Circular logo of the NOAA; blue colors for sea and sky separated by a white gull. Skip to 'main'.



; N O A A type: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center Technical Memorandum


; C R D number: ; 308


; Title: ; Management Track Assessments Spring 2023


; authors: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center


; date: ; June 2023


; start of top-matter block ; 
; start of Title page block ; 
; N O A A type: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center Technical Memorandum


; C R D number: ; 308


; Title: ; Management Track Assessments Spring 2023


; authors: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center


; address-1: ; U.S. Department of Commerce


; address-2: ; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


; CRDaddressIII: ; National Marine Fisheries Service


; CRDaddressIV: ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center


; CRDaddressV: ; Woods Hole, Massachusetts


; date: ; June 2023


; end of titlepage block ; 
; H3: ; NOAA Technical Memorandum, Editorial Notes

Editorial Treatment: In the interest of expedited publication, this report has undergone a truncated 
version of the N E F S C Editorial Office’s typical technical and copy editing procedure. Aside from 
the front and back matter included in this document, all writing and editing have been performed 
by the authors included on the title page.

Information Quality Act Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106-554, 
the N E F S C completed both technical and policy reviews for this report. These predissemination 
reviews are on file at the N E F S C Editorial Office.

Species Names: The N E F S C Editorial Office’s policy on the use of species names in all techni- 
cal communications is generally to follow the American Fisheries Society’s lists of scientific and 
common names for fishes, mollusks, and decapod crustaceans and to follow the Society for Ma- 
rine Mammalogy’s guidance on scientific and common names for marine mammals. Exceptions to 
this policy occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, 
resulting in changes in the names of species.

Statistical Terms: The N E F S C Editorial Office’s policy on the use of statistical terms in all tech- 
nical communications is generally to follow the International Standards Organization’s handbook 
of statistical methods.


; citation: ; This document may be cited as:

NEFSC. 2023. Management Track Assessments Spring 2023. US Dept Commer, North- 
east Fish Sci Cent Tech Memo.308; 69p.+x. Available from: National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at,
; link to ; http://www.n e f s c.n o a a.gov/n e f s c/publications/
; end of link ; .


; start of unnumbered Section titled : TABLE OF CONTENTS ; 
; ; ; ; LISTSLists: List of Tables; starts on page ; roman 2
; ; ; ; Lists: List of Figures; starts on page ; roman 3
; ; ; ; GLOSSARIESGlossary: Abbreviations for fish stocks reviewed; starts on page ; roman 4
; ; ; ; Glossary: Abbreviations and Acronyms; starts on page ; roman 5
; ; ; ; Glossary: Statistical/review concepts, parameters, etc.; starts on page ; roman 7
; ; ; ; Glossary: Locations/regions: state, country, etc.; starts on page ; roman 10
; ; ; ; FISH STOCK REPORTS
Section 1. ; Panel Report; starts on page ; 1
; ; ; ; 
Section Appendix A. ; AOP Meeting Summary; starts on page ; 3
; ; ; ; 
Section Appendix A.1. ; Meeting participants; starts on page ; 12
; ; ; ; 
Section Appendix B. ; Terms of Reference; starts on page ; 13
; ; ; ; 
Section Appendix C. ; Peer Review Meeting Attendees; starts on page ; 14
; ; ; ; 
Section Appendix D. ; Peer Review Meeting Agenda; starts on page ; 16
; ; ; ; 
Section 2. ; Atlantic Bluefish; starts on page ; 17
; ; ; ; 
Section 2.1. ; Reviewer Comments: Atlantic Bluefish; starts on page ; 21
; ; ; ; 
Section 3. ; Deep sea red crab; starts on page ; 28
; ; ; ; 
Section 3.1. ; Reviewer Comments: Deep sea red crab; starts on page ; 33
; ; ; ; 
Section 4. ; Longfin inshore squid; starts on page ; 37
; ; ; ; 
Section 4.1. ; Reviewer Comments: Longfin inshore squid; starts on page ; 42
; ; ; ; 
Section 5. ; Summer flounder; starts on page ; 49
; ; ; ; 
Section 5.1. ; Reviewer Comments: Summer flounder; starts on page ; 52
; ; ; ; 
Section 6. ; Scup; starts on page ; 59
; ; ; ; 
Section 6.1. ; Reviewer Comments: Scup; starts on page ; 62
; ; ; ; Photo Gallery; starts on page ; 69
; ; ; ; 
; end of Table of Contents ; 
; start of unnumbered Section titled : List of Tables ; 
; ; ; ; 
; Table 1 ; ; Stocks reviewed at June 2023 Management Track Assessment Peer Review meeting; on page ; 2
; Table 2 ; ; Stocks reviewed at February 2023 Management Track Assessment Stock Assessments 
meeting; on page ; 4
; Table 3 ; ; Catch and status table for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 17
; Table 4 ; ; Estimated reference points for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 18
; Table 5 ; ; Short term projections for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 18
; Table 6 ; ; Catch and status table for deep-sea red crab; on page ; 28
; Table 7 ; ; Estimated reference points for deep sea red crab; on page ; 28
; Table 8 ; ; Catch and status table for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 38
; Table 9 ; ; Estimated reference points for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 38
; Table 10 ; ; Catch and status table for Summer flounder; on page ; 49
; Table 11 ; ; Estimated reference points for Summer flounder; on page ; 50
; Table 12 ; ; Short term projections for Summer flounder; on page ; 50
; Table 13 ; ; Catch and status table for Scup; on page ; 59
; Table 14 ; ; Estimated reference points for Scup; on page ; 60
; Table 15 ; ; Short term projections for Scup; on page ; 60
; end of List of Tables ; Delicious plate of seafood for dinner.
•Healthy seafood delights: shrimp, mussels, scallop, and fish dish.


; start of unnumbered Section titled : List of Figures ; 
; ; ; ; 
; Figure 1 ; ; Estimated trends in biomass for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 23
; Figure 2 ; ; Estimated trends in fishing mortality for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 24
; Figure 3 ; ; Trends in estimated recruitment for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 25
; Figure 4 ; ; Total catch of Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 26
; Figure 5 ; ; Indices of abundance for Atlantic Bluefish; on page ; 27
; Figure 6 ; ; Total catch of deep sea red crab; on page ; 35
; Figure 7 ; ; Indices of abundance for deep sea red crab; on page ; 36
; Figure 8 ; ; Estimated trends in biomass for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 45
; Figure 9 ; ; Estimated trends in fishing mortality for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 46
; Figure 10 ; ; Total catch of longfin inshore squid; on page ; 47
; Figure 11 ; ; Indices of abundance for longfin inshore squid; on page ; 48
; Figure 12 ; ; Estimated trends in biomass for Summer flounder; on page ; 54
; Figure 13 ; ; Estimated trends in fishing mortality for Summer flounder; on page ; 55
; Figure 14 ; ; Trends in estimated recruitment for Summer flounder; on page ; 56
; Figure 15 ; ; Total catch of Summer flounder; on page ; 57
; Figure 16 ; ; Indices of abundance for Summer flounder; on page ; 58
; Figure 17 ; ; Estimated trends in biomass for Scup; on page ; 64
; Figure 18 ; ; Estimated trends in fishing mortality for Scup; on page ; 65
; Figure 19 ; ; Trends in estimated recruitment for Scup; on page ; 66
; Figure 20 ; ; Total catch of Scup; on page ; 67
; Figure 21 ; ; Indices of abundance for Scup; on page ; 68
; end of List of Figures ; 
; start of CRDfishimages block ; small image of an Atlantic mackerel 
Atlantic Mackerel

small image of a bluefish 
Bluefish

small image of an Atlantic deep-sea red crab
Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab

small image of a Longfin Squid
Longfin Squid

small image of a summer flounder
Summer Flounder

small image of a scup
Scup

small image of a Spiny Dogfish 
Spiny Dogfish

 Images fromNOAA 
; link to ; Fisheries
; end of link ; and
; link to ; FishWatch.gov
; end of link ; .

; start of unnumbered Section titled : Abbreviations for fish stocks reviewed ; 


These are the abbreviations for fish stock names, as used in 
the footers of each of the fish stock reports. Links are to the 
reports, summary pages and tables.


; Glossary-item ; ; AMACKUNIT ; (Scomber scombrus) Atlantic mackerel ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 5
; Glossary-item ; ; BLFUNIT ; (Pomatomus saltatrix) Atlantic bluefish ; occurs on page: ; 2 
and 4 
and 6 
and 17 
up to 27
; Glossary-item ; ; CRDUNIT ; (Chaceon quinquedens) Atlantic deep-sea 
red crab ; occurs on page: ; 2 
and 4 
and 7 
and 28 
up to 36
; Glossary-item ; ; DORYUNIT ; (Doryteuthis pealeii) longfin squid, from 
New England to Mid-Atlantic and the Southeast ; occurs on page: ; 2 
and 4 
and 7 
and 37 
up to 48
; Glossary-item ; ; FLKUNIT ; (Scophthalmus aquosus) summer flounder ; occurs on page: ; 2 
and 4 
and 10 
and 49 
up to 58
; Glossary-item ; ; SCPUNIT ; (Stenotomus chrysops) scup ; occurs on page: ; 2 
and 4 
and 9 
and 59 
up to 68
; Glossary-item ; ; SPDUNIT ; (Squalus acanthia) Atlantic spiny dogfish ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 8
; end of Glossary ; 

Fresh seafood on ice, ready for sale. 
•Fresh seafood on ice, ready for sale. Photo credit: Shutterstock.


; start of unnumbered Section titled : Abbreviations and Acronyms ; 



; Glossary-item ; ; Albatross ; refers to activities of the N O A A vessel Albatross 4 ; occurs on page: ; 58 
and 62 
and 68
; Glossary-item ; ; AlbatrossIV ; Research vessel N O A A S Albatross IV, in service until November 2008 ; occurs on page: ; roman 5;
; Glossary-item ; ; AOP ; Assessment Oversight Panel ; occurs on page: ; 1 
and 3 
up to 12 
and 22 
and 33 
and 42 
and 52 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; ASMFC ; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ; occurs on page: ; 12 
up to 14
; Glossary-item ; ; Bigelow ; refers to activities of the N O A A vessel Henry B. Bigelow ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 5 
and 11 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; CAMS ; Catch Accounting and Monitoring System ; occurs on page: ; 2 
and 4 
up to 11 
and 39 
and 42
; Glossary-item ; ; CHESMAP ; Chesapeake Bay Multispecies Monitoring and Assessment Program ; occurs on page: ; 6 
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; CRD ; Center Reference Document ; occurs on page: ; Roman 84;
; Glossary-item ; ; CSE ; Council of Science Editors ; occurs on page: ; Roman 84;
; Glossary-item ; ; DFO ; Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian ; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; ECOMON ; Ecosystem Monitoring ; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; GARFO ; Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office ; occurs on page: ; 6 
and 14 
and 15 
and 39
; Glossary-item ; ; HenryBBigelow ; N O A A research vessel Henry B. Bigelow, with specialized trawling net mecha- 
nisms; commissioned July 2007, used for surveys 2009; to ; 2019 ; occurs on page: ; roman 5; 
and 58
; Glossary-item ; ; ICES ; International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (European Union) ; occurs on page: ; 34 
and 44
; Glossary-item ; ; MADMF ; Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ; occurs on page: ; 14
; Glossary-item ; ; MAFMC ; Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council ; occurs on page: ; 3 
and 11 
up to 14 
and 17 
up to 19 
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; MARMAP ; Marine Resources Monitoring and Assessment Program ; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; MRIP ; Marine Recreational Information Program ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 6 
and 8 
and 19 
up to 21
; Glossary-item ; ; MTA ; Management Track Assessment ; occurs on page: ; 8 
and 10 
and 11 
and 21 
and 33
; Glossary-item ; ; MTrack ; Management Track ; occurs on page: ; 12
; Glossary-item ; ; NCDMF ; North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries ; occurs on page: ; 14
; Glossary-item ; ; NEAMAP ; Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 7 
and 8 
and 37 
and 41 
and 42
; Glossary-item ; ; NEFMC ; New England Fisheries Management Council ; occurs on page: ; 3 
and 12 
and 14 
and 15
; Glossary-item ; ; NEFOP ; Northeast Fishery Observer Program ; occurs on page: ; 2
; Glossary-item ; ; NEFSC ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center ; occurs on page: ; Cover roman 3; 
and 1 
and 4 
up to 8 
and 10 
up to 15 
and 17 
and 19 
and 21 
and 29 
and 33 
and 37 
up to 39 
and 41 
and 42 
and 44 
up to 46 
and 48 
and 49 
and 52 
and 53 
and 58 
and 59 
and 62 
and 63 
and 68 
and 70 
and Roman 84;
; Glossary-item ; ; NMFS ; National Marine Fisheries Service ; occurs on page: ; roman 9; 
and 1 
and 5 
and 8 
and 14 
and 22 
and 69 
and 70
; Glossary-item ; ; NOAA ; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration ; occurs on page: ; roman 4; 
up to roman 6; 
and 2 
and 3 
and 21 
and 22 
and 52 
and 53 
and 63 
and 69 
and 70
; Glossary-item ; ; NOAAS ; N O A A ship ; occurs on page: ; roman 5;
; Glossary-item ; ; NRCC ; Northeast Regional Coordinating Council ; occurs on page: ; 3 
and 8 
and 11 
and 40
; Glossary-item ; ; NTAP ; Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel ; occurs on page: ; 39
; Glossary-item ; ; RT ; Research Track ; occurs on page: ; 21
; Glossary-item ; ; RTA ; Research Track Assessment ; occurs on page: ; 10 
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; SARC51 ; 51st Stock Assessment Review Committee meeting, 2010 ; occurs on page: ; 7 
and 37 
and 42
; Glossary-item ; ; SASINF ; Stock Assessment Support Information ; occurs on page: ; 39
; Glossary-item ; ; SAW ; Stock Assessment Workshop ; occurs on page: ; 42 
and 44
; Glossary-item ; ; SAW60 ; 60th Stock Assessment Workshop, 2015 ; occurs on page: ; 10 
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; SAW64 ; 64th Stock Assessment Workshop, 2018 ; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; SAW66 ; 66th Stock Assessment Workshop, 2019 ; occurs on page: ; 10
; Glossary-item ; ; SEAMAP ; Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program ; occurs on page: ; 6 
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; SMAST ; School for Marine Science and Technology (New Bedford, Maine) ; occurs on page: ; 13 
and 15
; Glossary-item ; ; SSC ; Scientific and Statistical Committee ; occurs on page: ; 1 
and 5 
and 6 
and 11 
and 13
; Glossary-item ; ; STOCKEFF ; Stock Assessment Efficiency Initiative ; occurs on page: ; 6 
and 19
; Glossary-item ; ; TOR ; Term of Reference ; occurs on page: ; 21 
and 33
; Glossary-item ; ; UMASS ; University of Massachusetts ; occurs on page: ; 14
; Glossary-item ; ; WHAM ; Woods Hole Assessment Model ; occurs on page: ; 1 
and 4 
and 6 
and 17 
and 19 
up to 21
; Glossary-item ; ; WHOI ; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts ; occurs on page: ; roman 9; 
and 15 
and 69
; end of Glossary ; 
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Statistical/review concepts, parameters, etc. ; 



; Glossary-item ; ; 000s ; thousands ; occurs on page: ; 17 
and 18 
and 25 
and 49 
and 50 
and 56 
and 59 
and 60 
and 66
; Glossary-item ; ; ABC ; acceptable biological catch ; occurs on page: ; 6 
and 10 
and 11 
and 17 
up to 19 
and 21 
and 52
; Glossary-item ; ; AgePro ; Age Structured Projection Model (
; link to ; source
; end of link ; ) ; occurs on page: ; 52
; Glossary-item ; ; ALK ; age; to ; length key ; occurs on page: ; 19
; Glossary-item ; ; ASAP ; Age-Structured Assessment Program, modelling software ; occurs on page: ; 1 
and 4 
up to 6 
and 10 
and 21 
and 49 
and 52 
and 59 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; ASM ; At Sea Monitoring ; occurs on page: ; 2
; Glossary-item ; ; Bayes ; following a Bayesian approach to statistics and probability ; occurs on page: ; 33
; Glossary-item ; ; BMSY ; biomass maximum sustainable yield ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 7 
and 8 
and 42 
and 43
; Glossary-item ; ; BMSYpr ; proxy estimate for biomass maximum sustainable yield ; occurs on page: ; 37 
up to 39 
and 45
; Glossary-item ; ; BRP ; biological reference point ; occurs on page: ; 9 
and 11 
and 13 
and 30 
and 32 
and 43
; Glossary-item ; ; BSIA ; Best Scientific Information Available ; occurs on page: ; 42 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; BThr ; threshold for biomass that indicates overfished status ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 7 
and 45
; Glossary-item ; ; CI ; confidence interval ; occurs on page: ; 19 
and 37
; Glossary-item ; ; CPUE ; catch per unit effort ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 6 
and 19 
up to 21
; Glossary-item ; ; CV ; coefficient of variation ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 10 
and 11 
and 17 
and 39 
and 51 
and 61
; Glossary-item ; ; DCAC ; Depletion-corrected average catch model ; occurs on page: ; 30 
and 33
; Glossary-item ; ; DWF ; Distant Water Fleets ; occurs on page: ; 38 
and 47
; Glossary-item ; ; EFP ; Exempted Fishing Permit ; occurs on page: ; 29
; Glossary-item ; ; ESP ; Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile ; occurs on page: ; 6
; Glossary-item ; ; ESS ; Expeditionary Support Ship ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 11
; Glossary-item ; ; F ; (instantaneous) fishing mortality rate ; occurs on page: ; 5 
and 8 
and 9 
and 18 
up to 21 
and 37 
and 50 
and 52 
and 60 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; F35 ; fishing mortality rate at 35% of the total catch ; occurs on page: ; 18 
and 21 
and 50
; Glossary-item ; ; F35SPR ; fishing mortality for 35% of spawning potential rate ; occurs on page: ; 18 
and 52
; Glossary-item ; ; F40SPR ; fishing mortality for 40% of spawning potential rate ; occurs on page: ; 5 
and 60
; Glossary-item ; ; F60SPR ; fishing mortality for 60% of spawning potential rate ; occurs on page: ; 8
; Glossary-item ; ; FFull ; fishing mortality rate on fully selected ages ; occurs on page: ; 17 
up to 19 
and 24 
and 39 
and 49 
and 50 
and 55 
and 59 
and 60 
and 65
; Glossary-item ; ; FMP ; fishery management plan ; occurs on page: ; 29 
and 30 
and 35
; Glossary-item ; ; FMSY ; fishing mortality rate for maximum sustainable yield ; occurs on page: ; 5 
and 8 
and 42 
and 43 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; FMSYpr ; proxy estimate of fishing mortality rate for maximum sustainable yield ; occurs on page: ; 17 
and 18 
and 20 
and 24 
and 38 
and 49 
and 50 
and 52 
and 55 
and 59 
and 60 
and 65
; Glossary-item ; ; FRebuild ; fishing mortality rate consistent with the stock rebuilding plan ; occurs on page: ; 5 
and 17 
up to 19 
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; Frho ; fishing rate adjusted for the rho value ; occurs on page: ; 19 
and 60 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; FThr ; threshold fishing mortality level that indicates overfishing status ; occurs on page: ; 24 
and 55 
and 65
; Glossary-item ; ; GLM ; Generalized Linear Model ; occurs on page: ; 33
; Glossary-item ; ; ISmooth ; renaming of Plan B smooth : a model using log-linear regression and Lo e s s smoothing ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 5 
and 11
; Glossary-item ; ; lb ; pounds, imperial measurement unit for weight ; occurs on page: ; 36
; Glossary-item ; ; LLC ; Limited Liability Company ; occurs on page: ; 15
; Glossary-item ; ; Loess ; loesscurve fitting (local polynomial regression); occurs on page: ; roman 8;
; Glossary-item ; ; lognorm ; probability distribution whose logarithm is normally distributed ; occurs on page: ; 23 
up to 25 
and 27 
and 54 
and 55 
and 58 
and 64 
and 65 
and 68
; Glossary-item ; ; Lorenz ; model for natural mortality using Lorenzen curve ; occurs on page: ; 4 
and 6 
and 8 
and 9 
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; LPUE ; Landings Per Unit Effort ; occurs on page: ; 7 
and 28 
and 30 
and 32 
and 33 
and 36
; Glossary-item ; ; M ; (instantaneous) natural mortality rate ; occurs on page: ; 4 
up to 6 
and 9 
and 10 
and 21 
and 22 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; Mrho ; Mohn’s rho parameter: the average relative bias of retrospective estimates ; occurs on page: ; roman 8; 
and roman 9; 
and 19 
and 50 
and 60
; Glossary-item ; ; MSP ; maximum spawning potential ; occurs on page: ; 41
; Glossary-item ; ; MSY ; maximum sustainable yield ; occurs on page: ; 5 
and 8 
and 18 
and 30 
and 33 
and 38 
and 50 
and 60
; Glossary-item ; ; mt ; metric ton ; occurs on page: ; 5 
up to 7 
and 10 
and 11 
and 17 
and 18 
and 20 
and 21 
and 28 
and 33 
and 37 
up to 39 
and 42 
and 45 
and 48 
up to 50 
and 52 
and 59 
and 60 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; multinomial ; the multinomial probability distribution ; occurs on page: ; 6 
and 19 
and 21
; Glossary-item ; ; NA ; not applicable ; occurs on page: ; 29 
and 38
; Glossary-item ; ; OFL ; overfishing limit ; occurs on page: ; 1 
and 11 
and 49 
and 50 
and 52 
and 59 
and 60 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; PlanBSmooth ; ‘Plan B’ model using log-linear regression and Lo e s s smoothing ; occurs on page: ; roman 8;
; Glossary-item ; ; Q ; catchability coefficient ; occurs on page: ; 7 
and 37 
and 38 
and 45 
and 48
; Glossary-item ; ; R-prog ; programming environment for statistical processing and presentation ; occurs on page: ; 1
; Glossary-item ; ; Recr ; expected recruitment numbers ; occurs on page: ; 21
; Glossary-item ; ; RMSE ; root mean square error ; occurs on page: ; 53
; Glossary-item ; ; SBRM ; Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology ; occurs on page: ; 8 
and 11
; Glossary-item ; ; SPR ; spawning potential ratio ; occurs on page: ; 18
; Glossary-item ; ; SPR60 ; 60% of the spawning potential ratio ; occurs on page: ; 8
; Glossary-item ; ; SS3 ; Stock Synthesis 3 model ; occurs on page: ; 1 
and 8 
and 9
; Glossary-item ; ; SSB ; spawning stock biomass ; occurs on page: ; 4 
up to 6 
and 8 
and 17 
up to 21 
and 39 
and 49 
up to 52 
and 59 
up to 62 
and 64
; Glossary-item ; ; SSB40 ; the approximate equilibrium spawning stock biomass that results from fishing at forty percent 
of maximum sustainable yield ; occurs on page: ; 5
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBMSY ; spawning stock biomass consistent with maximum sustainable yield ; occurs on page: ; 5 
and 8 
and 18 
and 50 
and 60 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBMSYpr ; proxy value for spawning stock biomass estimation for maximum sustainable yield ; occurs on page: ; 17 
up to 19 
and 23 
and 49 
and 52 
and 54 
and 59 
and 62 
and 64
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBrho ; spawning stock biomass level adjusted according to the rho value ; occurs on page: ; 19 
and 60 
and 62
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBTar ; theoretically ideal spawning stock biomass level ; occurs on page: ; 21 
and 23 
and 54 
and 64
; Glossary-item ; ; SSBThr ; threshold for spawning stock biomass that indicates overfished status ; occurs on page: ; 21 
and 23 
and 54 
and 64
; Glossary-item ; ; VTR ; Vessel Trip Report ; occurs on page: ; 28 
and 33
; Glossary-item ; ; WAA ; Weight-at-age ; occurs on page: ; 21
; end of Glossary ; Aerial view of NMFS building, surrounding wharves and Eel Pond; Woods Hole, Mass.
•Aerial view ofNMFS building and surrounds, Woods Hole Laboratory,MA; photo ©WHOI


Map of northeastern seaboard; states and countries shown using 2-letter acronyms.


; start of unnumbered Section titled : Locations/regions: state, country, etc. ; 



; Glossary-item ; ; CA ; Canada ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; CT ; Connecticut ; occurs on page: ; roman 10; 
and 4
; Glossary-item ; ; GB ; Georges Bank ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; GOM ; Gulf of Maine ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; MA ; Massachusetts ; occurs on page: ; roman 6; 
and roman 9; 
and roman 10; 
and 13 
and 15 
and 69
; Glossary-item ; ; MAB ; Mid-Atlantic Bight ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; ME ; Maine ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; NC ; North Carolina ; occurs on page: ; 12
; Glossary-item ; ; NH ; New Hampshire ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; NJ ; New Jersey ; occurs on page: ; roman 10; 
and 14
; Glossary-item ; ; NY ; New York ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; RI ; Rhode Island ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; SNE ; Southern New England ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; Glossary-item ; ; US ; United States ; occurs on page: ; 7 
and 38 
and 46
; Glossary-item ; ; VT ; Vermont ; occurs on page: ; roman 10;
; end of Glossary ; 
1. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : 2023 Management Track Peer Review Panel Report ; 


Cynthia M.Jones (Chair)
; refer to footnote 1 ; 
; start of footnote 1 ; Old Dominion University (retired)
; end of footnote ; (chair)
; and ; Katie Drew
; refer to footnote 2 ; 
; start of footnote 2 ; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
; end of footnote ; 
; and ; Alexei Sharov
; refer to footnote 3 ; 
; start of footnote 3 ; Maryland Department of Natural Resources
; end of footnote ; 
; and ; John Wiedenmann
; refer to footnote 4 ; 
; start of footnote 4 ; Rutgers University
; end of footnote ; .

Five fish stock assessments were reviewed by the June 2023 Management Track peer review panel. 
All were Level 2 Expedited Reviews: deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens), scup (Stenotomus chrys- ops), longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), 
and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix). Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) was identified as a Level 3 En- 
hanced review assessment during the A O P , but was not addressed during the June Management Track 
Peer Review meeting and instead will be reviewed during the September Management Track Peer Review 
meeting. Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) was elevated to a Level 2 Expedited Review as a result 
of a putative status change and will be reviewed in September. Levels of review were as recommended by 
the Assessment Oversight Panel (Appendix A).

The Peer Review Panel (Panel) for the June 2023 Management Track Assessments met via webinar 
on June 26; to ; 28, 2023. The Panel was to determine whether the completed management track assessment 
was technically sufficient to (a) evaluate stock status, (b) provide scientific advice and (c) successfully 
address the assessment Terms of Reference (Appendix B). Table 1 presents a list of the stocks, name of 
the lead analyst/presenters, and conclusions about stock status.

Attendance at the meeting is provided in Appendix C with the Agenda shown in Appendix D .

We thank Russ Brown (Population Dynamics Branch Chief) and Michele Traver (Assessment Process 
Lead) for their support during the meeting and to the staff of the Population Dynamics Branch at N E F S C for the open and collaborative spirit with which they engaged the Panel.

Our thanks also extend to the rapporteurs for taking extensive notes during the meeting and to staff 
of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

The Panel has suggestions for improvements that could be made for review of Management Track 
assessments:


; start of Itemized List ; 
; Item ; The Panel suggests that review materials be posted a week prior to the meeting and include, in ad- 
dition to the N M F S analyst report, supporting materials and model diagnostics such as the standard R plots from A S A P , W H A M , and S S 3 , where such information is available.


The Panel also has several crosscutting recommendations with respect to the individual stock assessments:


; start of Enumerated List ; 
; Item 1. ; For both summer flounder and bluefish, estimates of unusually high recruitment near the end of the 
time-series are propagated through the O F L projections, as these fish enter the fishery at relatively 
young ages (summer flounder are fully recruited to directed fisheries at age-4 and bluefish at age-2).



If these recruitment events are overestimated (as the summer flounder event in 2018 turned out to 
be), the resulting O F L will be too high and may increase the risk of overfishing. The S S C may want 
to consider retrospectively adjusting anomalously high recruitment events near the terminal year of 
the assessment when doing O F L projections to mitigate this risk.
; ; Item 2. ; The 2023 peer review of the Catch Accounting and Monitoring System (C A M S ; O’Keefe et al. 
2023) concluded, with some caveats, that C A M S can be implemented to provide a single source 
of commercial fishery data for the primary purposes of quota monitoring and stock assessment. 
Where presented during the review, the differences between the commercial landings from C A M S and from the previously used databases were minimal; differences in the estimates of commercial 
discards were somewhat greater, although the C A M S estimates were generally within the confidence 
intervals of the previous estimates. The differences could not be explained. The Panel recommends 
that future stock assessment updates continue to check C A M S estimates against current or historical 
estimates of discards and harvest, where available to ensure that the differences remain negligible.
; ; Item 3. ; Reduction in Port sampling for individual lengths and age structures represents a significant threat to 
the stock assessment enterprise. N O A A should decide whether it can return Port sampling to levels 
comparable with those achieved prior to 2019. If they cannot, they should increase catch sampling 
by observers (either A S M or N E F O P ) to balance the loss of these data.
; ; Item 4. ; N O A A should continue to evaluate the use of dynamic reference points with analytic assessments.


Table 1: Stocks reviewed at June 2023 Management Track Assessment Peer Review meeting


; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; Stock ; ; ; head cell ; ; Lead Analyst/Presenter ; ; ; head cell ; ; Peer review conclusion ; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; Deep sea red crab,
Expedited Review 
; Toni Chute ; Stock’s overfished and overfishing 
status is unknown ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Scup,
Expedited Review ; Mark Terceiro ; Stock is not overfished and over- 
fishing is not occurring ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Longfin inshore squid,
Expedited Review ; Lisa Hendrickson ; Stock is not overfished and over- 
fishing status is unknown ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Summer flounder,
Expedited Review ; Mark Terceiro ; Stock is not overfished and over- 
fishing is not occurring ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Bluefish,
Expedited Review ; Tony Wood ; Stock is not overfished and over- 
fishing is not occurring ; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; 
Appendix A. ; start of Appendix Section at level 4: titled : Summary of Assessment Oversight Panel Meetings for February 2023 Management Track Stock Assessments ; 


The N R C C Assessment Oversight Panel (A O P ) met to review the operational stock assessment plans 
for Atlantic mackerel, bluefish, deep sea red crab, longfin inshore squid, spiny dogfish, scup and summer 
flounder stocks on February 23, 2023. One assessment was recommended for Level 1 Review (Direct 
Delivery) and this assessment will undergo an internal review before being delivered to the appropriate 
management body. The assessments for stocks/species recommended for Level 2 and 3 peer reviews will 
be reviewed during the peer review meeting scheduled for June 26; to ; 30, 2023.

The A O P consisted of:

Russell W. Brown, Ph.D.
; refer to footnote 5 ; 
; start of footnote 5 ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
; end of footnote ; (chair)
; and ; Michael Celestino
; refer to footnote 6 ; 
; start of footnote 6 ; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, New Jersey Fish and Wildlife.
; end of footnote ; 
; and ; Cate O’Keefe, Ph.D.
; refer to footnote 7 ; 
; start of footnote 7 ; Vice-chair of the N E F M C Scientific and Statistical Committee, Fishery Applications Consulting Team, LLC.
; end of footnote ; 
; and ; Paul Rago, Ph.D.
; refer to footnote 8 ; 
; start of footnote 8 ; Chair of the M A F M C Scientific and Statistical Committee, N O A A Fisheries (retired).
; end of footnote ; 

; start of unnumbered Section titled : Meeting Details: ; 


These meetings were guided by the N R C C approved stock assessment guidance documents. Back- 
ground documents were provided to the Panel: (1) an updated prospectus for each stock; and (2) an 
overview summary of all the salient data and model information for each stock. Prior to the meeting, each 
assessment lead prepared a proposal for their Management Track Assessment. The proposal reflected the 
research track or most recent assessment results, the peer review panel Summary Report results, and any 
initial investigations conducted for the management track assessment.

At the meeting, each assessment lead gave a presentation on the data to be used, model specifications 
(if applicable), evaluation of model performance, the process for updating the Biological Reference Points, 
the basis for catch projections, and an alternate assessment approach if their analytical assessment is 
rejected by the peer review panel.

; start of unnumbered Section titled : Major Recommendations for Review of Individual Stocks ; 


In general, the A O P approved the plans presented, but recommended several points of emphasis to 
the recommended review levels as summarized in Table 2 below. A O P guidelines can be found in the
; link to ; stock assessment process document
; end of link ; .


Table 2: Stocks reviewed at February 2023 Management Track Assessment Stock Assessments meeting


; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; Stock ; ; ; head cell ; ; Lead ; ; ; head cell ; ; Review Level ; ; ; head cell ; ; Rationale and Comments ; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; Atlantic,
mackerel 
; Kiersten,
Curti ; Level 1,
Direct Delivery,
(Provisional) ; The assessment will be updated with three years of data (2020; to ; 2022). There are questions about the availability 
of the 2022 egg/biomass index. If the 2022 egg/biomass index is not available, the review level should be 
elevated to Level 2. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile will be provided as supplementary information. I smooth approach will be used as an alternate assessment approach. ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Bluefish ; Tony Wood ; Level 2,
Expedited,
Review ; A Research Track assessment was completed in December 2022, which updated the previous A S A P model to 
a state space W H A M model. The Management Track assessment will add one additional year of data. Guild 
approach used to modify the C P U E index and represents a novel approach. Significant change in constant 
natural mortality to age based natural mortality. S S B target has been reduced by 50%. Regional estimation 
of discard weights, which accounts for regional differences.; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Deep-sea,
red crab ; Toni Chute ; Level 2,
Expedited,
Review ; Data poor species with no assessment model. This assessment will add 4 years of data (2019; to ; 2022). No issue 
with missing 2020 data since there were reported catches and some observed trips. The sexes segregate by 
depth and the fishery targets areas with higher densities of males. During the C A M S review, there were issues 
with the discards for some gear types. C A M S data are not used in the data update. A tagging project had low 
return rates indicating the potential for high mortality of tagged individuals, or a super abundant population. 
A Level 2 review of the available data and to highlight the limitations of analyses that have been attempted for 
this species is recommended to suggest potential approaches and generate useful research recommendations.; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Longfin,
inshore squid ; Lisa,
Hendrickson ; Level 2,
Expedited,
Review ; This assessment will use the same methods as 2020 Management Track assessment including updating annual- 
ized B[M S Y] proxy and B[Threshold] with data, but will explore changing the baseline time period from 1976; to ; 2022 
to 1997; to ; 2022. This change in the time period is a primary reason for recommending a Level 2 review. The A O P would like to see results for both time periods presented to the peer review panel. The A O P panel would 
like to see consideration of any changes caused by the C A M S transition. Research recommendations from the 
peer reviewers will be important to contributing to the work of the planned 2026 Research Track assessment.; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Spiny dogfish ; Dvora Hart ; Level 3,
Enhanced,
Review ; A Research Track assessment was completed in December 2022, which updated the previous stochastic estimator 
(swept area calculations) to a length based Stock Synthesis 3 model. The Management Track assessment will 
add three years of data (2020; to ; 2022). There was a significant change in natural mortality (Lorenzen M ), which 
resulted in a reduction in the females reaching maturity. There is a significant change in the length at maturity. 
There is a chance that there could be a status change to overfished. The A O P encourages a careful look at the 
impacts of transitioning to the use of C A M S catch (landings and discards). The A O P recommends reporting 
the fishing mortality rate and biomass estimates for the male component of the population.; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Scup ; Mark,
Terceiro ; Level 2,
Expedited,
Review ; The management track will add three years of updated catch for 2020; to ; 2022 (C A M S landings and discards; M R I P recreational). C A M S discards have a lot of uncertainty and it is unclear what the format of that data 
will look like and when they’ll be available. Revision to N E F S C Bigelow indices (“by-tow” swept area). Minor 
changes in model input settings (C V , E S S ). Near threshold for retro adjustments. Projections carrying forward 
using previously reviewed methods. ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Summer,
flounder ; Mark,
Terceiro ; Level 2,
Expedited,
Review ; The assessment will update the fishery and survey catches for 2020; to ; 2022 using C A M S estimates of landings 
and discards. It will revise the N E F S C survey indices for 2009; to ; 2022 to include area swept adjustments by tow. 
In terms of model adjustments, plan to inflate input C V s of a few survey indices (Connecticut spring, N E A M A P fall, Bigelow fall) and recenter input catch E S S to improve model diagnostics. Also plan to test split of terminal 
fishery selectivity blocks from 2008; to ; 2022 to 2008; to ; 2015 and 2016; to ; 2022.; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; 
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Individual Stock Discussion Summaries: ; 


; named Paragraph : Atlantic mackerel (AOP Lead: Cate O'Keefe) ; 
A O P Lead: Cate O’Keefe)

Recommendation: Level 1 (Direct Delivery, Provisional)

Atlantic mackerel were last assessed in 2021 via a Management Track assessment; the most recent 
benchmark was in 2017 at S A W 64 . 2021 results indicated the stock was overfished based on S S B in 2019 
(42,862 m t ) being 24% of the S S B[M S Y] proxy (S S B [40 percent] =181,090 m t ), and overfishing was occurring 
based on F 2019 (0.46) being 208% of the F[M S Y] proxy (F[40% S P R ] =0.22). The assessment included three 
indices: the N M F S Spring bottom trawl survey Albatross years from 1968; to ; 2008; the N M F S Spring bottom 
trawl survey Bigelow years from 2009; to ; 2019; and a range wide S S B index for 1977; to ; 2019 developed from 
theCanada D F O dedicatedegg surveyand the N E F S C MAR M A P and ECO MON surveys. Theassessment 
assumed constant natural mortality (M =0.2) and included one fishery fleet with time-invariant, flat- 
topped selectivity.

Kiersten Curti presented the proposed assessment plan for Atlantic mackerel in 2023, which will use 
the current A S A P model configuration with no changes and updated fishery and survey data through 2022. C A M S estimates of commercial landings and discards will be used for 2020; to ; 2022. Survey updates will 
include the 2021 and 2022 N M F S Spring bottom trawl survey (2020 survey was not conducted) and the S S B index for 2021 and 2022, if available. Reference points will be updated using the S A W 64 projection 
approach with M S Y level proxies of F[40% S P R ] and S S B [40 percent] . Rebuilding projections for 2023; to ; 2024 will 
be based on an assumed bridge year catch in 2023, two-stanza recruitment, and F[Rebuild] =0.12 as defined 
in the Atlantic Mackerel Rebuilding Amendment 2.0. The proposed backup assessment approach is the I smooth method using the S S B index developed from egg surveys.

The A O P raised questions about D F O data to support the S S B index and availability of data to support 
the assessment. Dr.Curti explained that the 2020 S S B index will be treated as missing, the 2021 S S B index 
is available, and the 2022 samples to support the S S B index are currently in transit. She expects that the 
2022 S S B index will be available to support the assessment but noted that delays are possible. The A O P asked about model sensitivity to terminal year estimates and suggested that sensitivity analysis to examine 
the impacts of missing the terminal year S S B index may be warranted if the index is not available. The A O P also noted that this is the first iteration of the Atlantic mackerel assessment using C A M S data and 
recommended comparisons of C A M S landings and discards to outputs from previous methods to assess 
any substantial differences.

The A O P raised questions about application of the two-stanza recruitment assumptions for refer- 
ence points and projections. Dr.Curti highlighted previous deliberations by the 2021 Management Track 
assessment process and the S S C . She noted that there is no clear evidence of environmental conditions 
impacting recruitment. Despite high adult condition since the mid-2010s, recruitment has been low, but 
Dr.Curti indicated there is little evidence of a shift in environmental conditions. Research in Canada has 
indicated that S S B and temporal/spatial overlap of larvae with preferred prey are significant drivers of 
strong year classes. Without clear evidence that recruitment is environmentally driven, the 2021 Man- 
agement Track assessment did not change the S A W 64 assumptions for reference points and there are no 
proposed changes for the 2023 Management Track assessment.


The A O P supported continued development of the Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile (E S P ) for 
Atlantic mackerel, which describes ongoing examinations of natural mortality and stock productivity. The E S P will be provided as supporting information in 2023 and results to date do not indicate that changes to 
the assessment model are warranted.

The A O P recommended a provisional Level 1 review for Atlantic mackerel. The A O P supported a 
direct delivery of the assessment to the S S C based on the proposal to maintain the model configuration 
and update three years of fishery and survey data. The S S C recommended that a Level 2 review may be 
warranted if the 2022 S S B index is not available for the assessment update or if large differences in C A M S data are detected. The N E F S C will consider all available data in the coming months and determine if the 
review needs to be elevated to a Level 2.

; named Paragraph : Bluefish (AOP Lead: Russ Brown) ; 
A O P Lead: Russ Brown)

Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)

Bluefish was last assessed in the Management Track in 2021 with data updated through 2019. That 
assessment utilized an A S A P statistical catch at age model to conclude that the stock was overfished, but 
overfishing was not occurring. Bluefish completed a Research Track assessment that was peer reviewed 
in December 2022. The newly accepted assessment developed a W H A M state space statistical catch- 
at-age model with deviations on the numbers at age estimates. Natural mortality, which was previously 
assumed constant at age-2, is now assumed to vary by age. The model employs two fishery fleets (recre- 
ational landings & discards and commercial landings), and 5 fleet selectivity blocks (2 commercial and 
3 recreational). Three new indices were added to the model: M R I P C P U E Guild Approach index (1985; to ; 2021), S E A M A P Age-1 (1989; to ; 2021) and CHES M A P Trawl survey (1985; to ; 2018). The 2022 Research 
Track assessment (data through 2021) concluded that the stock was not overfished and overfishing was not 
occurring.

The 2023 Management Track assessment will update the current Research Track assessment with 
one year of additional data (2022). To address concerns of Research Track peer reviewers, the assessment 
will shift from full multi nomial age length keys to only using multi nomial approaches to fill in holes in age 
length keys (consistent with the approach used by Stock Eff). This may allow for exploration of alternate 
likelihoods for age compositions.

The assessment update will conduct short term projections in W H A M , which allows for incorpora- 
tion of model uncertainty, auto-regressive processes and uncertainty in recruitment and numbers-at-age. 
Removals in 2023 will be assumed to be equal to the 2023 A B C (13,890 m t ) and projections will be carried 
forward for years 2024; to ; 2026.

The A O P was concerned that the spawning biomass target has declined by 50% and is likely caused 
by changes in M using the Lorenzen curve resulting in a reduction in the recruits to fishable sizes. How- 
ever, the previous target had never been achieved in the fishery and was likely overinflated. This approach 
may represent a more reasonable level of reference points. It was noted that the S S C was concerned that 
the average weight of discards has disparities between the M R I P and angler surveys, likely due to higher 
average weights of large discarded fish. It was noted that the N E F S C and G A R F O have agreed to use the 
same values in setting specifications. Previously, the approach was overestimating discards, particularly


in the south (southern fish are generally smaller). The use of regionally stratified estimates is considered 
to be a more realistic and appropriate approach. The A O P recommended a Level 2 review for bluefish due 
to the significant reduction in the biomass target and proposed changes to the age-length key approach.

; named Paragraph : Deep-sea red crab (AOP Lead: Russ Brown) ; 
A O P Lead: Russ Brown)

Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)

Deep-sea red crab is a data poor species that has not been considered in previous Management Tracks. 
A specifications update was completed in 2019 to set specifications for fishing years 2020; to ; 2023. This 
update included a time series from 2002; to ; 2019 including landings data from the limited access fleet, inci- 
dental landings, L P U E estimates for the limited access fleet and biological information from port samplers 
and observed trips. There is no assessment model, no biological reference points for this stock and none 
will be developed during this Management Track cycle.

This data update will add 4 years of data (2019; to ; 2022) including landings; L P U E estimates; port 
sampled carapace lengths for landed males; observer sampled carapace lengths for males; females and 
discarded males; and observer data on egg-bearing females and discards. There are no issues with missing 
2020 survey data since the update relies on reported catches and some observed trips. The sexes segregate 
by depth and the fishery targets areas with higher densities of males. During the C A M S review, there were 
issues with the discards for some gear types. However, C A M S data are not used in the data update. A 
tagging project had low return rates indicating the potential for high mortality of tagged individuals, or 
a super abundant population. A Level 2 review of the available data and to highlight the limitations of 
analyses that have been attempted for this species is recommended to suggest potential approaches and 
generate useful research recommendations.

; named Paragraph : Longfin inshore squid (AOP Lead: Paul Rago) ; 
A O P Lead: Paul Rago)

Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)

Longfin squid was last assessed in 2020 at a Management Track assessment. The overfishing status 
was unknown, but the stock was not overfished. The “not overfished" status was based on a comparison of 
the average of the 2018 and 2019 annualized, q -adjusted swept area biomass estimates (i.e., averages of the N E F S C spring and fall survey biomass for each year), 63,349 m t , to the threshold B[M S Y] proxy (B[Threshold] ) 
based on a long-term average (1976; to ; 2019). The threshold B[M S Y] proxy is 50% of the B[M S Y] target (i.e., 0.5×42,405 m t =21,203 m t ). It was also noted that the N E A M A P fall survey biomass estimates are added 
to those from the N E F S C fall survey.

Lisa Hendrickson’s presentation highlighted the complexity of longfin squid life history and the sea- 
sonal nature of the fishery which has both inshore and offshore components. Unlike Illex squid, longfin 
squid are neritic (i.e. residents of shelf waters). Hence, both the spring and fall N E F S C bottom trawl 
surveys likely sample most of the stock inhabiting United States waters. The S A R C 51 (2010) assessment approach 
considered the seasonal dynamics of the fisheries by calculating exploitation rates (catch/survey biomass) 
between the seasonal surveys. S A R C 51 concluded that annualized survey biomass estimates were more 
appropriate. Dr.Hendrickson noted cohort-based estimates of biomass and exploitation rates have always


been computed for squid caught in the spring versus fall surveys because the two cohorts have different 
growth rates and productivity levels. Although an approach based on analyzing each intra-annual cohort 
independently would be more realistic since it would capture the reliance of summer and fall fisheries on 
the recruits produced from the spring stock estimates, this approach has been deemed not permissible un- 
der the Management Track and will be suggested for exploration under the next Research Track. Similarly, 
the winter and spring fisheries depend on recruits produced from the fall survey stock estimates. Such a 
model would also allow inclusion of seasonal differences in growth rates.

Dr.Hendrickson recommended a change in the time series used to compute the B[M S Y] average from 
1976; to ; 2008 to 1997; to ; 2022. The rationale was based on consideration of rapid warming and other changes 
in environmental conditions, and possibly productivity in recent years. Changes in fleet characteristics, 
data quality (i.e. mandatory fishery data reporting as of 1997), and in-season management as of 2000 
were also considered relevant by the assessment lead to this proposed change. Questions from the A O P addressed the basis for the proposed change in years to compute the B[M S Y] average and whether there was 
any evidence of trends in the surveys. No trends have been observed but further analyses are needed. The 
selection of appropriate stanzas of years for projections or measures of productivity are always controver- 
sial, so justifying any changes should be data driven and well supported.

Additional questions from the A O P and other meeting attendees included the methods used to es- 
timate catchability in the trawl surveys, comparisons with assessments of species similarly impacted by 
environmental changes (e.g., Atlantic mackerel), and whether any preliminary changes had been detected. 
To account for diel vertical migrations, abundance and biomass estimates are based on daytime tows where 
“daytime" is defined by solar zenith angle because the species is most available to bottom trawls during the 
daytime. These values vary with location and date. The exclusion of tows outside the solar zenith angle 
ranges for the N E F S C spring and fall surveys reduces the frequency of low and zero tows, and generally 
improves precision but also reduces sample sizes within strata. The N E A M A P fall trawl survey swept 
area estimates will be updated because they are added to those of the N E F S C fall surveys. The N E A M A P spring survey’s intermittent encounters of longfin squid are attributed to varying availability of squid to 
the survey area; the stock is generally farther offshore in the spring.

Collectively, these considerations led the A O P to recommend a Level 2 review and a continuation of 
the current assessment methodology. The selection of an alternative basis for the B[M S Y] average should be 
fully explored and compared to the existing span of years. Results of both approaches should be presented 
to the M T A reviewers. The inclusion of newly developed C A M S estimates of landings and particularly 
discards, should be fully explored. Finally, M T A review can lay the groundwork for the Research Track 
assessment now scheduled for 2026. The groundwork could include any pending or required research on 
basic biology, alternative modeling approaches, and required data streams from the commercial fleets. The 
Terms of Reference for the assessment have not been set; the newly chartered Research Track Steering 
Committee of the N R C C will likely be involved in this process.

; named Paragraph : Spiny dogfish (AOP Lead: Cate O'Keefe) ; 
A O P Lead: Cate O’Keefe)

Recommendation: Level 3 (Enhanced Review)

A Research Track assessment for spiny dogfish was peer reviewed in December 2022. The Stock 
Synthesis 3 (S S 3 ) model was used with a time series of 1989; to ; 2019. The stock was not overfished based on


Reproductive Output in 2019 (239.9 million pups) being 65% of the S S B[M S Y] proxy (Reproductive Output 
Target =370.8 million pups), and overfishing was occurring based on F 2019 (0.032) being 128% of the F[M S Y] proxy (F[60% S P R ] =0.025). The assessment included the N M F S Spring and Fall bottom trawl survey 
indices and lengths, two landings fleets and three discard fleets, Lorenzen natural mortality estimates, 
and two maturity-growth relationship blocks. Dvora Hart presented the proposed assessment plan for 
spiny dogfish in 2023, which will use the current S S 3 model configuration with explorations and potential 
modification to the influence of the stock-recruit relationship and updated fishery and survey data through 
2022. C A M S and S B R M derived estimates of commercial landings and discards and M R I P estimates 
of recreational landings will be used for 2020; to ; 2022. Landed and discarded length and sex data by gear 
type will be updated based on available information. Survey updates include the 2021 and 2022 (2020 
survey was not conducted) N M F S Spring and Fall bottom trawl survey indices and lengths. Reference 
points will be updated using the Research Track approach with M S Y level proxies based on 60 percent of S P R . The 
projection method will be investigated to consider disproportional landings and discards. The proposed 
backup assessment approach is the previously used Stochastic Estimator model, which estimates F and S S B using swept area from the N M F S Spring survey with propagation of uncertainties.

The A O P raised questions about the backup assessment plan and potential challenges with applying 
reference points from the S S 3 model to the outputs from the Stochastic Estimator model. The A O P noted 
that it is unlikely that the S S 3 model would be rejected during the Management Track Peer Review as it was 
recently approved during the Research Track assessment. Dr.Hart noted that the new B R P s were approved 
through the Research Track assessment and would remain in place. The A O P asked about the influences 
of changes in natural mortality assumptions and age information included in the S S 3 assessment. Dr.Hart 
commented that the use of the Lorenzen M provides better results from the model and is more biologically 
realistic. Estimates of M range from 0.3 for newborn pups to 0.08 for large adult females, which influence 
the per recruit calculations and result in less females reaching the reproductive age. She noted that the 
only ageing study with a large scope was conducted ≈40 years ago and there is evidence that growth rates 
have changed. Length at maturity has decreased suggesting that either growth has slowed, or females are 
maturing at earlier ages. Smaller, slower growing females indicate reduced reproductive output. The 2022 
Research Track assessment suggested that reproductive output has rapidly declined in recent years, and 
the stock may be approaching an overfished status.

The A O P and other meeting attendees inquired about providing estimates of F and biomass for males. 
Dr.Hart commented that this question has been raised in the past and she could provide these estimates 
but does not propose deriving reference points for males.

The A O P recommended a Level 3 review for spiny dogfish. The A O P supported the proposed explo- 
rations and potential changes to the assessment and recommended that ample time be allotted for presenta- 
tion and review during the Management Track Peer Review. The A O P noted the need for review of C A M S data and the potential for a change in stock status. They also highlighted that the 2023 Management Track 
is the first iteration of the S S 3 assessment since the Research Track in 2022 and highlighted major changes 
in estimates of natural mortality and length at maturity.

; named Paragraph : Scup (AOP Lead: Paul Rago) ; 
A O P Lead: Paul Rago)

Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)


Scup were most recently assessed in 2021 via a Management Track assessment; the most recent 
benchmark assessment was in 2015 at S A W 60 . Mark Terceiro presented the proposed assessment plan 
for scup in 2023 that will rely on the model structure (A S A P ) but include updated fishery and survey data 
through 2022. C A M S estimates of commercial landings and discards will be used for 2020; to ; 2022, but 
questions remain about the commercial discard estimates. N E F S C trawl survey indices will include “by 
tow" area swept estimates but the effect of such changes on general trends are negligible. Some minor 
changes in tuning parameters will be used to improve model diagnostics. These parameters include the 
Coefficients of Variation (C V ) for some state abundance indices. Population projections will assume a 
catch in 2023 equal to the approved A B C of 13,458 m t .

The A O P inquired about the potential effects of missing N E F S C survey data in 2020 and the effects 
of large year classes now moving into the plus group of the population. Such factors can increase the 
likelihood of retrospective patterns. Dr.Terceiro acknowledged these concerns and noted that noisy indices 
might cause problems in future years. The model also includes a dome shaped selectivity pattern for the 
fishery. This creates a large “cryptic" biomass. Consideration of age-based natural mortality rates might 
be necessary in future benchmarks for this species.

Additional questions from the A O P inquired about the potential utility of methods to aggregate sev- 
eral indices to detect relative abundance and trend. Dr.Terceiro noted that various GLM approaches had 
been explored but previous reviewers expressed concerns about over-smoothing of abundance estimates 
outside of the assessment model. In theory, modern models are designed to address competing signals 
in the composite likelihood function, but they do not address the spatial arrangement of the indices or 
their covariance. Recent recruitment indices have been low, but attempts to estimate a parametric stock 
recruitment relationship have not been successful. The low values in recent years do not seem sufficient 
to support a change in the stanza of years used for stock and catch projections. Moreover, in view of 
Dr.Terceiro’s responsibilities for summer flounder at the June M T A , the analyses to justify such a change 
are unlikely to be completed.

No R T A are currently planned for scup but likely topics for consideration include the aforementioned 
topics of age-specific M and aggregation of young of the year indices as well as concerns about discard 
estimates in the earlier decades of the assessment. The model currently starts in 1963, but estimates of 
age structure only began in 1984. There appears to be sufficient contrast in recent survey indices such 
that the earlier years of the time series could be dropped. The tradeoff between contrast in the surveys 
and uncertainty in the discards and age composition of earlier years may justify truncation at an R T A . The A O P unanimously endorsed a Level 2 review for Scup.

; named Paragraph : Summer flounder (AOP Lead: Mike Celestino) ; 
A O P Lead: Mike Celestino)

Recommendation: Level 2 (Expedited Review)

The currently approved stock assessment model for summer flounder is a 2021 Management Track 
assessment (M T A ) with data through 2019, that builds on the 2018 S A W 66 benchmark assessment. This 
is an A S A P model with four fishery fleets, three selectivity periods, and a variety of federal, state, and 
academic fishery surveys. Results of the 2021 M T A indicated the stock is not overfished, and overfishing 
is not occurring.


New sources of information considered for the 2023 M T A include an update of fishery and survey 
catches for 2020; to ; 2022. C A M S will be queried for commercial landings and discards for these same years; 
Mark Terceiro noted that preliminary comparisons of S B R M and C A M S for 2018; to ; 2021 were within 10%, 
likely due to differences in stratification, while differences in landings were trivial. Revision of the N E F S C trawl survey indices for the Bigelow years (2009; to ; 2020) to include “by-tow” swept area calculations are 
also proposed. Model configuration changes that are proposed as part of this M T A include changes to 
survey input C V s and adjustments to input catch E S S ; each expected to have minor changes on assessment 
results, but result in improved model diagnostics. Dr.Tercerio noted that if time allows (depending on 
exactly when data are available), he will experiment with splitting the terminal fishery selectivity blocks 
from 2008; to ; 2022 to 2008; to ; 2015 and 2016; to ; 2022 to determine impacts on model performance.

Consistent with past summer flounder assessments, B R P s will be derived from projections that in- 
clude recruitment estimates that use the entire time series (1982; to ; 2022), while O F L projections will extend 
the S S C -recommended low-recruitment time series that started in 2011 (2011; to ; 2022). For 2024; to ; 2025 O F L projections, Dr.Terceiro will assume catch in 2023 as the final A B C (15,023 m t ), and follow M A F M C risk 
policy for A B C (e.g., O F L C V =60%).

Dr.Terceiro is proposing as a backup assessment plan, should one be necessary, of either recent 
trends in all normalized survey indices (e.g., the S S C data update procedure) or I smooth using the N E F S C Bigelow spring and fall indices.

The A O P further inquired about the source(s) of differences between S B R M and C A M S , to which 
Dr.Terceiro noted that the differences were not consistent in one direction and that further diagnosis of 
specific differences will require a line-by-line, stratum-by-stratum examination of discards; he noted there 
may not be sufficient time to perform that analysis. The A O P noted that highlighting differences to the 
review panel could be helpful. The A O P supported extending the low recruitment timeseries for O F L projections but inquired as to whether there was a contingency plan if one of the new recruitment estimates 
(2020; to ; 2022) was anomalously high to which Dr.Terceiro indicated that early signs suggest there is a low 
risk of this happening, but if it should, he is likely to explore an alternate projection run with the anomalous 
recruitment(s) removed. The A O P also discussed whether exploration of revisions to historical selectivity 
blocks would elevate the assessment to Level 3, but the A O P felt comfortable that should time allow for 
this exploration, given the other modest changes proposed for this assessment, there would be adequate 
review time under a Level 2 review; moreover, it appears as though past practice has been to maintain 
Level 2 assessments for this type of proposed change (e.g. scup).

The A O P supported a Level 2 assessment review for summer flounder. Justification for this rec- 
ommendation included the notion that the time available for a Level 2 review is sufficient to address all 
proposed changes.

; start of unnumbered Section titled : AOP Meeting Conclusions: ; 


The A O P met on February 23, 2023 to review the stock assessment plans for 7 stocks scheduled 
for the June 2023 Management Track cycle. The panel concluded that a Level 1 review (Direct Deliv- 
ery) was warranted for Atlantic mackerel; Level 2 reviews (Expedited Review) for bluefish, deep-sea red 
crab, longfin inshore squid, scup and summer flounder; and Level 3 review (Enhanced Review) for spiny


dogfish. The Level 2 and 3 reviews will occur during the June 2023 Management Track Peer Review 
scheduled for June 26; to ; 28, 2023. In the case of spiny dogfish, the N R C C decided to delay the review until 
the September Management Track peer review. Changes in the required review level would be triggered 
by a Northeast Fisheries Science Center request to increase the review level for a given stock. The A O P could concur to increase the review level via email or request to reconvene the A O P panel to have further 
discussions with the stock assessment lead. In the case of Atlantic mackerel, if the 2022 egg/biomass 
index is not available, the A O P agreed to raise the review level to Level 2 (Expedited Review) via corre- 
spondence. Any need to reconvene the panel would be a publicly announced meeting and any subsequent 
changes to the review level would be publicized to assessment partners and stakeholders.

Appendix A.1. ; start of Appendix Section at level 3: titled : Meeting participants ; 


Panel, February 2023:

Russ Brown ; as ; A O P Chair (N E F S C ),
Paul Rago ; as ; A O P (M A F M C ),
Mike Celestino ; as ; A O P (A S M F C ),
Cate O’Keefe ; as ; A O P (N E F M C ),
Michele Traver ; as ; N E F S C 


Online Attendees and Presenters, February 2023:

Abigail Tyrell ; from ; N E F S C ,
Alex Dunn ; from ; N E F S C ,
Andy Jones ; from ; N E F S C ,
Anthony Wood ; from ; N E F S C ,
Brandon Muffley ; from ; M A F M C ,
Charles Adams ; from ; N E F S C ,
Charles Perretti ; from ; N E F S C ,
Chelsea Tuohy ; from ; A S M F C ,
Chris Kellogg ; from ; N E F M C ,
Chris Legault ; from ; N E F S C ,
Cynthia Jones ; from ; Old Dominion University (June M T peer review chair),
David McCarron ; from ; N E F M C ,
Dvora Hart ; from ; N E F S C ,
Emily Bodell ; from ; N E F M C ,
Eric Reid ; from ; Fisheries Consultant,
Greg DiDomenico ; from ; Lund’s Fisheries,
Haley Clinton ; from ; North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries,
Hannah Hart ; from ; M A F M C ,
James Boyle ; from ; University of Miami,
Jamie Cournane ; from ; N E F M C ,
Jason Boucher ; from ; N E F S C ,
Jason Didden ; from ; M A F M C ,
Jeff Kaelin ; from ; Lund’s Fisheries,
Jon Deroba ; from ; N E F S C 



Jui-Han Chang ; from ; N E F S C ,
Julie Nieland ; from ; N E F S C ,
Karson Cisneros ; from ; M A F M C ,
Kathy Sosebee ; from ; N E F S C ,
Katie Almeida ; from ; Town Dock,
Katie Drew ; from ; A S M F C ,
Kiersten Curti ; from ; N E F S C ,
Lisa Hendrickson ; from ; N E F S C ,
Mark Terceiro ; from ; N E F S C ,
Meghan Lapp ; from ; Sea Freeze,
Melanie Griffin ; from ; Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute,
Michael Waine ; from ; American Sportfishing Association,
Paul Nitschke ; from ; N E F S C ,
Steve Cadrin ; from ; S M A S T ,
Susan Wigley ; from ; N E F S C ,
Toni Chute ; from ; N E F S C 


Appendix B. ; start of Appendix Section at level 4: titled : Management Track Stock Assessment Terms of Reference ; 



; start of Enumerated List ; 
; Item 1. ; Estimate catch from all sources including landings and discards.
; ; Item 2. ; Evaluate indices used in the assessment (e.g., indices of relative or absolute abundance, recruitment, 
state surveys, age-length data, etc.).
; ; Item 3. ; Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment and stock biomass (both total and spawning stock) as 
possible (depending on the assessment method) for the time series using the approved assessment 
method and estimate their uncertainty. Include retrospective analyses if possible (both historical 
and within-model) to allow a comparison with previous assessment results and projections, and to 
examine model fit.
; start of Enumerated List ; 
; Item a. ; Include bridge runs to sequentially document each change from the previously accepted model 
to the updated model proposed for this peer review.
; ; Item b. ; Prepare a backup assessment approach that would serve as an alternative for providing scien- 
tific advice to management if the analytical assessment were to not pass review.



; ; Item 4. ; Re-estimate or update the B R P s as defined by the management track level and recommend stock 
status. Also, provide 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.).
; ; Item 5. ; Conduct short-term stock projections when appropriate.
; ; Item 6. ; Respond to any review panel comments or S S C concerns from the most recent prior research or 
management track assessment.


Note: Major changes from the previous stock assessment require pre-approval by the Assessment Over- 
sight Panel.


Appendix C. ; start of Appendix Section at level 4: titled : June 2023 Management Track Peer Review meeting attendees. ; 


Panel, June 2023:

Cynthia Jones ; as ; Chair,
Alexei Sharov ; as ; Panel,
John Wiedenmann ; as ; Panel,
Katie Drew ; as ; Panel


NEFSC Leadership:

Russ Brown ; from ; N E F S C ,
Michele Traver ; from ; N E F S C 


Online Attendees and Presenters:

Alan Bianchi ; from ; N C D M F ,
Alex Dunn ; from ; N E F S C ,
Alex Hansell ; from ; N E F S C ,
Allison Murphy ; from ; G A R F O ,
Ben Levy ; from ; N E F S C ,
Brandon Muffley ; from ; M A F M C staff,
Brian Linton ; from ; N E F S C ,
Charles Adams ; from ; N E F S C ,
Charles Perretti ; from ; N E F S C ,
Chelsea Tuohy ; from ; A S M F C ,
Chris Kellogg ; from ; N E F M C staff,
Chris Legault ; from ; N E F S C ,
Cynthia Ferrio ; from ; G A R F O ,
Gary Nelson ; from ; M A D M F ,
Greg DiDomenico ; from ; Lund’s Fisheries,
Hannah Hart ; from ; M A F M C staff,
Jason Boucher ; from ; N E F S C ,
Jessica Blaylock ; from ; N E F S C ,
Jon Deroba ; from ; N E F S C ,
Jose Montanez ; from ; M A F M C staff,
Karson Cisneros ; from ; M A F M C staff,
Kate Wilke ; from ; Nature Conservancy (Virginia),
Kathy Sosebee ; from ; N E F S C ,
Kiersten Curti ; from ; N E F S C ,
Kiley Dancy ; from ; M A F M C staff,
Kristan Blackhart ; from ; N M F S Office of Science and Technology,
Lauran Brewster ; from ; U MASS Dartmouth,
Lisa Hendrickson ; from ; N E F S C ,
Mark Grant ; from ; G A R F O ,
Mark Terceiro ; from ; N E F S C ,
Michael Waine ; from ; American Sportfishing Association,
Mike Celestino ; from ; New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries



Paul Nitschke ; from ; N E F S C ,
Rachel Feeney ; from ; N E F M C staff,
Sefatia Romeo Theken ; from ; Deputy Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game,
Sharon Benjamin ; from ; G A R F O ,
Steve Cadrin ; from ; S M A S T ,
Susan Wigley ; from ; N E F S C ,
Toni Chute ; from ; N E F S C ,
Tony Wood ; from ; N E F S C ,
Willy Goldsmith ; from ; Pelagic Strategies L L C ,
Will Poston ; from ; American Saltwater Guides Association


Aerial view of the buildings and wharves at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Mass.
•Aerial view of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,MA; photo ©WHOI


Appendix D. ; start of Appendix Section at level 4: titled : Realized Agenda for June 2023 Management Track peer review ; 



; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; Time ; ; ; head cell ; ; Subject ; ; ; head cell ; ; Lead; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Tuesday, June 26, 2023; ; end of row ; ; 
; ; ; head cell ; ; 9:30; to ; 9:45am ; Welcome/Logistics/Conduct,
of Meeting ; Michele Traver, Russ Brown,,
Cynthia Jones, Chair ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 9:45; to ; 11:15am ; Deep Sea Red Crab,
Discussion/Questions ; Toni Chute, Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 11:15; to ; 11:30am ; — Break — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 11:30; to ; 12:00pm ; Discussion/Summary ; Panel; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 12:00; to ; 12:15pm ; Public Comment ; Public; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 12:15; to ; 1:15pm ; — Lunch — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 1:15; to ; 3:30pm ; Scup Discussion/Questions ; Mark Terceiro, Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 3:30; to ; 3:45pm ; — Break — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 3:45; to ; 4:15pm ; Discussion/Summary ; Panel; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 4:15; to ; 4:30pm ; Public Comment ; Public; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 4:30pm ; — Adjourn — ; ( blank cell )
; ; multi head cell ; ; Wednesday, June 27, 2023; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 9:30; to ; 9:35am ; Welcome/Logistics ; Michele Traver, Cynthia Jones, Chair ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 9:35; to ; 11:15am ; Longfin inshore squid,
Discussion/Questions ; Lisa Hendrickson, Panel; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 11:15; to ; 11:30am ; — Break — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 11:30; to ; 12:00pm ; Discussion/Summary ; Review Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 12:00; to ; 12:15pm ; Public Comment ; Public; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 12:15; to ; 1:15pm ; — Lunch — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 1:15; to ; 3:30pm ; Summer flounder,
Discussion/Questions ; Mark Terceiro, Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 3:30; to ; 3:45pm ; — Break — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 3:45; to ; 4:15pm ; Discussion/Summary ; Review Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 4:15; to ; 4:30pm ; Public Comment ; Public; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 4:30pm ; — Adjourn — ; ( blank cell )
; ; multi head cell ; ; Thursday, June 28, 2023; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 9:00; to ; 10:00am ; Closed session ; Panel; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 10:00; to ; 12:00am ; — No session — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 12:00; to ; 1:00pm ; — Lunch — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 1:00; to ; 2:30pm ; Bluefish, Discussion/Questions ; Tony Wood, Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2:30; to ; 2:45pm ; — Break — ; ( blank cell )
; ; head cell ; ; 2:45; to ; 3:15pm ; Discussion/Summary ; Panel; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 3:15; to ; 3:30pm ; Public Comment ; Public; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 3:30; to ; 4:30pm ; Report Writing ; Review Panel ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 4:30pm ; — Adjourn — ; ( blank cell )


; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; 
2. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Atlantic Bluefish ; 



; Report Author: ; Anthony Wood
; Report Summary: ; This assessment of the Atlantic Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) stock is a management track update 
assessment of the existing 2022 research track assessment (N E F S C 2022). Stock status for bluefish from 
the research track assessment (data through 2021) found the stock was not overfished, and overfishing was 
not occurring. The current assessment updates commercial fishery catch data, recreational fishery catch 
data, research survey indices of abundance, and the analytical state-space W H A M assessment model and 
reference points through 2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025.

State of Stock: Based on this updated assessment, the Atlantic Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) 
stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring (Figures 1; to ; 2). Retrospective bias in model results 
was considered minor and retrospective adjustments were not necessary. Spawning stock biomass (S S B ) 
in 2022 was estimated to be 52,747 (m t ) which is 60% of the biomass target (S S B[M S Y proxy] =88,131 (m t ); Figure 1). The 2022 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.152 which is 64% of the 
overfishing threshold (F[M S Y proxy] =0.239; Figure 2).

Table 3: Catch and status table for Atlantic Bluefish. All weights are in m t , recruitment is in thousands and F[Full] is the fishing mortality on fully selected ages (age-2). Model results are from the current updated W H A M assessment.


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2013 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data; ; end of row ; ; 
; ; ; head cell ; ; Recreational landings ; 15,732 ; 12,324 ; 13,725 ; 10,634 ; 15,620 ; 5,857 ; 6,800 ; 5,923 ; 5,471 ; 5,002; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Recreational discards ; 2,472 ; 2,880 ; 3,690 ; 1,838 ; 1,794 ; 1,578 ; 1,702 ; 1,253 ; 1,391 ; 1,400; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Commercial landings ; 1,977 ; 2,251 ; 1,917 ; 1,946 ; 1,876 ; 1,105 ; 1,359 ; 1,112 ; 1,090 ; 1,025; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Commercial discards ; 12 ; 18 ; 14 ; 14 ; 7 ; 8 ; 10 ; 7 ; 12 ; 9; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch for Assessment ; 20,194 ; 17,473 ; 19,345 ; 14,431 ; 19,297 ; 8,548 ; 9,871 ; 8,294 ; 7,963 ; 7,436; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Model Results; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Spawning Stock Biomass ; 67,325 ; 53,698 ; 46,283 ; 43,981 ; 41,153 ; 35,152 ; 41,702 ; 42,811 ; 44,979 ; 52,747; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; 0.34 ; 0.353 ; 0.438 ; 0.345 ; 0.495 ; 0.232 ; 0.231 ; 0.196 ; 0.19 ; 0.152; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Recruits (age-0) ; 136,314 ; 120,570 ; 101,743 ; 69,713 ; 112,997 ; 111,734 ; 68,541 ; 74,543 ; 97,120 ; 137,139; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Projections: Short-term projections were conducted in W H A M , and incorporate model uncertainty, 
auto-regressive processes and uncertainty in recruitment and numbers-at-age. Removals in 2023 were as- 
sumed to be equal to the 2023 A B C (13,890 m t ), and projections were carried forward for years 2024; to ; 2025 
at F[Rebuild] =0.183. The M A F M C council risk policy (C V =100%) was used to develop A B C values in 
each year, and the projection was re-iterated using these values as annual removals in place of F[Rebuild] . 
Projected A B C catch in 2024 and 2025 based on this approach is 7,929 m t and 9,903 m t , respectively.


The projection uses 5-year averages for natural mortality, maturity, fishery selectivity and weights- 
at-age. The 5-year average was selected for those parameters to capture the most recent conditions while 
still smoothing some interannual variability. Projections were not retrospectively adjusted, as the adjusted 
terminal year estimates of F and S S B fell within the 90% confidence intervals of the unadjusted values.



Table 4: Comparison of reference points estimated in the 2022 research track assessment and from the current 
assessment update. An F[35 percent] proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and was based on S P R calculations. 
The S S B[M S Y proxy] is calculated using the value of F[35% S P R ] and mean recruitment.


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2022 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; F[M S Y proxy] 
; 0.249 ; 0.239 (0.199; to ; 0.287); ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B[M S Y] (m t ) ; 91,987 ; 88,131 (65,576; to ; 118,445); ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; M S Y (m t ) ; 19,618 ; 18,979 (14,025; to ; 25,684); ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Median recruits (age-0) (thousands ) ; 103,133 ; 108,035; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ; No ; No; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ; No ; No; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Table 5: Short term projections of total fishery catch and spawning stock biomass for Atlantic Bluefish based 
on a harvest scenario assuming annual A B C values calculated from F[Rebuild] (0.183) and the M A F M C risk policy 
between 2024 and 2025. Catch in 2023 was assumed to be the previously established A B C value of 13,890 
(m t ).


; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; Year ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; 2023 
; 13,890 ; 59,135 (39,120; to ; 89,391) ; 0.239; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Year ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; 2024 
; 7929 ; 66,706 (41,439; to ; 107,379) ; 0.121; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2025 ; 9903 ; 75,757 (43,303; to ; 132,534) ; 0.137; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Special Comments: 
; start of Itemized List ; 
; Item ; What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe 
qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass, F , recruitment, 
and population projections).
Some of the important sources of uncertainty relate to assessment data inputs and the 
availability of information that would help better understand the dynamics of bluefish. Research 
recommendations from the recent research track assessment fully detail these uncertainties and 
data needs. A list of some of the research ideas designed to improve the bluefish stock assessment 
and reduce some of the uncertainties include:
; start of Enumerated List ; 
; Item 1. ; Expanding the collection of recreational release length frequency data. The bluefish 
assessment stratifies recreational release lengths by region, and data in the southern region is 
lacking. These southern fish tend to be smaller and improved information pertaining to the 
size distribution of the southern fish would help refine the estimate of recreational discard 
weight.










; ; Item 2. ; Addressing the uncertainty around temporal availability of bluefish to the fisheries and 
surveys. The research track assessment made significant advancements in developing an 
index of bluefish availability based on forage fish in the diets of bluefish like predators. This 
forage fish index was incorporated into a companion assessment model as a covariate on M R I P C P U E catchability. Further developing this index will help improve the assessment 
model fit to the M R I P C P U E information, which is an important index that helps scale 
biomass estimates from the model.
; ; Item 3. ; Develop fishery dependent or independent sampling programs to provide information on 
larger, older bluefish. The dynamics of this size class are not well sampled or understood.
; ; Item 4. ; Develop an updated recreational release mortality study to derive a more informed estimate 
of recreational discard mortality. Recreational discards are a significant proportion of the 
total catch so reducing the uncertainty around the release mortality is important.





; ; Item ; Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A 
major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted S S B or F[Full] lies outside of the approximate 
joint confidence region for S S B and F[Full] ). The 7-year Mohn’s rho , relative to S S B , was 0.14 in the 2022 assessment and was 0.22 in this 
assessment. The 7-year Mohn’s rho , relative to F , was 0.10 in the 2022 assessment and was 0.14 in 
this assessment. This is considered a minor retrospective pattern for both S S B and F because the rho -adjusted estimates of 2022 S S B (S S B [rho] =43,235) and 2022 F (F[rho] =0.177) were within the 
approximate 90% confidence regions around S S B (36,194; to ; 76,871) and F (0.105; to ; 0.219).


; ; Item ; Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this 
stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Population projections for Atlantic Bluefish are reasonably well determined. Shifting to W H A M for model projections has allowed for the incorporation of model uncertainty, auto-regressive 
processes, and the uncertainty in recruitment and numbers-at-age. The retrospective pattern in F and S S B is considered minor (within the 90% C I of both F and S S B ), however, the rho values of F and S S B have increased when compared to the previous research track assessment.

The Atlantic Bluefish stock is in a rebuilding plan with a rebuild date of 2028. F[Rebuild] was 
re-calculated using a projection that assumes a constant F strategy, such that biomass in 2028 has 
a 50% chance of exceeding the S S B[M S Y proxy] ; F[Rebuild] was calculated to be 0.183. The M A F M C risk policy was applied using this F[Rebuild] strategy in short term projections to generate A B C values that are consistent with the rebuilding schedule for the next two years.


; ; Item ; Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating 
additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status. A change to the way the age-length keys (A L K ) were developed from the research track, which 
used full multi nomial age-length keys, was implemented for this Atlantic Bluefish assessment 
update. Instead of using full multi nomial age-length keys, a hybrid approach was used, and the 
holes in the A L K were filled with the multi nomial model fits. This approach to filling A L K holes is







now consistent with the methodology used for other N E F S C stock assessments and with the N E F S C Stock Eff program. This new method resulted in minor changes to the results of S S B and F compared to the 2022 research track assessment results.


; ; Item ; If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
Stock status of Atlantic Bluefish has not changed from the status determined in the research 
track assessment.


; ; Item ; Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The Atlantic Bluefish stock has experienced a slight increase in S S B over the past 5 years, 
coinciding with a decrease in F . Recruitment has increased each year since 2019, and the terminal 
year recruitment (137 million fish) is the highest value since 2005. Both commercial and 
recreational fisheries have had low catches since 2018, all well below the time series average of 26,386 m t . With the low catches since 2018, fishing mortality has decreased and remained well 
below F[M S Y proxy] (0.239). The low catches in recent years are partially a result of bag limit 
implementation as part of the rebuilding plan. However, these lower catches could also be due to 
decreased bluefish availability. Anecdotal evidence suggests larger bluefish stayed offshore and 
inaccessible to most of the recreational fishery in recent years.


; ; Item ; Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this 
stock assessment in the future.
The recent bluefish research track identified several new research recommendations that would 
improve our understanding of bluefish dynamics and help better assess the population through the 
current or future models. These recommendations include: expand collection of recreational 
release length frequency data, continue development and refinement of the forage fish / availability 
index as well as incorporation of this index into a base model for bluefish management advice, 
initiate additional fisheries-independent surveys or fishery-dependent sampling programs to 
provide information on larger, older bluefish, continue coastwide collection of length and age 
samples from fishery-independent and -dependent sources, refinement and development of indices 
of abundance, and develop a recreational demand model.


; ; Item ; Are there other important issues?W H A M allows for incorporation of environmental covariates on the catchability of survey 
indices, and a companion model was developed for the research track that leveraged this 
capability. The companion model investigated a forage fish index as a covariate on catchability of 
the M R I P C P U E and showed promise for continued development. The covariate led to an overall 
decreasing trend in catchability over time. This model will be further developed leading up to the 
2025 management track assessment, at which time it could be considered for the primary model.







2.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Atlantic Bluefish ; 


A Research Track Assessment (R T A ) was recently completed for Atlantic bluefish (Pomatomus salta- trix) in 2022. Bluefish had previously been assessed using N O A A ToolBox Age-Structured Assessment 
Program (A S A P ). The R T A accepted the W H A M model, a state-space model, for use in bluefish assess- 
ments. The 2023 update used W H A M and included one year of data (2022). Commercial and recreational 
landings have declined through the time series. Recreational landings of 5,002 m t are below the series av- 
erage of 19,625 m t and are a series low. Total catch in 2022 was 7,436 m t , a series low. Eighty-six percent 
of the catch are from the recreational fishery.

The model also included new indices: an M R I P C P U E index based on a guild approach which 
considered a bluefish trip either when bluefish or a species associated with bluefish was caught, S E A M A P age-1, and the calibrated CHES M A P Trawl Survey. Other new input data include recreational discards by 
season and region, the use of multi nomial age-length keys to fill in missing values and 2 selectivity blocks 
for Commercial landings and 3 for Recreational. An improvement to the analysis is the use of lengths 
and weights of southern bluefish to estimate discard weights. There was concern that using lengths and 
weights from only northern fish would overestimate discards but also because the model fits both landings 
and discards. These modifications resulted in significant changes in natural mortality (M is now age- 
specific) and reduced the target S S B by 50%. The model retrospective S S B and F fell within the 95% 
confidence bands and were not adjusted.

The Management Track Assessment (M T A ) in 2021 which used the A S A P model and determined 
that bluefish was overfished and overfishing was not occurring. The 2023 data update estimated a total 
bluefish population of 217 million, a moderate increase. Recruitment is estimated at 137 million, above 
the average and highest since 2005. The 2022 S S B is estimated to be 52,747 m t , above the S S B[Threshold] of 44,066 m t and below the 2022 S S B[Target] of 88,131 m t . The F[35 percent] % reference point was 0.239. In the 
2021 A S A P assessment the S S B[Target] was greater than twice the S S B[Target] in the R T 2022 W H A M model 
with the resulting S S B[Threshold] in 2022 half that from the previous assessment. Those results in 2021 were 
twice the values from the previous assessment (S A W 60 ) (N E F S C 2021) and believed to be the result of 
the M R I P calibration that scaled up recreational catch. The change in reference points presented in the M T A 2023 are believed to be the result of the use of W H A M that has less reliance on M R I P , uses a guild C P U E and inclusion of different indices used. The modeling also used a decreased discard mortality rate 
(15%; to ; 9.4%), discard lengths by season and region, and Lorenzen W A A to produce age-specific natural 
mortality. The M T A 2023 update resulted in evaluation that Atlantic bluefish was not overfished and 
overfishing was not occurring. The recent fishing mortalities were among the lowest in the series, as was 
the catch in both the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Short-term projections were done in W H A M using Removals were assumed to be 13,890 m t , the 2023 A B C and were projected with the F[Rebuild] (0.183) under the M A F M C 100% risk policy. The projected S S B increased from 59,135 m t in 2023 to 75,757 m t in 2025.

The Panel concluded that the T O R s had been met. The Panel discussed the value of the W H A M model 
to further explore environmental variables that might be driving availability of bluefish. Of particular 
interest is the episodic spatial distribution of large bluefish. Their presence inshore and availability to 
the fishery is inconsistent with attributed numbers and the drivers of this availability uncertain. Another 
concern of the Panel was the estimate of higher recruitment given that it is among the highest in recent


years. It falls within the confidence intervals but the model evidenced a tendency to overestimate R .

The Panel had some research recommendations: Obtaining better data on recreational discard 
lengths would be valuable. This endeavor relies on volunteer angler reporting such as was done pre- 
viously in South Carolina. N M F S should consider developing an app that can be used by anglers to report 
discard lengths. Because self-reporting can introduce bias, the statistical issues should also be explored. 
The Panel also commented that the M was high on young fish and evaluating the underlying causes might 
be a valuable project for funding.

The Panel concluded that the 2022 assessment update for Atlantic bluefish fulfilled the recommenda- 
tions of the A O P , is technically sufficient to provide scientific advice and meets the Terms of Reference for 
the stock’s assessment.

Pomatomus saltatrix, commonly known as Bluefish, Tailor, Snapper, Baby blues, Choppers, Elfs. 
•Pomatomus saltatrix, Bluefish.

; start of References ; 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2022. 2022 Bluefish Research Track Assessment N O A A Fisheries, 
Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. XXX; 116p.
; link to ; https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/saw/sasi.php
; end of link ; 
Spawning stock biomass trends over time for Atlantic bluefish. 
Figure 1: Trends in spawning stock biomass of Atlantic Bluefish between 1985 and 2022 from the current (solid 
line) and previous (dashed line) research track assessment and the corresponding S S B[Threshold] ( half S S B[M S Y proxy] ; 
horizontal dashed line) as well as S S B[Target] (S S B[M S Y proxy] ; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2023 assessment. 
The approximate 90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
Fully selected fishing mortality trends over time for Atlantic bluefish. 
Figure 2: Trends in the fully selected fishing mortality (F[Full] ) of Atlantic Bluefish between 1985 and 2022 from 
the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) research track assessment and the corresponding F[Threshold] (F[M S Y proxy] =0.239; horizontal dashed line). The approximate 90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
Estimated trends in recruitment of Atlantic bluefish. 
Figure 3: Trends in Recruits (age-0) (thousands ) of Atlantic Bluefish between 1985 and 2022 from the current 
(solid line) and previous (dashed line) research track assessment. The approximate 90% log-normal confidence 
intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
Total catch of Atlantic bluefish. 
Figure 4: Total catch of Atlantic Bluefish between 1985 and 2022 by fleet (Recreational and Commercial) and 
disposition (landings and discards).


; end of float block ; 
Abundance indices for Atlantic bluefish. 
Figure 5: Atlantic Bluefish indices of abundance for the most important regional and state surveys. The 
approximate 90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
3. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Deep sea red crab ; 



; Report Author: ; Toni Chute
; Report Summary: ; A data update for deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) occurs every four years during the 
specifications-setting process. The last data update occurred in 2019 when the specifications for fishing 
years 2020; to ; 2023 were set. The data updates do not result in a determination of the stock status as there 
are no biological reference points for red crab. Commercial fleet landings, incidental landings, estimated 
fleet L P U E , and port sampled length frequencies are compiled for this update. Data from observed red 
crab trips are also updated.

; The State of Stock is not yet relevent for this fish stock. ; 

Table 6: Catch table for deep-sea red crab. All weights are in m t .


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2010 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2011 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2012 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2013 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data: landings; ; end of row ; ; 
; ; ; head cell ; ; Commercial fleet ; 1,412 ; 1,625 ; 1,180 ; 928 ; 985 ; 1,613 ; 1,387 ; 1,366 ; 1,631 ; 1,670 ; 1,952 ; 1,559 ; 2,067; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Incidental ; 2 ; 1 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 1 ; 0 ; 2 ; 1 ; 4 ; 3 ; 5; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Table 7: Estimated reference points for deep sea red crab


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2019 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing 
; Unknown ; Unknown; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ; Unknown ; Unknown; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; ; The Stock Projection is not yet relevent for this fish stock. ; 

Special Comments: 
; Response ; 
; point ; What are the most important sources of uncertainty in red crab data? Estimates of L P U E are made in two ways: per trap hauled, and per day fished. The two 
estimates generally track each other well. In the case of per day fished, steam time is not 
considered which increases uncertainty. In the case of traps hauled, the number of traps per string 
noted in the V T R trip entry is not always the number of traps emptied per haul due to a number of 
causes normal for fishing, which increases uncertainty.

Especially in a potentially food-limited environment, there also may be uncertainty in calculating L P U E in a baited trap fishery. If the pot is left to soak long enough, it can attract enough crabs to 
fill the pot and appear as if the population has not changed in density over time. The crabs must 
travel longer distances to reach the bait.

There is very little uncertainly in landings due to the specialized fleet and processing needs.







; ; point ; Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? n a 


; ; point ; Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this 
stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule? n a 


; ; point ; Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating 
additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status. n a 


; ; point ; If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred. n a 


; ; point ; Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status. n a 


; ; point ; Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this 
stock assessment in the future. After implementation of the F M P in 2002, the red crab fishery was restricted to five full-access 
permits. The vessels fish cooperatively and over a wide area. The footprint of the fishery stretches 
from the Hague line to Virginia. The fishery is, by regulation, male-only. Landings include some 
females landed under an E F P during the years 2010 and 2011 but this did not continue. Red crabs 
are known to segregate loosely by sex and perhaps even size, with the smallest individuals being 
found further down the continental slope in deeper water. This is one aspect of the fishery that 
makes discarding highly variable, as the fishing vessels find areas where there is a high 
concentration of large males but there are always a certain number of females and undersized 
males which are discarded depending on where the pots are set.

Red crab is considered a data-poor species. They live outside the range of N E F S C surveys (they 
are sometimes caught in the northern shrimp survey and non-random deep stations in the bottom 
trawl survey, but in very small numbers) so there is no fishery-independent index of abundance.

Almost nothing is known about deep-sea red crab growth and longevity, and methods of crustacean 
ageing are still in development and highly uncertain. There have been some studies on mating 
behavior of captive red crabs, but they do not live long in captivity so controlled growth studies 
have not been possible. A tagging study for growth was attempted in 2010 with poor results. Very 
few tagged crabs were ever recovered, for reasons unknown.

There have been two surveys of the deep-sea red crab resource in the past; one in 1974 (Wigley, 
Theroux and Murray, 1975) and another during the summers of 2003; to ; 2005 (Wahle et al. 2008). 
The first survey was undertaken soon after the fishery began and the second shortly after the 
deep-sea red crab F M P was implemented in 2002. The methods used by the two surveys were the 
same, and the 2003; to ; 2005 survey attempted to replicate the survey gear used in 1974 as closely as 
possible. At some stations a benthic sled equipped with a camera and strobe light was towed along 
the bottom for 30; to ; 75 minutes, taking a picture every 10 seconds. The area of bottom illuminated in 
the images was estimated, and counting the red crabs visible in each image, then extrapolating that







number out to the area of the survey resulted in an estimate of swept-area abundance. At other 
stations, a trawl net was deployed to determine red crab sex ratios, weights and length frequencies 
by sex. Mean weights were used to estimate swept-area biomass.

After the second survey, it was possible to see the effect the fishery had on red crab population 
structure. As would be expected, the number of large male crabs was reduced. However, the 
number of smaller males and females appeared to have increased. After the results of the second 
survey were presented at the Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group in 2008 (citation below), 
the potential for sperm limitation in the red crab population caused concern. It was noted in the 
mating studies and seen in the benthic sled images that male red crabs needed to be about 50% 
larger than the females to be able to mate, since the male carries the female underneath his body 
during the process. If the larger males were being removed from the population, there was concern 
that the largest females with the highest repoductive potential would not be able to find mates and 
recruitment would diminish.

There have been efforts to estimate M S Y for red crab, most recently also at the Northeast Data 
Poor Working Group meeting. The group tried several models and methods at the time, and 
reviewed estimates that had taken place in the past. Specifically the models were the 
depletion-corrected average catch (D C A C ) model and the two-point boundary model. The D C A C model works from the idea that for a new fishery, in calculating average catch for an estimate of 
sustainable yield, the windfall at the start of a fishery will represent a certain number of units of 
sustainable yield and increase beyond the actual number of years of fishing, with that increase 
being based on an estimate of natural mortality. The two-point boundary model estimates the 
average recruitment needed to sustain the catch time series based on mature biomass at two points 
in time defined as the initial and final survey values, then estimates equilibrium catch based on 
recruitment, final biomass and survival. At the end of the day there was not one widely accepted 
value due to many factors, and the group determined there was substantial uncertainty in any 
potential B R P estimates that came out of the workshop based on current information about the 
stock. Survey-based B R P s were also relying on assumptions that the population was stationary and 
the fishing area did not extend beyond the surveyed area.

In terms of other effects of the fishery on the population, the percent mortality for discarded crabs 
is unknown. Crabs apparently survive being brought to the surface and returned to the bottom still 
contained in a special crab hotel at a high percentage, but method of discard (dropping vs. sliding) 
can increase mortality (Tallack 2007). Little is known about the survival of crabs discarded from a 
vessel that must descend down through hundreds of meters of water without protection after 
handling.

Since the F M P was put in place, the information originally available to assess the sustainability of 
the fishery has been total landings and port sampled carapace widths from which estimates of L P U E could be made and the size of landed crabs could be monitored. Estimates of L P U E used as 
a proxy for abundance can be uncertain in a pot fishery (see above). There are also economic 
and/or market factors that may affect culling patterns, fishing effort, location and catch for red 
crab. The fishery is market-driven and annual variations in landings reflect this.

In recent years (2016+) observer coverage of the red crab fishery has increased substantially and 
the data observed trips provide have allowed us to look at other aspects of red crab biology and the







fishery. Since we never had information about undersized males that were discarded at sea, their 
numbers and length frequencies recorded by observers give us some information about 
recruitment. Since we never had information about females as they were all discarded at sea, their 
length frequencies and reproductive status (egg) data recorded by observers give us some 
information about the potential for sperm limitation. Most of the egg observations have been 
presence/absence but there have been some observers who stage the eggs, which determines if they 
are viable; important to note on the larger females especially where sperm limitation is a concern. 
The measurements of females, which have not had the same level of fishery removals as the males, 
have provided evidence that the crabs caught at the southern end of the fishery footprint reach 
greater maximum sizes than those caught in the more northern regions. Anecdotally, the red crabs 
found in the Gulf of Maine are the smallest, so there is likely a latitudinal size gradient.

Based on this information and previous recommendations, questions for research are listed below. 
They include the recommendations from the 2008 Northeast Data-poor Stocks Working Group 
report, past assessments, Tallack (2007) and Wahle et al. (2008).
; Response ; 
; point ; What is the lifespan of a red crab?
; ; point ; How often do red crabs molt, and what is the percent increase in body size after a molt? Do 
red crabs, especially females, have a terminal molt? Molt frequency of females would be 
especially important too, as they mate during the molt period.
; ; point ; Do red crabs store sperm and if so for how long? Although some crabs are known to store 
sperm from a single mating to produce several clutches of eggs, it is unclear whether red 
crabs have this ability.
; ; point ; What percent of females with eggs are carrying viable eggs? Unmated females may produce 
clutches of unfertilized eggs.
; ; point ; How long do red crabs incubate their eggs? This would be useful to know in conjunction with 
molt frequency and sperm storage capability as it could relate to how many clutches of eggs a 
female could have in an intermolt period.
; ; point ; How many eggs are carried in a clutch and how does this vary by the size of the crab? Are 
there patterns that might indicate sperm storage?
; ; point ; Can we gather additional information on the relative sizes of mating pairs and any possible 
effects on reproductive potential? Could simulation modeling be used to explore the response 
of population sex ratios and size ratios to different fishing patterns? Is there a way to evaluate 
the importance of large male red crabs in reproduction considering the size distribution of 
females?
; ; point ; How can we design a successful tagging study to explore red crab growth rates, fishing 
mortality rates and molt frequencies in situ?
; ; point ; Are there any new, innovative ageing methods that might work for red crab?
; ; point ; What is the main food source for red crabs? Are they cannibalistic?
; ; point ; How much and when do red crabs move about their range? Is there a seasonal migration of 
one or both sexes?










; ; point ; Can we improve estimates of total discard mortality by considering seasonality, predation and 
displacement?
; ; point ; Could gear design studies help reduce discard and increase efficiency in the red crab fishery?
; ; point ; Could soak time studies help reduce uncertainty in L P U E as an estimate of abundance?
; ; point ; Traditional reference points for the deep-sea red crab stock are difficult to estimate due to 
lack of basic information. Are there non-traditional reference points that could be used to 
determine stock status? Could B R P s based on size and sex ratios be useful due to the 
importance of preventing sperm limitation? It would require regular surveying.
; ; point ; How do economic factors alter the distribution and interpretation of fishing effort for the red 
crab fishery?
; ; point ; Can we collect biological data from a large number of red crabs over a wide area, crabs that 
have not been selected by a commercial trap (say, with a trawl) and are therefore more 
representative of the population at large? What questions could that help us answer: 
percentage of females with eggs, sperm storage, percentage in different shell conditions and 
states of molting, degree of segregation of the population by sex and size?
; ; point ; Would regular surveys of the red crab population provide useful information on the 
continuing effects of the fishery and the current population structure? What methods could be 
used? Can we get a better understanding of the habitat; to ; abundance relationship for 
allocation of effort for any potential survey?





; ; point ; Are there other important issues? None.






Chaceon quinquedens, also known Deep-Sea Red Crab.
•Chaceon quinquedens, Atlantic Deep Sea Red Crab.


3.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Deep sea red crab ; 


Deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) is a data-poor species with little known of its growth or 
longevity. They are found in areas outside the N E F S C surveys and so there is no fishery-independent 
estimate of abundance. A tagging study was attempted in 2010 but tag returns were very low and insuffi- 
cient to derive any information about the species. The fishery is small with only 5 license holders and by 
regulation is a male-only fishery. Data input included the calculation of L P U E based on 3 methods: 1) per 
trap, 2) per day, and 3) per day with constant steam time.

Management advice for deep-sea red crab is based on D C A C , the depletion-corrected average catch 
model used for data poor stocks, and historical landings.The best estimate of M S Y was based on 2 surveys 
conducted in 1974 and 2003; to ; 2005. The second survey showed a depletion of large males, potentially 
impacting mating success. The 2023 Management Tract Assessment (M T A ) updates the last 2019 data 
update. This 2023 data update includes all information through 2022 including: landings, L P U E , carapace 
length of landed males, and observer data of length of kept and discard crabs and egg status of females.

An M S Y estimated from the D C A C ranged from 1785; to ; 1862 m t and the 2-point boundary model 
estimated 1987; to ; 2044 m t . The range of 1700; to ; 1900 is now being used as the best estimate of M S Y . Natural 
mortality used for M S Y estimates are between 0.05; to ; 0.15.

ThePeerReviewPanel(Panel)discussedtheimportanceofevaluatingthetimeseriesofsize-frequencies 
quantitatively to see patterns for landed males but also to evaluate discard lengths of smaller males and fe- 
males for any patterns. We are aware that high grading may add some bias to results. They also discussed 
the availability of other modeling approaches to improve data input, such as the use of G L M s. The Panel 
also felt that the observer data was a valuable source of information for estimating female reproductive 
productivity.

Research suggestion: The assessment report included a number of research recommendations, all 
of which the Panel agreed would be useful information to obtain. However, the Panel prioritized the 
collection of growth and natural mortality information, the refinement of the L P U E index, and simulation 
modeling to develop reference points appropriate for this species’ life history as the most important areas 
of research to move the assessment to a more analytical approach. The Panel emphasized the importance 
of obtaining basic information of growth and, if possible, age. The Panel suggests that use of a G L M might be a better way to develop the L P U E indices that improve information on stock status. The Panel 
suggests that one way to improve the consistency of V T R reporting going forward would be to contact the 
license holders to address how they fill out these reports because there are only 5 of them. This would also 
help improve the L P U E calculations. Additionally, the Panel suggested the potential value of a boundary 
model simulation, a quasi-Bayes approach, and the fisheries behavior of similar species. Finally, the Panel 
emphasizes the importance of undertaking recommendations made since 2008 because deep-sea red crab 
is a valuable food resource.

The Panel concluded that the 2023 assessment update for deep-sea red crab fulfilled the recommen- 
dations of the A O P , is the Best Scientific Information Available evaluate stock status and meets the Terms 
of Reference for the stock’s assessment (T O R s 3; to ; 5 were not evaluated because this is a data poor stock).


Measuring a deep-sea red crab.
•Measuring the size of a deep-sea red crab.

; start of References ; 

Wigley, Roland L., Roger B. Theroux and Harriett E. Murray, 1975. Deep-sea red crab, Geryon 
quinquedens, survey off northeastern United States. Marine Fisheries Review 37:8, 1; to ; 21. 1975
; link to ; MFRev:3781
; end of link ; Wahle, RichardA., Charlene E.Bergeron, Antonie S.Chute, Larry D.Jacobson, and Yong Chen, 2008. 
The Northwest Atlantic deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) before and after the onset of 
harvesting. I C E S J Mar Sci. 65: 862; to ; 872.
; link to ; JMS:fsn058
; end of link ; Tallack S.M.L, 2007. Escape ring selectivity, bycatch and discard survivability in the New England 
fishery for deep-water red crab, (Chaceon quinquedens). I C E S J Mar Sci. 64: 1579; to ; 1586.
; link to ; JMS:fsm107
; end of link ; The Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group Report, December 8; to ; 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; 496p.
; link to ; CRD09-02
; end of link ; 
Total catch of Deep-sea red crab. 
Figure 6: Total annual (calendar year) landings of deep-sea red crab since the F M P was implemented and the 
fleet was limited to five permits. Incidental landings are so small they are not visible in this plot.


; end of float block ; 
Abundance surveys for Deep-sea red crab. 
Figure 7: Estimated mean annual L P U E for the deep-sea red crab fleet in units of landings (pounds .) per trap 
hauled. Trips with less than 1000 pounds of catch were excluded, and one vessel that fished shorter trips from 
2016 to 2020 was excluded.


; end of float block ; 
4. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Longfin inshore squid ; 



; Report Author: ; Lisa Hendrickson
; Report Summary: ; This Level 2 Management Track Assessment of longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) 
is an update of the 2020 Level 3 peer-reviewed Management Track Assessment. The methodologies used 
to conduct the 2010 benchmark assessment during S A R C 51 (N E F S C , 2011a; N E F S C , 2011b) were used 
in this assessment as well as the 2017 and 2020 assessment updates. Based on the 2020 assessment results 
the stock was not overfished and overfishing was unknown during 2019 (N E F S C , 2020). 
This assessment provides updates of commercial fishery catches (Table 8, Figure 10), q -adjusted, swept- 
area biomass estimates, and exploitation indices (catch/biomass) through 2022 (Figure 11). Cohort- 
specific biomass was estimated separately for the N E F S C spring surveys versus N E F S C fall + N E A M A P fall surveys. Annualized biomass estimates, recommended by the S A R C 51 Working Group as annually av- 
eraged spring and fall survey biomass estimates, were also updated. Cohort-specific exploitation indices 
(Jan.; to ; June catch/spring survey biomass versus July; to ; December catch/fall survey biomass) and annual- 
ized exploitation indices (annual catch/annually averaged spring and fall survey biomass) were updated 
as well.

State of Stock: Based on this updated assessment, the annualized stock status for longfin inshore 
squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) is not overfished and overfishing is unknown. The annualized 
catchability-adjusted, swept-area biomass in 2022 (defined as the two-year moving average of the 2022 
and 2021 annually averaged N E F S C spring and fall survey biomasses) was estimated to be 121,836 m t (80%C I =106,748; to ; 136,923) (Figure 8), which was more than five times greater than the threshold B[M S Y proxy] of 21,203 m t . Overfishing status could not be determined because there are no approved fish- 
ing mortality Reference Points for the stock. The 2022 annualized exploitation index (2022 catch divided 
by 121,836 m t ) was estimated to be 0.155 (Figure 9), which was 20.1% less than the 1987; to ; 2021 median 
of 0.195. However, as recommended by the 2020 assessment review panel, cohort-specific biomass and 
biomass Reference Points should be used to determine stock status. The recommended stock status for 
the cohorts caught in both the spring and fall N E F S C surveys is not overfished and overfishing is un- 
known. The catchability-adjusted, swept-area biomass in 2022 was estimated to be 46,336 m t (80% C I =42,545; to ; 50,128) (Figure 10) for the spring survey cohort and 197,335m t (80%C I =167,403; to ; 227,268) 
(Figure 10) for the fall survey cohort, both of which were well above the threshold B[M S Y proxy] of 11,152 m t for the spring survey cohort and 56,268 m t for the fall survey cohort.

Projections: Near-term stock size projections were not possible due to the lack of an analytical 
assessment model that accounts for the species unique life history.

Special Comments: 
; Response ; 
; point ; What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe 
qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass, F , recruitment,





Table 8: Catch and biomass assessment results for longfin inshore squid. All weights are in m t . D W F landings 
are the landings from the Distant Water Fleets. Total biomass estimates in this table were not used for stock 
status determination because they are the two-year moving averages of the annualized q -adjusted, swept-area 
biomass estimates for the N E F S C spring and fall bottom trawl surveys (i.e., averages of the two surveys). 
Exploitation indices represent the catch in year y divided by the two-year moving average of the annualized 
biomass estimate in year y.


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2012 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2013 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data; ; end of row ; ; 
; ; ; head cell ; ; United States Landings ; 12,820 ; 11,090 ; 12,070 ; 11,953 ; 18,182 ; 8,188 ; 11,632 ; 12,458 ; 9,449 ; 10,759 ; 18,489; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; D W F Landings ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; United States Discards ; 368 ; 246 ; 208 ; 97 ; 498 ; 131 ; 134 ; 315 ; 586 ; 580 ; 447; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch for Assessment ; 13,187 ; 11,336 ; 12,278 ; 12,050 ; 18,680 ; 8,319 ; 11,766 ; 12,773 ; 10,035 ; 11,339 ; 18,936; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Model Results; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Total Biomass ; 93,975 ; 109,573 ; n a ; n a ; 73,762 ; n a ; n a ; 63,349 ; n a ; n a ; 121,836; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Exploitation Index ; 0.14 ; 0.103 ; ( blank cell )
( blank cell )
0.253 ; ( blank cell )
( blank cell )
0.195 ; ( blank cell )
( blank cell )
0.155; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Table 9: Comparison of Reference Points estimated in the 2020 and current assessment updates.


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2020 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; F[M S Y proxy] 
; n a ; n a ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; B[M S Y proxy] ; 42,405 ; 42,405; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; M S Y (m t ) ; n a ; n a ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ; Unknown ; Unknown; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ; No ; No; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; and population projections). For the estimation of biomass using N E F S C bottom trawl survey data, the most important 
source of uncertainty is the apparent productivity differences between the two intra-annual cohorts. 
The biomass of the cohort caught during the fall surveys is about five-fold higher than the biomass 
of the cohort caught in the spring surveys (N E F S C , 2011a; 2011b). However, the mean 
exploitation rate for the Jan.; to ; June fishery was more than three times higher on the apparently less 
productive spring survey cohort. Using annualized biomass and exploitation rates to determine 
stock status does not account for these differences, and therefore, may impact resource 
sustainability. The review panel for the 2020 Level 3 assessment of this stock agreed and concluded 
that Annual averaging of the spring and fall survey biomasses assumes that a single population is 
being exploited and does not account for the large difference in apparent productivity of the two 
intra-annual cohorts. Cohort-specific stock size estimates and Reference Points are required to 
determine the stock status of cephalopod species with subannual lifespans because maturation and 
growth rates of intra-annual cohorts exhibit a high degree of seasonal and interannual variability 
(Arkhipkin et al. 2020). Because the generation time for longfin squid is only 6; to ; 8 months, 
overfishing of a single cohort potentially could jeopardize stock sustainability due to recruitment 
overfishing.







During the 2020 assessment, cohort-specific biomass Reference Points were derived separately for 
squid caught in the N E F S C spring versus fall bottom trawl surveys because annualized biomass 
estimates and Reference Points (i.e., averages of the spring and fall survey biomasses) do not 
account for the apparent productivity differences that exist between the two intra-annual cohorts 
caught during these surveys.


; ; point ; Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A 
major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted S S B or F[Full] lies outside of the approximate 
joint confidence region for S S B and F[Full] ). These questions are not applicable to the subject assessment because an analytical model was 
not utilized.


; ; point ; Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this 
stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Projections were not possible, because there is no anaytical model from which to do so. The 
stock is not currently subject to a rebuilding plan but has been in the past.


; ; point ; Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating 
additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status. The 2009; to ; 2020 N E F S C spring and fall survey biomass indices now include actual rather than 
nominal tow distances, at the request of the N T A P . This resulted in minor changes to the indices 
that did not affect stock statuses for either cohort. For example, the difference between the 
two-year moving average biomass estimates for 2019 during this assessment versus the 2020 
assessment represented a 3.5% increase of 2,290 m t which is inconsequential in relation to the 
magnitude of the 2019 biomass estimate in relation to the threshold B[M S Y proxy] .

The other assessment methodology change involved the discard estimates for 2020; to ; 2022. Since the 
2007 implementation of trimester-based quotas, discards have represented a minor portion of the 
catch; an average of 1.6% during 2007; to ; 2019. Nevertheless, the 2020; to ; 2022 discards were 
estimated using a new method with data from a new database, both of which differ from those used 
to estimate the 1989; to ; 2019 discards for the 2020 assessment. The new database, the C A M S database, was created and is maintained by G A R F O . Some of the major differences between the 
two discard estimation methods and comparisons between the discard estimates for each method, 
during 2019; to ; 2021, are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 of the 2023 longfin squid tables file at S A S Inf (see
; link to ; 2023_DORY_UNIT_TAB.pdf
; end of link ; ). The 2019 landings were compared between the two 
discard estimation methods, as were the 2019; to ; 2021 discards, but only the C A M S discard estimates 
were available for 2022. The 2019 C A M S landings (12,489 m t ) were only 31 m t (0.25%) higher 
than the 2019 landings from the Area Allocation database formerly used in the discard estimation 
method as the denominator (kept weight of all species). The higher 2019 C A M S discard estimate 
(357 m t , C V =0.18) was more precise than the discard estimate based on the former discard 
estimation method (315 m t , C V =0.32. However, only the C A M S discard estimates for 2020; to ; 2022 
were used in this assessment, because 2019 was the terminal year of the previous assessment and 
the 2019 discard estimate was accepted for use in the stock status determination. When the 
2019; to ; 2021 C A M S discard estimates were compared with those from the former discard estimation







method, most of the C A M S estimates were slightly higher, but most fell within the 90% confidence 
interval of the discards estimated using the former method.


; ; point ; If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred. Overfishing status is unknown for this stock because an analytical model could not be 
developed by the most recent benchmark assesment Working Group given the available data. There 
has been no change in the overfished status of longfin inshore squid since the 2020 operational 
assessment, for either of the two cohorts or for both cohorts combined (i.e., based on annualized 
biomass and biomass Reference Points). Under the current assessment process, however, stock 
status for this subannual species is always reported for the prior year (i.e., for multiple generations 
past) and this stock status is assumed to remain the same for the next three years when the next 
Management Track Assessment occurs. It is imperative that both squid stocks be assessed annually 
so that the timing of their stock status updates are appropriate for their short lifespans.


; ; point ; Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The use of conventional stock assessment models to assess squid stocks such as longfin inshore 
squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii), is inappropriate because they do not account for the 
species’ subannual lifespan and semelparous reproduction. This neritic species has a lifespan of 
6; to ; 8 months, and like many other loliginids, there are two dominant intra-annual cohorts; 
winter-hatched and summer-hatched cohorts that have different growth rates and median 
sizes-at-maturity (Brodziak and Macy 1996; Macy and Brodziak 2001). Length-based models are 
not generally used to assess squid stocks because time-consuming, expensive aging (counting of 
daily increments in statoliths) must be used to identify the intra-annual cohorts due to the high 
plasticity in individual growth rates (Arkhipkin et al., 2015). Like most squid stocks, stock size 
estimates of longfin inshore squid exhibit high interannual variability because each year, the 
population relies on new recruits to each intra-annual cohort, and recruitment levels depend on the 
favorability of environmental conditions (Brodziak and Hendrickson 1999; Hatfield et al. 2001).


; ; point ; Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this 
stock assessment in the future. Based on the N R C C assessment schedule, this stock is currently assessed every three years. 
Instead, it is recommended that this subannual species be asssessed on an annual basis, as was 
done historically. A Research Track Assessment is scheduled for review in 2026, following two 
years of research dedicated to developing a stock assessment model and Reference Points that 
account for the life history of this semelparous species and its two intra-annual cohorts. The 
research topics identified here and in previous assessments should be reviewed and prioritized 
prioritized by the Working Group prior to conducting any research on the stock.

During the upcoming longfin squid Research Track Assessment, the top priority should be the 
development of a cohort-specific assessment model that incorporates, for example, their different 
growth rates and median ages-at-maturity, along with spawning and non-spawning spawning 
natural mortality rates.

Simulation testing should be conducted to evaluate the model’s ability to accurately and precisely 
estimate stock conditions under a wide range of scenarios, including process and measurement 
errors.







A method that accounts for the species’ semelparous reproduction should be used to estimate 
separate M S P based Biological Reference Point proxies for each of the two intra-annual cohorts to 
ensure adequate spawner escapement.

Annual pre-season biomass estimates for each cohort will be necessary to set cohort-specific 
Annual Biological Catches and quotas. This requires a streamlined regulatory process that allows 
for rapid implementation of the cohort-specific quotas in order to avoid foregone yield during 
years of high stock size and to avoid recruitment overfishing of either cohort during years when 
stock size is low.

Extend the work that has been conducted on estimation of the N E F S C bottom trawl catchability of 
this species in both the spring versus fall bottom trawl surveys (N E F S C 2011a; Jacobson et al. 
2015). Additional empirical data for estimating these catchabilities are needed to investigate the 
apparent productivity differences between the two cohorts caught in the N E F S C spring versus fall 
bottom trawl surveys. Biomass estimates for the fall N E A M A P surveys were only a small 
percentage of the total fall biomass, averaging 5.5% during 2009; to ; 2022, but a comparison of 
longfin squid catchability differences between the N E A M A P and N E F S C fall surveys might also be 
useful.


; ; point ; Are there other important issues?
Life history, life history, life history!






Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii, commonly known as Longfin Squid.
•Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii, Longfin Squid.


4.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Longfin inshore squid ; 


This Level 2 Management Track Assessment of longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) 
is an update of the 2020 Level 3 peer-reviewed Management Track Assessment. The assessment method- 
ology has been consistent since the 2010 benchmark assessment S A W /S A R C 51 (N E F S C , 2011a; N E F S C , 
2011b), followed by the 2017, 2020 and this management track update.

The assessment uses catchability corrected swept area biomass to estimate stock size. A threshold 
equal to half of the B[M S Y] proxy estimate (B[M S Y] =42,405 m t ) is used to define the overfished status of 
the stock. A measure of relative stock exploitation rate is calculated as a ratio of total removals to biomass, 
but no reference point for fishing mortality or exploitation rate is currently employed and the overfishing 
status is not determined.

This assessment satisfactorily updated commercial fishery harvest and discards, catchability adjusted, 
swept-area biomass estimates, and exploitation indices (catch/biomass) through 2022. Catches and dis- 
cards for 2020; to ; 2022 were derived using the C A M S database. The indices for both surveys were corrected 
for the actual tow distances for each trawl tow rather than using nominal value. These corrections did not 
result in any significant changes.

Annualized biomass estimates as annually averaged spring and fall survey biomass estimates and 
annualized exploitation indices (annual catch/annually averaged spring and fall survey biomass), were 
also updated. Cohort-specific biomass was estimated separately for the N E F S C spring surveys versus N E F S C fall + N E A M A P fall surveys. Cohort-specific exploitation indices (Jan; to ; June catch/spring survey 
biomass versus July; to ; December catch/fall survey biomass) were updated as well. The 2022 annualized 
exploitation index was estimated to be 0.155 (Figure 2), which was 20.1% less than the 1987; to ; 2021 median 
of 0.195.

The current assessment approach does not allow the estimation of recruitment, complete retrospective 
analysis or do bridge runs. A Plan B assessment was not possible for this stock. Short-term projections 
were not conducted because there is no accepted assessment model for longfin squid.

There are currently no accepted fishing mortality reference points available for this stock. The 
biomass reference point B[M S Y] proxy was defined in the past based on the historic data set when the 
population was lightly exploited and therefore cannot be redefined within the management track assess- 
ment. The B[M S Y] proxy remained the same as the 2010, 2017 and 2020 assessments. Although cohort 
specific estimates are not currently used for the definition of the status of the stock, results suggested that 
neither of two cohorts were overfished.

The Review Panel supports an alternative to the annualized stock size approach for using cohort- 
specific reference points to provide annual stock status.

The Panel concludes that the 2023 management track assessment fulfilled the recommendations of 
the A O P and is technically sufficient to evaluate stock status for biomass. The assessment represents 
the b s i a for this stock for management purposes and meets the Terms of Reference applicable for the 
stock’s assessment. The Panel agrees with the assessment report that longfin squid is not overfished. 
The panel further notes that while the overfishing status is unknown, due to the lack of an F[M S Y] or


proxy reference point, exploitation rates generated by the historic removals resulted in both cohort and 
annualized estimates of biomass near or above the B[M S Y] target values in recent years. The Panel concurs 
with the previous peer review recommendation to consider cohort-specific reference points based on the 
understanding of two dominant and largely non-overlapping intra-year cohorts of longfin squid, at the 
next research track assessment.

Recommendations:


; Response ; 
; point ; The Review Panel recommends considering further an option of cohort-specific reference points for 
determining stock status in addition to the annualized single stock B R P s.
; ; point ; The Review Panel recommends continuing development of a stock assessment approach that is 
specifically tailored to the squid life cycle and data availability to develop biologically-based es- 
timates of B[M S Y] and F[M S Y] instead of the historical proxy used currently.
; ; point ; It is important to understand the growth and mortality of each of the two major cohorts to determine 
their contribution to the total stock biomass within the season, on a monthly, or other appropriate 
timestep. This will also help to address the question at what stage of biomass development each 
cohort is intercepted by the spring and the fall survey and how changes in survey timing may affect 
the biomass estimates.
; ; point ; The Panel noted that in some years the exploitation rate was above 1 when the biomass estimates 
from the spring survey were used. This raises an issue of the appropriateness of current gear effi- 
ciency coefficient, since we can not be removing the entire cohort in the spring. Population biomass 
from the spring survey is likely to be underestimated. Survey catchability and stock distribution 
needs to be explored in further detail to evaluate true contribution of spring cohort to stock biomass.


 Well camouflaged on the sandy bottom.
•Well camouflaged on the sandy bottom.


; start of References ; 

Arkhipkin, Alexander I., Paul G.K. Rodhouse, Graham J. Pierce, Warwick Sauer, Mitsuo Sakai, Louise 
Allcock, Juan Arguelles, John R. Bower, Gladis Castillo, Luca Ceriola, Chih-Shin Chen, Xinjun Chen, 
Mariana Diaz-Santana, Nicola Downey, Angel F. Gonzalez, Jasmin Granados Amores, Corey P. Green, 
Angel Guerra, Lisa C. Hendrickson, Christian Ibnez, Kingo Ito, Patrizia Jereb, Yoshiki Kato, Oleg N. 
Katugin, Mitsuhisa Kawano, Hideaki Kidokoro, Vladimir V. Kulik, Vladimir V. Laptikhovsky, Marek R. 
Lipinski, Bilin Liu, Luis Maritegui, Wilbert Marin, Ana Medina,Katsuhiro Miki, Kazutaka Miyahara, 
Natalie Moltschaniwskyj, Hassan Moustahfid, Jaruwat Nabhitabhata, Nobuaki Nanjo, Chingis M. 
Nigmatullin, Tetsuya Ohtani, Gretta Pecl, J. Angel A. Perez, Uwe Piatkowski, Pirochana Saikliang, Cesar 
A. Salinas-Zavala, Michael Steer, Yongjun Tian, Yukio Ueta, Dharmamony Vijai, Toshie Wakabayashi, 
Tadanori Yamaguchi, Carmen Yamashiro, Norio Yamashita and Louis D. Zeidberg. 2015. World squid 
fisheries. Rev in Fish Sci and Aquacult. 23:2, 92; to ; 252.
; link to ; RevFSA:2015.1026226
; end of link ; Brodziak J.K.T., and Macy W.K. III. 1996. Growth of long-finned squid, Loligo pealeii, in the northwest 
Atlantic. Fish Bull. 94: 212; to ; 236.
; link to ; GEOMAR:2932
; end of link ; Arkhipkin A.I., Hendrickson L.C., Pay I., Pierce G., Roa-Ureta R., Robin J-P. and Winter A. 2020. Stock 
assessment and management of cephalopods: advances and challenges for short-lived fishery resources. I C E S J Mar Sci. 78(2): 714; to ; 730.
; link to ; JMS:fsaa038
; end of link ; Brodziak J.K.T. and Hendrickson L.C. 1999. An analysis of environmental effects on survey catches of 
squids Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus in the northwest Atlantic. Fish B-NOAA 97(1): 9; to ; 24.
; link to ; CRD97-03
; end of link ; Hatfield E.M.C., Hanlon R.T., Forsythe J.W. and Grist E.P.M. 2001. Laboratory testing of a growth 
hypothesis for juvenile squid Loligo pealeii (Cephalopoda: Loliginidae). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 58: 
845; to ; 857.
; link to ; CJFAS:f01-030
; end of link ; Jacobson L.D., Hendrickson L.C. and Tang J. 2015. Solar zenith angles for biological research and an 
expected catch model for diel vertical migration patterns that affect stock size estimates for longfin 
inshore squidDoryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 72: 1329; to ; 1338.
; link to ; CJFAS:2014-0436
; end of link ; Macy, W.K. III and Brodziak J.K.T. 2001. Seasonal maturity and size at age of Loligo pealeii in waters of 
southern New England. I C E S J Mar Sci. 58 (4): 852; to ; 864.
; link to ; JMSC:2001.1076
; end of link ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center [N E F S C ], 2020. Longfin inshore squid 2020 Assessment Update 
Report. 10p.
; link to ; StockSMART:10792
; end of link ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center [N E F S C ], 2011a. 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 
Workshop (51st S A W ) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-02, 
856p.
; link to ; CRD11-02
; end of link ; Northeast Fisheries Science Center [N E F S C ], 2011b. 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 
Workshop (51st S A W ) Assessment Summary Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref 
Doc. 11-01, 70p.
; link to ; CRD11-01
; end of link ; 
Spawning stock biomass trends over time for Longfin inshore squid. 
Figure 8: Trends in the two-year moving averages of annualized q -adjusted, swept-area biomass (i.e., annually 
averaged N E F S C spring and fall survey biomasses, in m t ) of longfin inshore squid from the current assessment 
(solid line) and the 2020 assessment updates (dashed line). Biomass estimates are shown as interpolated values 
for years where biomass could not be estimated due to inadequate survey sampling coverage of longfin squid habi- 
tat (i.e., 2014 and 2020 spring and 2017 and 2020 fall surveys). The 80% confidence limits (106,748; to ; 136,923) 
are shown for the 2022 biomass estimate (121,836 m t ) in relation to the B[M S Y proxy] (42,405 m t ) and B[Threshold] (21,203 m t ).


; end of float block ; 
Fully selected fishing mortality trends over time for Longfin inshore squid. 
Figure 9: Trends in annualized exploitation indices (annual catch/two-year moving average of the annualized N E F S C spring and fall survey biomass estimates) of longfin inshore squid during the United States fishery time period 
(between 1987 and 2022 from the current assessment (solid line) and the 2020 assessment updates (dashed 
line). Exploitation rates are shown as interpolated values for years with only a single biomass estimate due 
to inadequate survey sampling coverage of longfin squid habitat (i.e., the 2014 and 2020 spring and 2017 and 
2020 fall surveys).


; end of float block ; 
Total catches of Longfin inshore squid. 
Figure 10: Total catches of longfin inshore squid between 1963 and 2022 by fleet (commercial) and disposition 
(landings or discards). D W F landings are the Distant Water Fleet landings, but the discards for this fleet are 
unknown.


; end of float block ; 
Abundance indices for Longfin inshore squid. 
Figure 11: Swept-area, q -adjusted biomass estimates (m t ) for longfin inshore squid between 1976 and 2022 
for the N E F S C spring and fall bottom trawl surveys (top panels), annualized N E F S C survey biomass (i.e., 
averages of the biomass estimates for these two surveys) and two-year moving averages of the annualized 
biomass estimates. Due to inadequate survey sampling coverage of longfin squid habitat during the 2014 and 
2020 spring surveys and the 2017 and 2020 fall surveys, biomass estimates during these years are not shown in 
the two top panels, but have been interpolated in the biomass time series shown in the bottom panels.


; end of float block ; 
5. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Summer flounder ; 



; Report Author: ; Mark Terceiro
; Report Summary: ; This assessment of the Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) stock is an update of the existing 
2021 Management Track Assessment (N E F S C 2022). Based on the previous assessment the stock was not 
overfished and overfishing was not occurring. This 2023 Management Track Assessment updates fishery 
catch data, research survey indices of abundance, the A S A P assessment model, and biological reference 
points through 2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025.

State of Stock: Based on this updated assessment, the Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) 
stock is not overfished and overfishing is occurring (Figures 12; to ; 13). Retrospective adjustments were 
not made to the model results. Spawning Stock Biomass (S S B ) in 2022 was estimated to be 40,994 m t which is 83% of the biomass target for this stock (S S B[M S Y proxy] =49,561; Figure 12). The 2022 fully 
selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.464 which is 103% of the overfishing threshold proxy 
(F[M S Y proxy] =0.451; Figure 13).

Table 10: Catch and model results for Summer flounder. All weights are in m t , recruitment is in thousands , and F[Full] is the fishing mortality on fully-selected age-4. Model results are unadjusted values from the current updated A S A P assessment.


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2013 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data; ; end of row ; ; 
; ; ; head cell ; ; Commercial landings ; 5,696 ; 4,989 ; 4,858 ; 3,537 ; 2,644 ; 2,787 ; 4,109 ; 4,282 ; 4,936 ; 5,683; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Commercial discards ; 863 ; 830 ; 703 ; 772 ; 906 ; 979 ; 783 ; 1,163 ; 873 ; 680; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Recreational landings ; 8,806 ; 7,364 ; 5,366 ; 6,005 ; 4,565 ; 3,447 ; 3,537 ; 4,571 ; 3,092 ; 3,916; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Recreational discards ; 2,119 ; 2,092 ; 1,572 ; 1,482 ; 1,496 ; 1,003 ; 1,379 ; 1,141 ; 997 ; 1,336; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch for Assessment ; 17,483 ; 15,275 ; 12,498 ; 11,796 ; 9,611 ; 8,216 ; 9,808 ; 11,157 ; 9,898 ; 11,615; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Model Results; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Spawning Stock Biomass ; 52,155 ; 47,841 ; 42,424 ; 39,209 ; 37,040 ; 37,599 ; 38,846 ; 43,024 ; 41,615 ; 40,994; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; 0.473 ; 0.439 ; 0.427 ; 0.428 ; 0.345 ; 0.304 ; 0.37 ; 0.417 ; 0.371 ; 0.464; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Recruits (age-0) ; 35,208 ; 38,700 ; 27,000 ; 30,551 ; 38,876 ; 43,028 ; 39,933 ; 35,629 ; 42,323 ; 38,371; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Projections: Short term projections of catch (O F L ) and Spawning Stock Biomass (S S B ) were 
derived by sampling from an empirical cumulative distribution function of the 12 most recent recruitment 
estimates from the A S A P model results (2011; to ; 2022). The annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and 
mean weights-at-age used in projections are the most recent 5-year averages; no retrospective adjustments 
were applied in the projections.


Table 11: Comparison of biological reference points estimated in the previous assessment and from the current 
assessment update. An F[35 percent] proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and S S B and M S Y proxies were 
based on long-term stochastic projections.


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2021 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; F[M S Y proxy] 
; 0.422 ; 0.451; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B[M S Y] (m t ) ; 55,217 ; 49,561 (38,181; to ; 64,301) ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; M S Y (m t ) ; 15,872 ; 14,097 (11,020; to ; 18,114) ; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Median recruits (age-1) (thousands ) ; 49,954 ; 46,966; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ; No ; Yes; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ; No ; No; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Table 12: Short term projections of total fishery catch (O F L ) and Spawning Stock Biomass (S S B ) for Summer 
flounder based on a harvest scenario of fishing at F[M S Y proxy] between 2024 and 2025. Catch in 2023 was assumed 
to be 15,023 (m t ).


; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; Year ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; 2023 
; 15,023 ; 37,233 (30,000; to ; 46,000) ; 0.622; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Year ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; 2024 
; 10,422 ; 38,541 (32,000; to ; 46,000) ; 0.451; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2025 ; 10,839 ; 39,127 (33,000; to ; 46,000) ; 0.451; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Special Comments: 
; start of Itemized List ; 
; Item ; What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe 
qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass, F , recruitment, 
and population projections).
Declining trends in growth rates and changes in the sex-ratio at age may change the 
productivity of the stock and in turn affect estimates of the biological reference points. Changes in 
growth, maturity, and recruitment may be environmentally mediated but mechanisms are unknown.


; ; Item ; Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A 
major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted S S B or F[Full] lies outside of the approximate 
joint confidence region for S S B and F[Full] ). The 7-year Mohn’s rho , relative to S S B , was 0.03 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.06 in this 
assessment. The 7-year Mohn’s rho , relative to F , was 0.01 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.03 in 
this assessment. No retrospective adjustment of S S B or F in 2022 was required.


; ; Item ; Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this 
stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Population projections for Summer flounder are reasonably well determined.


; ; Item ; Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating 
additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status.





No major changes, other than the addition of three years of data, were made to the Summer 
flounder assessment for this update. Minor changes to the survey input C V s and fishery and survey 
input Effective Sample Sizes improved model diagnostics but had limited affects on the model 
results.


; ; Item ; If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
Overfishing status has changed since the last assessment for Summer flounder. The stock status 
remains as not overfished but overfishing is occurring.


; ; Item ; Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The current fishing mortality rate is near the threshold, and so recent near-average recruitment 
has resulted in relatively stable S S B . S S B is projected to remain relatively stable in the short term 
at current fishing rates.


; ; Item ; Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this 
stock assessment in the future.
The Summer flounder assessment could be improved with more intensive and comprehensive 
sampling of the fishery catch by sex.


; ; Item ; Are there other important issues?
Sufficient length and age sampling of the fishery catch needs to be maintained.






Paralichthys dentatus, commonly known as Summer Flounder, Fluke, Northern fluke, Hirame.
•Paralichthys dentatus, Summer Flounder.


5.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Summer flounder ; 


The 2023 assessment of the summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) stock is the Management Track 
update of the 2021 management track assessment (N E F S C 2022). The last benchmark assessment for this 
stock was in 2018 (N E F S C 2018). This assessment uses the N O A A ToolBox Age-Structured Assessment 
Program (A S A P ) and updates commercial and recreational fishery catch data, research survey indices of 
abundance, weights and maturity at age, and reference points through 2022. Stock projections have been 
updated through 2025. Splitting the final selectivity block for all fleets was also explored, but it resulted 
in marginally worse diagnostics and was not included in the final model.

Retrospective adjustments of the model results were not necessary. Spawning stock biomass (S S B ) 
in 2022 was estimated to be 40,994 m t which is 83% of the biomass target for this stock (S S B[M S Y proxy] =49,561 m t ). The 2022 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.464 which is 103% of 
the overfishing threshold proxy (F[M S Y proxy] =F[35% S P R ] =0.451). Based on this updated assessment, the 
summer flounder stock is not overfished but overfishing is occurring.

Short term projections were conducted in AGE PRO . For projection specifications, 2023 removals 
were assumed equal to the 2023 A B C of 15,023 m t , as approximately 96% of the A B C has been caught 
in recent years, and then fishing mortality was set equal to F[35% S P R ] for 2024; to ; 2025. The projections used 
the most recent 5-year averages for the annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and mean weights at age; 
no retrospective adjustments were applied in the projections. The estimated O F L s from the short term 
projections were 10,422 m t for 2024 and 10,839 m t for 2025.

The Panel concluded that the 2023 assessment update for Summer flounder fulfilled the recommen- 
dations of the A O P , is technically sufficient to evaluate stock status and provide scientific advice and meets 
the Terms of Reference for the stock’s assessment. The assessment represents Best Scientific Information 
Available for this stock for management purposes.

The Panel discussed the change in the estimated size of the 2018 year-class from the 2021 Man- 
agement Track Assessment to this assessment, the potential decline in productivity in recent years due to 
decreasing weight-at-age and proportion female-at-age, and the resulting impact on stock status and catch 
advice. The 2021 assessment estimated the 2018 year-class at 61 million fish, well above the time-series 
average, while the 2023 assessment estimated it at 43 million fish, more in line with recent estimates of 
recruitment and below the time-series average. The estimates of S S B in recent years were also revised 
downwards, a function of the minor retrospective pattern that this model exhibits. Lower estimates of 
abundance in recent years, the lower estimate of the 2018 year-class, and the lower mean weight-at- 
age in recent years combined to produce O F L estimates that were lower than the 2021; to ; 2023 O F L s from 
the 2021 assessment. The increasing trend in biomass from 2017 onwards was somewhat arrested from 
2020; to ; 2022 by the higher F and lower weights-at-age, but the stock remains above the biomass threshold, 
consistent with the increasing trends in survey indices and the expanded age-structure of the catch, espe- 
cially for males. The Panel discussed concerns raised by previous panels about the impact of increasing 
size limits on a species where females grow faster and reach larger sizes than males do. The proportion of 
females in the survey data has declined since the start of the time series, but has stabilized at about 50% 
for all ages in recent years; more older males have been observed in the survey and catch data as well, 
indicating that the lower overall F rate on the population has allowed the males to survive to older ages


and may balance out the potential negative effects of the higher size limit on females.

The Panel agreed with the analyst’s conclusion not to split the final selectivity blocks, as it did not 
improve model performance and there was no evidence presented for changes in the fisheries to justify the 
split.

The Panel recommended reevaluating the suite of indices used to fit the model in the next research 
track assessment, as the model currently includes 14+ indices, some of which provide conflicting informa- 
tion and end up being down-weighted to get a R M S E near one.

 Summer Flounder on pebbly bottom.
•Summer Flounder on pebbly bottom. Photo credit:NOAA Fisheries.

; start of References ; 

N E F S C . 2022. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Management Track Assessment June 2021. US Dept 
Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 22; to ; 10; 79p.
; link to ; CRD22-10
; end of link ; 
Spawning stock biomass trends over time for Summer flounder. 
Figure 12: Trends in spawning stock biomass of Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 from the current 
(solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding S S B[Threshold] ( half S S B[M S Y proxy] ; horizontal 
dashed line) as well as S S B[Target] (S S B[M S Y proxy] ; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2023 assessment. Biomass 
adjusted for a retrospective pattern is shown in red, but not used for stock status or projections. The approximate 
90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
Fully selected fishing mortality trends over time for Summer flounder. 
Figure 13: Trends in the fully selected fishing mortality (F[Full] ) of Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 
from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding F[Threshold] (F[M S Y proxy] =0.451; horizontal dashed line). F[Full] adjusted for a retrospective pattern is shown in red, but not used for 
status or projections. The approximate 90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
Estimated trends in recruitment of Summer flounder. 
Figure 14: Trends in Recruits (age-0) (thousands ) of Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 from the current 
(solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment.


; end of float block ; 
Total catch of Summer flounder. 
Figure 15: Total catch of Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 by fishery (commercial and recreational) 
and disposition (landings and discards).


; end of float block ; 
Abundance indices for Summer flounder. 
Figure 16: Indices of biomass for the Summer flounder between 1982 and 2022 for the Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center (N E F S C ) Albatross (ALB) and Henry B. Bigelow (BIG) spring and fall research bottom trawl 
survey series. The approximate 90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
6. ; start of Section at level 3: titled : Scup ; 



; Report Author: ; Mark Terceiro
; Report Summary: ; This assessment of the Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) stock is an update of the existing 2021 Manage- 
ment Track Assessment (N E F S C 2022). Based on the previous assessment the stock was not overfished and 
overfishing was not occurring. This 2023 Management Track Assessment updates fishery catch data, re- 
search survey indices of abundance, the A S A P assessment model, and biological reference points through 
2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025.

State of Stock: Based on this updated assessment, the Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) stock is not 
overfished and overfishing is not occurring (Figures 17; to ; 18). Retrospective adjustments were made to the 
model results. Adjusted Spawning Stock Biomass (S S B ) in 2022 was estimated to be 193,087 m t which 
is 246% of the biomass target for this stock (S S B[M S Y proxy] =78,593; Figure 17). The adjusted 2022 
fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.098 which is 52% of the overfishing threshold proxy 
(F[M S Y proxy] =0.19; Figure 18).

Table 13: Catch and model results for Scup. All weights are in m t , recruitment is in thousands , and F[Full] is the 
fishing mortality on fully-selected age-4. Model results are unadjusted values from the current updated A S A P assessment.


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2013 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2014 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2015 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2016 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2017 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2018 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2019 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2020 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2021 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2022; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Data; ; end of row ; ; 
; ; ; head cell ; ; Commercial landings ; 8,105 ; 7,239 ; 7,725 ; 7,147 ; 7,007 ; 6,064 ; 6,252 ; 6,177 ; 5,944 ; 5,507; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Commercial discards ; 1,350 ; 981 ; 1,718 ; 2,778 ; 4,733 ; 3,293 ; 2,779 ; 2,611 ; 1,895 ; 2,171; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Recreational landings ; 5,739 ; 4,659 ; 5,527 ; 4,536 ; 6,143 ; 5,887 ; 6,403 ; 5,863 ; 7,540 ; 7,875; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Recreational discards ; 568 ; 480 ; 581 ; 862 ; 1,079 ; 644 ; 560 ; 541 ; 653 ; 738; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch for Assessment ; 15,762 ; 13,359 ; 15,550 ; 15,322 ; 18,961 ; 15,888 ; 15,994 ; 15,192 ; 16,032 ; 16,291; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; multi head cell ; ; Model Results; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Spawning Stock 
Biomass ; 229,544 ; 224,345 ; 202,517 ; 224,568 ; 242,893 ; 240,870 ; 226,966 ; 216,046 ; 184,801 ; 159,050; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; 0.105 ; 0.093 ; 0.118 ; 0.094 ; 0.1 ; 0.08 ; 0.09 ; 0.092 ; 0.129 ; 0.171; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Recruits (age-0) ; 145,750 ; 360,860 ; 569,175 ; 256,961 ; 119,279 ; 138,889 ; 64,735 ; 118,918 ; 124,873 ; 106,037; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Projections: Short term projections of catch (O F L ) and Spawning Stock Biomass (S S B ) were 
derived by sampling from an empirical cumulative distribution function of the time series of recruitment 
estimates from the A S A P model results for 1984; to ; 2022. The annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and 
mean weights at age used in projections are the most recent 5-year averages; retrospective adjustments 
were applied in the projections.


Table 14: Comparison of biological reference points estimated in the previous assessment and from the current 
assessment update. An F[40% S P R ] proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and S S B and M S Y proxies were 
based on long-term stochastic projections.


( blank cell )
; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; 2021 ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2023; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; F[M S Y proxy] 
; 0.200 ; 0.190; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B[M S Y] (m t ) ; 90,019 ; 78,593 (55,125; to ; 113,507); ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; M S Y (m t ) ; 12,671 ; 11,959 (8,447; to ; 17,427); ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Median recruits (age-1) (thousands ) ; 123,492 ; 129,293; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfishing ; No ; No; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Overfished ; No ; No; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Table 15: Short term projections of total fishery catch (O F L ) and Spawning Stock Biomass (S S B ) for Scup 
based on a harvest scenario of fishing at F[M S Y proxy] between 2024 and 2025. Catch in 2023 was assumed to be 
13,458 (m t ).


; ; start of table ; 
; head cell ; ; Year ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; 2023 
; 13,458 ; 209,407 (155,000; to ; 286,000) ; 0.115; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; Year ; ; ; head cell ; ; Catch (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; S S B (m t ) ; ; ; head cell ; ; F[Full] ; ; end of row ; ; ; 
; ; head cell ; ; 2024 
; 20,295 ; 185,475 (138,000; to ; 252,000) ; 0.190; ; end of row ; ; ; ; ; head cell ; ; 2025 ; 18,363 ; 162,716 (121,000; to ; 221,000) ; 0.190; ; end of last row ; ; ; 

; ; end of table ; ; 
; end of float block ; Special Comments: 
; Response ; 
; point ; What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe 
qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass, F , recruitment, 
and population projections).
Declining trends in growth rates and maturity at age may change the productivity of the stock 
and in turn affect estimates of the biological reference points. Changes in growth, maturity, and 
recruitment may be environmentally mediated but mechanisms are unknown.


; ; point ; Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A 
major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted S S B or F[Full] lies outside of the approximate 
joint confidence region for S S B and F[Full] ). The 7-year Mohn’s rho , relative to S S B , was −0.14 in the 2021 assessment and was −0.21 in 
this assessment. The 7-year Mohn’s rho , relative to F , was 0.20 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.42 
in this assessment. There was a major retrospective pattern for this assessment because the rho -adjusted estimates of 2022 S S B (S S B [rho] =193,087) and 2022 F (F[rho] =0.098) were outside the 
approximate 90% confidence regions around S S B (131,720; to ; 192,050) and F (0.14; to ; 0.208). A 
retrospective adjustment was made for both the determination of stock status and for projections of 
catch and biomass in 2024 and 2025. The retrospective adjustment changed the 2022 S S B from 
159,050 to 193,087 and the 2022 F[Full] from 0.171 to 0.098.







; ; point ; Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this 
stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Population projections for Scup are reasonably well determined.


; ; point ; Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating 
additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status. No major changes, other than the addition of three years of data, were made to the Scup 
assessment for this update. Minor changes to the survey input C V s and fishery and survey input 
Effective Sample Sizes improved model diagnostics but had limited affects on the model results.


; ; point ; If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
As in recent assessments for Scup the stock status remains as not overfished and overfishing not 
occurring.


; ; point ; Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The current fishing mortality rate is relatively low, but recent below average recruitment has 
resulted in a decrease in S S B . S S B is projected to continue to decrease in the short term.


; ; point ; Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this 
stock assessment in the future.
The Scup assessment could likely be improved with more intensive sampling of the fishery catch.


; ; point ; Are there other important issues?
Sufficient length and age sampling of the fishery catch needs to be maintained.






Stenotomus chrysops (Scup), also known as Porgy, Maiden, Fair maid, Ironsides, Northern porgy.
•Stenotomus chrysops, Scup.


6.1. ; start of Section at level 4: titled : Reviewer Comments: Scup ; 


The 2023 assessment for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) updates the 2021 management track A S A P assessment (N E F S C 2022). This assessment updates recreational and commercial fishery catch (landings 
and discards), survey indices of abundance, the analytical A S A P model, and reference points through 
2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025. There was a retrospective pattern 
in both S S B and F (S S B [rho] =−21%; F[rho] =+43%) that required adjustments to the terminal estimates 
in the model, as the adjusted values fell outside the 90% confidence interval estimates from the model. 
The adjusted spawning biomass in 2022 of 193,097 m t is 246% of the biomass target (S S B[M S Y proxy] =
78,593 m t ), and the adjusted fully-selected F of 0.098 was 52% of the overfishing threshold (F[M S Y] =
0.19). Based on these estimates from the updated model, scup is not overfished, and overfishing is not 
occurring.

Short-term projections of biomass were done, starting with the retrospectively-adjusted terminal 
abundance. Future recruitments were sampled from a cumulative distribution function of updated model 
estimates (1984; to ; 2022 year class), and future selectivity, maturity, and weight-at-age were based on the 
most recent five year averages (2018; to ; 2022). Projections were run with F =F[M S Y] to determine the O F L in 2024 and 2025 for use in the Mid-Atlantic control rule. The estimated O F L from the projection was 20,295 m t in 2024, and 18,363 m t in 2025.

The Panel concluded that the 2023 assessment update for scup fulfilled the recommendations of the A O P , is technically sufficient to evaluate stock status and provide scientific advice and meets the Terms 
of Reference for the stock’s assessment. The assessment represents Best Scientific Information Available 
(b s i a ) for this stock for management purposes.

The Panel noted that the retrospective pattern has increased from previous assessments, and there 
was some discussion about the possible causes. The analyst noted that possible mechanisms include 
decreasing M , overestimated catches, and changes in catchability. The panel feels that exploration into 
these mechanisms is warranted if the retrospective pattern continues, but acknowledges that it is very 
challenging to quantify changes in M and bias in catch estimates. The model currently uses a combined 
index of abundance of the N E F S C survey ( Albatross and Bigelow ), and splitting the survey time series into 
two may help address the retrospective pattern.

Port sampling of commercial landings has declined for scup in recent years, with the lowest number 
of samples in 2022. This reduced port sampling is affecting all commercially-exploited stocks, but the 
Panel is concerned that it may be particularly problematic for a stock like scup where older ages are 
primarily collected in the commercial fishery.

The Panel noted that all four fleets in the model (recreational and commercial landings and discards) 
had dome-shaped selectivity. The Panel recommends continued exploration of the functional form of the 
selectivity across fleets, and whether there could be a mechanistic explanation for the dome across fleets.

Scup has exhibited declines in mean weights-at-age over time, and these declines contributed to the 
large change in S S B[M S Y] from the previous assessment. The analyst noted that the declines in weight-at- 
age were coincident with increases in scup biomass, and the Panel agrees that exploration of the potential 
for density-dependent growth is worthwhile, as it might allow for more accurate forecasts of weight in the 
projections.


; start of References ; 

N E F S C . 2022. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Management Track Assessment June 2021. US Dept 
Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 22-10; 79p.
; link to ; CRD22-10
; end of link ; Scup catch, in a basket.
•Scup catch, in a basket. Photo credit:NOAA Fisheries.


Spawning stock biomass trends over time for Scup. 
Figure 17: Trends in S S B of Scup between 1984 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed 
line) assessment and the corresponding S S B[Threshold] ( half S S B[M S Y proxy] ; horizontal dashed line) as well as S S B[Target] (S S B[M S Y proxy] ; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2023 assessment. S S B was adjusted for a retrospective 
pattern and the adjustment is shown in red. The approximate 90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
Fully selected fishing mortality trends over time for Scup. 
Figure 18: Trends in the fully selected fishing mortality (F[Full] ) of Scup between 1984 and 2022 from the current 
(solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding F[Threshold] (F[M S Y proxy] =0.19; horizontal 
dashed line) based on the 2023 assessment.F[Full] was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment 
is shown in red. The approximate 90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
Estimated trends in recruitment of Scup. 
Figure 19: Trends in Recruits (age-0) (thousands ) of Scup between 1984 and 2022 from the current (solid line) and 
previous (dashed line) assessment.


; end of float block ; 
Total catch of Scup. 
Figure 20: Total catch of Scup between 1984 and 2022 by fishery (commercial and recreational) and disposition 
(landings and discards).


; end of float block ; 
Abundance indices for Scup. 
Figure 21: Indices of biomass for Scup between 1984 and 2022 for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center 
(N E F S C ) spring and fall research bottom trawl survey series calibrated to Albatross equivalents. The approxi- 
mate 90% log-normal confidence intervals are shown.


; end of float block ; 
; start of unnumbered Section titled : Photo Gallery ; 


Here is provided descriptive text for the photographs and artwork that are scattered throughout the preced- 
ing pages.


; Glossary-item ; ; LongFinSquidLive ; Longfin squid well camouflaged on the sandy bottom. Photo N O A A . On page ; occurs on page: ; 43
; Glossary-item ; ; NMFSaerial ; Aerial view of the N M F S building and surrounds, Woods Hole Laboratory, Massachusetts . The enclosed body of water behind is Eel Pond. Photo W H O I . On page ; occurs on page: ; roman 9;
; Glossary-item ; ; RedCrabRuler ; Measuring the size of a deep-sea red crab. Photo N O A A . On page ; occurs on page: ; 34
; Glossary-item ; ; ScupBasket ; Scup catch, in a basket. Credit: N O A A Fisheries. On page ; occurs on page: ; 63
; Glossary-item ; ; SeafoodOnIce ; Fresh seafood on ice, ready for sale. Credit: Shutterstock. On page ; occurs on page: ; roman 4;
; Glossary-item ; ; SeafoodPlate ; Shrimp, mussels, scallop, and fish dish. Credit: iStock. On page ; occurs on page: ; roman 2;
; Glossary-item ; ; SummerFlounderLive ; Summer Flounder on pebbly bottom. Photo N O A A . On page ; occurs on page: ; 53
; Glossary-item ; ; WHOIaerial ; Aerial view of the buildings and wharves at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts . Two research vessels are docked for re-supply. Photo W H O I . On page ; occurs on page: ; 15
; Glossary-item ; ; zAtlanticDeepSeaRedCrab ; Chaceonquinquedens (AtlanticDeep-SeaRedCrab), alsoknownasRedCrab; range: NewEngland/Mid- 
Atlantic. Artwork from N O A A 
; link to ; atlantic deep-sea red crab website
; end of link ; . On pages ; occurs on page: ; 32
; Glossary-item ; ; zBluefish ; Pomatomus saltatrix, commonly known as Bluefish, Tailor, Snapper, Baby blues, Choppers, Elfs; range: 
New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast. Artwork from N O A A 
; link to ; bluefish website
; end of link ; . On page ; occurs on page: ; 22
; Glossary-item ; ; zLongfinSquid ; Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii, commonly known as Longfin Squid, Longfin inshore squid, Loligo, 
Winter squid, Boston squid; range: New England/Mid-Atlantic. Artwork from N O A A 
; link to ; longfin squid 
website
; end of link ; . On page ; occurs on page: ; 41
; Glossary-item ; ; zScup ; Stenotomus chrysops (Scup), also known as Porgy, Maiden, Fair maid, Ironsides, Northern porgy; range: 
New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast. Artwork from N O A A 
; link to ; scup website
; end of link ; . On pages ; occurs on page: ; 61
; Glossary-item ; ; zSummerFlounder ; Paralichthys dentatus, commonly known as Flounder, Fluke, Northern fluke, Hirame; range: New 
England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast. Artwork from N O A A 
; link to ; summer flounder website
; end of link ; . On page ; occurs on page: ; 51
; end of Glossary ; 
; start of Inside back-cover block ; 
; H2: ; Procedures for Issuing Manuscripts in the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document (CRD) Series and the Technical Memorandum (TM) Series

The mission of N O A A ’s National Marine Fisheries Service (N M F S ) is “stewardship of the nation’s ocean 
resources and their habitat.” As the research arm of the N M F S ’s Greater Atlantic Region, the North- 
east Fisheries Science Center (N E F S C ) supports the N M F S ’s mission by “conducting ecosystem-based 
research and assessments of living marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the 
recovery and long-term sustainability of these resources and to generate social and economic opportuni- 
ties and benefits from their use.” Results of N E F S C research are largely reported in primary scientific 
media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, 
information, and advice to its constituents, the N E F S C occasionally releases its results in its own media.


; H3: ; NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

This series is issued irregularly. The series typically in- 
cludes: data reports of long-term 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.


; H3: ; NORTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER REFERENCE DOCUMENT

This series is issued irreg- 
ularly. 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.




All manuscripts submitted for issuance as C R D s must have cleared the N E F S C ’s manuscript/abstract/ 
webpage review process. If your manuscript includes 
material from another work which has been copyrighted, 
then you will need to work with the N E F S C ’s Edito- 
rial 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, N E F S C authors should 
see the N E F S C ’s online publication policy manual, 
“Manuscript/abstract/webpage preparation, review, and 
dissemination: N E F S C Author’s Guide to Policy, Pro- 
cess, and Procedure.”




The C R D series is obligated to conform with the 
style contained in the current edition of the United States 
Government Printing Office Style Manual; however that 
style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific 
manuscripts. The C R D series relies more on the C S E Style Manual. Manuscripts should be prepared to con- 
form with both of these style manuals.

The C R D series uses the Integrated Taxonomic Infor- 
mation System, the American Fisheries Society’s guides 
and the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s guide for ver- 
ifying scientific species names.

For in-text citation, use the name-date system. A spe- 
cial effort should be made to ensure that all necessary 
bibliographic information is included in the list of refer- 
ences cited. Personal communications must include date, 
full name, and full mailing address of the contact.




Once your document has cleared the review pro- 
cess, the Editorial Office will contact you with publica- 
tion needs—for example, revised text (if necessary) and 
separate digital figures and tables if they are embedded 
in the document. Materials may be submitted to the Edi- 
torial Office as email attachments or intranet downloads. 
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.).




The Editorial Office will perform a copy-edit of the 
document and may request further revisions. The Edito- 
rial Office will develop the inside and outside front cov- 
ers, the inside and outside back covers, and the title and 
bibliographic control pages of the document.

Once the C R D is ready, the Editorial Office will con- 
tact you to review it and submit corrections or changes 
before the document is posted online. A number of or- 
ganizations and individuals in the Northeast Region will 
be notified by e-mail of the availability of the document 
online.