices declined and remained relatively low until 2016, when both biomass and abundance began 

to increase. Abundance declined slightly in 2017 and 2018 but biomass indices continued to 

increase in the fall survey (Figure D12). Exploitable biomass (43+cm) has increased steadily since 

2014 (fall survey) or 2016 (spring survey) (Figure D13). ME-NH survey data has shown similar 

trends in total biomass and abundance as the NEFSC surveys (Figure D14). 
Operational Assessment August 2019 63 Monkfish

Length composition of NEFSC and ME/NH fall survey catches (Figures15 and 18) suggest 

production of relatively strong yearclasses in 2015 and 2016; however, strong recruitment was not 

apparent in the spring or summer shrimp surveys (Figures 16 and 17). 

Recruitment indices (abundance) were estimated for monkfish of lengths corresponding to 

presumed young-of-year (YOY, age 0). The size ranges used were based on length frequencies 

observed for the strong 2015 yearclass, and were adopted in the 2016 assessment, as follows: 

Based on the recruitment indices (Figure D20), the frequency of recruitment events in the 

northern area has increased since the late 1980s, with strong yearclasses produced in 1993, 1994, 

2000, 2015 and 2016. There appears to be a negative relationship between recruitment and size of 

monkfish in the NMA (Figure D20). One possible interpretation is that that cannibalism plays a 

role in stock dyanmics. Armstrong et al (1996) and Johnson et al. (2008) both found higher rates 

of cannibalism in relatively large monkfish.

Additional surveys that catch monkfish in portions of the northern area include the ASMFC 

shrimp survey, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries fall and spring surveys, and 

ME/NH inshore surveys (Table D15, Figures 11, 14, 17-19). The shrimp survey samples the 

western Gulf of Maine during summer and caught more monkfish than the spring or fall surveys

prior to 2009 (when the FSV Bigelow survey series began). Patterns of abundance and biomass 

have been relatively consistent among the NEFSC spring and fall, ME-NH, and shrimp surveys 

(Figure D21). The Massachusetts surveys catch few monkfish and were not considered to reflect 

patterns of abundance for the entire management area (NEFSC 2007a); therefore have not been 

included in recent assessments. 

Figure D22 shows the distribution of monkfish in surveys in the northern management 

area.

Southern Management Area 

Inconsistent geographic coverage should be considered in the interpretation of southern

survey indices. The NEFSC fall survey did not sample south of Hudson Canyon until 1967. The 

NEFSC scallop dredge survey has been limited to the southern flank of Georges Bank since 2014, 

and NEFSC sampling intensity over the entire mid-Atlantic Bight declined starting in 2011. In 

addition, the timing of the scallop dredge survey shifted in 2009 from mid-summer to late spring.

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science VIMS is now conducting the scallop dredge survey in 

the areas south of Georges Bank (beginning in 2012), but the data are not incorporated into the 

NEFSC survey data base. This makes it laborious to fold the VIMS dredge survey data into the 

assessment calculations; however, the VIMS data have been included for most of the series 

presented in this assessment. NEAMAP inshore surveys in the Mid-Atlantic catch relatively few 

monkfish, so are not included here.

Biomass and abundance indices from NEFSC spring and autumn research surveys were 

high during the mid-1960s, fluctuated around an intermediate level during the 1970s-mid 1980s, 

2013 2016

North

Putative 

age cm range

Putative 

age cm range

Fall NEFSC 1 11-19 0 6-18

Fall ME-NH 1 11-19 0 8-18

South

Spring/summer scallop 1 11-19 0 7-18

Fall NEFSC 1 11-17 0 12-28
Operational Assessment August 2019 64 Monkfish

and have been relatively low since the late 1980s (Tables 16-17, Figures 23 and 24). A sharp 

increase in abundance was observed in the 2015 scallop and fall surveys and in the 2016 spring 

survey (Tables 16-18 Figure D23), reflecting an apparent recruitment event in 2015. Exploitable 

biomass (43+cm) increased in the spring survey in 2017 and 2018, likely as a result of the growth 

of the 2015 yearclass (Figure D25). The fall survey also showed elevated exploitable biomass in 

2018 (no survey in 2017). 

Length distributions from the southern area show truncation over time but 

somewhat less dramatically than in the north (Figures 25-27). As in the northern area, fish 

greater than 60 cm have been rare since the 1980s, especially when compared to the 1960s. 

Recruitment indices (presumed YOY) (Figure D29) indicate two exceptional recruitment 

events in the south, occurring in 1972 and 2015. The negative relationship between median size 

in the population and recruitment seen in the north is not evident in the SMA (Figure D29); 

however, the median size has generally been lower in the south than in the north. Distribution plots 

suggest that the 2015 recruits were broadly distributed in the SMA (Figure D32). 

TOR 2. Estimate F, R, B

TOR2a.) Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment, and stock size for the time series 

(“Plan A”). Include estimates of uncertainty, retrospective analyses (both historical and 

within-model), and bridge runs to sequentially document any changes from the previously 

accepted model to the updated model proposed for this peer review. 

In the absence of an approved model, this TOR was not addressed through modeling efforts; 

however relative exploitation rates were calculated from landings or catch and survey estimates 

of minimum area-swept abundance or biomass estimated using adjustments for the rockhopper 

sweep (Miller et al. 2017a, 2017b, 2018) (Table D19, Figures 33-34). The area-swept estimates 

account for missed strata by applying average density from sampled strata in each management 

area to the un-sampled strata. The estimates assume that 100% of the monkfish encountered by 

the trawl are captured. Missing strata in monkfish assessment areas and total area of sampled 

strata during 2009-2018 were the following: 

b.) Prepare a “Plan B” assessment that would serve as an alternate approach to providing

scientific advice to management. “Plan B” will be presented for peer review only if the 

“PlanA” assessment were to not pass review.

A model-free method used to derive Georges Bank cod catch limits in 2015 (NEFSC 

2015) was applied to monkfish in the northern and southern management areas in the 2016 

North Area surveyed South Area surveyed

Missing strata nmi2 Missing strata nmi2

2009 26,265 68 37,029

2010 26,265 37,081

2011 20, 25 24,654 17, 66 36,166

2012 25 25,875 37,081

2013 25 25,875 18 36,909

2014 20, 40 24,466 8 36,851

2015 26,265 37,081

2016 26,265 37,081

2017 26,265 1-12, 61-76 9,226

2018 30, 34, 351,39 22,617 37,081
Operational Assessment August 2019 65 Monkfish

assessment (NEFSC 2016) and is updated here. The method calculates the rate and direction of 

change in survey indices using the slope of a log-linear regression of LOESS-smoothed survey 

indices during the most recent three years. In the case of cod, the proportional change in the 

indices (re-transformed slope, “catch multiplier”) was applied to average cod catch in the three 

previous years to derive new cod catch limits. 

The monkfish analysis calculated the multiplier using total biomass indices from either 

the NEFSC fall survey only or the average of the NEFSC spring and fall surveys. The missing 

2017 fall survey index for the south was interpolated by averaging 2016 and 2018 biomass 

indices for the south. The spring survey may be affected more strongly than the fall survey by 

availability of monkfish to the gear due to timing of seasonal migrations. Biomass indices for 

1986-2018 in each area were LOESS-smoothed (smoothing parameter=0.30, 9.9 year smoothing 

window) before being entered into a log-linear regression to estimate the proportional change 

during 2016-2018. The estimated proportional change (multiplier) for monkfish in the north was 

1.26 (fall survey only, 26% increase) or 1.22 (spring and fall surveys combined, 22% increase). 

In the south, the proportional change was 0.96 (fall survey only, 4% decrease) or 1.04 (spring 

and fall surveys combined, 4% increase) (Figure D35). 

TOR 3. Update BRPs

TOR 3. Update the values of biological reference points (BRPs) for this stock.

Biological reference points specified in the management plan are no longer relevant due to 

invalidation of the growth model, therefore they were not updated for this assessment update. 

TOR 4. Stock Status

TOR4. a.) Recommend what stock status appears to be based on comparison of assessment 

results to BRP estimates.

This TOR was not addressed because monkfish BRPs have been invalidated. 

b.) Include qualitative descriptions of stock status based on simple indicators/metrics (e.g.,

age- and size-structure, temporal trends in population size or recruitment indices, etc.).

Based on trends in survey results, monkfish stock status has been improving (north) or remained 

steady (south) in both management regions in the past three years, likely due primarily to the 

2015 recruitment event. Biomass continued to increase in the north in 2018 while abundance 

dropped, reflecting an increase in the proportion of large individuals in the population (likely of 

the 2015 year class). In the south, biomass increased after the 2015 recruitment event, but was 

lower in 2018 (fall 2017 data missing), as abundance of the 2015 year class declined. 

Recruitment has returned to average levels in the south, and in the north, to average levels 

observed since the late 1980s. Abundance and biomass patterns may be influenced by movement 

of monkfish between the management areas, which is poorly understood. 

TOR 5. Population Projections 

5. Perform short-term (2-year) population projections. The projection results should

include an estimate of the catch at FMSY or at an FMSY proxy (i.e. this catch represents

the overfishing level, OFL) as well as its statistical distribution (i.e., probability density

function).

Not relevant to this assessment.

TOR 6. Research areas and data issues
Operational Assessment August 2019 66 Monkfish

TOR 6: Comment on research areas or data issues to consider that might lead to 

improvements when this stock is assessed again in the future.

A benchmark assessment should consider the feasibility of using both observer and port 

samples in estimating length composition of commercial landings. 

Ongoing research on age and growth of monkfish may lead to an acceptable growth curve, 

even if not an aging method that could be used for routine aging. If so, age structured models could 

be explored assuming static growth. 

A better understanding of monkfish movements and stock structure would be helpful to 

interpretation of monkfish population data. 

Future modeling efforts may want to consider the possible role of cannibalism in stock 

dynamics of monkfish in light of the strong negative relationship observed in the north between 

median size of monkfish in the population and recruitment indices. 

References:

Almeida FP, Hartley DL, Burnett J. 1995. Length-weight relationships and sexual maturity of 

monkfish off the northeast coast of the United States. N Am J Fish Manage. 15:14-25. 

Anonymous. 2009. Independent Panel review of the NMFS Vessel Calibration analyses for FSV/ 

Henry B. Bigelow/ and R/V/ Albatross IV/. August 11-14, 2009. Chair’s Consensus report. 

10 p. 

Armstrong MP, Musick JA, Colvocoresses JA. 1992. Age, growth and reproduction of the 

monkfish Lophius americanus (Pisces:Lophiiformes). Fish Bull. 90: 217-230. 

Armstrong, M. P., Musick, J. A., and Colvocoresses, J. A. 1996. Food and ontogenetic shifts in 

feeding of the goosefish, Lophius americanus. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery 

Science, 18: 99–103. 

Azarovitz TR. 1981. A brief historical review of the Woods Hole Laboratory trawl survey time

series. Pages 62-67 in W.G. Doubleday and D. Rivard, editors. Bottom trawl surveys. Can 

Spec Pub Fish Aquat Sci. 58. 

Bank, C. 2016. Validation of age determination methods for monkfish (Lophius americanus). 

Master of Science Thesis, School of Marine Science and Technology, Univ. Mass. 

Brown R. 2009. Design and field data collection to compare the relative catchabilities of 

multispecies bottom trawl surveys conducted on the NOAA ship Albatross IV and the FSV 

Henry B. Bigelow. NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey Calibration Peer Review Working Paper. 

NEFSC, Woods Hole, MA. 19 p. 

Caruso JH. 1983. The systematics and distribution of the lophiid angler fisher: II. Revision of the 

genera Lophiomus and Lophius. Copeia 1: 11-30. 

Collette B, Klein-MacPhee G, (eds). 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, 

Third edition. Smithsonian Institution Press. 748 p. 

Chikarmane HM, Kuzirian A, Kozlowski R, Kuzirian M, Lee T. 2000. Population genetic structure 

of the monkfish, Lophius americanus. Biol Bull. 199: 227-228. 

Cook RM. 1997.Stock trends in six North Sea stocks as revealed by an analysis of research vessel 

surveys. ICES J Mar Sci. 54: 924-933. 

Durbin EG, Durbin AG, Langton RW, Bowman RE. 1983. Stomach contents of silver hake, 

Merluccius bilinearis, and Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, and estimation of their daily 

rations. Fish Bull. 81: 437-454. 

Eggers DM. 1977. Factors in interpreting data obtained by diel sampling of fish stomachs. J Fish

Res Board Can. 34: 290-294. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 67 Monkfish

Elliot JM, Persson L. 1978. The estimation of daily rates of food consumption for fish. J Anim

Ecol. 47: 977-991. 

Haring P, Maguire JJ, 2008. The monkfish fishery and its management in the northeastern USA. 

ICES J Mar Sci. 65: 1370 – 1379. 

Hartley D. 1995. The population biology of the monkfish, Lophius americanus, in the Gulf of 

Maine. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 142 p. 

Hasbrouck, E., J. Scotti, T. Froehlich, K. Gerbino, J. Stent, J. Costanzo, I. Wirgin. 2015. Coastwide 

stock structure of monkfish using microsatellite DNA analysis. Completion report, 

Monkfish RSA Grant NA12NMF4540095. 

Johnson AK, Richards RA, Cullen DW, Sutherland SJ, 2008. Growth, reproduction, and feeding 

of large monkfish, Lophius americanus. ICES J Mar Sci. 65: 1306 – 1315. 

Johnson, A.K., Allen R. Place, Belita S. Nguluwe, R. Anne Richards, Ernest Williams. In prep. 

Stock Discrimination of American Monkfish using a Mitochondrial DNA Marker. 

Kleisner KM, Fogarty MJ, McGee S, Barnett A, Fratantoni P, Greene J, et al. (2016) The Effects 

of Sub-Regional Climate Velocity on the Distribution and Spatial Extent of Marine Species 

Assemblages. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0149220. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149220 

Link JS, Col L, Guida V, Dow D, O’Reilly J, Green J, Overholtz W, Palka D, Legault C, Vitaliano 

J, Griswold C, Fogarty M, Friedland K. 2009. Response of Balanced Network Models to 

Large-Scale Perturbation: Implications for Evaluating the Role of Small Pelagics in the 

Gulf of Maine. Ecol Model. 220: 351-369. 

Link J, Overholtz W, O’Reilly J, Green J, Dow D, Palka D, Legault C, Vitaliano J, Guida V, 

Fogarty M, Brodziak J, Methratta E, Stockhausen W, Col L, Waring G, Griswold C. 2008. 

An Overview of EMAX: The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Ecological Network. J Mar 

Sys. 74: 453-474. 

Link JS, Griswold CA, Methratta EM, Gunnard, J. (eds). 2006. Documentation for the Energy 

Modeling and Analysis eXercise (EMAX). NEFSC Ref Doc. 06-15: 166 p. 

Link JS, Sosebee K. 2008. Estimates and implications of Skate Consumption in the northeastern US 

continental shelf ecosystem. N Amer J Fish Manage. 28: 649-662.

Link JS, Idoine J. 2009. Predator Consumption Estimates of the northern shrimp Pandalus 

borealis, with Implications for Estimates of Population Biomass in the Gulf of Maine. N. 

Am J Fish Manage. 29:1567-1583. 

Link JS, Garrison LP. 2002. Changes in piscivory associated with fishing induced changes to the 

finfish community on Georges Bank. Fish Res. 55: 71-86. 

Link JS, Garrison LP, Almeida FP. 2002. Interactions between elasmobranchs and groundfish 

species (Gadidae and Pleuronectidae) on the Northeast U.S. Shelf. I: Evaluating 

Predation. N Am J Fish Manage. 22: 550-562. 

Link JS, Almeida FP. 2000. An overview and history of the food web dynamics program of the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. NOAA Tech Memo. 

NMFS-NE-159. 60 p. 

McBride, R., A. Johnson, E. Lindsay, H. Walsh, A. Richards. 2017. Goosefish Lophius americanus 

fecundity and spawning frequency, with implications for population reproductive potential. 

Journal of Fish Biology 90(5): 1861-1882. doi:10.1111/jfb.13272 

Miller TJ, Das C, Politis P, Long A, Lucey S, Legault C, Brown R, Rago P. 2009. Estimation of 

/Henry B. Bigelow/ calibration factors. NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey/ /Calibration Peer 

Review Working Paper. NEFSC, Woods Hole, MA. 376 p. 

Miller, T. J., Richardson, D. E., Politis, P. Blaylock, J. 2017a. NEFSC bottom trawl catch 

efficiency and biomass estimates for 2009-2017 for 8 flatfish stocks included in the 2017 

North-east Groundfish Operational Assessments. Working paper. National Marine 
Operational Assessment August 2019 68 Monkfish

Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. September 11-

15, 2017. 

Miller, T. J., Martin, M. Politis, P., Legault, C. M., Blaylock, J. 2017b. Some statistical 

approaches to combine paired observations of chain sweep and rockhopper gear and 

catches from NEFSC and DFO trawl surveys in estimating Georges Bank yellowtail 

flounder biomass. TRAC Working Paper 2017/XX. 36. pp. 

Miller, T. J., Politis, P., Blaylock, J., Richardson, D., Manderson, J., Roebuck, C. 2018. 

Relative efficiency of a chain sweep and the rockhopper sweep used for the NEFSC bottom 

trawl survey and chainsweep-based swept area biomass estimates for 11 flatfish stocks. 

SAW 66 summer flounder Data/Model/Biological Reference Point (BRP) meeting. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 

September 17-21, 2018. 

Moustahfid H, Tyrrell MC, Link JS. 2009a. Accounting explicitly for predation mortality in surplus 

production models: an application to longfin inshore squid. N Am J Fish Manage. 29: 1555-

1566.

Moustahfid H, Link JS, Overholtz WJ, Tyrell MC. 2009b. The advantage of explicitly 

incorporating predation mortality into age-structured stock assessment models: an 

application for Northwest Atlantic mackerel. ICES J Mar Sci. 66: 445-454. 

NEFC (Northeast Fisheries Center). 1988. An evaluation of the bottom trawl survey program of 

the Northeast Fisheries Center.NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC52.83 pp. 

NEFMC [New England Fishery Management Council] and MAFMC [Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council]. 1998. Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. 

http://www.nefmc.org/monk/index.html 

NEFMC [New England Fishery Management Council] and MAFMC [Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council]. 2003. Framework Adjustment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery 

Management Plan. http://www.nefmc.org/monk/index.html 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2002. [Report of the] 34th Northeast Regional Stock 

Assessment Workshop (34th SAW) Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) 

Consensus Summary of Assessments. NEFSC Ref Doc. 02-06: 346p 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2005. 40th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (40th SAW) Assessment Report. NEFSC Ref Doc. 05-04:146 p 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2006. 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop. (42nd SAW) stock assessment report, part B: Expanded Multispecies Virtual 

Population Analysis (MSVPA-X) stock assessment model. NEFSC Ref Doc. 06-09b: 308 

p. 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2007a. Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group

Monkfish assessment report for 2007. NEFSC Ref Doc. 07-21: 232 p. 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2007b. Proposed vessel calibration studies for 

NOAA Ship Henry B. Bigelow. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 07-12: 26 p. 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2007c. Assessment Report (45th SARC/SAW). 

Section A.10. [TOR 6]. NEFSC Ref Doc. 07-16: 13-138. 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2007d. Assessment Report (44th SARC/SAW). 

Section B.8. [TOR 6]. NEFSC Ref Doc. 07-10: 332-344, 504-547. 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2008. Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish 

Stocks through 2007 Report of the 3rd Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM 

III), Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 4-8, 2008. 

Section 2.1. NEFSC Ref Doc. 08-15: 855-865. 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2010. Assessment Report (50th SARC/SAW). 

NEFSC Ref Doc. 10-17: 15-392. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 69 Monkfish

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2013. 2013 Monkfish Operational Assessment. 

NEFSC Ref Doc. 13-23: 116 p. 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2015. Operational Assessment of 20 Northeast 

Groundfish Stocks, Updated Through 2014. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent 

Ref Doc. 15-24; 251 p. 

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2016. 2016 Monkfish Operationsl Assessment. US 

Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 16-09; 109 p. 

Overholtz WJ, Link JS. 2009. A simulation model to explore the response of the Gulf of Maine 

food web to large scale environmental and ecological changes. Ecol Model. 220: 2491-

2502. 

Overholtz WJ, Jacobson LD, Link JS. 2008. Developing an ecosystem approach for assessment 

advice and biological reference points for the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank herring 

complex: adding the impact of predation mortality. N Am J Fish Manag. 28: 247-257. 

Overholtz WJ, Link JS. 2007. Consumption impacts by marine mammals, fish, and seabirds on 

the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank Atlantic Herring (Clupea harengus) complex during 

1977-2002. ICES J Mar. Sci. 64: 83-96. 

Overholtz W, Link JS, Suslowicz LE. 2000. The impact and implications of fish 

predation on pelagic fish and squid on the eastern USA shelf. ICES J Mar Sci. 

57: 1147-1159. 

Overholtz W, Link JS, Suslowicz LE. 1999. Consumption and harvest of pelagic 

fishes in the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank ecosystem: Implications for fishery

management. Proceedings of the 16th Lowell Wakefield Fisheries SymposiumEcosystem Considerations in Fisheries Management. AK-SG-99-01:163-186. 

Overholtz WJ, Murawski SA, Foster KL. 1991. Impact of predatory fish, marine mammals, and 

seabirds on the pelagic fish ecosystem of the northeastern USA. ICES Mar Sci Symposia 

193: 198-208. 

Pennington M. 1985. Estimating the average food consumption by fish in the field from stomach

contents data. Dana 5: 81-86. 

Pennington, M. 1986. Estimating the mean and variance from highly skewed marine data. Fishery 

Bulletin 47: 1623-1624. 

Rago PJ, Wigley SE, Fogarty MJ. 2005. NEFSC bycatch estimation methodology: allocation, 

precision, and accuracy. NEFSC Ref Doc. 05-09: 44 p

Rago PJ, Weinberg JR, Weidman C. 2006. A spatial model to estimate gear efficiency and animal 

density from depletion experiments. Can J Fish Aquat Sci: 63: 2377–2388. 

Raymond M, Glass C. 2006. A Project to define monkfish trawl gear and areas that reduce 

groundfish bycatch and to minimize the impacts of monkfish trawl gear on groundfish

habitat. Final Report, NOAA NERO CRPP Contract EA-133-F-03-CN-0049. 

Richards A. 2006. Goosefish (Lophius americanus). In Status of Fishery Resources off the 

Northeastern US (www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/og/goose).

Richards RA, Nitschke P, Sosebee K. 2008. Population biology of monkfish Lophius americanus. 

ICES J Mar Sci. 65: 1291-1305. 

Richards, RA, Grabowski, J and Sherwood, G. 2012. Archival Tagging Study of Monkfish, 

Lophius americanus. Final Report to Northeast Consortium, Project Award 09-042. 

Rountree RA, Gröger JP, Martins D. 2006. Extraction of daily activity pattern and vertical 

migration behavior from the benthic fish, Lophius americanus, based on depth analysis 

from data storage tags. ICES CM 2006/Q:01. 

Sissenwine MP, Bowman EW. 1977. Fishing power of two bottom trawls towed by research 

vessels off the northeast coast of the USA during day and night. ICES CM. 1977: B30. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 70 Monkfish

Steimle FW, Morse WW, Johnson DL. 1999. Essential fish habitat source document: monkfish, 

Lophius americanus, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA TechMemoNMFSNE-127. 

Syrjala, S. 2000. Critique on the use of the delta distribution for the analysis of trawl survey data. 

ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57:831-842. 

Taylor MH, Bascuñán C, Manning JP. 2005. Description of the 2004 Oceanographic Conditions 

on the Northeast Continental Shelf. NEFSC Ref Doc. 05-03: 90 p. 

Tsou TS, Collie JS. 2001a. Estimating predation mortality in the Georges Bank fish 

community. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 58: 908-922. 

Tsou TS, Collie JS. 2001b. Predation-mediated recruitment in the Georges Bank fish community. 

ICES J Mar Sci. 58: 994-1001. 

Tyrrell MC, Link JS, Moustahfid H, Overholtz WJ. 2008. Evaluating the effect of predation 

mortality on forage species population dynamics in the Northwest Atlantic continental 

shelf ecosystem: an application using multispecies virtual population analysis. ICES J Mar

Sci. 65: 1689-1700. 

Tyrrell MC, Link JS, Moustahfid H, Smith BE. 2007. The dynamic role of goosefish (Pollachius 

virens) as a predator in the Northeast US Atlantic ecosystem: a multi-decadal perspective. J 

Northwest Atl Fish Sci. 38: 53-65. 

Ursin E, Pennington M, Cohen EB, Grosslein MD. 1985. Stomach evacuation rates of Atlantic 

cod (Gadus morhua) estimated from stomach contents and growth rates. Dana 5: 63-80. 

Wigley SE, Rago PJ, Sosebee KA, Palka DL. 2007. The Analytic Component to the Standardized 

Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment: Sampling Design, and Estimation 

of Precision and Accuracy. NEFSC Ref Doc. 07-09: 156 p 

Weinberg KL, Kotwicki S. 2008. Factors influencing net width and sea floor contact of a survey 

bottom trawl. Fish Res. 93: 265-279. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 71 Monkfish

Tables

Table D1. Timeline of fishery management actions for monkfish. 

(http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/monkfish/) 

1999 – Monkfish FMP was implemented which included a limited access permit program, a 

DAS management system, trip limits, and minimum size limits. 

1999 – Amendment 1 (FR Notice) approved to ensure compliance with essential fish habitat 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

2002 – Framework Adjustment 1 (FR Notice) was disapproved by NMFS. NMFS instead 

published an emergency rule that implemented measures based upon the best available science to 

temporarily suspend the restrictive Year 4 default management measures that would have 

become effective May 1, 2002. 

2003 –Framework Adjustment 2 (FR Notice) modified the overfishing definition and 

implemented annual adjustments to the management measures.

2003 - Final rule implemented a series of seasonal closures that prohibited the use of large mesh 

gillnets in Federal waters off the coast of Virginia and North Carolina to reduce the impact of the 

monkfish fishery on endangered and threatened species of sea turtles. 

2005 – Amendment 2 (FR Notice) addressed essential fish habitat, bycatch concerns, and issues 

raised by public comments. 

2006 – Framework Adjustment 3 (FR Notice) implemented to prohibit targeting monkfish on 

Multispecies B-regular DAS.

2007 – Interim management measures Framework 4 (FR Notice) adopted in May to address 

overfishing while NMFS conducted a stock assessment. Framework 4 was implemented in 

October to establish 3-year target total allowable catches (TACs), a target TAC backstop 

provision, and adjustments to DAS allocations and trip limits.

2007 – Amendment 3 (FR Notice) was implemented as an Omnibus Amendment to standardize 

bycatch reporting methodology for monkfish and other fisheries. 

2008 – NMFS implemented Framework 5 (FR Notice) to ensure the Monkfish FMP succeeds in 

keeping landings within the target total allowable catch levels. Measures include reduction in 

carryover DAS, reduction in bycatch or incidental catch limits, and revision in the biological 

reference points used to determine if the stock is overfished.

2008 – Framework 6 (FR Notice) eliminated the backstop provision adopted in Framework 

Adjustment 4 to the FMP, October 2007. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 72 Monkfish

Table D1, continued. 

2011 – Amendment 5 (FR Notice) implemented a suite of measures including annual catch limits

and accountability measures, measures to promote efficiency and reduce waste, and bring the 

biological reference points into compliance. 

2011 – Framework Adjustment 7 (FR Notice) implemented measures that were disapproved in 

Amendment 5 due to newly available science. Specifically, DAS allocations, trip limits, and an 

annual catch target for the Northern Area. 

2012 – Amendment 6 is still being developed in considering a catch shares management system 

for the fishery. Information on Amendment 6 is located here. 

2013 - NMFS implements an emergency action (FR Notice) to suspend the monkfish possession 

limits in the Northern Fishery Management Area for monkfish permit categories C and D under a 

monkfish DAS. 

2014 - Framework Adjustment 8 (FR Notice) implemented measures to incorporate results of 

latest stock assessment, increase monkfish day-at-sea allocations and landing limits to better 

achieve optimum yield, and increase operational flexibility by allowing all limited access 

monkfish vessels to use an allocated monkfish-only day-at-sea at any time throughout the fishing 

year and Category H vessels to fish throughout the Southern Fishery Management Area. 

2016 – Framework Adjustment 9 (FR Notice) implemented measures to increase landings in the 

NFMA by eliminating the possession limit while fishing under both a NE multispecies and 

monkfish day-at-sea and increasing flexibility in the SFMA by reducing the minimum mesh size 

for roundfish gillnets. 

2017 – Framework Adjustment 10 (FR Notice) implemented measures to incorporate results of 

the 2016 operational assessment, increase monkfish day-at-sea allocations and possession limits.
Operational Assessment August 2019 73 Monkfish

Table D2. Management measures for monkfish, fishing years 2000-2018. Regulations pertain to 

fishing years (FY, May 1- April 30), thus landings do not correspond to calendar year landings in 

Table D3. Trip limits apply to vessels fishing on declared monkfish days at sea.

NORTHERN FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT AREA

TRIP 

LIMITS*

TRIP 

LIMITS*

FISHING 

YEAR

TARGET 

TAC/TAL (MT)

CAT. A & 

C 

CAT. B 

& D

DAS 

RESTRICTIONS*

*

FY 

LANDINGS 

(MT)

PERCENT 

OF TAC

2000 5,673 n/a n/a 40 11,859 209%

2001 5,673 n/a n/a 40 14,853 262%

2002 11,674 n/a n/a 40 14,491 124%

2003 17,708 n/a n/a 40 14,155 80%

2004 16,968 n/a n/a 40 11,750 69%

2005 13,160 n/a n/a 40 9,533 72%

2006 7,737 n/a n/a 40 6,677 86%

2007 5,000 1,250 470 31 5,050 101%

2008 5,000 1,250 470 31 3,528 71%

2009 5,000 1,250 470 31 3,344 67%

2010 5,000 1,250 470 31 2,834 57%

2011 5,854 1,250 600 40 3,699 63%

2012 5,854 1,250 600 40 3,920 67%

2013 5,854 1,250 600 40 3,596 61%

2014 5,854 1,250 600 45 3,403 58%

2015 5,854 1,250 600 45 4,080 70%

2016 5,854 1,250 600 45 5,447 93%

2017 6,338 1,250 600 45 6,807 107%

2018 6,338 1,250 600 45 6,168 97%

* TRIP LIMITS IN POUNDS TAIL

WEIGHT PER DAS

** EXCLUDING UP TO 10 DAS CARRYOVER, BECAME 4 DAS

CARRYOVER IN FY2007

IN 2011, THE TARGET TAC BECAME A

TARGET TAL
Operational Assessment August 2019 74 Monkfish

Table D2, continued. 

Southern Fishery Management 

Area

Trip 

Limits*

Trip 

Limits*

Fishing 

Year

Target 

TAC/TAL (mt)

Cat. 

A,C,G

Cat. B, 

D, H

DAS 

Restrictions**

FY Landings 

(mt)

Percent of 

TAC

2000 6,024 1,500 1,000 40 7,960 132%

2001 6,024 1,500 1,000 40 11,069 184%

2002 7,921 550 450 40 7,478 94%

2003 10,211 1,250 1,000 40 12,198 119%

2004 6,772 550 450 28 6,223 92%

2005 9,673 700 600 39.3 9,656 100%

2006 3,667 550 450 12 5,909 161%

2007 5,100 550 450 23 7,180 141%

2008 5,100 550 450 23 6,751 132%

2009 5,100 550 450 23 4,800 94%

2010 5,100 550 450 23 4,484 88%

2011 8,925 550 450 28 5,801 65%

2012 8,925 550 450 28 5,184 58%

2013 8,925 550 450 28 5,088 57%

2014 8,925 610 500 32 5,415 61%

2015 8,925 610 500 32 4,733 53%

2016 8,925 700 575 37 4,345 49%

2017 9,011 700 575 37 3,802 42%

2018 9,011 700 575 37 4,600 51%

* Trip limits in pounds tail weight per DAS

** Excluding up to 10 DAS carryover, became 4 DAS carryover in FY2007

In 2011, the target TAC became a target TAL
Operational Assessment August 2019 75 Monkfish

Table D3. Landings (calculated live weight, mt) of monkfish as reported in NEFSC weigh-out 

data base (1964-1993) and vessel trip reports (1994-2014) (North = SA 511-523, 561; South = 

SA 524-639 excluding 551-561 plus landings from North Carolina for years 1977-1995); 

General Canvas database (1964-1989, North = ME, NH, northern weigh out proportion of MA; 

South = Southern weigh-out proportion of MA, RI-VA); Foreign landings from NAFO database 

areas 5 and 6. Shaded cells denote suggested source for landings which are used in the total 

column at the far right (see text for details).

--- Weigh Out Plus NC General Canvas --- ---

Year US 

North

US South US 

Total

US 

North

US South US 

Total

Foreign Total

1964 45 19 64 45 61 106 0 106

1965 37 17 54 37 79 115 0 115

1966 299 13 312 299 69 368 2,397 2765

1967 539 8 547 540 59 598 11 609

1968 451 2 453 449 36 485 2,231 2716

1969 258 4 262 240 43 283 2,249 2532

1970 199 12 211 199 53 251 477 728

1971 213 10 223 213 53 266 3,659 3925

1972 437 24 461 437 65 502 4,102 4604

1973 710 139 848 708 240 948 6,818 7766

1974 1,197 101 1,297 1,200 183 1,383 727 2110

1975 1,853 282 2,134 1,877 417 2,294 2,548 4842

1976 2,236 428 2,663 2,256 608 2,865 341 3206

1977 3,137 830 3,967 3,167 1,314 4,481 275 4756

1978 3,889 1,384 5,273 3,976 2,073 6,049 38 6087

1979 4,014 3,534 7,548 4,068 4,697 8,765 70 8835

1980 3,695 4,232 7,927 3,623 6,035 9,658 132 9790

1981 3,217 2,380 5,597 3,171 4,142 7,313 381 7694

1982 3,860 3,722 7,582 3,757 4,492 8,249 310 7,892

1983 3,849 4,115 7,964 3,918 4,707 8,624 80 8,044

1984 4,202 3,699 7,901 4,220 4,171 8,391 395 8,296

1985 4,616 4,262 8,878 4,452 4,806 9,258 1,333 10,211

1986 4,327 4,037 8,364 4,322 4,264 8,586 341 8,705

1987 4,960 3,762 8,722 4,995 3,933 8,926 748 9,470

1988 5,066 4,595 9,661 5,033 4,775 9,809 909 10,570

1989 6,391 8,353 14,744 6,263 8,678 14,910 1,178 15,922

1990 5,802 7,204 13,006 1,557 14,563

1991 5,693 9,865 15,558 1,020 16,578

1992 6,923 13,942 20,865 473 21,338

1993 10,645 15,098 25,743 354 26,097

1994 10,950 12,126 23,076 543 23,619

1995 11,970 14,361 26,331 418 26,749

1996 10,791 15,715 26,507 184 26,691

1997 9,709 18,462 28,172 189 28,361

1998 7,281 19,337 26,618 190 26,808
Operational Assessment August 2019 76 Monkfish

Table D3, continued 

Weigh Out Plus NC General Canvas

Year US 

North

US South US 

Total

US 

North

US South US 

Total

Foreign Total

1999 9,128 16,085 25,213 151 25,364

2000 10,729 10,147 20,876 176 21,052

2001 13,341 9,959 23,301 142 23,443

2002 14,011 8,884 22,896 294 23,190

2003 14,991 11,095 26,086 309 26,395

2004 13,209 7,978 21,186 166 21,352

2005 10,140 9,177 19,317 206 19,523

2006 6,974 7,980 14,955 279 15,234

2007 4,953 7,388 12,341 12,341

2008 3,942 7,250 11,192 11,192

2009 3,210 5,532 8,742 8,742

2010 2,424 4,996 7,420 7,420

2011 3,227 5,371 8,599 8,599

2012 4,033 5,724 9,757 9,757

2013 3,332 5,253 8,586 8,586

2014 3,402 5,135 8,537 8,537

2015 4,027 4,609 8,636 8,636

2016 4,633 4,422 9,055 9,055

2017 7,008 3,893 10,901 10,901

2018 5,954 4,465 10,419 10,419
Operational Assessment August 2019 77 Monkfish

Table D4. U.S. landings of monkfish (calculated live weight, mt) by gear type. A. Northern 

management area, B. Southern management area, C. Regions combined.

A. North

Year Trawl Gill 

Net

Dredge Other Total Year Trawl Gill 

Net

Dredge Other Total

1964 45 0 45 2005 6,876 2,567 99 598 10,140

1965 36 0 37 2006 5,054 1,573 185 162 6,974

1966 299 0 0 299 2007 3,482 1,172 243 56 4,953

1967 532 8 539 2008 3,055 802 52 34 3,942

1968 447 4 451 2009 2,491 651 21 47 3,210

1969 253 1 4 258 2010 1,947 460 12 6 2,424

1970 198 0 0 199 2011 2,696 482 45 5 3,227

1971 213 0 213 2012 3,551 347 134 1 4,033

1972 426 8 1 2 437 2013 2,799 421 112 0 3,332

1973 661 29 12 8 710 2014 2,950 418 33 0 3,402

1974 1,060 105 7 25 1,197 2015 3,256 670 100 1 4,027

1975 1,712 123 10 9 1,853 2016 3,937 608 86 2 4,633

1976 2,031 143 47 15 2,236 2017 6,030 946 32 0 7,008

1977 2,737 230 142 28 3,137 2018 4,935 860 151 8 5,954

1978 3,255 368 212 54 3,889

1979 2,967 393 584 71 4,014

1980 2,526 518 596 56 3,696

1981 2,266 461 443 47 3,217

1982 3,040 421 367 32 3,860

1983 3,233 314 266 37 3,849

1984 3,648 315 196 43 4,202

1985 3,982 315 264 55 4,616

1986 3,412 326 553 36 4,327

1987 3,853 374 695 38 4,960

1988 3,554 304 1,172 36 5,066

1989 3,429 349 2,584 30 6,391

1990 3,298 338 2,141 25 5,802

1991 3,299 338 2,033 24 5,694

1992 4,330 359 2,211 24 6,923

1993 5,890 695 4,034 26 10,645

1994 7,574 1,571 1,808 86 11,039

1995 9,119 1,531 1,266 54 11,970

1996 8,445 1,389 913 45 10,791

1997 7,363 988 1,318 40 9,709

1998 5,421 885 948 27 7,281

1999 7,037 1,470 598 24 9,128

2000 8,234 2,102 316 76 10,729

2001 9,990 2,959 381 11 13,341

2002 10,839 2,978 181 13 14,011

2003 12,028 2,488 222 254 14,991

2004 9,918 2,866 14 411 13,209

Table D4, continued.
Operational Assessment August 2019 78 Monkfish

B. South

Year Trawl Gill 

Net

Dredge Other Total Year Trawl Gill 

Net

Dredge Other Total

1964 19 19 2005 1,706 4,673 1,581 1,216 9,177

1965 17 17 2006 1,457 3,970 1,532 1,022 7,980

1966 13 0 13 2007 1,084 3,782 1,594 928 7,388

1967 8 8 2008 1,041 4,098 1,370 741 7,250

1968 2 2 2009 721 3,117 826 868 5,532

1969 4 4 2010 590 2,738 579 1,089 4,996

1970 12 12 2011 1,178 3,480 565 149 5,371

1971 10 10 2012 1,144 3,688 739 153 5,724

1972 24 24 2013 1,112 3,366 599 176 5,253

1973 132 5 1 137 2014 1,028 3,142 879 86 5,135

1974 98 0 98 2015 673 3,308 538 91 4,610

1975 265 0 2 2 269 2016 578 3,332 349 162 4,421

1976 333 7 0 340 2017 550 2,832 400 112 3,894

1977 508 57 26 591 2018 496 3,404 471 93 4,464

1978 605 0 507 26 1,138

1979 944 6 1,015 16 1,981

1980 1,139 10 1,274 7 2,429

1981 1,100 16 782 105 2,003

1982 1,806 12 1,507 27 3,352

1983 1,819 11 2,119 17 3,966

1984 1,714 15 1,704 18 3,452

1985 1,739 17 2,347 3 4,106

1986 1,841 32 2,068 12 3,954

1987 1,680 26 1,997 3 3,707

1988 1,828 58 2,594 3 4,483

1989 3,240 17 5,036 3 8,297

1990 2,361 32 4,744 5 7,142

1991 5,515 363 3,907 16 9,800

1992 6,528 977 6,409 11 13,925

1993 5,987 1,722 7,158 192 15,059

1994 5,233 2,342 3,995 556 12,126

1995 5,785 3,800 4,030 746 14,361

1996 7,141 4,211 4,330 33 15,715

1997 8,161 5,203 4,890 208 18,462

1998 7,815 6,198 5,190 134 19,337

1999 6,364 6,187 3,481 54 16,085

2000 4,018 4,005 1,975 150 10,147

2001 3,091 5,119 1,719 30 9,959

2002 1,584 5,410 1,847 43 8,884

2003 2,034 7,262 1,717 83 11,095

2004 1,228 4,605 671 1,474 7,978
Operational Assessment August 2019 79 Monkfish

Table D4, continued. 

C. Regions combined

Year Trawl Gill 

Net

Dredge Other Total Year Trawl Gill 

Net

Dredge Other Total

1964 64 0 64 2005 8582.4 7240.61 1680.16 1813.63 19,317

1965 53 0 53 2006 6510.9 5542.37 1716.94 1184.43 14,955

1966 311 0 0 312 2007 4566.1 4953.89 1837.33 983.87 12,341

1967 540 8 547 2008 4095.4 4899.6 1421.79 775.09 11,192

1968 449 4 453 2009 3212 3767.96 846.58 914.98 8,742

1969 257 1 4 262 2010 2537.3 3197.79 590.48 1094.13 7,420

1970 210 0 0 211 2011 3874.2 3962.29 609.1 153.23 8,599

1971 223 0 223 2012 4695.4 4035.07 872.89 154 9,757

1972 451 8 1 2 461 2013 3910.6 3787.2 711.45 176.42 8,586

1973 794 29 17 9 848 2014 3977.9 3560.22 911.91 86.55 8,537

1974 1,160 105 7 25 1,297 2015 3929 3978 638 92 8,637

1975 1,990 123 12 10 2,135 2016 4515 3940 435 164 9,054

1976 2,459 143 54 15 2,670 2017 6580 3778 432 112 10,902

1977 3,487 230 202 53 3,973 2018 5431 4264 622 101 10,418

1978 4,016 368 774 80 5,238

1979 3,989 399 2,070 87 6,545

1980 3,723 528 2,276 62 6,589

1981 3,483 477 1,399 152 5,512

1982 4,998 433 2,061 60 7,551

1983 5,166 325 2,431 56 7,977

1984 5,513 330 1,968 61 7,871

1985 5,757 332 2,611 58 8,758

1986 5,318 358 2,621 48 8,345

1987 5,561 400 2,692 41 8,694

1988 5,399 363 3,765 39 9,567

1989 6,679 366 7,620 33 14,698

1990 5,697 372 6,885 30 12,984

1991 8,847 700 5,941 39 15,528

1992 10,860 1,336 8,619 35 20,850

1993 11,879 2,417 11,192 218 25,707

1994 12,707 3,884 5,759 638 22,988

1995 14,905 5,331 5,296 800 26,331

1996 15,586 5,599 5,243 78 26,507

1997 15,524 6,192 6,208 249 28,172

1998 13,236 7,083 6,138 161 26,618

1999 13,401 7,656 4,079 78 25,213

2000 12,252 6,107 2,291 226 20,876

2001 13,081 8,078 2,100 41 23,301

2002 12,423 8,389 2,028 56 22,896

2003 14,062 9,750 1,939 336 26,086

2004 11,145 7,471 685 1,885 21,186
Operational Assessment August 2019 80 Monkfish

Table D5. Landed weight (mt) of monkfish by market category for the northern management

area.

Head 

on,

Tails Tails Tails Tails Tails

Year Belly 

Flaps

Cheeks Liver Gutted Round Dressed Heads Unc. Large Small Peewee All

1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 14

1965 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 11

1966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 90

1967 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 0 0 0 163

1968 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 0 0 0 136

1969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 78

1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 60

1971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 64

1972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 132

1973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 214 0 0 0 214

1974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 0 360

1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 558 0 0 0 558

1976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 673 0 0 0 673

1977 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 945 0 0 0 945

1978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,171 0 0 0 1,171

1979 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,209 0 0 0 1,209

1980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,113 0 0 0 1,113

1981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 969 0 0 0 969

1982 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1,146 15 2 0 1,163

1983 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1,152 5 2 0 1,159

1984 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1,262 4 0 0 1,266

1985 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1,386 2 3 0 1,390

1986 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 1,303 0 0 0 1,303

1987 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 1,492 2 1 0 1,494

1988 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 1,517 6 3 0 1,526

1989 0 0 59 0 11 0 0 1,465 327 130 0 1,922

1990 0 0 78 0 30 0 0 1,174 411 154 0 1,738

1991 0 3 70 0 0 0 0 1,014 539 153 9 1,715

1992 0 1 83 0 0 0 0 911 590 505 79 2,085

1993 0 1 208 98 351 0 0 1,034 868 1,062 103 3,067

1994 0 1 208 533 981 0 0 403 1,206 1,075 136 2,820

1995 0 1 46 1,224 1,113 0 0 362 1,180 1,003 304 2,850

1996 0 0 65 1,116 745 0 0 90 930 1,399 224 2,643

1997 0 0 51 634 244 0 0 26 1,126 1,361 119 2,633

1998 0 0 24 551 144 0 0 16 1,055 810 79 1,960

1999 0 0 40 1,701 511 0 0 28 996 848 139 2,012

2000 0 0 94 3,213 912 0 0 17 783 1,050 3 1,853

2001 0 0 93 3,084 231 0 0 128 1,115 1,647 0 2,890

2002 0 0 75 3,789 24 0 0 80 1,055 1,777 0 2,912

2003 0 0 61 2,364 14 0 0 95 1,573 2,032 0 3,699

2004 0 0 56 647 960 0 0 3 1,883 1,580 1 3,467
Operational Assessment August 2019 81 Monkfish

Table D5, continued.

Head 

on,

Tail

s

Tails Tails Tails Tails

Year Belly 

Flaps

Cheeks Liver Gutted Round Dressed Heads Unc. Large Small Peewee All

2005 0 0 42 1,706 22 0 0 3 1,440 1,017 2 2,462

2006 0 0 22 1,622 20 0 0 9 899 627 3 1,538

2007 0 0 13 682 0 0 1 9 870 378 1 1,258

2008 0 0 5 391 0 4 0 1 739 311 0 1,051

2009 0 0 2 290 0 11 0 2 560 299 0 861

2010 0 0 1 208 0 0 0 2 396 261 0 658

2011 0 17 72 187 44 0 8 1 527 367 1 896

2012 0 24 89 142 0 0 3 1 609 556 2 1,168

2013 0 0 76 137 0 0 4 1 549 407 3 960

2014 0 0 71 117 0 0 25 2 560 423 4 988

2015 0 0 73 179 0 0 31 2 594 556 0 1,151

2016 0 0 86 105 0 0 127 4 672 683 0 1,359

2017 0 0 114 151 0 0 140 13 1006 1041 0 2,060

2018 0 0 73 195 1 174 3 931 792 0 1,726
Operational Assessment August 2019 82 Monkfish

Table D6. Landed weight (mt) of monkfish by market category for the southern management

area.

Head 

on,

Tails Tails Tails Tails Tails

Year Belly 

Flaps

Cheeks Liver Gutted Round Dressed Heads Unc. Large Small Peewee All

1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6

1965 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5

1966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4

1967 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

1968 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

1969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4

1971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3

1972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7

1973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42

1974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30

1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 85

1976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 129

1977 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 250

1978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 403 0 0 0 403

1979 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,016 0 0 0 1,016

1980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,189 0 0 0 1,189

1981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 685 0 0 0 685

1982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 912 138 51 0 1,102

1983 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 858 237 136 0 1,231

1984 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 860 183 45 0 1,087

1985 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 1,081 85 71 0 1,237

1986 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 1,063 76 52 0 1,191

1987 0 0 330 0 0 0 0 972 138 6 0 1,116

1988 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 1,129 190 32 0 1,350

1989 0 0 88 0 5 0 0 2,037 230 230 0 2,498

1990 0 0 102 0 187 0 0 1,428 443 223 0 2,095

1991 0 5 200 0 415 0 0 1,215 1,123 461 28 2,827

1992 0 3 239 0 386 0 0 1,868 1,318 788 104 4,078

1993 0 1 252 0 178 0 0 2,469 1,065 789 159 4,483

1994 0 4 251 921 1,064 0 0 854 1,025 989 122 2,989

1995 2 0 451 1,529 1,539 0 0 518 1,341 1,419 59 3,337

1996 0 0 504 2,352 318 0 0 996 1,160 1,629 46 3,830

1997 0 0 577 2,559 551 0 0 647 1,924 1,913 32 4,516

1998 0 0 582 3,036 438 0 0 842 1,952 1,840 16 4,650

1999 0 0 558 4,047 621 0 0 509 1,393 1,352 14 3,268

2000 0 4 530 3,701 179 0 0 276 797 657 2 1,732

2001 0 0 466 3,944 300 0 0 217 844 494 0 1,555

2002 0 0 433 4,013 551 0 0 167 629 336 0 1,132

2003 0 1 426 4,959 667 0 0 242 790 405 1 1,438

2004 0 2 355 2,758 1,066 8 0 186 671 274 0 1,130
Operational Assessment August 2019 83 Monkfish

Table D6, continued.

Head 

on,

Tails Tails Tails Tails Tails

Year Belly 

Flaps

Cheeks Liver Gutted Round Dressed Heads Unc. Large Small Peewe

e

All

2005 0 55 330 3,695 187 18 0 105 771 550 2 1,42

8

2006 0 108 293 3,351 27 20 5 69 658 506 1 1,23

3

2007 0 44 258 3,030 107 12 0 88 727 329 1 1,14

5

2008 0 5 253 3,008 44 13 1 61 768 300 0 1,13

0

2009 1 0 199 2,540 4 9 11 47 505 235 0 788

2010 0 0 188 2,117 9 4 27 61 476 235 0 772

2011 0 0 154 2,195 491 6 31 47 422 243 0 713

2012 0 0 110 2,921 0 4 40 44 405 269 1 720

2013 1 0 130 2,247 5 4 106 58 462 286 2 809

2014 0 0 111 2,049 2 14 116 45 540 250 3 837

2015 0 0 99 2,339 2 18 96 43 358 174 0 574

2016 0 0 86 2,399 `1 10 104 56 295 151 0 502

2017 0 0 72 2020 6 10 83 45 246 180 0 471

2018 0 0 93 2022 10 10 105 84 406 152 0 642
Operational Assessment August 2019 84 Monkfish

Table D7. Estimated monkfish discards (live weight) in the northern management region. 

Dredge and shrimp trawl discards are based on SBRM monkfish discards relative to kept of all 

species; trawl and gillnet are based on monkfish discards relative to monkfish kept.

North Trawl Gillnet

Year Half No. 

trips

D/K 

ratio

CV Dlr 

monk 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

No. 

trips

D/K 

ratio

CV Dlr 

monk 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

1989 1 30 0.037 0.58 1,550 58 1 0.036 84 3

2 63 0.141 0.44 1,830 257 103 0.027 0.32 265 7

1990 1 16 0.082 0.60 1,562 128 73 0.036 0.41 121 4

2 36 0.039 0.45 1,690 66 65 0.029 0.37 219 6

1991 1 27 0.042 0.45 1,233 52 191 0.030 0.47 120 4

2 81 0.167 0.25 1,999 334 758 0.036 0.10 213 8

1992 1 51 0.122 0.30 1,674 203 403 0.065 0.16 105 7

2 35 0.224 0.43 2,624 587 618 0.040 0.24 248 10

1993 1 19 0.067 0.30 2,821 189 271 0.086 0.21 119 10

2 19 0.084 0.26 3,032 254 338 0.032 0.24 560 18

1994 1 18 0.035 0.29 3,273 115 65 0.065 0.29 270 18

2 6 0.024 0.59 4,385 107 44 0.055 0.19 779 43

1995 1 30 0.164 0.36 4,643 762 38 0.141 0.30 469 66

2 48 0.090 0.31 4,478 403 69 0.088 0.23 1,023 90

1996 1 21 0.190 0.23 4,294 814 28 0.137 0.43 340 47

2 49 0.132 0.57 4,057 534 34 0.132 0.19 934 123

1997 1 13 0.100 0.49 3,795 378 19 0.036 0.32 329 12

2 7 0.076 0.23 3,225 244 26 0.194 0.84 742 144

1998 1 7 0.124 0.37 3,150 392 39 0.028 0.41 238 7

2 3 0.093 0.10 2,398 223 72 0.043 0.28 606 26

1999 1 3 0.098 0.04 3,947 388 36 0.067 0.65 282 19

2 42 0.069 0.21 3,011 207 66 0.036 0.51 1,051 38

2000 1 80 0.069 0.32 3,916 271 58 0.041 0.30 501 21

2 61 0.088 0.31 3,798 333 65 0.077 0.24 2,033 157

2001 1 61 0.102 0.20 5,088 518 41 0.061 0.69 880 53

2 113 0.066 0.10 4,588 303 33 0.108 0.93 2,208 238

2002 1 47 0.076 0.25 5,634 428 33 0.045 0.39 760 34

2 274 0.100 0.10 4,532 455 67 0.053 0.27 2,230 118

2003 1 206 0.101 0.14 6,642 671 112 0.037 0.24 628 23

2 218 0.055 0.12 4,721 261 273 0.058 0.13 1,570 91

2004 1 163 0.042 0.12 5,307 225 212 0.021 0.22 739 16

2 377 0.036 0.10 4,039 147 728 0.059 0.09 1,788 105

2005 1 500 0.047 0.07 3,971 187 153 0.098 0.26 516 51

2 601 0.057 0.10 3,038 174 660 0.074 0.12 1,450 108

2006 1 292 0.055 0.08 2,852 158 93 0.063 0.41 262 17

2 201 0.071 0.11 2,285 162 80 0.080 0.17 1,025 82

2007 1 221 0.050 0.10 2,075 104 42 0.061 0.32 228 14

2 303 0.072 0.10 1,448 104 190 0.062 0.16 693 43

2008 1 277 0.088 0.10 1,821 160 61 0.076 0.28 141 11

2 383 0.082 0.10 1,045 86 156 0.051 0.22 541 28
Operational Assessment August 2019 85 Monkfish

Table D7, continued. 

North Trawl Gillnet

Year Half No. trips D/K ratio CV

Dlr monk 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt) No. trips D/K ratio CV

Dlr monk 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

2009 1 351 0.166 0.13 1,666 276 129 0.209 0.46 149 31

2 408 0.079 0.11 832 66 195 0.119 0.27 467 55

2010 1 339 0.097 0.08 1,537 149 305 0.056 0.15 112 6

2 671 0.090 0.07 857 77 1364 0.102 0.07 303 31

2011 1 671 0.120 0.07 1,461 175 554 0.050 0.10 120 6

2 743 0.058 0.08 1,174 69 1244 0.080 0.10 361 29

2012 1 739 0.057 0.06 1901 108 548 0.047 0.17 93 4

2 664 0.078 0.05 1446 112 900 0.060 0.07 184 11

2013 1 471 0.125 0.07 1669 208 172 0.044 0.14 98 4

2 440 0.097 0.10 1073 104 567 0.083 0.11 323 27

2014 1 405 0.143 0.07 1908 272 278 0.090 0.30 82 7

2 528 0.100 0.09 927 93 830 0.062 0.11 336 21

2015 1 298 0.155 0.10 1891 294 87 0.056 0.21 120 7

2 381 0.117 0.11 1223 143 475 0.063 0.12 549 34

2016 1 253 0.121 0.09 2058 249 82 0.064 0.32 94 6

2 237 0.141 0.10 1702 241 201 0.094 0.21 514 48

2017 1 186 0.156 0.13 3002 467 36 0.018 0.28 152 3

2 340 0.052 0.12 2814 147 245 0.035 0.15 794 28

2018 1 255 0.088 0.11 2841 250 72 0.031 0.35 136 4

2 263 0.072 0.14 1980 142 124 0.079 0.24 719 57
Operational Assessment August 2019 86 Monkfish

Table D7, continued.

North Scallop Dredge Shrimp Trawl

Year Half No. trips D/K ratio CV

Dlr all 

spp (mt) Discard (mt) No. trips D/K ratio CV

Dlr all spp 

(mt) Discard (mt)

1989 1 0.001 18,213 17 31 0.002 0.33 3,412 5.5

2 0.008 24,053 185 9 0.001 0.62 931 1.2

1990 1 0.001 9,864 9 27 0.002 0.34 4,494 8.1

2 0.008 19,293 149 4 0.058 1.01 620 35.8

1991 1 0.001 16,608 16 46 0.004 0.19 3,536 12.8

2 1 0.002 21,312 40 7 0.046 0.40 340 15.7

1992 1 3 0.000 0.98 14,179 1 76 0.003 0.23 3,285 9.6

2 6 0.001 0.41 20,033 26 6 0.003 0.28 161 0.4

1993 1 7 0.002 0.26 13,702 25 78 0.001 0.26 1,890 2.5

2 4 0.018 0.45 12,674 230 4 0.001 0.70 316 0.3

1994 1 2 0.001 1.21 5,486 5 71 0.002 0.38 2,443 5.9

2 5 0.010 0.38 6,230 59 6 0.001 0.44 906 0.7

1995 1 1 0.014 2,318 32 64 0.000 0.23 4,452 1.8

2 5 0.018 0.50 6,544 119 9 0.001 0.43 1,377 0.7

1996 1 8 0.003 0.94 5,338 14 30 0.000 0.34 7,580 0.8

2 5 0.022 0.40 11,375 246 5 0.000 0.79 1,418 0.4

1997 1 4 0.004 0.48 10,567 42 17 0.000 0.61 5,416 0.9

2 4 0.020 0.76 9,148 180 0.001 649 0.4

1998 1 2 0.004 0.32 7,482 28 0.001 3,095 2.7

2 7 0.014 0.16 6,400 90 0.001 168 0.1

1999 1 2 0.004 0.65 8,347 29 0.001 1,407 1.2

2 6 0.004 0.44 6,797 30 0.001 33 0.0

2000 1 0.004 6,993 31 0.001 2,068 1.8

2 95 0.004 0.13 13,019 56 0.001 35 0.0

2001 1 17 0.003 0.42 14,926 41 3 0.000 0.14 813 0.1

2 0.005 11,525 60 0.001 0.0

2002 1 0.005 8,712 45 0.001 308 0.3

2 10 0.008 0.97 11,533 88 0.001 0.0

2003 1 5 0.001 0.89 16,053 9 15 0.000 1.01 855 0.0

2 8 0.015 0.41 10,361 157 0.001 0.0

2004 1 3 0.000 0.69 5,633 0 12 0.000 0.25 1,069 0.1

2 19 0.096 0.48 3,705 355 0.001 44 0.0

2005 1 20 0.001 0.57 5,745 6 17 0.000 0.52 836 0.1

2 39 0.008 0.21 23,131 184 0.001 40 0.0

2006 1 5 0.001 0.42 20,833 14 17 0.000 0.56 847 0.0

2 39 0.021 0.32 14,291 305 3 0.000 0.10 449 0.2

2007 1 28 0.002 0.22 11,600 26 14 0.001 0.72 1,899 1.0

2 68 0.021 0.18 23,644 487 0.001 333 0.2

2008 1 25 0.001 0.22 7,065 11 16 0.000 0.77 1,834 0.9

2 22 0.011 0.34 3,696 42 3 0.001 0.90 167 0.1
Operational Assessment August 2019 87 Monkfish

Table D7, continued. 

North Scallop Dredge Shrimp Trawl

Year Half No. trips D/K ratio CV

Dlr all 

spp (mt) Discard (mt) No. trips D/K ratio CV

Dlr all spp 

(mt) Discard (mt)

2009 1 7 0.001 0.47 1,960 3 7 0.001 0.61 998 0.8

2 22 0.003 0.26 11,642 34 5 0.000 0.92 347 0.0

2010 1 16 0.001 0.80 3,350 4 11 0.000 1.00 2,911 0.1

2 25 0.003 0.31 15,930 50 4 0.000 0.91 780 0.0

2011 1 23 0.002 0.80 6,660 16 1 0.000 3,745 0.0

2 81 0.004 0.13 35,600 158 0.001 78 0.0

2012 1 54 0.003 0.31 21,717 67 19 0.000 0.49 1,761 0.2

2 90 0.010 0.24 28,609 300 132 0.0

2013 1 131 0.003 0.22 43,664 118 24 0.001 0.79 195 0.1

2 67 0.010 0.35 12,980 128

2014 1 66 0.000 0.33 10,688 4

2 61 0.029 0.21 5,406 155

2015 1 77 0.002 0.49 12,489 28

2 50 0.020 0.16 4,912 96

2016 1 79 0.013 0.37 12,841 170

2 43 0.038 0.27 4,300 162

2017 1 45 0.000 0.36 10,814 5

2 19 0.157 0.32 1,502 235

2018 1 78 0.011 0.27 18,115 203

2 48 0.079 0.17 19,019 1,504
Operational Assessment August 2019 88 Monkfish

Table D8. Estimated monkfish discards (live weight) in the southern management region. 

Dredge discards are based on SBRM monkfish discards relative to kept of all species; trawl and 

gillnet are based on monkfish discards relative to monkfish kept.

South Trawl Gillnet

Year Half No. 

trips

D/K 

ratio

CV Dlr 

monk 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

No. 

trips

D/K 

ratio

CV Dlr 

monk 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

1989 1 46 0.709 0.50 2,195 1,556 0.031 12 0

2 53 0.169 0.59 733 124 3 0.054 5 0

1990 1 50 0.064 0.26 1,567 100 1 0.031 14 0

2 35 0.118 0.32 759 90 13 0.054 18 0

1991 1 73 0.258 0.30 1,257 324 3 0.031 209 2

2 77 0.020 0.39 3,831 78 8 0.000 154 0

1992 1 62 0.061 0.38 3,947 239 94 0.011 0.31 786 8

2 41 0.028 0.83 2,135 60 72 0.020 0.20 176 3

1993 1 40 0.092 0.68 2,598 238 78 0.034 0.70 1,306 44

2 34 0.028 0.49 1,301 36 87 0.061 0.20 341 21

1994 1 43 0.095 0.29 2,925 277 124 0.079 0.33 1,565 124

2 30 0.323 0.56 2,027 655 173 0.056 0.18 967 55

1995 1 61 0.175 0.55 2,789 488 260 0.044 0.20 2,758 121

2 103 0.115 0.57 2,946 340 170 0.050 0.34 1,172 59

1996 1 56 0.164 0.36 3,187 523 226 0.077 0.27 2,615 202

2 85 0.095 0.18 4,021 380 134 0.052 0.28 1,434 75

1997 1 60 0.025 0.47 4,130 102 238 0.067 0.34 3,089 206

2 29 0.089 0.15 4,215 374 106 0.015 0.34 1,313 20

1998 1 31 0.108 0.33 3,991 431 228 0.070 0.20 3,606 252

2 28 0.027 0.52 3,946 108 64 0.062 0.44 2,053 128

1999 1 39 0.045 0.30 4,370 195 52 0.052 0.34 4,207 220

2 34 0.214 0.57 2,306 494 35 0.046 0.57 1,917 88

2000 1 67 0.786 0.32 2,255 1,773 60 0.063 0.30 2,683 170

2 47 0.107 0.62 1,709 182 44 0.051 0.81 1,157 59

2001 1 61 0.946 0.47 1,703 1,611 57 0.030 0.42 2,248 67

2 96 0.404 0.73 1,348 545 35 0.033 0.38 2,788 92

2002 1 50 0.338 0.38 1,123 379 34 0.017 0.80 3,590 61

2 94 0.327 0.39 566 185 40 0.063 0.44 1,967 124

2003 1 120 0.331 0.36 1,172 388 50 0.016 0.35 4,452 69

2 99 0.406 0.45 1,177 478 56 0.070 0.31 2,849 199

2004 1 237 0.240 0.44 1,012 243 78 0.073 0.22 3,441 252

2 436 0.300 0.31 733 220 74 0.089 0.22 1,043 93

2005 1 534 0.175 0.14 945 165 100 0.104 0.22 3,217 334

2 654 0.064 0.11 1,588 102 82 0.081 0.20 1,372 111

2006 1 327 0.180 0.19 1,008 181 43 0.054 0.19 2,865 155

2 277 0.055 0.15 1,010 56 35 0.082 0.32 967 79

2007 1 335 0.125 0.25 741 93 59 0.220 0.37 2,139 471

2 420 0.159 0.40 657 104 45 0.054 0.33 1,569 84

2008 1 343 0.098 0.19 744 73 54 0.108 0.25 2,882 311

2 316 0.017 0.31 594 10 39 0.104 0.29 993 104
Operational Assessment August 2019 89 Monkfish

Table D8, continued. 

South Trawl Gillnet

Year Half No. 

trips 

D/K 

ratio

CV Dlr 

monk 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

No. 

trips 

D/K 

ratio

CV Dlr 

monk 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

2009 1 414 0.080 0.30 646 52 62 0.052 0.19 2,438 128

2 529 0.088 0.31 280 25 32 0.074 0.24 610 45

2010 1 569 0.248 0.24 474 118 114 0.060 0.21 2,034 122

2 545 0.190 0.51 369 70 95 0.077 0.18 695 54

2011 1 573 0.123 0.13 634 78 178 0.078 0.12 2,357 185

2 601 0.088 0.11 598 53 84 0.122 0.19 1,066 130

2012 1 476 0.147 0.13 812 119 203 0.051 0.13 3,015 153

2 337 0.180 0.18 366 66 32 0.058 0.18 576 33

2013 1 594 0.117 0.24 720 84 60 0.058 0.15 2,142 124

2 500 0.053 0.28 447 24 34 0.101 0.37 1,168 118

2014 1 633 0.171 0.22 616 105 126 0.056 0.16 2,249 127

2 700 0.107 0.15 518 56 131 0.030 0.28 861 26

2015 1 563 0.179 0.15 487 87 225 0.022 0.16 2,403 52

2 527 0.521 0.12 318 165 273 0.027 0.20 823 22

2016 1 557 0.381 0.26 521 198 361 0.023 0.15 2,627 62

2 854 0.838 0.24 227 191 343 0.041 0.27 564 23

2017 1 819 1.155 0.25 510 589 448 0.036 0.16 2,211 79

2 1088 0.402 0.23 245 98 372 0.065 0.24 543 35

2018 1 591 0.594 0.21 395 235 302 0.041 0.16 2,494 102

2 925 0.774 0.17 198 153 332 0.048 0.44 832 40
Operational Assessment August 2019 90 Monkfish

Table D8, continued. 

South Scallop Dredge

No. trips D/K ratio CV

Dlr all spp 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

Year Half

1989 1 0.010 0.010 59,696 577

2 0.015 0.015 35,498 528

1990 1 0.010 64,314 622

2 0.015 53,040 789

1991 1 0.010 67,829 656

2 2 0.001 0.07 36,015 19

1992 1 7 0.001 0.69 48,686 29

2 7 0.012 0.50 39,126 460

1993 1 12 0.008 0.30 23,971 197

2 4 0.032 0.53 18,379 587

1994 1 10 0.020 0.26 26,657 538

2 10 0.015 0.29 24,222 370

1995 1 14 0.030 0.17 34,108 1,011

2 9 0.050 0.45 18,456 917

1996 1 19 0.020 0.23 27,505 547

2 15 0.029 0.26 19,621 562

1997 1 16 0.028 0.18 19,067 543

2 8 0.041 0.39 14,997 612

1998 1 8 0.008 0.24 17,094 136

2 15 0.012 0.57 15,300 177

1999 1 13 0.010 0.26 30,059 291

2 56 0.004 0.16 34,102 150

2000 1 38 0.014 0.16 47,847 666

2 133 0.009 0.16 43,879 382

2001 1 42 0.015 0.11 64,029 972

2 48 0.014 0.15 70,044 973

2002 1 34 0.019 0.09 83,888 1,571

2 61 0.018 0.10 81,620 1,475

2003 1 46 0.014 0.15 82,660 1,192

2 71 0.017 0.12 91,638 1,542

2004 1 82 0.014 0.08 107,728 1,543

2 193 0.015 0.10 95,117 1,432

2005 1 108 0.014 0.18 99,628 1,419

2 174 0.019 0.19 67,548 1,290

2006 1 43 0.009 0.31 87,842 767

2 166 0.022 0.14 99,456 2,210

2007 1 138 0.010 0.14 103,992 1,083

2 156 0.013 0.15 68,914 920

2008 1 374 0.006 0.11 106,134 686

2 245 0.010 0.13 74,506 717
Operational Assessment August 2019 91 Monkfish

Table D8, continued. 

South Scallop Dredge

Year Half No. 

trips 

D/K ratio CV Dlr all spp 

(mt)

Discard 

(mt)

2009 1 370 0.006 0.08 122,576 725

2 103 0.009 0.15 73,175 652

2010 1 132 0.010 0.11 108,617 1,098

2 174 0.008 0.12 81,139 648

2011 1 156 0.010 0.13 107,870 1,132

2 150 0.010 0.12 62,873 623

2012 1 205 0.016 0.0756 98,241 1,545

2 130 0.017 0.1489 46,675 797

2013 1 154 0.017 0.1682 49,832 864

2 177 0.016 0.1282 45,168 709

2014 1 174 0.014 0.0931 62,720 892

2 188 0.012 0.1405 44,960 518

2015 1 227 0.008 0.1204 56,595 464

2 202 0.008 0.1409 58,643 444

2016 1 306 0.018 0.1006 60,595 1,100

2 237 0.017 0.1263 69,514 1,204

2017 1 337 0.025 0.1199 95,113 2,364

2 253 0.025 0.1255 83,173 2,084

2018 1 211 0.030 0.1051 91,400 2,759

2 241 0.021 0.0928 86,776 1,861
Operational Assessment August 2019 92 Monkfish

Table D9. Estimated annual catch (landings plus discards, mt) of monkfish by management 

region and combined.

North South Areas Combined Foreign

Year Landings Discard Total 

(mt)

Landings Discard Total 

(mt)

Landings Discard Total 

(mt)

Landings Total 

(mt)

1980 3,623 635 4,258 6,035 563 6,598 9,658 1,197 10,855 132 10,987

1981 3,171 754 3,925 4,142 451 4,593 7,313 1,204 8,517 381 8,898

1982 3,860 699 4,559 3,722 586 4,308 7,582 1,285 8,867 310 9,177

1983 3,849 664 4,513 4,115 659 4,774 7,964 1,323 9,287 80 9,367

1984 4,202 616 4,818 3,699 684 4,383 7,901 1,301 9,202 395 9,597

1985 4,616 640 5,256 4,262 636 4,898 8,878 1,276 10,154 1,333 11,487

1986 4,327 548 4,875 4,037 618 4,655 8,364 1,166 9,530 341 9,871

1987 4,960 766 5,726 3,762 1,039 4,801 8,722 1,805 10,527 748 11,275

1988 5,066 784 5,850 4,595 1,030 5,625 9,661 1,814 11,475 909 12,384

1989 6,391 534 6,925 8,353 2,786 11,139 14,744 3,320 18,064 1,178 19,242

1990 5,802 406 6,208 7,204 1,602 8,806 13,006 2,008 15,014 1,557 16,571

1991 5,693 481 6,174 9,865 1,080 10,945 15,558 1,561 17,119 1,020 18,139

1992 6,923 844 7,767 13,942 801 14,743 20,865 1,644 22,509 473 22,982

1993 10,645 730 11,375 15,098 1,123 16,221 25,743 1,853 27,596 354 27,950

1994 10,950 353 11,303 12,126 2,019 14,145 23,076 2,372 25,448 543 25,991

1995 11,970 1,475 13,445 14,361 2,935 17,297 26,331 4,410 30,741 418 31,159

1996 10,791 1,780 12,572 15,715 2,289 18,004 26,507 4,069 30,576 184 30,760

1997 9,709 1,002 10,712 18,462 1,856 20,318 28,172 2,858 31,030 189 31,219

1998 7,281 769 8,050 19,337 1,231 20,568 26,618 2,000 28,618 190 28,808

1999 9,128 713 9,841 16,085 1,438 17,523 25,213 2,151 27,364 151 27,515

2000 10,729 871 11,599 10,147 3,232 13,379 20,876 4,103 24,979 176 25,155

2001 13,341 1,213 14,554 9,959 4,260 14,219 23,301 5,473 28,773 142 28,915

2002 14,011 1,169 15,180 8,884 3,796 12,680 22,896 4,964 27,860 294 28,154

2003 14,991 1,212 16,203 11,095 3,869 14,964 26,086 5,080 31,167 309 31,476

2004 13,209 847 14,056 7,978 3,782 11,760 21,186 4,629 25,816 166 25,982

2005 10,140 711 10,851 9,177 3,421 12,597 19,317 4,132 23,449 206 23,655

2006 6,974 738 7,712 7,980 3,448 11,428 14,955 4,186 19,140 279 19,419

2007 4,953 778 5,732 7,388 2,755 10,143 12,341 3,533 15,875 8 15,883

2008 3,942 338 4,280 7,250 1,901 9,151 11,192 2,240 13,432 2 13,434

2009 3,210 465 3,675 5,532 1,626 7,158 8,742 2,092 10,833 10,833

2010 2,424 317 2,741 4,996 2,109 7,105 7,420 2,426 9,846 9,846

2011 2,362 452 2,814 6,344 2,200 8,545 8,707 2,652 11,359 11,359

2012 4,033 602 4,635 5,724 2,714 8,438 9,757 3,316 13,073 13,073

2013 3,332 589 3,922 5,253 1,922 7,176 8,586 2,512 11,097 11,097

2014 3,402 552 3,954 5,135 1,724 6,859 8,537 2,276 10,813 10,813

2015 4,027 603 4,630 4,609 1,235 5,844 8,636 1,838 10,474 10,474

2016 4,633 875 5,508 4,422 2,777 7,199 9,055 3,652 12,707 12,707

2017 7,008 886 7,894 3,893 5,250 9,143 10,901 6,136 17,037 17,037

2018 5,954 2161 8,115 4,465 5,150 9,615 10,419 7,311 17,730 17,730
Operational Assessment August 2019 93 Monkfish

Table D10. Number of length samples available for kept and discarded monkfish from observer 

database.

North

Trawl Kept Lengths Discard Lengths

Year HalfyearNo. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

No. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

2000 1 16 54 751 24 65 1393

2 19 57 548 19 46 1046

2001 1 14 41 578 11 40 487

2 26 74 659 28 45 1621

2002 1 7 28 391 12 32 342

2 77 274 3452 153 388 7038

2003 1 74 333 4648 100 361 6340

2 72 308 4193 81 363 4387

2004 1 67 226 3156 81 294 4278

2 141 505 6122 179 657 5059

2005 1 177 751 8255 238 1426 14806

2 214 841 7698 228 827 8134

2006 1 100 403 4960 126 672 7238

2 71 333 2828 100 529 5615

2007 1 60 257 2580 98 555 4507

2 118 554 3432 140 714 4992

2008 1 75 320 2973 121 657 6748

2 98 341 2244 154 664 5705

2009 1 70 194 1869 113 502 4978

2 83 181 1474 99 257 1762

2010 1 55 224 2875 68 303 3736

2 23 72 906 42 140 960

2011 1 35 83 1076 73 259 3389

2 34 82 795 60 147 1311

2012 1 25 60 853 76 262 2460

2 23 44 556 87 203 2270

2013 1 12 31 260 38 102 1253

2 13 47 307 60 154 1552

2014 1 32 61 596 79 227 2993

2 12 20 190 40 103 925

2015 1 8 13 116 73 198 3021

2 9 30 185 64 173 1244

2016 1 5 6 42 19 46 853

2 11 26 204 24 59 573

2017 1 8 15 96 39 167 1864

2 13 35 435 54 163 1859

2018 1 14 29 429 67 198 3061

2 10 21 90 32 92 720
Operational Assessment August 2019 94 Monkfish

Table D10, continued 

North

Gillnet Kept Lengths Discard Lengths

Year HalfyearNo. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

No. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

2000 1 37 49 311 9 14 59

2 66 110 2708 8 16 87

2001 1 27 45 362 4 8 12

2 50 76 1940 4 12 27

2002 1 29 50 976 10 18 60

2 60 115 2493 25 47 198

2003 1 51 163 2564 30 72 321

2 131 341 5099 58 121 696

2004 1 70 220 2212 27 49 133

2 434 1314 15334 138 243 672

2005 1 29 54 459 8 10 32

2 399 1251 14565 81 129 413

2006 1 43 102 651 5 8 15

2 57 152 1404 12 15 26

2007 1 14 27 262 4 10 16

2 134 415 3442 22 28 45

2008 1 19 55 320 6 7 22

2 75 174 909 13 17 35

2009 1 9 32 48 4 7 13

2 67 128 899 11 12 30

2010 1 31 88 677 8 9 11

2 63 120 773 22 32 78

2011 1 9 13 38 3 4 4

2 65 123 583 14 22 37

2012 1 20 44 118 11 18 22

2 52 87 331 25 33 58

2013 1 13 29 163 7 8 9

2 64 125 469 27 41 64

2014 1 27 72 148 11 25 35

2 64 113 542 32 47 72

2015 1 13 26 164 7 10 12

2 69 149 1501 19 42 121

2016 1 10 20 142 5 6 8

2 52 68 474 8 14 29

2017 1 6 9 82 2 3 6

2 83 162 1306 8 10 14

2018 1 10 12 66 5 15 30

2 50 76 396 6 10 17
Operational Assessment August 2019 95 Monkfish

Table D10, continued. 

North

Scallop 

Dredge

Kept Lengths Discard Lengths

Year HalfyearNo. 

trips

No.

hauls

No. 

Lengths

No. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

2000 1

2 3 29 89 3 19 29

2001 1 1 2 8 1 3 4

2

2002 1

2 4 66 191 4 9 28

2003 1 1 5 9

2 5 48 161 4 49 321

2004 1 1 2 2

2 4 10 13 11 42 120

2005 1 1 18 27 5 29 109

2 6 25 113 27 192 979

2006 1 2 4 4 2 18 26

2 15 76 356 29 170 711

2007 1 4 20 25 16 58 106

2 23 212 1094 50 368 2082

2008 1 1 3 3 9 48 70

2 6 22 96 15 45 158

2009 1 3 7 12

2 5 9 90 12 77 219

2010 1 3 7 10

2 1 8 12 8 41 100

2011 1 2 2 3 3 6 27

2 14 44 120 57 178 559

2012 1 1 1 1 24 134 481

2 27 107 294 56 280 1340

2013 1 3 4 9 44 203 495

2 7 24 53 28 73 213

2014 1 4 4 5 13 25 34

2 4 8 23 35 79 349

2015 1 3 5 11 19 38 105

2 9 29 70 34 102 409

2016 1 7 42 118 7 42 118

2 10 41 87 10 41 87

2017 1 2 5 7 2 5 7

2 4 7 26 4 7 26

2018 1 4 5 15 4 5 15

2 6 14 46 6 14 46
Operational Assessment August 2019 96 Monkfish

Table D10, continued. 

South

Trawl Kept Lengths Discard Lengths

Year HalfyearNo.

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

No. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

2000 1 14 27 86 11 22 216

2 16 32 306 14 40 181

2001 1 12 26 126 12 56 338

2 9 13 42 2 4 103

2002 1 16 37 85 2 4 11

2 22 54 367 10 32 255

2003 1 62 196 1397 36 123 975

2 38 141 740 23 43 359

2004 1 98 304 2301 66 275 2051

2 129 494 2983 124 444 3406

2005 1 234 794 5760 184 759 8029

2 218 982 9097 203 656 4960

2006 1 154 574 5490 126 498 4184

2 92 337 3501 87 299 2330

2007 1 121 467 3078 72 426 1648

2 102 236 1658 76 207 1198

2008 1 97 291 3024 88 265 2018

2 77 239 2567 36 87 529

2009 1 64 190 1286 36 118 694

2 68 161 1036 49 105 629

2010 1 65 166 1265 72 187 1777

2 40 113 585 50 160 694

2011 1 47 109 569 66 165 1145

2 41 86 823 64 167 2160

2012 1 36 100 732 65 212 2250

2 13 31 176 19 63 342

2013 1 19 34 411 32 99 823

2 17 33 204 33 88 463

2014 1 28 54 235 69 158 1143

2 27 60 314 46 144 949

2015 1 23 44 210 59 125 758

2 22 45 200 52 171 1405

2016 1 24 61 224 87 226 1476

2 23 51 115 82 283 2047

2017 1 50 104 334 120 284 1944

2 46 104 304 82 225 838

2018 1 60 107 448 113 240 881

2 45 94 289 115 412 2539
Operational Assessment August 2019 97 Monkfish

Table D10, continued. 

South

Gillnet Kept Lengths Discard Lengths

Year HalfyearNo. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

No. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

2000 1 70 94 2854 7 18 95

2 22 42 952 3 4 47

2001 1 216 253 8634 3 4 9

2 20 38 1543

2002 1 58 88 2981 2 6 65

2 13 15 391 2 3 39

2003 1 45 112 3937 6 14 35

2 60 192 6047 13 35 113

2004 1 130 335 11691 36 103 747

2 68 195 4337 11 20 174

2005 1 113 253 8853 14 31 215

2 90 253 6705 16 31 120

2006 1 153 216 7833 10 15 30

2 25 36 1290 5 7 10

2007 1 115 189 4789 15 35 245

2 52 96 1966 2 3 3

2008 1 94 179 3976 9 24 333

2 40 90 1485 6 9 14

2009 1 89 189 3819 7 13 45

2 23 62 938 4 11 58

2010 1 69 154 3398 4 4 20

2 43 95 1883 5 7 9

2011 1 56 125 2775 5 11 29

2 15 27 605 2 4 75

2012 1 42 78 1304 4 4 14

2 13 39 425 4 5 7

2013 1 41 75 1480 3 3 5

2 18 39 414 0 0 0

2014 1 101 205 2463 5 10 30

2 48 98 819 2 2 6

2015 1 117 244 2903 15 31 84

2 51 99 820 4 5 7

2016 1 153 287 3255 8 9 31

2 75 152 1595 13 15 24

2017 1 180 383 4134 31 49 120

2 72 122 1366 4 5 22

2018 1 119 252 2382 12 17 48

2 44 85 641 3 7 16
Operational Assessment August 2019 98 Monkfish

Table D10, continued.

South

Scallop 

Dredge

Kept Lengths Discard Lengths

Year HalfyearNo. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

No. 

trips

No. 

hauls

No. 

Lengths

2000 1 12 415 2481 9 340 2317

2 7 49 186 10 90 464

2001 1 5 52 215 6 65 303

2 3 14 33 3 14 250

2002 1

2 7 60 155 16 141 675

2003 1 16 171 395 24 250 1115

2 18 100 268 34 270 1215

2004 1 33 449 1205 50 767 5615

2 63 1010 2962 157 2500 15145

2005 1 51 697 1782 67 901 5268

2 88 377 1300 111 929 6274

2006 1 12 49 341 26 125 794

2 57 465 1607 92 741 4625

2007 1 46 318 746 98 804 3384

2 48 308 1144 116 900 4386

2008 1 96 443 1137 272 1492 4593

2 60 370 1053 175 1131 3702

2009 1 109 727 1796 219 1549 4461

2 34 235 808 62 502 2364

2010 1 50 360 615 89 915 4094

2 41 283 703 117 898 3612

2011 1 36 342 940 104 951 5053

2 38 167 565 110 536 2622

2012 1 58 257 855 162 1160 7150

2 28 106 634 75 328 2549

2013 1 41 139 438 91 483 2264

2 75 286 948 108 531 2398

2014 1 72 255 630 119 704 3868

2 63 238 746 123 720 3014

2015 1 56 189 463 127 659 2362

2 46 226 557 134 831 3218

2016 1 59 208 405 59 208 405

2 36 211 472 36 211 472

2017 1 59 173 441 59 173 441

2 36 79 244 36 79 244

2018 1 38 105 428 38 105 428

2 34 68 222 34 68 222
Operational Assessment August 2019 99 Monkfish

Table D11. Temporal stratification used in expanding landings and discards to length 

composition of the monkfish catch. Unless otherwise indicated, sampling was expanded within 

gear type and area.

Trawl Gillnet Dredge

North Kept Discarded Kept Discarded Kept Discarded

1994 annual annual 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999

1995 annual annual 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999

1996 annual annual 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999

1997 annual annual 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999

1998 annual annual 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999

1999 annual annual 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999 1994-1999

2000 annual annual annual 2000-2002 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2001 annual annual annual 2000-2002 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2002 annual annual annual 2000-2002 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2003 half-year half-year annual annual N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2004 half-year half-year annual annual N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2005 half-year half-year annual annual N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2006 half-year half-year annual 2006-2008 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2007 half-year half-year annual 2006-2008 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2008 half-year half-year annual 2006-2008 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2009 half-year half-year annual 2009-2011 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2010 half-year half-year annual 2009-2011 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2011 half-year half-year annual 2009-2011 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2012 half-year half-year annual 2012-2014 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2013 half-year half-year annual 2012-2014 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2014 half-year half-year annual 2012-2014 N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2015 annual N+S half-year annual annual N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2016 annual N+S half-year annual annual N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2017 annual N+S half-year annual annual N+S annual N+S annual N+S

2018 annual N+S half-year annual annual N+S annual N+S annual N+S
Operational Assessment August 2019 100 Monkfish

Table D11, continued.

Trawl Gillnet Dredge

South Kept Discarded Kept Discarded Kept Discarded

1994 annual annual annual annual annual

1995 annual annual annual annual annual

1996 annual annual annual annual annual

1997 annual annual annual annual annual

1998 annual annual annual annual annual

1999 annual annual annual annual annual

2000 annual N+S annual N+S annual 2000-2002 N+S annual annual

2001 annual N+S annual N+S annual 2000-2002 N+S 2000-2002 2000-2002

2002 annual N+S annual N+S annual 2000-2002 N+S 2000-2002 2000-2002

2003 annual half-year annual annual N+S annual annual

2004 annual half-year annual annual N+S annual annual

2005 annual half-year annual annual N+S annual annual

2006 annual half-year annual 2006-2008 N+S annual annual

2007 annual half-year annual 2006-2008 N+S annual annual

2008 annual half-year annual 2006-2008 N+S annual annual

2009 annual half-year annual 2009-2011 N+S annual annual

2010 annual half-year annual 2009-2011 N+S annual annual

2011 annual half-year annual 2009-2011 N+S annual annual

2012 annual half-year annual 2012-2014 N+S annual annual

2013 annual half-year annual 2012-2014 N+S annual annual

2014 annual half-year annual 2012-2014 N+S annual annual

2015 annual half-year annual annual N+S annual annual

2016 annual half-year annual annual N+S annual annual

2017 annual half-year annual annual N+S annual annual

2018 annual half-year annual annual N+S annual annual
Operational Assessment August 2019 101 Monkfish

Table D12a. Survey results from NEFSC offshore autumn bottom trawl surveys in the northern 

management region (strata 20-30, 34-40). Values from 2009 forward are adjusted for change in 

survey methods. Indices are arithmetic stratified means with bootstrapped variance estimates.

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

1963 3.79 0.17 2.79 4.87 0.81 0.15 0.62 1.02

1964 1.89 0.21 1.30 2.54 0.39 0.20 0.26 0.52

1965 2.52 0.20 1.73 3.41 0.35 0.15 0.26 0.44

1966 3.33 0.15 2.52 4.16 0.51 0.14 0.39 0.64

1967 1.24 0.33 0.65 1.96 0.19 0.26 0.11 0.27

1968 2.05 0.34 1.01 3.41 0.29 0.27 0.17 0.41

1969 3.69 0.23 2.36 5.15 0.42 0.15 0.31 0.53

1970 2.32 0.26 1.33 3.42 0.40 0.20 0.27 0.53

1971 2.90 0.21 1.93 3.93 0.49 0.17 0.36 0.63

1972 1.39 0.25 0.87 2.02 0.32 0.18 0.22 0.42

1973 3.19 0.20 2.16 4.36 0.53 0.19 0.38 0.72

1974 2.02 0.21 1.38 2.78 0.32 0.19 0.22 0.44

1975 1.71 0.19 1.20 2.25 0.30 0.18 0.21 0.39

1976 3.22 0.21 2.16 4.41 0.42 0.20 0.28 0.56

1977 5.43 0.17 3.94 6.99 0.76 0.12 0.50 0.75

1978 4.73 0.13 3.77 5.84 0.70 0.13 0.47 0.71

1979 4.91 0.14 3.83 6.04 0.55 0.11 0.39 0.57

1980 4.04 0.20 2.75 5.48 0.64 0.14 0.41 0.67

1981 1.98 0.18 1.39 2.59 0.45 0.13 0.32 0.49

1982 0.94 0.25 0.57 1.32 0.14 0.22 0.09 0.19

1983 1.61 0.19 1.11 2.13 0.47 0.18 0.34 0.61

1984 2.82 0.20 1.95 3.82 0.49 0.14 0.38 0.59

1985 1.48 0.33 0.75 2.40 0.37 0.22 0.24 0.52

1986 2.23 0.22 1.47 3.10 0.61 0.17 0.45 0.78

1987 0.88 0.33 0.42 1.38 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.38

1988 1.53 0.31 0.78 2.40 0.31 0.27 0.18 0.47

1989 1.32 0.30 0.77 2.03 0.51 0.18 0.31 0.55

1990 1.01 0.28 0.56 1.48 0.71 0.15 0.44 0.74

1991 1.20 0.24 0.75 1.67 0.70 0.17 0.42 0.74

1992 1.12 0.23 0.74 1.57 0.94 0.17 0.67 1.21

1993 1.10 0.34 0.58 1.80 1.23 0.16 0.75 1.31

1994 0.90 0.23 0.58 1.26 1.34 0.12 1.08 1.61

1995 1.60 0.23 1.00 2.20 0.93 0.12 0.74 1.11

1996 1.07 0.25 0.66 1.55 0.63 0.17 0.46 0.81

1997 0.67 0.23 0.43 0.92 0.50 0.18 0.36 0.66

1998 0.96 0.20 0.65 1.26 0.62 0.19 0.44 0.82

1999 0.78 0.22 0.51 1.06 1.08 0.15 0.82 1.36

2000 2.41 0.20 1.66 3.22 2.34 0.14 1.84 2.88

2001 1.84 0.16 1.38 2.33 1.61 0.11 1.31 1.91

2002 1.83 0.17 1.35 2.34 1.28 0.13 1.01 1.56

2003 1.81 0.18 1.30 2.33 1.07 0.12 0.86 1.28

2004 0.64 0.27 0.38 0.96 0.52 0.19 0.36 0.68

2005 1.01 0.23 0.64 1.38 0.60 0.18 0.42 0.79

2006 1.04 0.23 0.66 1.46 0.77 0.15 0.58 0.98

2007 1.08 0.28 0.62 1.62 0.64 0.15 0.48 0.80
Operational Assessment August 2019 102 Monkfish

Table D12a, continued.

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

2008 0.99 0.29 0.54 1.48 0.79 0.21 0.53 1.10

2009 0.44 0.17 0.32 0.57 0.39 0.10 0.32 0.45

2010 0.64 0.14 0.49 0.78 0.51 0.09 0.44 0.58

2011 0.88 0.15 0.68 1.10 0.67 0.07 0.60 0.74

2012 0.81 0.12 0.65 0.96 0.68 0.07 0.61 0.76

2013 0.62 0.11 0.50 0.73 0.73 0.07 0.65 0.81

2014 0.76 0.08 0.66 0.86 0.95 0.09 0.81 1.09

2015 1.14 0.11 0.92 1.34 1.22 0.09 1.03 1.39

2016 1.50 0.10 1.25 1.76 1.84 0.07 1.63 2.07

2017 1.78 0.09 1.52 2.04 1.47 0.09 1.25 1.68

2018 2.16 0.07 1.92 2.42 1.29 0.06 1.16 1.42

Table D12b. Survey results from NEFSC offshore autumn bottom trawl surveys in the northern 

management region (strata 20-30, 34-40). Values are indices calculated without adjustment for 

change in survey methods in 2009. Indices are arithmetic stratified means with bootstrapped 

variance estimates.

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

2009 3.55 0.18 2.51 4.58 2.78 0.10 2.33 3.22

2010 5.13 0.15 3.88 6.38 3.65 0.09 3.13 4.17

2011 7.09 0.15 5.32 8.86 4.77 0.06 4.26 5.28

2012 6.50 0.11 5.33 7.68 4.88 0.07 4.34 5.41

2013 4.97 0.11 4.05 5.90 5.21 0.07 4.64 5.79

2014 6.11 0.09 5.23 6.98 6.79 0.09 5.82 7.76

2015 9.20 0.11 7.47 10.93 8.71 0.09 7.41 10.02

2016 12.11 0.10 10.08 14.14 13.09 0.07 11.52 14.66

2017 14.38 0.09 12.30 16.46 10.45 0.08 9.01 11.88

2018 17.39 0.07 15.33 19.45 9.20 0.06 8.23 10.17
Operational Assessment August 2019 103 Monkfish

Table D13a. Survey results from NEFSC offshore spring bottom trawl surveys in the northern 

management region (strata 20-30, 34-40). Values from 2009 forward are adjusted for change in 

survey methods. Indices are arithmetic stratified means with bootstrapped variance estimates. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

1968 1.01 0.33 0.50 1.59 0.17 0.29 0.09 0.25

1969 1.34 0.42 0.54 2.37 0.18 0.36 0.09 0.30

1970 2.02 0.26 1.17 2.94 0.34 0.18 0.24 0.44

1971 1.05 0.29 0.61 1.58 0.16 0.29 0.09 0.25

1972 4.63 0.15 3.45 5.85 0.65 0.15 0.50 0.81

1973 1.89 0.21 1.23 2.53 0.44 0.23 0.27 0.60

1974 1.49 0.20 1.04 1.99 0.44 0.14 0.35 0.55

1975 0.94 0.17 0.69 1.21 0.34 0.15 0.26 0.43

1976 2.51 0.13 1.94 3.02 0.67 0.13 0.53 0.81

1977 0.93 0.18 0.66 1.19 0.26 0.19 0.18 0.34

1978 0.56 0.20 0.38 0.75 0.14 0.16 0.10 0.18

1979 0.67 0.21 0.45 0.92 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.17

1980 1.43 0.18 1.00 1.87 0.38 0.13 0.30 0.47

1981 1.67 0.20 1.16 2.25 0.38 0.12 0.30 0.44

1982 2.97 0.25 1.80 4.26 0.35 0.25 0.22 0.50

1983 1.53 0.31 0.85 2.38 0.42 0.24 0.27 0.60

1984 1.57 0.27 0.93 2.31 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.46

1985 2.12 0.22 1.39 2.94 0.35 0.20 0.24 0.46

1986 2.13 0.26 1.21 3.09 0.34 0.20 0.24 0.45

1987 1.73 0.27 0.95 2.48 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.33

1988 2.03 0.23 1.30 2.89 0.61 0.17 0.44 0.79

1989 1.60 0.30 0.90 2.46 0.62 0.21 0.41 0.81

1990 1.01 0.30 0.56 1.56 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.38

1991 1.61 0.24 0.99 2.23 0.59 0.18 0.42 0.77

1992 0.89 0.57 0.24 1.92 0.49 0.31 0.27 0.76

1993 1.16 0.19 0.82 1.55 0.68 0.13 0.53 0.82

1994 0.98 0.30 0.51 1.42 0.45 0.18 0.31 0.58

1995 1.84 0.28 1.04 2.72 1.01 0.16 0.75 1.29

1996 0.98 0.24 0.60 1.36 0.67 0.22 0.43 0.92

1997 0.55 0.36 0.25 0.91 0.34 0.25 0.21 0.50

1998 0.44 0.27 0.26 0.65 0.42 0.14 0.32 0.52

1999 1.15 0.19 0.80 1.53 0.83 0.16 0.62 1.04

2000 1.40 0.18 1.03 1.83 1.13 0.12 0.91 1.36

2001 1.85 0.28 1.07 2.83 1.67 0.12 1.36 2.01

2002 1.93 0.13 1.54 2.35 1.74 0.10 1.46 2.04

2003 1.87 0.20 1.30 2.51 0.81 0.20 0.56 1.09

2004 2.26 0.26 1.31 3.31 0.91 0.17 0.67 1.15

2005 1.47 0.21 0.99 2.02 0.72 0.16 0.53 0.92

2006 0.93 0.40 0.39 1.61 0.37 0.27 0.22 0.53

2007 1.05 0.41 0.39 1.82 0.55 0.23 0.35 0.77
Operational Assessment August 2019 104 Monkfish

Table D13a, continued. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

2008 1.29 0.30 0.70 1.90 0.67 0.17 0.49 0.86

2009 0.47 0.15 0.36 0.58 0.33 0.10 0.27 0.39

2010 0.63 0.14 0.49 0.78 0.38 0.14 0.30 0.47

2011 0.89 0.15 0.69 1.13 0.46 0.13 0.37 0.57

2012 0.61 0.13 0.47 0.74 0.54 0.14 0.42 0.67

2013 0.58 0.11 0.48 0.69 0.55 0.07 0.49 0.61

2014 0.63 0.16 0.46 0.81 0.61 0.12 0.50 0.74

2015 0.73 0.16 0.56 0.93 0.54 0.09 0.46 0.62

2016 0.74 0.09 0.64 0.85 0.69 0.07 0.61 0.76

2017 1.13 0.13 0.89 1.39 0.68 0.10 0.57 0.79

2018 1.65 0.07 1.47 1.83 1.04 0.08 0.91 1.17

2019 1.32 0.08 1.16 1.51 0.87 0.08 0.76 1.00

Table D13b. Survey results from NEFSC offshore spring bottom trawl surveys in the northern 

management region (strata 20-30, 34-40). Values are indices calculated without adjustment for 

change in survey methods in 2009. Indices are arithmetic stratified means with bootstrapped 

variance estimates. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

2009 3.80 0.14 2.91 4.70 2.36 0.10 1.96 2.76

2010 5.08 0.14 3.89 6.27 2.72 0.13 2.12 3.32

2011 7.20 0.16 5.31 9.08 3.31 0.14 2.55 4.07

2012 4.90 0.14 3.79 6.00 3.83 0.13 3.00 4.67

2013 4.70 0.11 3.82 5.57 3.93 0.07 3.48 4.38

2014 5.07 0.16 3.77 6.38 4.38 0.12 3.52 5.23

2015 5.90 0.16 4.33 7.47 3.83 0.09 3.24 4.41

2016 6.00 0.08 5.21 6.79 4.88 0.06 4.37 5.40

2017 9.14 0.14 7.03 11.25 4.86 0.10 4.08 5.64

2018 13.30 0.07 11.81 14.79 7.42 0.07 6.52 8.32

2019 10.66 0.08 9.26 12.07 6.23 0.08 5.41 7.05
Operational Assessment August 2019 105 Monkfish

Table D14. Survey results from ASMFC summer shrimp surveys in the northern management 

region (strata 1, 3, 5, 6-8). Indices are arithmetic stratified means with bootstrapped variance 

estimates. 

Biomass Abundance 

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

1991 1.88 0.17 1.40 2.45 2.88 0.10 2.45 3.36

1992 2.69 0.16 2.04 3.46 2.90 0.10 2.45 3.42

1993 3.07 0.25 1.85 4.39 3.70 0.13 2.93 4.52

1994 1.66 0.21 1.11 2.25 3.42 0.13 2.70 4.20

1995 1.55 0.23 0.95 2.15 2.08 0.18 1.44 2.71

1996 3.36 0.31 1.83 5.30 2.99 0.13 2.37 3.69

1997 2.08 0.21 1.36 2.84 1.57 0.14 1.21 1.94

1998 2.27 0.29 1.24 3.36 2.12 0.13 1.70 2.58

1999 6.26 0.09 5.56 7.57 6.75 0.08 6.00 7.89

2000 3.84 0.16 2.87 4.84 5.72 0.13 4.49 7.09

2001 7.27 0.11 6.02 8.58 10.89 0.09 9.29 12.54

2002 12.44 0.10 10.25 14.51 11.65 0.09 9.99 13.33

2003 7.36 0.16 5.68 9.74 5.80 0.12 4.82 7.23

2004 4.45 0.10 3.70 5.17 3.38 0.10 2.85 3.92

2005 7.25 0.13 5.73 8.87 5.25 0.10 4.45 6.08

2006 6.54 0.12 5.29 7.77 4.31 0.07 3.82 4.80

2007 4.10 0.21 2.69 5.52 4.46 0.13 3.53 5.37

2008 3.79 0.19 2.62 5.03 2.82 0.12 2.29 3.37

2009 3.21 0.19 2.23 4.25 3.12 0.11 2.57 3.72

2010 2.76 0.21 1.89 3.76 2.54 0.15 1.96 3.14

2011 2.66 0.15 2.04 3.37 2.25 0.09 1.93 2.62

2012 3.14 0.16 2.34 3.97 3.55 0.12 2.85 4.31

2013 4.07 0.16 3.05 5.20 4.13 0.13 3.30 5.12

2014 3.31 0.15 2.57 4.19 4.94 0.09 4.23 5.68

2015 1.45 0.23 0.91 2.00 2.76 0.21 1.79 3.69

2016 5.01 0.13 3.98 6.17 6.61 0.07 5.83 7.43

2017 4.78 0.16 3.56 5.99 4.63 0.10 3.90 5.39

2018 5.36 0.25 3.34 7.83 4.88 0.13 3.86 6.02
Operational Assessment August 2019 106 Monkfish

Table D15. Monkfish indices from Maine-New Hampshire inshore surveys, strata 1-4, regions 1-

5. 

Fall Mean Mean

Year Wt (kg) CV L95% U95% Number CV L95% U95%

2000 1.6 0.39 1.1 2.2 4.8 0.29 3.6 6.0

2001 4.7 0.20 3.9 5.6 10.7 0.21 8.5 13.0

2002 3.4 0.66 1.2 5.7 4.1 0.56 1.8 6.3

2003 3.6 0.38 2.0 5.2 3.7 0.31 2.4 5.0

2004 3.6 0.41 1.9 5.3 2.9 0.31 1.9 4.0

2005 2.0 0.35 1.1 3.0 1.8 0.22 1.3 2.3

2006 1.8 0.23 1.4 2.2 2.9 0.22 2.3 3.5

2007 2.1 0.32 1.4 2.8 3.1 0.26 2.3 4.0

2008 2.9 0.27 2.1 3.8 4.1 0.33 2.7 5.5

2009 1.9 0.59 0.9 3.0 2.0 0.45 1.2 2.8

2010 0.7 0.35 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.32 0.7 1.4

2011 1.1 0.38 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.37 0.6 1.3

2012 0.5 0.51 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.35 0.5 1.1

2013 0.6 0.59 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.39 0.5 1.1

2014 0.3 0.43 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.32 0.8 1.3

2015 1.6 0.30 1.2 2.1 7.0 0.33 4.9 9.1

2016 1.3 0.33 0.9 1.7 6.8 0.21 5.4 8.1

2017 2.2 0.33 1.6 2.8 4.1 0.30 3.2 5.1

2018 2.3 0.31 1.6 3.1 2.9 0.24 2.2 3.5

Spring Mean Mean

Year Wt (kg) CV L95% U95% Number CV L95% U95%

2000

2001 1.0 0.35 0.7 1.3 6.0 0.35 4.2 7.9

2002 1.1 0.37 0.8 1.5 2.4 0.31 1.7 3.0

2003 0.6 0.52 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.26 0.7 1.2

2004 0.4 0.60 0.2 0.6 1.4 0.23 1.1 1.7

2005 0.8 0.35 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.22 0.8 1.4

2006 0.1 0.45 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.42 0.2 0.4

2007 0.4 0.49 0.2 0.6 1.1 0.30 0.8 1.5

2008 0.5 0.30 0.3 0.7 1.4 0.26 1.0 1.7

2009 0.2 0.44 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.31 0.6 1.0

2010 0.2 0.49 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.41 0.4 0.8

2011 0.2 0.69 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.2 0.4

2012 0.3 0.95 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.36 0.2 0.5

2013 0.2 1.01 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.2 0.5

2014 0.2 0.97 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.39 0.6 1.1

2015 0.2 0.32 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.28 0.8 1.3

2016 0.5 0.31 0.4 0.6 2.5 0.28 1.9 3.0

2017 0.4 0.64 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.28 0.9 1.4

2018 0.3 0.36 0.2 0.4 1.5 0.27 1.2 1.8
Operational Assessment August 2019 107 Monkfish

Table D16a. Survey results from NEFSC offshore autumn bottom trawl surveys in the southern 

management region (strata 1-19, 61-76). Strata 61-76 were not sampled until 1967; survey 

sampled only a small portion of the southern management area in 2017, therefore indices were 

not calculated for 2017. Values from 2009 forward are adjusted for change in survey methods. 

Indices are arithmetic stratified means with bootstrapped variance estimates. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

1963 3.60 0.24 2.30 5.09 1.20 0.18 0.87 1.58

1964 5.50 0.17 3.89 7.19 1.64 0.15 1.17 1.98

1965 4.90 0.17 3.60 6.41 1.15 0.15 0.90 1.44

1966 7.01 0.12 5.71 8.61 1.93 0.14 1.53 2.41

1967 1.14 0.22 0.74 1.56 0.52 0.17 0.37 0.66

1968 0.91 0.22 0.60 1.25 0.40 0.21 0.28 0.56

1969 1.34 0.30 0.75 2.06 0.54 0.21 0.37 0.76

1970 1.29 0.22 0.79 1.77 0.35 0.16 0.26 0.44

1971 0.79 0.36 0.38 1.30 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.37

1972 4.89 0.14 3.83 6.05 4.11 0.22 2.48 5.26

1973 1.83 0.16 1.33 2.27 1.18 0.11 0.95 1.35

1974 0.72 0.26 0.43 1.06 0.22 0.21 0.15 0.30

1975 2.00 0.16 1.50 2.54 0.75 0.16 0.50 0.84

1976 1.00 0.18 0.72 1.30 0.31 0.19 0.23 0.43

1977 1.88 0.18 1.37 2.45 0.45 0.14 0.29 0.46

1978 1.40 0.18 1.00 1.83 0.31 0.16 0.19 0.33

1979 1.93 0.16 .451 2.45 0.84 0.13 0.55 0.85

1980 1.85 0.17 1.35 2.38 0.87 0.16 0.51 0.87

1981 2.26 0.17 1.66 2.90 1.16 0.16 0.72 1.23

1982 0.65 0.21 0.43 0.88 0.61 0.18 0.44 0.79

1983 1.76 0.21 1.18 2.40 0.78 0.17 0.57 0.99

1984 0.77 0.40 0.34 1.36 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.49

1985 1.29 0.19 0.93 1.72 0.62 0.16 0.40 0.68

1986 0.55 0.27 0.33 0.81 0.36 0.23 0.22 0.46

1987 0.28 0.29 0.16 0.42 0.48 0.18 0.35 0.63

1988 0.55 0.28 0.32 0.83 0.23 0.26 0.14 0.33

1989 0.62 0.25 0.37 0.87 0.46 0.22 0.24 0.51

1990 0.37 0.32 0.20 0.58 0.35 0.27 0.17 0.43

1991 0.77 0.29 0.45 1.19 0.83 0.28 0.40 1.08

1992 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.44 0.34 0.16 0.25 0.43

1993 0.27 0.34 0.14 0.44 0.35 0.23 0.19 0.41

1994 0.55 0.23 0.35 0.75 0.60 0.19 0.42 0.79

1995 0.39 0.27 0.23 0.57 0.49 0.21 0.33 0.68

1996 0.39 0.21 0.26 0.53 0.23 0.21 0.16 0.32

1997 0.59 0.19 0.42 0.79 0.31 0.17 0.23 0.39

1998 0.50 0.24 0.32 0.72 0.33 0.24 0.21 0.46

1999 0.30 0.15 0.23 0.38 0.45 0.12 0.36 0.54

2000 0.47 0.20 0.32 0.63 0.42 0.17 0.31 0.54

2001 0.65 0.18 0.47 0.85 0.38 0.17 0.27 0.49

2002 1.25 0.18 0.88 1.61 0.83 0.14 0.64 1.02

2003 0.82 0.15 0.61 1.04 0.95 0.17 0.71 1.24

2004 0.74 0.18 0.53 0.97 0.47 0.20 0.32 0.62

2005 0.77 0.23 0.50 1.09 0.58 0.20 0.41 0.80

2006 0.76 0.24 0.49 1.07 0.45 0.19 0.33 0.60
Operational Assessment August 2019 108 Monkfish

Table D16a, continued. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

2007 0.50 0.24 0.31 0.71 0.20 0.22 0.12 0.27

2008 0.41 0.35 0.19 0.68 0.20 0.25 0.12 0.29

2009 0.24 0.12 0.19 0.28 0.22 0.13 0.17 0.27

2010 0.36 0.17 0.27 0.47 0.40 0.19 0.29 0.54

2011 0.30 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.62 0.13 0.48 0.75

2012 0.43 0.14 0.33 0.54 0.28 0.14 0.22 0.34

2013 0.27 0.15 0.21 0.34 0.29 0.17 0.21 0.37

2014 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.19

2015 0.37 0.22 0.25 0.51 1.96 0.28 1.20 3.05

2016 0.42 0.23 0.27 0.59 0.63 0.20 0.44 0.84

2017

2018 0.26 0.13 0.21 0.32 0.47 0.17 0.35 0.62

Table D16b. Survey results from NEFSC offshore autumn bottom trawl surveys in the southern 

management region (strata 1-19, 61-76). Values are indices calculated without adjustment for 

change in survey methods in 2009. Only a small portion of the southern management area was 

sampled in 2017, therefore indices were not calculated for 2017. Indices are arithmetic stratified 

means with bootstrapped variance estimates. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

2009 1.92 0.13 1.52 2.33 1.56 0.15 1.18 1.93

2010 2.92 0.18 2.04 3.79 2.87 0.21 1.89 3.85

2011 2.42 0.13 1.89 2.95 4.36 0.15 3.27 5.44

2012 3.50 0.18 2.46 4.53 1.96 0.16 1.45 2.47

2013 2.19 0.17 1.58 2.81 2.07 0.18 1.44 2.69

2014 1.20 0.23 0.75 1.65 1.14 0.15 0.86 1.42

2015 2.96 0.23 1.82 4.10 13.96 0.31 6.85 21.06

2016 3.37 0.22 2.14 4.61 4.46 0.19 3.06 5.85

2017

2018 2.13 0.13 1.66 2.60 3.38 0.17 2.45 4.31
Operational Assessment August 2019 109 Monkfish

Table D17a. Survey results from NEFSC offshore spring bottom trawl surveys in the southern 

management region (strata 1-19, 61-76). Strata 61-76 were not sampled until 1967. Values from 

2009 forward are adjusted for change in survey methods. Indices are arithmetic stratified means

with bootstrapped variance estimates. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

1968 1.16 0.23 0.77 1.61 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.28

1969 0.92 0.23 0.58 1.31 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.30

1970 1.00 0.25 0.58 1.40 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.23

1971 0.76 0.29 0.43 1.15 0.21 0.25 0.13 0.29

1972 1.88 0.18 1.36 2.47 0.36 0.12 0.29 0.44

1973 1.82 0.08 1.59 2.06 1.04 0.08 0.91 1.17

1974 1.16 0.16 0.87 1.47 0.49 0.11 0.40 0.57

1975 0.91 0.15 0.70 1.15 0.44 0.12 0.36 0.54

1976 1.13 0.11 0.91 1.33 0.41 0.12 0.33 0.48

1977 1.16 0.14 0.90 1.45 0.30 0.10 0.25 0.35

1978 0.73 0.13 0.58 0.89 0.34 0.09 0.28 0.39

1979 0.70 0.17 0.51 0.90 0.27 0.15 0.21 0.34

1980 0.74 0.15 0.56 0.92 0.45 0.10 0.38 0.53

1981 1.74 0.15 1.33 2.20 0.77 0.12 0.62 0.92

1982 2.60 0.17 1.92 3.33 0.93 0.12 0.75 1.11

1983 0.95 0.26 0.58 1.35 0.27 0.16 0.20 0.35

1984 0.74 0.31 0.36 1.12 0.18 0.23 0.11 0.25

1985 0.33 0.32 0.17 0.52 0.16 0.25 0.10 0.23

1986 0.83 0.28 0.48 1.23 0.28 0.27 0.18 0.43

1987 0.50 0.48 0.17 0.95 0.11 0.23 0.07 0.15

1988 0.43 0.13 0.34 0.52 0.44 0.16 0.33 0.55

1989 0.36 0.16 0.27 0.47 0.20 0.23 0.13 0.28

1990 1.00 0.20 0.67 1.34 0.21 0.11 0.17 0.24

1991 0.58 0.24 0.37 0.82 0.32 0.25 0.20 0.46

1992 0.22 0.33 0.11 0.34 0.18 0.25 0.11 0.25

1993 0.26 0.28 0.15 0.39 0.20 0.23 0.12 0.28

1994 0.33 0.28 0.19 0.50 0.11 0.23 0.07 0.16

1995 0.52 0.39 0.20 0.90 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.27

1996 0.28 0.20 0.19 0.38 0.14 0.20 0.09 0.18

1997 0.13 0.22 0.09 0.18 0.12 0.21 0.08 0.16

1998 0.28 0.15 0.22 0.35 0.25 0.14 0.20 0.31

1999 0.64 0.20 0.44 0.86 0.34 0.14 0.26 0.42

2000 0.30 0.18 0.21 0.39 0.24 0.17 0.18 0.31

2001 0.26 0.31 0.14 0.41 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.31

2002 0.38 0.30 0.21 0.60 0.32 0.33 0.18 0.52

2003 1.38 0.15 1.03 1.72 0.31 0.16 0.23 0.39

2004 0.18 0.27 0.11 0.27 0.12 0.25 0.07 0.17

2005 0.37 0.16 0.28 0.47 0.26 0.27 0.16 0.39

2006 0.54 0.27 0.32 0.78 0.17 0.20 0.12 0.23

2007 0.55 0.22 0.37 0.77 0.26 0.16 0.20 0.33

2008 0.39 0.31 0.22 0.60 0.19 0.31 0.11 0.29
Operational Assessment August 2019 110 Monkfish

Table D17a, continued. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

2008 0.39 0.31 0.22 0.60 0.19 0.31 0.11 0.29

2009 0.30 0.15 0.23 0.38 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.19

2010 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.29 0.16 0.21 0.11 0.22

2011 0.42 0.11 0.34 0.50 0.28 0.14 0.22 0.34

2012 0.35 0.11 0.29 0.42 0.30 0.09 0.26 0.34

2013 0.34 0.14 0.27 0.44 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.26

2014 0.25 0.19 0.17 0.33 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.17

2015 0.20 0.18 0.14 0.26 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.14

2016 0.28 0.11 0.23 0.32 0.46 0.10 0.38 0.54

2017 0.49 0.16 0.37 0.62 0.46 0.18 0.33 0.59

2018 0.63 0.16 0.46 0.78 0.33 0.16 0.24 0.41

2019 0.36 0.10 0.30 0.42 0.29 0.11 0.24 0.34

Table D17b. Survey results from NEFSC offshore spring bottom trawl surveys in the southern 

management region (strata 1-19, 61-76). Values are indices calculated without adjustment for 

change in survey methods in 2009. Indices are arithmetic stratified means with bootstrapped 

variance estimates. 

Biomass Index Abundance Index

Mean CV L90% U90% Mean CV L90% U90%

2009 2.45 0.16 1.81 3.09 1.11 0.15 0.85 1.38

2010 1.73 0.19 1.19 2.28 1.15 0.22 0.73 1.56

2011 3.41 0.11 2.80 4.01 1.99 0.14 1.54 2.44

2012 2.86 0.11 2.36 3.35 2.14 0.09 1.83 2.45

2013 2.76 0.14 2.10 3.42 1.43 0.17 1.03 1.82

2014 2.03 0.19 1.41 2.65 1.03 0.13 0.80 1.25

2015 1.58 0.17 1.14 2.02 0.77 0.15 0.58 0.97

2016 2.22 0.10 1.85 2.59 3.25 0.11 2.68 3.82

2017 3.93 0.16 2.92 4.94 3.25 0.18 2.26 4.24

2018 5.04 0.16 3.72 6.36 2.36 0.16 1.73 2.99

2019 2.89 0.10 2.42 3.36 2.07 0.11 1.70 2.43
Operational Assessment August 2019 111 Monkfish

Table D18. Survey results from NEFSC (1984-2011) and NEFSC and VIMS (2012-2018) 

offshore scallop dredge surveys in the southern management region (shellfish strata 6, 7, 10, 11, 

14, 15, 18, 19, 22-31, 33-35, 46, 47, 55, 58-61, 621, 631). The survey vessel used by NEFSC and 

survey timing change in 2009. VIMS conducted an increasing portion of the survey starting in 

2012. Indices are arithmetic stratified means with bootstrapped variance estimates (where 

available). 

Abundance 

Index

Year Mean CV L90% U90%

1984 1.34 0.1 1.17 1.51

1985 1.57 0.1 1.37 1.79

1986 1.29 0.1 1.12 1.46

1987 3.17 0.1 2.89 3.46

1988 1.69 0.1 1.49 1.89

1989 1.00 0.1 0.88 1.13

1990 1.53 0.1 1.40 1.69

1991 2.26 0.1 2.05 2.46

1992 1.95 0.1 1.75 2.18

1993 2.83 0.0 2.62 3.06

1994 3.33 0.1 3.06 3.62

1995 2.26 0.1 2.03 2.49

1996 2.01 0.1 1.80 2.23

1997 1.12 0.1 0.99 1.26

1998 1.06 0.1 0.95 1.18

1999 2.57 0.1 2.28 2.89

2000 2.29 0.1 2.04 2.58

2001 1.73 0.1 1.56 1.92

2002 1.70 0.1 1.54 1.86

2003 2.75 0.1 2.48 3.01

2004 2.89 0.1 2.59 3.23

2005 2.01 0.1 1.81 2.21

2006 1.44 0.1 1.31 1.57

2007 0.83 0.1 0.73 0.94

2008 1.03 0.1 0.89 1.17

2009 0.78 9.8 0.65 0.92

2010 0.74 9.9 0.61 0.87

2011 0.94 12.5 0.73 1.12

2012 1.00

2013 0.81

2014 0.55

2015 2.29

2016 2.17

2017 1.62

2018 0.99
Operational Assessment August 2019 112 Monkfish

Table D19. Area-swept estimates of minimum abundance and biomass, and relative exploitation 

indices for monkfish from NEFSC fall surveys. Estimates are adjusted for sweep type (adjusted 

to chain sweep), assume that 100% of monkfish encountered by the trawl are captured and 

account for missed strata in some years.

North Catch Landings Catch adjusted AS adjusted AS adjusted 

AS

C/Total 

N

L/43+cm C mt/ 

B mt

(millions of 

fish)

(millions 

of fish)

mt total abund 43 cm+ 

abund

Biomass 

mt

Rel F Rel F Rel F

2009 1.559 1.066 3,675 36,717,874 8,662,877 32,406 0.04 0.12 0.11

2010 1.169 0.819 2,741 40,524,791 10,999,269 42,178 0.03 0.07 0.06

2011 1.445 0.970 2,814 51,328,487 14,797,117 49,936 0.03 0.07 0.06

2012 1.995 1.390 4,635 57,008,552 13,828,353 51,063 0.04 0.10 0.09

2013 1.724 1.109 3,922 60,967,483 8,414,414 40,838 0.03 0.13 0.10

2014 1.865 1.139 3,954 84,100,939 13,314,746 54,125 0.02 0.09 0.07

2015 2.137 1.395 4,630 105,281,189 17,990,848 77,578 0.02 0.08 0.06

2016 2.552 1.670 5,508 174,643,487 26,516,683 103,686 0.01 0.06 0.05

2017 3.222 2.478 7,894 115,927,590 39,300,789 113,147 0.03 0.06 0.07

2018 3.210 2.090 8,115 100,164,292 35,993,154 140,801 0.03 0.06 0.06

South Catch Landings Catch adjusted AS adjusted AS adjusted 

AS

C/Total 

N

L/43+cm C mt/ 

B mt

(millions of 

fish)

(millions 

of fish)

mt total abund 43 cm+ 

abund

Biomass 

mt

Rel F Rel F Rel F

2009 2.14 1.282 7,158 26,947,935 4,900,883 20,592 0.08 0.26 0.35

2010 2.64 1.095 7,105 47,905,108 8,873,105 32,509 0.06 0.12 0.22

2011 2.66 1.236 8,545 62,976,941 6,254,672 25,878 0.04 0.20 0.33

2012 3.35 1.439 8,438 24,635,364 7,309,501 31,016 0.14 0.20 0.27

2013 2.46 1.398 7,176 36,089,410 7,908,464 23,849 0.07 0.18 0.30

2014 2.49 1.243 6,859 25,860,088 4,769,114 20,359 0.10 0.26 0.34

2015 2.29 1.057 5,844 298,342,595 3,536,976 50,510 0.01 0.30 0.12

2016 4.51 0.971 7,199 77,586,702 5,136,276 52,014 0.06 0.19 0.14

2017 2.96 0.934 9,143

2018 2.98 1.112 9,615 67,592,308 6,726,308 26,619 0.04 0.17 0.36
Operational Assessment August 2019 113 Monkfish

Figures

Figure D1. Length frequency distributions of monkfish in southern management area from 

NEFSC spring (green), scallop dredge (NEFSC and VIMS, red), and NEFSC fall surveys (blue) 

illustrating growth rates of presumed 2015 year class of monkfish. Normal curves were fit to 

dominant mode using NORMSEP. Monkfish settle to the benthos at about 8 cm. Geographic 

scope of sampling was limited to southern flank of Georges Bank in fall 2017.
Operational Assessment August 2019 114 Monkfish

Figure D2. Fishery statistical areas used to define northern and southern monkfish management 

areas.

Figure D3. Monkfish landings by management area and combined areas, 1964-2018. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 115 Monkfish

A.

B.

C.

Figure D4. Commercial landings of monkfish by gear type and management area, 1964-2018. A. 

Northern management area, B. Southern management area, C. Management areas combined. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 116 Monkfish

North South

Figure D5. Discard ratios by half year for trawls and gillnets (top panels), and dredges and shrimp trawls

(bottom panels) for North (left column) and South (right column). Trawls and gillnets ratios were based on kept 

monkfish; dredge and shrimp trawl were based on kept of all species.
Operational Assessment August 2019 117 Monkfish

Figure D6. Monkfish landings and discard by gear type (top panels) and total (bottom panels) for North (left) 

and South (right). 

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Catch (kt)

South Landings South

South Discard
Operational Assessment August 2019 118 Monkfish

Figure D7. Estimated length composition of kept and discarded monkfish by gear type in the northern 

management area.
Operational Assessment August 2019 119 Monkfish

Figure D8. Estimated length composition of kept and discarded monkfish by gear type in the southern 

management area.
Operational Assessment August 2019 120 Monkfish

North Y-axis scale variable Y-axis scale standardized

Figure D9. Estimated length composition of commercial monkfish catch, northern management area. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0

50

100

150

200

250

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

North Catch Number at Length

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018
Operational Assessment August 2019 121 Monkfish

South Y-axis scale variable Y-axis scale standardized

Figure D10. Length composition of monkfish commercial catch estimated using length frequency data collected 

by fishery observers in the southern management area. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

South Catch Number at Length

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

South Catch Number at Length

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

South Catch Number at Length

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

South Catch Number at Length

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

South Catch Number at Length

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

South Catch Number at Length

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

South Catch Number at Length

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Thousands

Total Length (cm)

South Catch Number at Length

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013
Operational Assessment August 2019 122 Monkfish

Biomass Abundance

Figure D11. Survey indices for monkfish in the northern management area. Points after 2008 in 

spring and fall surveys are from surveys conducted on the FSV Bigelow, converted to Albatross 

units as described in the text.

North
Operational Assessment August 2019 123 Monkfish

Biomass Abundance

Figure D12. Survey indices from surveys conducted on the FRSV Bigelow in the northern 

management area, not converted to Albatross units. Note: y-axis scale varies.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Biomass Index (kg/tow)

NEFSC Fall

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Abundance Index (#/tow)

NEFSC Fall

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Biomass Index (kg/tow)

NEFSC Spring

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Abundance Index (#/tow)

NEFSC Spring

North
Operational Assessment August 2019 124 Monkfish

Fall Spring

A.

B. 

C.

Figure D13. Exploitable biomass ( > 43 cm total length) indices for monkfish from fall and 

spring surveys in the NMA. A. Exploitable biomass indices with 95% confidence intervals, 

1980-2008 (surveys conducted on RV Albatross). B. Exploitable biomass indices with 95% 

confidence intervals, 2009-2018 (surveys conducted on RV H.B. Bigelow) C. Total biomass vs. 

exploitable biomass indices, 2009-2018, D. total abundance vs. exploitable abundance, 2009-

2018. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 125 Monkfish

Biomass Abundance

Figure D14. Survey indices for monkfish from Maine-New Hampshire inshore surveys. Data 

courtesy of Maine Department of Marine Resources.

North
Operational Assessment August 2019 126 Monkfish

Figure D15. Abundance at length from NEFSC fall surveys in the northern management area. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 127 Monkfish

Figure D15, cont’d. (fall surveys, north) 
Operational Assessment August 2019 128 Monkfish

Figure D16. Abundance at length from NEFSC spring surveys in the northern management area. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 129 Monkfish

Figure D16, cont’d. (spring surveys, north) 
Operational Assessment August 2019 130 Monkfish

Figure D17. Abundance at length from ASMFC summer shrimp surveys in the northern 

management area.
Operational Assessment August 2019 131 Monkfish

Figure D17, continued (shrimp surveys, north)
Operational Assessment August 2019 132 Monkfish

Figure D18. Abundance at length from ME/NH fall inshore trawl surveys in the northern 

management area. Data courtesy of Maine Department of Marine Resources.

Fall
Operational Assessment August 2019 133 Monkfish

Figure D19. Abundance at length from ME/NH spring inshore trawl surveys in the northern 

management area. Data courtesy of Maine Department of Marine Resources.

Spring
Operational Assessment August 2019 134 Monkfish

A.

B. 

Figure D20. A. Recruitment indices for monkfish in the northern management area. Indices 

include monkfish in size ranges thought to represent young-of-year (age 0) in each area and 

season. B. Recruitment indices vs. median size of monkfish in the population (based on NEFSC 

fall surveys). 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Recruit Abundance (#/tow)

Recruitment Indices

North Fall NEFSC

North Fall ME-NH

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Recruit Abundance (#/tow)

Recruitment Indices

North Fall Recruit 

Index

Median Size in 

Population
Operational Assessment August 2019 135 Monkfish

Figure D21. Normalized surveys for monkfish in the NMA. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 136 Monkfish

Spring Fall

ME-NH inshore, spring ME-NH inshore, fall

Summer shrimp

Figure D22. Distribution of monkfish in surveys in the northern management area. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 137 Monkfish

Biomass Abundance

Figure D23. Survey indices for monkfish in the southern management area. Points after 2008 for 

NEFSC trawl surveys were conducted on the FSV Bigelow, converted to Albatross units as 

described in the text. Scallop dredge survey indices after 2011 were calculated from combined 

data from surveys conducted by NEFSC and Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 

South
Operational Assessment August 2019 138 Monkfish

Biomass Abundance

Figure D24. Survey indices from surveys conducted on the FRSV Bigelow in the southern 

management area, not converted to Albatross units. 

South
Operational Assessment August 2019 139 Monkfish

Fall Spring

A. 

B. 

C.

D.

Figure D25. Exploitable biomass ( > 43 cm total length) indices for monkfish from fall and 

spring surveys in the SMA. A. Exploitable biomass indices with 95% confidence intervals, 1980-

2008 (surveys conducted on RV Albatross). B. Exploitable biomass indices with 95% confidence 

intervals, 2009-2018 (surveys conducted on RV H.B. Bigelow) C. Total biomass vs. exploitable 

biomass indices, 2009-2018, D. total abundance vs. exploitable abundance, 2009-2018. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 140 Monkfish

Figure D26. NEFSC fall survey indices of abundance at length, southern management area. 

South
Operational Assessment August 2019 141 Monkfish

Figure D26, cont’d. (fall survey, south)
Operational Assessment August 2019 142 Monkfish

Figure D27. NEFSC spring survey indices of abundance at length, southern management area. 

South
Operational Assessment August 2019 143 Monkfish

Figure D27, cont’d. (spring survey, south) 
Operational Assessment August 2019 144 Monkfish

Figure D28. NEFSC spring/summer scallop dredge surveys. Survey timing shifted from summer 

to spring in 2009. These plots do not include sampling conducted by VIMS after 2011 (see 

Figure D23). 
Operational Assessment August 2019 145 Monkfish

Figure D28, continued (NEFSC scallop dredge survey, south) 
Operational Assessment August 2019 146 Monkfish

Figure D29. Top: Recruitment indices for monkfish in the southern management area. Indices 

include monkfish in size ranges currently thought to represent young-of-year (age 0) in each 

season. There are no data for the fall survey in 2017 for the SMA. Bottom: Recruitment indices 

vs. median size of monkfish in the population (based on NEFSC fall surveys).
Operational Assessment August 2019 147 Monkfish

Figure D30. Normalized survey indices for monkfish in the southern management area. Scallop 

survey indices do not include VIMS portion of the survey starting in 2012. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 148 Monkfish

Spring Fall

NEFSC 

bottom 

trawl 

surveys 

Spring/Summer Scallop Survey

Figure D31. Distribution of monkfish in the southern management area from NEFSC spring (1968-

2019) and fall (1963-2018) bottom trawl surveys and NEFSC and NEFSC/VIMS spring/summer 

scallop dredge surveys (1984-2015). 
Operational Assessment August 2019 149 Monkfish

A.

B. 

Figure D32. Distribution of presumed young-of-year monkfish in 2015 in (A.) NEFSC and VIMS 

scallop dredge survey tows (late spring), and (B.) NEFSC fall surveys. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 150 Monkfish

North South

A.

B.

Figure D33. Area-swept abundance estimated from NEFSC fall surveys using adjustments from 

chain-sweep study compared to unadjusted estimates. A. total abundance, B. exploitable 

abundance (43+ cm). 
Operational Assessment August 2019 151 Monkfish

Figure D34. Estimates of relative exploitation from NEFSC fall surveys using minimum areaswept numbers or biomass adjusted for sweep type (adjusted to chain sweep), assuming that 100% 

of monkfish encountered by the trawl are captured and accounting for missed strata in some years.
Operational Assessment August 2019 152 Monkfish

A.

B.

Figure D35. Results of “Plan B” analysis. Points are observed biomass indices, lines are loesssmoothed indices, “multiplier” is slope of log-linear regression through terminal three smoothed 

points. A. Results using both spring and fall indices, B. Results using fall survey indices only. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 153 AOP Meeting Summary

Appendix 1. Summary of Assessment Oversight Panel Meeting (May 20, 2019) 

May 20, 2019 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

The NRCC Assessment Oversight Panel (AOP) met to review the operational stock assessment 

plans for four stocks/species (scup, black sea bass, bluefish, monkfish). The stock assessments 

for these stocks/species will be peer reviewed during a meeting from August 5-7, 2019. 

The AOP consisted of: 

Mike Celestino, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Jason McNamee, Chair NEFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee, RI Department 

of Environmental Management

Paul Rago, member of the MAMFC Scientific and Statistical Committee, NOAA 

Fisheries (retired)

Russell W. Brown, Population Dynamics Branch Chief, Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Woods Hole 

Meeting Participants: 

The participants in Woods Hole included: Mark Terceiro (NEFSC), Gary Shepherd (NEFSC), 

Tony Wood (NEFSC), Anne Richards (NEFSC), Michele Traver (NEFSC), Michael Simpkins 

(NEFSC), Steve Cadrin (SMAST), Fiona Hogan (NEFMC - staff), Larry Alade (NEFSC), Kathy 

Sosebee (NEFSC), Kiersten Curti (NEFSC), Brian Linton (NEFSC), Dan Hennen (NEFSC). 

Remote participants via webinar included: Adam Nowalsky (MAFMC), Allison Murphy 

(GARFO), Cate O'Keefe (MADMF), Charles Perreti (NEFSC), Chris Batsavage (MAFMC), 

Chris Spires, Cynthia Ferrio (GARFO), Harvey Yekinson, James Dopin, Jason Boucher 

(DEDFW), Jennifer Courte, Kiley Dancy (MAFMC – staff), Jessica Blaylock (NEFSC), John 

Maniscalco (NYDEC), Julia Beaty (MAFMC – staff), Matt Seeley (MAFMC – staff), Mike 

Plaia (MAFMC – advisor), Nichola Merserve (MD-DMF), Rich Wong (DE-DFW), Steve Heins, 

Steven Doctor, Tony DeLernia (MAFMC), Victor Hartman (MAFMC – advisor), Vince Cannuli 

(MAFMC – advisor), Greg DiDomenico (MAFMC – Advisor). 

Meeting Details: 

This meeting represented the initial implementation of the newly approved Management Track 

stock assessment process outlined in the NRCC stock assessment guidance memo. Four 

background documents were provided to the Panel: (1) an updated prospectus for each stock; 

(2) an overview summary of all salient data and model information for each stock; (3) the

NRCC Guidance memo on the Management Track Assessments; and (4) Operational Stock

Assessment TORs for August 2019 review. The NRCC guidance memo was recognized as
Operational Assessment August 2019 154 AOP Meeting Summary

particularly relevant during the deliberations of the AOP. Prior to the meeting, each 

assessment lead prepared a plan for their assessments. The reports were consistent across 

species and reflected both the past assessment and initial investigations. Before the meeting, 

the AOP panel met to preview the meeting and clearly outline the expectations of the panel.

The meeting began at 1:12 pm. Approximately 17 people participated in Woods Hole and 

another 25 individuals participated via teleconference and Webinar. There were some 

technical glitches with the audio portion of webinar/teleconference that required attention 

during the meeting. 

The lead scientist for each stock gave a presentation on the data to be used, model 

specifications, evaluation of model performance, the process for updating the biological 

reference points, the basis for catch projections, and an alternate assessment approach if their 

analytic assessment was rejected by the peer review panel. In one case (monkfish) the stock 

was already being assessed using an “index-based” or “empirical” approach.

Common Issues Across the Species Reviewed: 

For scup, black sea bass and bluefish a significant issue of concern is the introduction of the 

new recalibrated MRIP recreational catch estimates. For bluefish there seemed to be a simple 

rescaling across all years. The MRIP estimates have a temporal trend in rescaling which may 

pose problems for model performance for black sea bass. The most likely change is that the 

selectivity stanzas may need to be adjusted.

The proposed alternate assessment (Plan B) approach for scup, black sea bass and bluefish was 

a Loess smooth of survey index to adjust catch upwards or downwards based on recent

trends. This should perform well for scup and bluefish, but for black sea bass an alternative to 

the proposed Plan B may be to use an area combined model (as opposed to the current two 

area assessment).

A question was raised about the designated length of the projections. It was decided that the 

AOP would inquire about the preference of the MAFMC (scup, black sea bass, bluefish) and 

recommend projection lengths most useful to the management process. As a result, the AOP is 

recommending 2 year projections for scup, black sea bass, and bluefish. Projections cannot be 

generated for monkfish given the current assessment approach.

Scup:

In the most recent stock assessment, spawning stock biomass was estimated to be 

approximately twice the SSBMSY threshold and F is approximately 60% of the FMSY threshold. 

The selectivity pattern for this stock has remained relatively stable over time. The discard to 

landings ratios have changed through time primarily due to dominate year classes passing 

through the population. The historically large 2015 year class is now fully recruited to the 

fishery so discards from this year class should decline.

During preliminary runs, the retrospective pattern from the previous assessment appears to 

degrade slightly with the inclusion of revised recreational catch data. The assessment will 

continue to use a continuous calibrated time series for the NEFSC multispecies bottom trawl 

survey (not splitting the Albatross and Bigelow time series). The AOP discussed the 
Operational Assessment August 2019 155 AOP Meeting Summary

possibility of recommending a Level 2 peer review, but ultimately recommended a Level 3 

review due to the revised recreational catch estimates.

Black Sea Bass:

Two separate ASAP models (north and south of Hudson Canyon) will be developed with 

the result combined for final stock status determination as was done in the most recent 

assessment. In the previous assessment, spawning stock biomass in 2015 was ~2.3 times 

SSBMSY and F was approximately 75% of FMSY.

In the southern area, the new MRIP catch estimates generally scale up across the time series. 

However in the northern area, there is a change in both scale and trend starting around 2010, 

and the 2011 year class seems to drive the catch in the north. There was some discussion 

about changing the M estimate for black sea bass if the model experiences diagnostic 

problems. Since the M parameter rescales the population and may change other key 

parameters, notably catchability, this should be done as a last resort. Given the temporal trend 

in the ratio of new to old MRIP estimates there may be some value in reconsidering 

introduction of one or more selectivity stanzas between 1989 and 2018.

Concern was expressed about the larger retrospective pattern in the northern area which may 

make this model unacceptable in this update. Potential solutions include increasing the CV on 

the non-trawl (recreational) catch input, reducing M in the northern area from 0.4 to 0.2 which 

conforms to the approximate minimum AIC in the northern ASAP likelihood profile (least 

preferred option), or eliminating the two-region approach and producing a single overall 

model. The combined model appears to perform about as well as the split model (northern and 

southern stock) and may be a viable alternative to the proposed Plan B if the split model has 

diagnostic problems.

During public comment, concern was expressed about considering the assessment history and 

noting that the single area ASAP model was not supported by the 2015 peer review. A major 

concern is that the stock appears to have a very strong 2015 year class. Concern was 

expressed that a simple index smoother is likely to miss the signals of incoming year class 

strength and may create similar catch and management problems that arose when the 2011 

year class was not factored into catch projections.

The AOP recommended a Level 3 peer review based on the significant revisions to the 

recreational catch estimates and the potential for significant modifications to the existing ASAP 

models.

Bluefish: The recreational fishery accounts for approximately 80% of the catch so revised 

recreational catch estimates will have a significant impact on the assessment. The assessment is 

likely to be a simple rescaling of the population since there does not appear to be any temporal 

trend in the ratio of new to old recreational catch estimates. Discards have a minor trend so 

problems could arise but these can probably be handled by changing selectivity. Another 

generic approach that was addressed for all species was to reduce the effective sample size for 

catch at age estimates (or equivalently, increasing the CV). This approach allows some 

deviation between the observed and predicted catch at age.
Operational Assessment August 2019 156 AOP Meeting Summary

There is an issue with missing recreational discard length data for Rhode Island recreational 

discards for 2018. The AOP agreed that the assessment lead should do whatever is required to 

recover the data but if not possible some sort of imputation may be necessary. That decision 

should fall to the assessment lead.

It was noted in the last assessment that an F40% reference point was set by the working group, 

and subsequently the peer review panel accepted those values. The MAFMC SSC then 

changed the reference point to F35% . The assessment lead plans to re-estimate the F35% and the 

associated spawning stock biomass reference point.

The AOP recommended a Level 3 assessment review, given revised recreational catch 

estimates that may necessitate model changes (e.g. changes in CVs or implementation of 

selectively blocks to accommodate increased catch) may be necessary to achieve satisfactory 

performance. Additionally, the treatment of the missing length information may require 

additional review, so a level 3 Management Track would allow for these contingencies.

Monkfish:

Monkfish were previously assessed using a SCALE model (forward projecting agestructured model), but this approach was abandoned in 2016 when ageing methods were 

invalidated.

The absence of a validated growth curve precludes any length or age based approaches. To 

date, various research efforts to address this have not been definitive. It appears that monkfish 

grow faster than predicted which may help explain its relatively stable productivity. The 

monkfish assessment was proposed as a “Plan B” assessment approach based on the last 

operational stock assessment review. The assessment lead plans to employ this approach for 

the 2019 assessment update.

The AOP recommended an expedited (Management Track Level 2) assessment to address 

potential ways of dealing with the missing 2017 survey information in the southern stock. This 

was recommended because of transparency concerns and the fact that the NEFMC sets 3 year 

specifications. In the last assessment the trend adjustment from the status quo were -2% in the 

north and -14% (or -11%) in the south. The PDT recommended no change in either area but 

that determination was based on expert judgment rather than a specific statistical threshold. It 

may be useful to get some input from the peer review panel on different techniques that can be 

used for the survey information, and there may be some discussion about tweaking 

thesensitivity of the loess smooth to allow for more sensitivity to trend in the most recent

years. The AOP recommends including existing research recommendations in the final report.

Major Recommendations: 

In general, the AOP approved the plans presented, but highlighted a number of clarifications 

that are summarized below:
Operational Assessment August 2019 157 AOP Meeting Summary

Stock Lead Major Recommendations

Overview of the 

Process

Russell Brown The NRCC approved, generic Terms of Reference 

for operational stock assessment be used.

Scup Mark Terceiro Management Track Level 3 – Enhanced 

ReviewIncorporate new MRIP recreational catch 

estimates.

Alternative assessment approach: Loess smooth of 

relevant survey indices

2 Year projections should be generated

Black Sea Bass Gary Shepherd Management Track Level 3 – Enhanced Review 

Incorporate new MRIP recreational catch estimates 

Alternate assessment approach: Consider a combined 

area model if the split area models are problematic or 

Loess smooth of relevant survey indices 

2-Year projections should be generated

Bluefish Tony Wood Management Track Level 3 – Enhanced Review 

Incorporate new MRIP recreational catch 

estimates Attempt to recover missing length data 

for Rhode Island recreational discarded fish for 

2018 Alternative assessment approach: Loess 

smooth of relevant survey indices

2-Year projections should be generated

Monkfish Anne Richards Management Track Level 2 – Expedited Review 

Address potential ways of dealing with the 

missing 2017 survey information in the southern 

stock Alternative approach is to recommend 

status quo catch.

In summary, the meeting was productive and a good implementation of the new assessment 

planning document. The meeting concluded at 4:30 pm. The peer review panel will meet from 

August 5-7, 2019 to complete their review. 
Operational Assessment August 2019 158 Assessment Meeting Attendee List 

Appendix 2. Operational Assessment, Aug. 5-7, 2019, Attendee List

Tom Miller (MAFMC SSC – Review Chair)

Kate Seigfried (SEFSC – Reviewer)

Mike Wilberg (MAFMC SSC – Reviewer)

J .J. Mcquire (NEFMC – Reviewer)

Anne Richards (NEFSC – Monkfish Assess Lead)

Gary Shepherd (NEFSC – Black Sea Bass Assess 

Lead)

Mark Terceiro (NEFSC – Scup Assessment Lead)

Tony Wood (NEFSC – Bluefish Assessment Lead)

Jon Deroba (NEFSC)

Susan Wigley (NEFSC)

Kiersten Curti (NEFSC)

Katherine Sosebee (NEFSC)

Tim Miller (NEFSC)

Chris Legault (NEFSC)

Steve Cadrin (SMAST)

Cate O’Keefe (MADMF)

Russ Brown (NEFSC, PDB Chair) 

Toni Chute (NEFSC)

Michele Traver (NEFSC)

Mike Celestino (NJDFW)

Richard Merrick (NEFMC SSC)

Alan Bianchi (NCDMF) 

Eric Schneider (RIDMF)

Greg DeCelles (MADMF)

Jennifer Couture (GARFO)

Jessica Blaylock (NEFSC)

Pater Lu (Harvard)

Libby Etrie (NEFMC)

Patricia Clay (NEFSC)

Charles Perreti (NEFSC)

Mike Fogarty (NEFSC)

Ariele Baker (NEFSC)

Julia Beaty (MAFMC – staff)

Fiona Hogan (NEFMC – staff)

Brandon Muffley (MAFMC – staff)

Caitlin Starks (ASMFC – staff)

Tara Trinko (NEFSC)

Mark Wuenschel (NEFSC)

Kiley Dancy (MAFMC – staff)

Jeff Brust (NJDEP)

Sam Truesdell (MADMF)

Shanna Madsen (ASMFC)

John Maniscalco (NYDEC)

Doug Zemeckis (Rutgers University)

Emily Slesinger (Rutgers University)

Allison Murphy

Cynthia Ferrio

Alicia Long (NEFSC)

Paul Nitschke (NEFSC)

Charles Adams (NEFSC)

Thomas Heimann (CFRF)

Karson Coutre (MAFMC – Staff)

Matt Seeley (MAFMC – Staff)

Scott Steinback (NEFSC)

Richard McBride (NEFSC)

James Weinberg (NEFSC, SAW Chair) 
Operational Assessment August 2019 159 Assessment Meeting Agenda

Appendix 3. Operational Assessment, Aug. 5-7, 2019, Meeting Agenda

Operational Assessment Peer Review Meeting

Monkfish, Black Sea Bass, Scup, Bluefish

Clark Conference Room, NEFSC, Woods Hole, MA 

August 5-7, 2019 

Monday, August 5, 2019 

Time Activity Lead

1:00 p.m. Welcome and 

Introductions

Russ Brown/Jim Weinberg

1:10 p.m. Overview and Process Russ Brown

1:30 p.m. Monkfish Anne Richards

3:00 p.m. Break

3:10 p.m. Monkfish 

Discuss/Review/Summary

Review Panel

4:10 p.m. Black Sea Bass Gary Shepherd

5:40 p.m. Public Comment Public

5:55 p.m. Adjourn

Tuesday, August 6, 2019 

Time Activity Lead

8:30 a.m. Brief Overview and logistics Russ Brown/Jim 

Weinberg

8:40 a.m. Black Sea Bass cont. Gary Shepherd

10:10 a.m. Break

10:25 a.m. Black Sea Bass 

Discussion/Review/Summary

Review Panel

11:25 a.m. Scup Mark Terceiro

12:40 p.m. Lunch 

1:40 p.m. Scup Cont. Mark Terceiro

2:55 p.m. Break

3:10 p.m. Scup 

Discussion/Review/Summary

Review Panel

4:10 p.m. Bluefish Tony Wood

5:25 p.m. Public Comment Public

5:40 p.m. Adjourn
Operational Assessment August 2019 160 Assessment Meeting Agenda

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Time Activity Lead

8:30 a.m. Brief Overview and logistics Russ Brown/Jim 

Weinberg

8:40 a.m. Bluefish cont. Tony Wood

9:55 a.m. Break

10:10 a.m. Bluefish 

Discussion/Review/Summary

Review Panel

11:10 a.m. Public Comment Public

11:25 a.m. Lunch

12:30 p.m. Report Writing/Species 

Summaries

Review Panel

2:25 p.m. Break

2:40 p.m. Report Writing/Species 

Summaries

Review Panel

4:30 p.m. Adjourn
Procedures for Issuing Manuscripts 

in the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document (CRD) Series

Clearance

All manuscripts submitted for issuance as CRDs 

must have cleared the NEFSC’s manuscript/abstract/ 

webpage review process. If any author is not a federal 

employee, he/she will be required to sign an “NEFSC 

Release-of-Copyright Form.” If your manuscript 

includes material from another work which has been 

copyrighted, then you will need to work with the 

NEFSC’s Editorial Office to arrange for permission to 

use that material by securing release signatures on the

“NEFSC Use-of-Copyrighted-Work Permission 

Form.” 

For more information, NEFSC authors should see 

the NEFSC’s online publication policy manual,

“Manuscript/abstract/webpage preparation, review, 

and dis- semination: NEFSC author’s guide to policy,

process, and procedure,” located in the 

Publications/Manuscript Review section of the 

NEFSC intranet page.

Organization

Manuscripts must have an abstract and table of 

contents, and (if applicable) lists of figures and tables. 

As much as possible, use traditional scientific manuscript organization for sections: “Introduction,” “Study 

Area” and/or ”Experimental Apparatus,” “Methods,” 

“Results,” “Discussion,” “Conclusions,” “Acknowledgments,” and “Literature/References Cited.”

Style

The CRD series is obligated to conform with the 

style contained in the current edition of the United 

States Government PrintingOffice Style Manual.That 

style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific 

manuscripts. The CRD series relies more on the CSE 

Style Manual. Manuscripts should be prepared to 

conform with these style manuals.

The CRD series uses the American Fisheries Society’s guides to names of fishes, mollusks, and decapod 

crustaceans, the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s

guide to names of marine mammals, the Biosciences 

Information Service’s guide to serial title abbreviations, 

and the ISO’s (International Standardization

Organization) guide to statistical terms.

For in-text citation, use the name-date system. A 

special effort should be made to ensure that all

necessary bibliographic information is included in the 

list of cited works. Personal communications must

include date, full name, and full mailing address of the 

con- tact.

Preparation

Once your document has cleared the review 

process, the Editorial Office will contact you with

publication needs – for example, revised text (if

necessary) and separatedigitalfigures and tablesifthey

are embedded in the document. Materials may be 

submitted to the EditorialOffice as email attachments

or intranet down- loads. Text files should be in 

Microsoft Word, tables may be in Word or Excel, and 

graphics files may be in a variety of formats (JPG, 

GIF, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.). 

Production and Distribution

The Editorial Office will perform a copyedit of 

the document and may request further revisions. The 

Editorial Office will develop the inside and outside 

front covers, the inside and outside back covers, and 

the title and bibliographic control pages of the document.

Once the CRD is ready, the Editorial Office will 

contact you to review it and submit corrections or 

changes before the document is posted online. 

A number of organizations and individuals in the 

Northeast Region will be notified by e-mail of the 

availability of the document online.
Research Communications Branch 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

MEDIA MAIL

Publications and Reports 

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is “stewardship of living marine resources 

for the benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the 

health of their environment.” As the research arm of the NMFS’s Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by “conducting ecosystem-based research and 

assessments of living marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and longterm sustainability of these resources and to generate social and economic opportunities and benefits from their

use.” Results of NEFSC research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peerreviewed scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its 

constituents, the NEFSC occasionally releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three suchmedia:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of longterm field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports of overall 

assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature surveys of

important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated 

bibliographies. All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data 

reports on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected 

abstracts of, and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review and 

most issues receive copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen’s Report) -- This information report is a regularly-issued, quick-turnaround report on 

thedistributionandrelativeabundanceofselectedlivingmarineresourcesasderivedfromeachoftheNEFSC’speriodicresearchvessel 

surveys of the Northeast’s continental shelf. This report undergoes internal review, but receives no technical or copy editing.

TO OBTAIN A COPY of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document, 

either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2350) or consult the NEFSC webpage 

on “Reports andPublications” (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/). ToaccessResource SurveyReport, consulttheEcosystem 

Surveys Branch webpage (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/ecosurvey/mainpage/).

ANY USE OFTRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT.