1. Chris Harvey NOAA Fisheries NWFSC, Seattle OVERVIEW: THE 2014 STATE OF THE CALIFORNIA CURRENT REPORT FROM THE CCIEA TEAM

2.  Fulfills PFMC request for an annual California Current Ecosystem status update from the CCIEA team (2013 FEP, Section 1.4)  Purpose of report: summarize and synthesize environmental, biological, socioeconomic indicators relevant to status of CCE  Not intended to be “perfect science” but rather to be useful for the Council to consider  Format, established in Nov. 2012: ~20 pages plus supplements  March 2014 report covers indicators up through 2013, though some time series were most recently updated in prior years BASIC DETAILS

3.  Page 1 has a “highlights” box that summarized some of the key indicator results REPORT CONTENTS

4. INDICATOR SECTIONS  Climate and Ocean Drivers  Basin-scale  Regional  Focal ecological components  Copepods  CPS  Salmon  Groundfish  Sea lions  Human activities  Fisheries  Non-fisheries  Human wellbeing  Fleet diversification  Personal use REPORT CONTENTS

5.  Some of our general conclusions:  Several indicators suggest average to above average productivity in 2013  Abundance trends in salmon populations are mixed  Groundfish populations mostly above biomass thresholds and below fishing mortality thresholds  Non-fisheries human pressures generally low and/or declining; possibly related to economic downturn  Fishery landings stable or increasing (exceptions: groundfish and salmon at or near historic lows)  Some major concerns:  Sea lion pup mortality  Declining fishery diversification  Poor spatiotemporal data for some indicators (OA, DO, forage, birds, whales)  Data gaps (habitat, human wellbeing) REPORT CONTENTS

6.  Most indicators shown as time series of annual means plotted around long-term mean (- - -) with ± 1 s.d. (——)  Green shaded area represents most recent 5 yr of data  Upper right symbol: 5-yr trend ( ↗, ↘ or ↔)  Lower right symbol: 5-yr avg relative to long-term avg (–, + or ●) PRESENTING INDICATORS

7.  Example here from section on non-fisheries human activities  Selected indicators that we thought would best relate to PFMC interests  Status and trends symbols at far right  Note that lengths of time series are quite variable  Details on data collection and analyses are in supplementary materials and/or long-form CCIEA reports

8.  An alternate way that we summarize large numbers of related indicators is a quadrant plot  5-yr trend on x-axis, 5-yr avg relative to long-term avg on y-axis; dashed lines = 1 s.d.  Symbol colors grouped geographically  Quadrants color coded as a qualitative depiction of indicator condition PRESENTING INDICATORS

9.  Another alternative is to present current indicator status relative to thresholds  Example: assessed groundfish relative to thresholds of biomass and fishery removals overfishing threshold B MSY B limit (flatfish) B limit (elasmobranchs, rockfish, roundfish) PRESENTING INDICATORS

10.  First item is the latest CalCOFI “State of the California Current” paper!  CalCOFI authors include many who are also part of CCIEA team; ensures some consistency in approach, data, and scope SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

11.  Supplementary materials also include in-depth plots  Examples: salmon abundances by population  Spatial breakouts of landings (e.g., figure at right), price/lb, fleet diversification  Personal use catch retention by species, sector, region  Also included are details on methods, data sources, and links for additional info SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

12.  Are there better ways of presenting indicators?  Should we include conceptual models to help “map” the indicators? SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE SSC

13. CONCEPTUAL MODELS

14.  Would there be value added if we included conceptual models and “mapped” indicators onto the models?  For example, we could present these as precursors to more formal risk assessment or scenario analyses CONCEPTUAL MODELS

15.  Are there better ways of presenting indicators?  Should we include conceptual models to help “map” the indicators?  My sense is that the oral presentation that we give before the full Council is a more lasting way to “connect” with them than the 20-page report, which is a tiny part of the briefing book. Is that a correct assumption?  How do we distinguish IEA status/trends report from the other “state of the California Current” reports out there?  Are there other IEA products that would add value to this report?  We have more integrative products, but they depart somewhat from the “status and trends” notion SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE SSC