Gulf of Mexico Region

Values correspond to Index scores

Description of time series:

Positive NAO values mean significantly warmer winters over the upper Midwest and New England and negative NAO values can mean cold winter outbreaks and heavy snowstorms. During the last five years, the NAO has been variable with neither phase dominant.

Description of gauge:

The unitless two-way gauge depicts whether the average of the last 5 years of data for the climate indicator is above or below the median value of the entire time series. High values in either direction mean extreme variation from the median value of the entire time series. 

Description of North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO):

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) Index measures the relative strengths and positions of a permanent low-pressure system over Iceland (the Icelandic Low) and a permanent high-pressure system over the Azores (the Azores High). When the index is positive (NAO+) significantly warmer winters can occur over the upper Midwest and New England. On the East Coast of the United States a NAO+ can also cause increased rainfall, and thus warmer, less saline surface water. This prevents nutrient-rich upwelling, which reduces productivity. When the NAO index is negative, the upper central and northeastern portions of the United States can incur winter cold outbreaks and heavy snowstorms. This climate condition impacts people and ecosystems across the globe and each of the indicators presented here. Interactions between the ocean and atmosphere alter weather around the world and can result in severe storms or mild weather, drought, or flooding. Beyond “just” influencing the weather and ocean conditions, these changes can produce secondary results that influence food supplies and prices, forest fires and flooding, and create additional economic and political consequences.

Data:

Climate indicator data was accessed from the NOAA NCEP (https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table). The data plotted are unitless anomalies and averaged across a given region

Values correspond to Index scores

Description of time series:

Positive AMO values indicate the warm phase, during which surface waters in the North Atlantic Ocean are warmer than average, and negative AMO values indicate the cold phase, during which surface waters in the North Atlantic Ocean are cooler than average. During the last five years, the AMO has largely been in a positive phase, with little trend.

Description of gauge:

The unitless two-way gauge depicts whether the average of the last 5 years of data for the climate indicator is above or below the median value of the entire time series. High or low gauge values mean recent values are unusually high or low relative to the entire data record.

Description of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO):

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is a series of long-duration changes in the North Atlantic sea surface temperature, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years. Most of the Atlantic between the equator and Greenland changes in unison. Some areas of the North Pacific also seem to be affected. This broadscale climate condition affects air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere. It is also related to major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest of the U.S. In the warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe. Vice-versa for the cold phase. During the warm phases the number of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases. Despite the association of AMO with multiple weather and climate impacts, recent scientific debate has questioned whether this indicator is a natural climate variation, like the other climate indicators presented here, or a response of the climate system to human-caused climate change. Whether natural or a result of human-caused climate change, AMO is a useful feature for tracking large-scale weather and climate events. This climate condition impacts people and ecosystems across the globe and each of the indicators presented here. Interactions between the ocean and atmosphere alter weather around the world and can result in severe storms or mild weather, drought, or flooding. Beyond “just” influencing the weather and ocean conditions, these changes can produce secondary results that influence food supplies and prices, forest fires and flooding, and create additional economic and political consequences.

Data Background:

Climate indicator data was accessed from NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/). The data plotted are unitless anomalies and averaged across a given region

Values correspond to Index scores

Description of time series:

The Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) is NOAA’s primary index for monitoring the El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate pattern. It is based on Sea Surface Temperature values in a particular part of the central equatorial Pacific, which scientists refer to as the Niño 3.4 region. Positive values of this indicator, greater than +0.5, indicate warm El Niño conditions, while negative values, less than -0.5, indicate cold La Niña conditions. The ONI shows a shift from El Nino to La Nina conditions in 2020, followed by a brief period of ENSO-neutral conditions, and then another dip to La Nina conditions in 2021. This pattern is sometimes called a “double dip” La Nina. 

Description of gauge:

The unitless two-way gauge depicts the most recent seasonal value for the ONI showing how far it is above or below the median value of the entire time series. High or low gauge values mean recent values are unusually high or low relative to the entire data record.

Description of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO):

El Niño and La Niña are opposite phases of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a cyclical condition occurring across the Equatorial Pacific Ocean with worldwide effects on weather and climate. During an El Niño, surface waters in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific become warmer than average and the trade winds - blowing from east to west - greatly weaken. During a La Niña, surface waters in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific become much cooler, and the trade winds become much stronger. El Niños and La Niñas generally last about 6 months but can extend up to  2 years. The time between events is irregular, but generally varies between 2-7 years. To monitor ENSO conditions, NOAA operates a network of buoys, which measure temperature, currents, and winds in the equatorial Pacific. 

This climate pattern impacts people and ecosystems around the world. Interactions between the ocean and atmosphere alter weather globally and can result in severe storms or mild weather, drought or flooding. Beyond “just” influencing the weather and ocean conditions, these changes can produce secondary results that influence food supplies and prices, forest fires and flooding, and create additional economic and political consequences. For example, along the west coast of the U.S., warm El Niño events are known to inhibit the delivery of nutrients from subsurface waters, suppressing local fisheries. El Niño events are typically associated with fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic while La Niña events typically result in greater numbers of Atlantic hurricanes.

Data Background:

ENSO ONI data was accessed from NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory (https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/monthly/ONI/). The data are plotted in degrees Celsius and represent Sea Surface Temperature anomalies averaged across the so-called Niño 3.4 region in the east-central tropical Pacific between 120°-170°W.

Sea surface temperature is defined as the average temperature of the top few millimeters of the ocean. Sea surface temperature monitoring tells us how the ocean and atmosphere interact, as well as providing fundamental data on the global climate system

Data Interpretation:

Time series: The time series shows the integrated sea surface temperature for the Gulf of Mexico region.  During the last five years there has been no notable trend and values were between the 10th and 90th percentiles of all observed data in the time series.

Gauge: The gauge value of 89 indicates that the mean sea surface temperature between 2016 and 2021 for the Gulf of Mexico region was higher than 89% of the temperatures between 1985 and 2021.

Indicator and source information:

The SST product used for this analysis is the NOAA Coral Reef Watch CoralTemp v3.1 SST composited monthly (https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/product/5km/index_5km_sst.php) accessed from CoastWatch (https://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov/erddap/griddap/CRW_sst_v3_1_monthly.g…). 

Great Lakes SST data were accessed from (https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/glsea/glsea.html). 

The data are plotted in degrees Celsius. 

Data background and limitations:

The NOAA Coral Reef Watch (CRW) daily global 5km Sea Surface Temperature (SST) product, also known as CoralTemp, shows the nighttime ocean temperature measured at the surface. The CoralTemp SST data product was developed from two, related reanalysis (reprocessed) SST products and a near real-time SST product. Monthly composites were used for this analysis.

Sea level varies due to the force of gravity, the Earth’s rotation and irregular features on the ocean floor. Other forces affecting sea levels include temperature, wind, ocean currents, tides, and other similar processes.

Description of time series:

The time series shows the relative sea level, water height as compared to nearby land level, for the Gulf of Mexico region. During the last five years there has been no notable trend but values were above the 90th percentile of all observed data in the time series.

Description of gauge:

The gauge value of 93 indicates that the sea level between 2016 and 2021 for the Gulf of Mexico region was higher than 93% of the sea level between 1980 and 2021.

Indicator and source information:

NOAA monitors sea levels using tide stations and satellite laser altimeters. Tide stations around the globe tell us what is happening at local levels, while satellite measurements provide us with the average height of the entire ocean. Taken together, data from these sources are fed into models that tell us how our ocean sea levels are changing over time. For this site, data from tide stations around the US were combined to create regionally averaged records of sea-level change since 1980. We present data for all regions.

Data background and limitations:

Sea level data presented here are measurements of relative sea level, water height as compared to nearby land level, from NOAA tide gauges that have >20 years of hourly data served through NOAA’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) Tides and Currents website. These local measurements are regionally averaged by taking the median value of all the qualifying stations within a region. The measurements are in meters and are relative to the year 2000.

Values indicate cumulative annual heatwave intensity and duration in a region in degree-days

Description of Time Series: This time series shows the average integrated degree day value for the Gulf of Mexico region. During the last five years there has been a significant downward trend and values have remained between the 10th and 90th percentiles of all observed data in the time series.

Description of Gauge: The gauge value of 85 indicates that between 2016 and 2021 the average integrated degree day value was much higher than the median average integrated degree day value between 1982 and 2021.

Gauge Values

• 0 - 10: The five-year integrated degree day value is very low compared to the median value.
• 10 - 25: The five-year integrated degree day value is much lower than the median value.
• 25 - 50: The five-year integrated degree day value is lower than the median value.
• 50: The five-year integrated degree day value average equals the median value.
• 50 - 75: The five-year integrated degree day value is higher than the median value.
• 75 - 90: The five-year integrated degree day value is much higher than the median value.
• 90 - 100: The five-year integrated degree day value is very high compared to the median value.

Indicator Source Information:

The marine heatwave data shown here are calculated by NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information using Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature (OISST) data. The NOAA 1/4° OISST is a long term Climate Data Record that incorporates observations from different platforms (satellites, ships, buoys and Argo floats) into a regular global grid. The dataset is interpolated to fill gaps on the grid and create a spatially complete map of sea surface temperature. Satellite and ship observations are referenced to buoys to compensate for platform differences and sensor biases.

Data Background and Caveats:

Heatwave metrics are calculated using OISST, a product that uses some forms of interpolation to fill data gaps. Heatwaves are defined by Hobday et al., 2016 as distinct events where SST anomaly reaches the 90th percentile in a pixel for at least 5 days, separated out by 3 or more days.

Values indicate monthly percent of an LME area affected by heatwave

Description of Time Series: This time series shows the monthly heatwave spatial coverage for the Gulf of Mexico Region. During the last five years there has been no significant trend and the five-year average is higher than the 90th percentile of all observed data in the time series.

Description of Gauge: The gauge value of 90 means that recent heatwave area coverage is very high compared to the median value since the start of this record in 1982.

Gauge Values

• 0 - 10: The five-year area fraction value is very low compared to the median value.
• 10 - 25: The five-year area fraction value is much lower than the median value.
• 25 - 50: The five-year area fraction value is lower than the median value.
• 50: The five-year area fraction value average equals the median value.
• 50 - 75: The five-year area fraction value is higher than the median value.
• 75 - 90: The five-year area fraction value is much higher than the median value.
• 90 - 100: The five-year area fraction value is very high compared to the median value.

Indicator Source Information:

The marine heatwave data shown here are calculated by NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information using Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature (OISST) data. The NOAA 1/4° OISST is a long term Climate Data Record that incorporates observations from different platforms (satellites, ships, buoys and Argo floats) into a regular global grid. The dataset is interpolated to fill gaps on the grid and create a spatially complete map of sea surface temperature. Satellite and ship observations are referenced to buoys to compensate for platform differences and sensor biases.

Data Background and Caveats:

Heatwave metrics are calculated using OISST, a product that uses some forms of interpolation to fill data gaps. Heatwaves are defined by Hobday et al., 2016 as distinct events where SST anomaly reaches the 90th percentile in a pixel for at least 5 days, separated out by 3 or more days

Chlorophyll a, a pigment produced by phytoplankton, can be measured to determine the amount of phytoplankton present in water bodies. From a human perspective, high values of chlorophyll a can be good (abundance of nutritious diatoms as food for fish) or bad (Harmful Algal Blooms that may cause respiratory distress for people), based on the associated phytoplankton species.

Data Interpretation:

Time series: This time series shows the average concentration levels of chlorophyll a for the Gulf of Mexico region.  During the last five years there has been a significant upward trend and values have remained within the 10th and 90th percentiles of all observed data in the time series.

Gauge: The gauge value of 71 indicates that between 2016 and 2021 the average concentration levels of chlorophyll a in the Gulf of Mexico region were considerably higher than the long term median of all chlorophyll a concentration levels between 1998 and 2021.

Gauge values

0–10: Chlorophyll a was significantly lower than the long term median state.

10–25: Chlorophyll a was considerably lower than the long term median state.

25–50: Chlorophyll a was slightly lower than the long term median state.

50: Chlorophyll a was at the long term median state.

50–75: Chlorophyll a was slightly higher than the long term median state.

75–90: Chlorophyll a was considerably higher than the long term median state.

90–100: Chlorophyll a was significantly higher than the long term median state.

Indicator and source information:

Chlorophyll a concentration values for this indicator were obtained using the ESA OC-CCI product, a merged product from the European Spatial Agency (ESA) that is a validated, error-characterized, Essential Climate Variable (ECV) and climate data record (CDR) from satellite observations specifically developed for climate studies. The dataset (v5.0) is created by band shifting and bias-correcting SeaWiFS, MODIS, VIIRS and OLCI data to match MERIS data, merging the datasets and computing per-pixel uncertainty estimates. Source: https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/ocean-colour/news-and-events/news/ocean-colour-version-50-data-release/

https://docs.pml.space/share/s/okB2fOuPT7Cj2r4C5sppDg

Annual means for each LME for each year were calculated from the average of the LME 12 monthly means in that year on a pixel by pixel basis. Then for each year, the median average was taken spatially to yield one value per year per LME. 

Data background and limitations:

Satellite chlorophyll a data was extracted for each LME from the ESA OC-CCI v5.0 product. These 4 km mapped, monthly composited data were - averaged over each year to produce pixel by pixel annual composites, then the spatial median was calculated  for each LME, resulting in one value per year per LME.   This technique was used for each LME from North America and Hawaii. Phytoplankton concentrations are highly variable (spatially and temporally), largely driven by changing oceanographic conditions and seasonal variability.   

Description of time series:

Between 2015 and 2019 the average concentration of zooplankton biomass showed no significant trend.

Description of gauge:

The gauge value of 78 indicates that between 2015 and 2019 the average concentration of zooplankton biomass in the Gulf of Mexico was much higher than the median value of all zooplankton biomass concentration levels between 1982 and 2019.

Gauge values

High values of zooplankton can be good (lots of lipid rich colder water species) or bad (lots of lipid poor warmer water species), depending on the region.

0 - 10: The five-year zooplankton biomass average is very low compared to the median value.

10 - 25: The five-year zooplankton biomass average is much lower than the median value.

25 - 50: The five-year zooplankton biomass average is lower than the median value.

 50: The five-year zooplankton biomass average equals the median value.

50 - 75: The five-year zooplankton biomass average is higher than the median value.

75 - 90: The five-year zooplankton biomass average is much higher than the median value.

90 - 100: The five-year zooplankton biomass average is very high compared to the median value.

Indicator information

Zooplankton data for each region were obtained from the NOAA Fisheries Coastal & Oceanic Plankton Ecology, Production, & Observations Database, an integrated data set of quality-controlled, globally distributed plankton biomass and abundance data with common biomass units and served in a common electronic format with supporting documentation and access software. California Current specific data comes from the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) program: https://calcofi.org/

Data Background and Caveats:

Zooplankton data for each region were obtained from the NOAA Fisheries Coastal & Oceanic Plankton Ecology, Production, & Observations Database, an integrated data set of quality-controlled, globally distributed plankton biomass and abundance data with common biomass units and served in a common electronic format with supporting documentation and access software. Source: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/copepod/about/about-copepod.html

Description of gauge:

The Flower Garden Banks coral reefs score 89, meaning most indicators meet reference values. 

Data Interpretation:

The scores you see for each region are composite scores for the themes and then one overall score. The overall score is an average of all four theme scores for the Flower Garden Banks region’s coral reef ecosystem score. 

Benthic – Composite gauge for benthic theme score in the Flower Garden Banks region is 93%, meaning it is ranked very good with all or almost all indicators meeting reference values.

Fish – Composite gauge for fish theme score in the Flower Garden Banks region is 85%, meaning it is ranked good with most indicators meeting reference values..

Climate – Composite gauge for climate theme score in the Flower Garden Banks region is 88%, meaning it is ranked good with most indicators meeting reference values.

Human connections – Human connections theme was not scored for the Flower Garden Banks region  because the region is uninhabited.

Overall Ecosystem – Overall coral reef ecosystem score for the Flower Garden Banks region is 89%, meaning it is ranked good with most indicators meeting reference values.

Description of each theme is provided in the indicator information section below.

Gauge values

90–100% Very good: All or almost all indicators meet reference values.

80–89% Good: Most indicators meet reference values.

70–79% Fair: Some indicators meet reference values. 

60–69% Impaired: Few indicators meet reference values.

0–59% Critical: Very few or no indicators meet reference values.

Description of Gulf of Mexico – Flower Garden Banks

The East and West Flower Garden Banks are submerged topographic features off the shores of Texas and Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. Rising from over 150 m depth to 17 m below the sea surface, they harbor relatively deep coral reef ecosystems. They were first discovered in the early 1900s and designated as part of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in 1992. Flower Garden Banks combines data collected from both East and West Flower Garden Banks into a single score. The total coral reef hardbottom habitat less than 30 m in depth that was monitored for Flower Garden Banks is 0.898 square kilometers.

Description of Coral Reefs:

Coral reefs are some of the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. Though they cover less than one percent of the Earth’s surface, they are estimated to provide ecosystem services (economic and environmental services) worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Healthy reefs protect islands and coasts from storm surge, contribute to local economies through tourism (i.e., sportfishing, snorkeling, and diving), and contribute about one-quarter of the total fish catch, providing critical food resources for tens of millions of people particularly in developing island nations.

Data Source:

The coral reef ecosystem scores shown here were analyzed using data from the National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP). The scores you see for each region are composite scores for all four themes (benthic, fish, climate, human connections) assessed separately and then one overall score. The overall score is an average of all four theme scores for a specific region’s coral reef ecosystem score. The sources for these values and geographical regions are obtained from the NCRMP’s Status Report Scoring Methodology for Pacific Jurisdictions and 2020 Status Report Scoring Methodology for Atlantic Jurisdictions. The definitions for the themes are as follows:

- Benthic (Corals & algae): Corals and algae make up the base of the coral reef ecosystem, providing food and shelter for fish and other marine animals.

- Fish: Coral reefs serve a vital ecological role for fish species. Fish are important to the ecology of the reef, the economy, and the livelihoods of local communities.

- Climate: Climate affects all components of a reef system. Climate change and ocean acidification influence reefs across the globe, but conditions vary at the regional and local level.

- Human Connections: Coral reef management agencies protect reef resources through management plans, public education, and involving communities in managing their resources.

Data Interpretation:

The scores you see for each region are composite scores for the themes and then one overall score. The overall score is an average of all four theme scores for the Florida region’s coral reef ecosystem score. 

Benthic – Composite gauge for benthic theme score in the Florida region is 70%, meaning it is ranked fair with some indicators meeting reference values.

Fish – Composite gauge for fish theme score in the Florida region is 73%, meaning it is ranked fair with some indicators meeting reference values.

Climate – Composite gauge for climate theme score in the Florida region is 68%, meaning it is ranked impaired with very few indicators meeting reference values.

Human connections – Composite gauge for human connections theme score in the Florida region is 66%, meaning it is ranked impaired with very few indicators meeting reference values.

Overall Ecosystem – Overall coral reef ecosystem score for the Florida region is 69%, meaning it is ranked impaired with very few indicators meeting reference values.

Description of each theme is provided in the indicator information section below.

Gauge values

90–100% Very good: All or almost all indicators meet reference values.

80–89% Good: Most indicators meet reference values.

70–79% Fair: Some indicators meet reference values. 

60–69% Impaired: Few indicators meet reference values.

0–59% Critical: Very few or no indicators meet reference values.

Description of Florida coral reefs

Florida’s coral reef extends from Martin County on the Atlantic Coast of Florida through the Keys to the Dry Tortugas in the Gulf of Mexico. Florida’s coral reef is the only coral reef found along the coast of the continental United States. It was divided into three sub-regions to evaluate condition. The three regions are Southeast Florida, Florida Keys, and Dry Tortugas. The Dry Tortugas encompass a small group of islands approximately 67 miles west of Key West, Florida. Most of the Dry Tortugas lie within the National Park. The total coral reef hardbottom habitat less than 30 m in depth that was monitored is 1,190 sq km.

Description of Coral Reefs:

Coral reefs are some of the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. Though they cover less than one percent of the Earth’s surface, they are estimated to provide ecosystem services (economic and environmental services) worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Healthy reefs protect islands and coasts from storm surge, contribute to local economies through tourism (i.e., sportfishing, snorkeling, and diving), and contribute about one-quarter of the total fish catch, providing critical food resources for tens of millions of people particularly in developing island nations.

Data Source:

The coral reef ecosystem scores shown here were analyzed using data from the National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP). The scores you see for each region are composite scores for all four themes (benthic, fish, climate, human connections) assessed separately and then one overall score. The overall score is an average of all four theme scores for a specific region’s coral reef ecosystem score. The sources for these values and geographical regions are obtained from the NCRMP’s Status Report Scoring Methodology for Pacific Jurisdictions and 2020 Status Report Scoring Methodology for Atlantic Jurisdictions. The definitions for the themes are as follows:

- Benthic (Corals & algae): Corals and algae make up the base of the coral reef ecosystem, providing food and shelter for fish and other marine animals.

- Fish: Coral reefs serve a vital ecological role for fish species. Fish are important to the ecology of the reef, the economy, and the livelihoods of local communities.

- Climate: Climate affects all components of a reef system. Climate change and ocean acidification influence reefs across the globe, but conditions vary at the regional and local level.

- Human Connections: Coral reef management agencies protect reef resources through management plans, public education, and involving communities in managing their resources.

alues indicate the relative seabird abundance in the Gulf of Mexico based on a Relative Abundance Index.

Description of the Time Series

Due to COVID-19 no data was collected in 2020 or 2021 so there is no proper status or trend update.

Description of the Gauge:

Due to COVID-19 no data was collected in 2020 and 2021 so no gauge value is available.

Overall Scores means the following:

• 0 - 10: The five-year seabirds average is very low compared to the median value.
• 10 - 25: The five-year seabirds average is much lower than the median value.
• 25 - 50: The five-year seabirds average is lower than the median value.
• 50: The five-year seabirds average equals the median value.
• 50 - 75: The five-year seabirds average is higher than the median value.
• 75 - 90: The five-year seabirds average is much higher than the median value.
• 90 - 100: The five-year seabirds average is very high compared to the median value.

Indicator and Source Information:

To construct relative indices of abundance, the Gulf of Mexico Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Program used the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird database, an extensive, standardized compilation of volunteer and professional bird sighting observations (www.eBird.com). Relative indices of abundance for five species ); white ibis (Eudocimus albus), wood stork (Mycteria americana), and roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens); were used to conduct a principal components analysis of the matrix of species abundances over time to find common linear trends among species. The unitless index is a representation of the overall rate change in abundances across the entire suite of species (2017 Ecosystem status report update for the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-706). 

Data Background and Caveats:

Ideally, abundance indices for true pelagic seabirds would be presented, as they would be more representative of the state of the pelagic ecosystem and the quality of the larger-scale forage base in the GoM (2017 Ecosystem status report update for the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-706).

The x-axis represents years. The y-axis represents the number of fish stocks or fish populations that are deemed by NOAA as overfished. Overfished means the population of fish is too low. Therefore the population cannot support a large amount of fishing.

Description of time series:

The series shows the number of fish populations that have qualified as overfished since 2000. Between 2017 and 2022 the number of overfished stocks shows no trend.

Description of Overfished stocks:

An overfished stock is a population of fish that is too low. Therefore the population can not support a large amount of fishing. A fish population can be “overfished” as the result of many factors, including overfishing, as well as habitat degradation, pollution, climate change, and disease. Stocks are determined to be overfished by NOAA as mandated in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, based on the results of stock assessments.

Overall Scores mean the following:

High values for overfished stocks are bad, low numbers are good.

• 0 - 10: The five-year overfished stock status average is very low compared to the median value.
• 10 - 25: The five-year overfished stock status average is much lower than the median value.
• 25 - 50: The five-year overfished stock status average is lower than the median value.
• 50: The five-year overfished stock status average equals the median value.
• 50 - 75: The five-year overfished stock status average is higher than the median value.
• 75 - 90: The five-year overfished stock status average is much higher than the median value.
• 90 - 100: The five-year overfished stock status average is very high compared to the median value.

Data Source:

Data were obtained from the NOAA Fisheries Fishery Stock Status website. Stocks that met the criteria for overfished status were summed by year for each region.

Values Correspond to the Number of ESA Threatened or Endangered Species in a given region

Data Interpretation

Gauge and Trend Analyses were not appropriate for marine mammal data.

Description of Threatened and Endangered Marine Mammals (ESA):

NOAA Fisheries is responsible for the protection, conservation, and recovery of endangered and threatened marine and anadromous species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA aims to conserve these species and the ecosystems they depend on. Under the ESA, a species is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or threatened if it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range See a species directory of all the threatened and endangered marine species under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction, including marine mammals. 

Under the ESA, a species must be listed if it is threatened or endangered because of any of the following 5 factors:

1) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

2) Over-utilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

3) Disease or predation;

4) Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

5) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The ESA requires that listing determinations be based solely on the best scientific and commercial information available; economic impacts are not considered in making species listing determinations and are prohibited under the ESA. There are two ways by which a species may come to be listed (or delisted) under the ESA:

- NOAA Fisheries receives a petition from a person or organization requesting that NOAA lists a species as threatened or endangered, reclassify a species, or delist a species.

- NOAA Fisheries voluntarily chooses to examine the status of a species by initiating a status review of a species.

Data Background and Caveats

NOAA Fisheries goes through required regulatory steps to list, reclassify, or delist a species under the ESA. For more information, see a step-by-step description of the ESA listing process. The listing process requires time and resources; as a result, the timing and number of listed marine species is not necessarily indicative of the actual number of currently endangered or threatened species and the exact timing of when these species became eligible to be listed under the ESA. Many marine species were initially listed when the ESA was passed in 1973; others have taken more time to be listed, and some have been reclassified or delisted since then.

Values correspond to the number of MMPA Strategic or Depleted Marine Mammal Species listed each year in each region

Data Interpretation

Gauge and Trend Analyses were not appropriate for marine mammal data.

Description of Marine Mammal Strategic and Depleted Stocks (MMPA):

A stock is defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as a group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement, that interbreed when mature. See a list of the marine mammal stocks NOAA protects under the MMPA.

A strategic stock is defined by the MMPA as a marine mammal stock—

- For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level or PBR (defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population); 

- Which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or 

- Which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted under the MMPA. 

A depleted stock is defined by the MMPA as any case in which—

- The Secretary of Commerce, after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals established under MMPA title II, determines that a species or population stock is below its optimum sustainable population; 

- A State, to which authority for the conservation and management of a species or population stock is transferred under section 109, determines that such species or stock is below its optimum sustainable population; or 

- A species or population stock is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species under the ESA. 

Data Background and Caveats

NOAA Fisheries prepares marine mammal stock assessment reports to track the status of marine mammal stocks. Some marine mammal stocks are thriving, while others are declining, and we often don’t know all the reasons behind a species or stock’s population trend. Because of this variability, it is difficult to indicate the state of an ecosystem or specific region using stock assessment data for marine mammal species that often range across multiple ecosystems and regions.

Values indicate annual cumulative change in centroid across all species in a region in degrees N

Description of Time Series: Between 2014 and 2019 the average species latitudinal shift shows a decreasing trend, indicating a southward shift in distributions.

Description of Gauge: The gauge value of 67 indicates that between 2015 and 2019 the average species latitudinal shift was higher than the median average latitudinal shift between 2008 and 2019.

Gauge Values

• 0 - 10: The five-year latitudinal shift is very low compared to the median value.
• 10 - 25: The five-year latitudinal shift is much lower than the median value.
• 25 - 50: The five-year latitudinal shift is lower than the median value.
• 50: The five-year latitudinal shift average equals the median value.
• 50 - 75: The five-year latitudinal shift is higher than the median value.
• 75 - 90: The five-year latitudinal shift is much higher than the median value.
• 90 - 100: The five-year latitudinal shift is very high compared to the median value.

Indicator Source Information:

This data provides important information for fisheries management including which species are caught where and at what depth. The scientists at DisMAP use this data to calculate each species’ centroid as the mean latitude and depth of catch in the survey, weighted by biomass. The centroid for each species is calculated for each year after standardizing the data to ensure that the measure is consistent over time despite changes in survey techniques and total area surveyed. 
 

Data Background and Caveats:

The regional and national marine species distributions shown here represent the average shift in the centroid of species caught in surveys conducted in each region. These species represent a wide range of habitats and species types. As species distributions respond to many environmental and biological factors, combining data from multiple diverse species allows for a more complete picture of the general trends in marine species distribution. In order to more easily track and display changes in these distributions, the first year is standardized to zero. Thus, the indicator represents relative change in distribution from the first survey year.

Values Indicate annual cumulative change in average species centroid depth in meters - for example, a value of -5 indicates the species centroid moving deeper by 5m.

Description of Time Series: Between 2014 and 2019 the average species water column depth shift shows no significant trend.

Description of Gauge: The gauge value of 75 indicates that between 2015 and 2019 the average species water column depth shift was much higher than the median average water column depth shift between 2008 and 2019 with species moving deeper.

Gauge Values

• 0 - 10: The five-year water column depth shift is very high compared to the median value with species moving deeper.
• 10 - 25: The five-year water column depth shift is much higher than the median value with species moving deeper.
• 25 - 50: The five-year water column depth shift is higher than the median value with species moving deeper.
• 50: The five-year water column depth shift average equals the median value.
• 50 - 75: The five-year water column depth shift is higher than the median value with species moving towards the surface.
• 75 - 90: The five-year water column depth shift is much higher than the median value with species moving towards the surface.
• 90 - 100: The five-year water column depth shift is very high compared to the median value with species moving towards the surface.

Indicator Source Information:

This data provides important information for fisheries management including which species are caught where and at what depth. The scientists at DisMAP use this data to calculate each species’ centroid as the mean latitude and depth of catch in the survey, weighted by biomass. The centroid for each species is calculated for each year after standardizing the data to ensure that the measure is consistent over time despite changes in survey techniques and total area surveyed. 

Data Background and Caveats:

The regional and national marine species distributions shown here represent the average centroid of all species caught in every year of the surveys. These species represent a wide range of habitats and species types. As species distributions respond to many environmental and biological factors, combining data from multiple diverse species allows for a more complete picture of the general trends in marine species distribution. In order to more easily track and display changes in these distributions, the first year is standardized to zero. Thus, the indicator represents relative change in distribution from the first survey year.

Values correspond to the total coastal population for a given region

Time Series

The 2014 – 2019 average coastal population along the Gulf of Mexico was substantially above historic levels, although the recent trend is not different from historical trends.      

Gauge

The gauge value of 94 indicates that the coastal population between 2014 and 2019 for the Gulf of Mexico was higher than 94% of the coastal population values between 1970 and 2019.

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average coastal population over the last 5 years of data was below any annual population level up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average over that same period was above any annual population level up until that point.

Indicator Source Information:

The American Community Survey (ACS) helps local officials, community leaders, and businesses understand the changes taking place in their communities. It is the premier source for detailed population and housing information about our nation. 

Data Background and Caveats:

The values represented here are coastal county population estimates for states bordering US Large Marine Ecosystems as calculated by the US Census Bureau from the American Community Survey.

Values correspond to percent change in the GDP of the Tourism Sector of Coastal Counties in US States that border a region

Description of Time Series: Between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county tourism GDP showed no significant trend.

Description of Gauge: The gauge value of 54 indicates that between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county tourism sector GDP was higher than the median change in coastal county tourism sector GDP between 2006 and 2018

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average coastal tourism GDP over the last 5 years of data was below any annual coastal tourism GDP level up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average over that same period was above any annual coastal tourism GDP value up until that point.

Indicator Source Information

Coastal tourism Gross Domestic Product is the total measure (in billions of 2012 dollars) of goods and services provided from various industries involved in tourism services and products along the coast. Data for Coastal Counties come from the US Census Bureau. This dataset represents US counties and independent cities which have at least one coastal border and select non-coastal counties and independent cities based on proximity to estuaries and other coastal counties. The dataset is built to support coastal and ocean planning and other activities pursuant to the Energy Policy Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Rivers and Harbors Act and the Submerged Lands Act.

Values correspond to percent change in the total Employment of the Tourism Sector of Coastal Counties in US States that border a region

Description of Time Series: Between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county employment showed a decreasing trend.

Description of Gauge: Between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county tourism sector employment was lower than the median change in coastal county tourism sector employment between 2006 and 2018.

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average coastal tourism employment over the last 5 years of data was below any annual coastal tourism employment level up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average over that same period was above any annual coastal tourism employment level up until that point.

Indicator Source Information:

Coastal tourism employment is the total measure of jobs in tourism industries along the coast.  Data for Coastal Counties come from the US Census Bureau. This dataset represents US counties and independent cities which have at least one coastal border and select non-coastal counties and independent cities based on proximity to estuaries and other coastal counties. The dataset is built to support coastal and ocean planning and other activities pursuant to the Energy Policy Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Rivers and Harbors Act and the Submerged Lands Act.

Values correspond to percent change in the total real wage compensation of the Tourism Sector of Coastal Counties in US States that border a region

Description of Time Series: Between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county real wage compensation showed a decreasing trend.

Description of Gauge: Between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county tourism sector real wage compensation was much higher than the median change in coastal county tourism sector real wage compensation between 2006 and 2018.

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average coastal tourism wage compensation over the last 5 years of data was below any annual coastal tourism wage compensation level up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average over that same period was above any annual coastal tourism wage compensation level up until that point.

Description of Coastal Tourism:

U.S. coasts are host to a multitude of travel, tourism, and recreation activities. To manage our coasts, plan for development, and assess impacts as a result of coastal hazards including sea level rise, it is important to have baseline economic information. To accomplish this, we need indicators of the economic value of recreation and tourism. We present the annual total change in billions of dollars of goods and services (GDP), employment and annual wages provided from tourism industries in the Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Hawaii-Pacific Islands, Southeast, and California Current regions. This data does not include industries located in U.S. territories. 

Indicator Source Information:

Coastal tourism wage is the measure of wages (nominal) paid to employees in tourism industries along the coast. Data for Coastal Counties come from the US Census Bureau. This dataset represents US counties and independent cities which have at least one coastal border and select non-coastal counties and independent cities based on proximity to estuaries and other coastal counties. The dataset is built to support coastal and ocean planning and other activities pursuant to the Energy Policy Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Rivers and Harbors Act and the Submerged Lands Act.

Values correspond to total employment in all industries in the coastal counties of a given region

Time Series

Average coastal employment along the Gulf of Mexico between 2014 and 2019 was similar to historical levels, and no substantial trend is apparent over that same period.

Gauge

The gauge value of 87 indicates that coastal employment between 2014 and 2019 for the Gulf of Mexico was higher than 87% of all years between 2005 and 2019.

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average coastal employment level over the last 5 years of data was below any annual employment level up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average over that same period was above any annual employment level up until that point.

Data Source:

Coastal employment numbers were downloaded from the NOAA ENOW Explorer Tool, filtered to present only coastal county values using the Census Bureau’s list of coastal counties within each state. ENOW Explorer streamlines the task of obtaining and comparing economic data, both county and state, for the six sectors dependent on the ocean and Great Lakes: living resources, marine construction, marine transportation, offshore mineral resources, ship and boat building, and tourism and recreation. Data are derived from Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW), available on NOAA’s Digital Coast. Of note is that these data fail to include self-employed individuals. Coastal county employment numbers were then summed within each region for reporting purposes.

Values correspond to landings in millions of metric tons

Commercial Landings Time Series

Between 2016 and 2021, commercial landings from the Gulf of Mexico were similar to historic levels, and there is no recent trend apparent.   

Commercial Landings Gauge

The gauge value of 29 indicates that the mean annual commercial landings between 2016 and 2021 for the Gulf of Mexico was higher than 29% of all years between 1950 and 2021.

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average revenue or landings over the last 5 years of data was below any annual value up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average value over that same period was above any annual value up until that point.

Indicator Source Information:

Landings are reported in pounds of round (live) weight for all species or groups except univalve and bivalve mollusks, such as clams, mussels, oysters and scallops, which are reported as pounds of meats (excludes shell weight). Landings data may sometimes differ from state-reported landings due to our reporting of mollusks in meat weights rather than gallons, shell weight, or bushels. Also, NMFS includes some species such as kelp and oysters that are sometimes reported by state agricultural agencies and may not be included with state fishery agency landings data.

Data Background and Caveats:

All landings summaries will return only non confidential landing statistics. Federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of landings (or other information) that would allow identification of the data contributors and possibly put them at a competitive disadvantage. Most summarized landings are non confidential, but whenever confidential landings occur they have been combined with other landings and usually reported as "Withheld for Confidentiality" Total landings by state include confidential data and will be accurate, but landings reported by individual species may, in some instances, be misleading due to data confidentiality.

Landings data do not indicate the physical location of harvest but the location at which the landings either first crossed the dock or were reported from.

Many fishery products are gutted or otherwise processed while at sea and are landed in a product type other than round (whole) weight. Our data partners have standard conversion factors for the majority of the commonly caught species that convert their landing weights from any product type to whole weight. It is the whole weight that is displayed in our web site landing statistics. Caution should be exercised when using these statistics. An example of a potential problem is when landings statistics are used to monitor fishery quotas. In some situations, specific conversion factors may have been designated in fishery management plans or Federal rule making that differ from those historically used by NOAA Fisheries in reporting landings statistics.

The dollar value of the landings are ex-vessel (as paid to the fisherman at time of first sale) and are reported as nominal (current at the time of reporting) values. Users can use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Producer Price Index (PPI) to convert these nominal landing values into real (deflated) values.

Landings do not include aquaculture products except for clams, mussels and oysters.

Pacific landings summarized by state include an artificial “state” designation of “At-Sea Process, Pac.” This designation was assigned to landings consisting of primarily whiting caught in the EEZ off Washington and Oregon that were processed aboard large vessels while at sea. No Pacific state lists these fish on their trip tickets which are used to report state fishery landing, hence the at-sea processor designation was used to insure that they would be listed as a U.S. landing.

Landing summaries are compiled from data bases that overlap in time and geographic coverage, and come from both within and outside of NOAA Fisheries.

Values correspond to real revenue is 2021 US Dollars

Commercial Revenue Time Series

Between 2015 and 2020, average annual commercial revenue from the Gulf of Mexico was not different from historical patterns, and there is no trend in values. 

Commercial Revenue Gauge

The gauge value of 20 indicates that the mean annual commercial revenue between 2015 and 2020 for the Gulf of Mexico was higher than 20% of all years between 1950 and 2020.

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average revenue or landings over the last 5 years of data was below any annual value up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average value over that same period was above any annual value up until that point.

Indicator Source Information:

Landings are reported in pounds of round (live) weight for all species or groups except univalve and bivalve mollusks, such as clams, mussels, oysters and scallops, which are reported as pounds of meats (excludes shell weight). Landings data may sometimes differ from state-reported landings due to our reporting of mollusks in meat weights rather than gallons, shell weight, or bushels. Also, NMFS includes some species such as kelp and oysters that are sometimes reported by state agricultural agencies and may not be included with state fishery agency landings data.

Data Background and Caveats:

All landings summaries will return only non confidential landing statistics. Federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of landings (or other information) that would allow identification of the data contributors and possibly put them at a competitive disadvantage. Most summarized landings are non confidential, but whenever confidential landings occur they have been combined with other landings and usually reported as "Withheld for Confidentiality" Total landings by state include confidential data and will be accurate, but landings reported by individual species may, in some instances, be misleading due to data confidentiality.

Landings data do not indicate the physical location of harvest but the location at which the landings either first crossed the dock or were reported from.

Many fishery products are gutted or otherwise processed while at sea and are landed in a product type other than round (whole) weight. Our data partners have standard conversion factors for the majority of the commonly caught species that convert their landing weights from any product type to whole weight. It is the whole weight that is displayed in our web site landing statistics. Caution should be exercised when using these statistics. An example of a potential problem is when landings statistics are used to monitor fishery quotas. In some situations, specific conversion factors may have been designated in fishery management plans or Federal rule making that differ from those historically used by NOAA Fisheries in reporting landings statistics.

The dollar value of the landings are ex-vessel (as paid to the fisherman at time of first sale) and are reported as nominal (current at the time of reporting) values. Users can use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Producer Price Index (PPI) to convert these nominal landing values into real (deflated) values.

Landings do not include aquaculture products except for clams, mussels and oysters.

Pacific landings summarized by state include an artificial “state” designation of “At-Sea Process, Pac.” This designation was assigned to landings consisting of primarily whiting caught in the EEZ off Washington and Oregon that were processed aboard large vessels while at sea. No Pacific state lists these fish on their trip tickets which are used to report state fishery landing, hence the at-sea processor designation was used to insure that they would be listed as a U.S. landing.

Landing summaries are compiled from data bases that overlap in time and geographic coverage, and come from both within and outside of NOAA Fisheries. 

Values correspond to cumulative number of angler trips

Description of time series:

Between 2015 and 2020, recreational fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico is around historic levels. There is no trend apparent.  

Description of gauge:

The gauge value of 55 indicates that the recreational fishing effort between 2015 and 2020 for the Gulf of Mexico was higher than 55% of the recreational fishing effort values between 1982 and 2020.

 Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average effort or harvest over the last 5 years of data was below any annual value up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average value over that same period was above any annual value up until that point.

Indicator Source Information

Recreational harvest and effort data pulled from National Summary Query. Units of data are in Effort in Angler Trips and Harvest in numbers of fish.The data from these queries is used by state, regional and federal fisheries scientists and managers to maintain healthy and sustainable fish stocks.

Data Background and Caveats:

To properly interpret this information, it is important to consider the following key points:

• When comparing harvest estimates across an extended time series, note differences in sampling coverage through the years. Some estimates may not be comparable over long time series.
• Changes may occur between preliminary and final estimates and year to year, meaning that the data may change when updated. Please review the Limitations and other sections on the Using the Data page from the source for more information.

Values correspond to harvest in millions of fish

Description of time series:

Between 2015 and 2020, recreational harvest from the Gulf of Mexico are around historic levels, though the 2020 level is the lowest of the series. There is a significant downward trend apparent.  

Description of gauge:

The gauge value of 40 indicates that the recreational fishing harvest between 2015 and 2020 for the Gulf of Mexico was higher than 40% of the recreational fishing harvest values between 1982 and 2020.

 Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average effort or harvest over the last 5 years of data was below any annual value up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average value over that same period was above any annual value up until that point.

Indicator Source Information

Recreational harvest and effort data pulled from National Summary Query. Units of data are in Effort in Angler Trips and Harvest in numbers of fish.The data from these queries is used by state, regional and federal fisheries scientists and managers to maintain healthy and sustainable fish stocks.

Data Background and Caveats:

To properly interpret this information, it is important to consider the following key points:

• When comparing catch estimates across an extended time series, note differences in sampling coverage through the years. Some estimates may not be comparable over long time series.
• Changes may occur between preliminary and final estimates and year to year, meaning that the data may change when updated. Please review the Limitations and other sections on the Using the Data page from the source for more information.

The x-axis on this time series represents years and the y-axis represents the percent of communities that are moderate to highly engaged in commercial fishing across the Gulf of Mexico. Commercial fishing engagement is measured by the number permits, fish dealers, and vessel landings across coastal communities in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Description of time series:

This time series shows the percent of communities moderately or highly engaged in commercial fishing in the Gulf of Mexico from 2009 to 2019. Between 2014 and 2019 the percent of communities moderately or highly engaged in commercial fishing showed a decreasing trend, with the 2019 level at a series low level.

Description of gauge:

The gauge value of 27 indicates that the mean annual commercial fishing engagement between 2014 and 2019 for Gulf of Mexico communities was higher than 27% of all years in the time series.

Description of Gulf of Mexico Commercial Fishing Engagement:

Commercial fishing engagement is measured by the presence of fishing activity in coastal communities. The commercial engagement index is measured through permits, fish dealers, and vessel landings. A high rank within these indicates more engagement in fisheries. For details on both data sources and indicator development, please see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/socioeconomics/social-indicator….

NOAA Monitors commercial fishing engagement to better understand the social and economic impacts of fishing policies and regulations on our nation’s vital fishing communities. This and other social indicators help assess a coastal community’s resilience. NOAA works with state and local partners to monitor these indicators. We present data from the Northeast, Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, California Current, Alaska, and Hawaiian Island regions.

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average percentage of communities engaged in commercial or recreational fishing over the last 5 years of data was below any annual engagement level up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average over that same period was above any engagement level up until that point.

Data Source:

Commercial fishing engagement data is from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s social indicator data portal:https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/data-and-tools/social-indicators/ The percentage of all communities in each region classified as medium, medium high, or highly engaged is presented for both recreational and commercial fishing

The x-axis on this time series represents years and the y-axis represents the percent of communities that are moderately to highly engaged in recreational fishing across the Gulf of Mexico.

Recreational Engagement Time Series

This time series shows the percent of communities moderately to highly engaged in recreational fishing in the Gulf of Mexico from 2009 to 2019. Between 2014 and 2019 (highlighted in green) the percent of communities moderately or highly engaged in recreational fishing showed no significant trend.

Recreational Engagement Gauge

The gauge value of 18  indicates that the average annual recreational fishing engagement between 2014 and 2019 for the Gulf of Mexico was only higher than 18% of all years between 2009 and 2019.

Extreme Gauge values:

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average percentage of communities engaged in commercial or recreational fishing over the last 5 years of data was below any annual engagement level up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average over that same period was above any engagement level up until that point.

Indicator Source Information:

The Gulf of Mexico recreational engagement index is measured using shore, private vessel and for-hire vessel fishing activity estimates for western Florida to Mississippi. The index for Louisiana and Texas is measured using estimates for boat ramps, fishing piers, recreational vessels by homeport and recreational vessels by owner address.

Data Source:

Commercial fishing engagement data is from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s social indicator data portal:https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/data-and-tools/social-indicators/ The percentage of all communities in each region classified as medium, medium high, or highly engaged is presented for both recreational and commercial fishing

Beach closures are the number of days when beach water quality is determined to be unsafe.

Data Interpretation:

Time series: This time series shows the average number of beach closure days in the Gulf of Mexico region from 2000 to 2021. During the last five years, there has been a significant upward trend while values have remained within the 10th and 90th percentiles of all observed data in the time series.

Gauge: The gauge value of 86 indicates that between 2017 and 2021 the average number of beach closure days in the Gulf of Mexico region was higher than 86% of all beach closure days between 2000 and 2021.

Gauge values

0–10: The five-year beach closure days average is very low compared to the median value.

10–25: The five-year beach closure days average is much lower than the median value.

25–50: The five-year beach closure days average is lower than the median value.

50: The five-year beach closure days average equals the median value.

50–75: The five-year beach closure days average is higher than the median value.

75–90: The five-year beach closure days average is much higher than the median value.

90–100: The five-year beach closure days average is very high compared to the median. 

* gauge value is the percentile rank of the last five years based on the time series.

Indicator and source information:

Unsafe water quality may have significant impacts on human health, local economies, and the ecosystem. Beach water quality is determined by the concentration of bacteria in the water (either Enterococcus sp. or Escherichia coli). 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports coastal states, counties and tribes in monitoring beach water quality, and notifying the public when beaches must be closed. The information presented is from states, counties, and tribes that submit data to the EPA Beach Program reporting database (BEACON). Data obtained from the EPA BEACON 2.0 website have been provided to EPA by the coastal and Great Lakes states, tribes and territories that receive grants under the BEACH Act. Data were refined to closure, by state or territory, by year.

Data background and limitations:

Data compiled by states or territories are combined in regions defined as US Large Marine Ecosystems (LME). Changes in the number of beach closure days may be driven by changes in the number of beaches monitored under the BEACH Act versus by state and local municipalities and not by changes in water and/or air quality. Not all US beach closures are captured in this database, because not all beaches in a state or territory are monitored through the EPA BEACH Act. Data that were not identified to a water body or identified as inland water were not included. Data for beaches monitored by state and local municipalities are not included. 

Data from 2020 and beyond may be inflated by the Covid-19 pandemic, as there was no consistent way for states to report pandemic-related closures.

Values correspond to the number of events in a given year

Time Series

The number of billion dollar disasters along the Gulf of Mexico is variable over time. The number of disasters over the past 5 years is substantially higher than historical levels of events and is trending upwards. 

Gauge

The gauge value of 93 indicates that the number of billion dollar disasters between 2017 and 2021 for the Gulf of Mexico was higher than 93% of all years between 1980 and 2021.

Extreme Gauge values

A value of zero on the gauge means that the average number of disasters over the last 5 years of data was below any annual level up until that point, while a value of 100 would indicate the average over that same period was above any annual number of disasters up until that point. 

Indicator Source Information:

Billion dollar disaster event frequency data are taken from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. The number of disasters within each region were summed for every year of available data. Although the number is the count of unique disaster events within a region, the same disaster can impact multiple regions, meaning a sum across regions will overestimate the unique number of disasters.

Data Background and Caveats:

Events are included if they are estimated to cause more than one billion U.S. dollars in direct losses. The cost estimates of these events are adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and are based on costs documented in several Federal and private-sector databases.