Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review

Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review
Name	Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review
Type	Interagency scientific assessment
Established	2017
Jurisdiction	United States Southeast Region
Headquarters	Atlanta, Georgia
Parent agency	Federal interagency consortium

Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review

Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review is an interagency assessment process focused on fisheries, ecosystems, and resource management in the southeastern United States. It brings together experts from agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to produce scientific evaluations used by state and federal managers. The process informs regulatory decisions, fishery management plans, and conservation measures that intersect with stakeholders including the Recreational Fishing Alliance, commercial fleets, and regional universities.

Overview

The initiative coordinates data synthesis, stock assessments, and peer review across institutions like the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. It draws expertise from research centers such as the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the University of Miami Rosenstiel School, the University of South Florida, and the Rosenstiel School's Oceanography programs. The model integrates inputs from state agencies including the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and partners like the National Science Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts.

History and Establishment

The process emerged after regional concerns highlighted in settings like the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Fishery Resources, discussions at conferences hosted by the American Fisheries Society, and recommendations from panels convened by the National Academy of Sciences. Early convenings included participants from the NOAA Fisheries, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and academic groups such as Louisiana State University, the University of Florida, and Clemson University. The formalization in 2017 followed precedents from programs affiliated with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment, and lessons from assessments conducted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Mandate and Functions

The mandate covers stock assessments, data collection protocols, standardized methodologies, and scientific peer review to support councils like the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Functions include generating assessment reports, advising on catch limits used by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and state advisory panels, coordinating with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Environmental Protection Agency on habitat issues, and informing litigation and policy considerations involving entities such as the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior. Outcomes feed into management actions affecting participants like commercial fishing fleets, recreational angling organizations, conservation NGOs such as Oceana and the Nature Conservancy, and coastal communities in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

Organizational Structure

Operational leadership is provided through a steering committee comprising representatives from NOAA Fisheries, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Technical teams include stock assessment scientists from academic institutions like Rutgers University, the University of North Carolina, Duke University Marine Laboratory, and the University of South Alabama, alongside statisticians, data managers, and economists who collaborate with the National Ocean Service, the US Geological Survey, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Peer review panels draw experts appointed from the National Academy of Sciences, the American Fisheries Society, and international bodies such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Key Assessments and Reports

Reports commonly address species and stocks including red snapper, gag grouper, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, gray triggerfish, and Atlantic menhaden, and link to spatial analyses involving estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay, Mobile Bay, and Biscayne Bay. Major assessments have been presented at forums like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the International Marine Conservation Congress, and regional workshops organized by the Gulf Research Program and the Southeast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association. Technical documents often incorporate methods referenced in publications from journals such as Fisheries Research, Marine Ecology Progress Series, and the Journal of Coastal Research and are used by policy bodies including state legislatures and federal advisory committees.

Impact and Controversies

The process has shaped management actions that affect commercial quotas, recreational seasons, and habitat protections, influencing stakeholders from NOAA Fisheries and council members to industry groups such as the National Marine Manufacturers Association and conservation organizations like the Sierra Club. Controversies have arisen over data sources, model selection, allocation decisions, and transparency, drawing scrutiny from entities including the National Academy of Sciences, state attorneys general, academic critics at institutions like the University of California, Santa Barbara, and advocacy groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Recreational Fishing Alliance. Debates have referenced precedents in governance involving the Magnuson-Stevens Act, litigation in federal courts, and international comparisons with practices in the European Union and Australia.

Category:Fisheries science