
The Northeast region extends from Maine to Virginia encompassing the marine coastlines of 11 states. Within its bounds are the Gulf of Maine, Cape Cod Bay, as well as myriad estuarine systems including Long Island Sound, the New York Bight, the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays. Rocky shorelines, wetlands, beach/dune complexes, barrier island systems with intertidal and freshwater wetland complexes, and low lying sandy coastal plains abound in this region
Significant marine ecosystems in the region include the Gulf of Maine, Mid Atlantic Bight, and Georges Bank which support thousands of marine plant and animal species, including over 180 species of seabirds. This biological richness is supported by seasonal phytoplankton blooms and high annual primary productivity.
Approximately 70 million people live in the Northeast, making it the most populous region in the U.S. About 82% of these people live in coastal counties which are vulnerable to storm surge, flooding, sea level rise, salt water intrusion, and changes to temperature and precipitation extremes.
The Northeast has significant coastal-dependent industries with three of the top five U.S. ports (value of fish landed) and five of the Nation’s top 20 ports (international cargo volume). Home to a highly productive fishery, this region supports over a third of the national coastal ocean economy in commercial fishing, with important contributions from tourism, recreation, and shipping.
Understanding the Gauge plots
The gauge plots that accompany the indicator time series are meant to reflect the current status of that ecosystem component at the regional or national level. The numerical scores are determined as the percentile rank of the average (mean) value of that indicator over the last five years of the time series, relative to the series as a whole. The values typically represent quantitative scores, with more desirable conditions in the darker blue. Thus, some gauges are "right-handed" with the higher values being in darker blue, whereas other gauges are "left-handed" with lower values being in darker blue (indicating that lower values are preferable). In some instances (e.g. climate measures), the scores represented are unitless and are presented as two-way gauges, indicating that either high or low scores are observed, implying neither higher nor lower values are necessarily preferred.



Understanding the Time series plots
Time series plots show the changes in each indicator as a function of time, over the period 1980-present. Each plot also shows horizontal lines that indicate the median (middle) value of that indicator, as well as the 10th and 90th percentiles, each calculated for the entire period of measurement. Time series plots were only developed for datasets with at least 10 years of data. Two symbols located to the right of each plot describe how recent values of an indicator compare against the overall series. A black circle indicates whether the indicator values over the last five years are on average above the series 90th percentile (plus sign), below the 10th percentile (minus sign), or between those two values (solid circle). Beneath that an arrow reflects the trend of the indicator over the last five years; an increase or decrease greater than one standard deviation is reflected in upward or downward arrows respectively, while a change of less than one standard deviation is recorded by a left-right arrow.
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
During the last five years, the NAO has been variable with neither phase dominant.

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
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index (AMO)
During the last five years, the AMO has largely been in a positive phase, with little trend.

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
Sea Surface Temperature
Mean sea surface temperature between 2016 and 2021 for the Northeast region was higher than 86% of the temperatures between 1985 and 2021.

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 Northeast region. During the last five years there has been no notable trend and 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 the mean sea surface temperature between 2016 and 2021 for the Northeast region was higher than 86% 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
The sea level between 2016 and 2021 for the Northeast region was higher than 93% of the sea level between 1980 and 2021.

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 Northeast region. During the last five years there has been no notable trend while but 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 Northeast 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.
Heatwave Intensity
Between 2016 and 2021 the average integrated degree-day value was very high compared to the median average integrated degree day value between 1982 and 2021.

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 Northeast region. During the last five years there has been no 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 88 indicates that between 2016 and 2021 the average integrated degree-day value was very high compared to 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.
Heatwave Area
The gauge value of 88 indicates that between 2016 and 2021 the average area fraction value was much higher than the median value between 1982 and 2021.

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 Northeast Region. During the last five years marine heatwave coverage has trended upward and the five-year average is within the 10th and 90th percentiles of all observed data in the time series.
Description of Gauge: The gauge value of 88 indicates that between 2016 and 2021 the average area fraction value was much higher than the median value between 1982 and 2021.
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
Between 2016 and 2021 the average concentration levels of chlorophyll a in the Northeast region were considerably lower than the long term median of all chlorophyll a concentration levels between 1998 and 2021.

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 Northeast region. During the last five years there has been a significant downward trend and values have remained within the 10th and 90th percentiles of all observed data in the time series.
Gauge: The gauge value of 29 indicates that between 2016 and 2021 the average concentration levels of chlorophyll a in the Northeast region were considerably lower 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.
Zooplankton
Between 2015 and 2019 the average concentration of zooplankton biomass in Northeast waters was lower than the median value of all zooplankton biomass concentration levels between 1980 and 2019.

Description of time series:
Between 2015 through 2019 the average concentration of zooplankton biomass showed no significant trend.
Description of gauge:
The gauge value of 32 indicates that between 2015 and 2019 the average concentration of zooplankton biomass in Northeast US waters was lower than the median value of all zooplankton biomass concentration levels between 1980 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.
Description of Zooplankton:
Zooplankton are a diverse group of animals found in oceans, bays, and estuaries. By eating phytoplankton, and each other, zooplankton play a significant role in the transfer of materials and energy up the oceanic food web (e.g., fish, birds, marine mammals, humans.) Like phytoplankton, environmental and oceanographic factors continuously influence the abundance, composition and spatial distribution of zooplankton. These include the abundance and type of phytoplankton present in the water, as well as the water’s temperature, salinity, oxygen, and pH. Zooplankton can rapidly react to changes in their environment. For this reason monitoring the status of zooplankton is essential for detecting changes in, and evaluating the status of ocean ecosystems. We present the annual average total biovolume of zooplankton in the Alaska, California Current, Gulf of Mexico, Hawai'i-Pacific Islands and Northeast regions.
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. Gulf of Mexico specific data comes from the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP): https://www.gsmfc.org/seamap.php. The SEAMAP data were calculated and provided by David Hanisko.
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
Forage Fish
Between 2017 and 2022 the spring biomass of planktivores in the Northeast was greater than the median value of all spring planktivore biomass between 1978 and 2022.

Values correspond to forage biomass observed per tow in kg
Description of time series:
Between 2018 and 2022 the biomass of spring planktivore forage fish showed a significant trend upward but values remain within the 10th and 90th percentile.
Description of gauge:
The gauge value of 67 indicates that between 2017 and 2022 the spring biomass of planktivores in the Northeast was greater than the median value of all spring planktivore biomass between 1978 and 2022.
Gauge values
0 - 10: The five-year forage fish small pelagics average is very low compared to the median value.
10 - 25: The five-year forage fish small pelagics average is much lower than the median value.
25 - 50: The five-year forage fish small pelagics average is lower than the median value.
50: The five-year forage fish small pelagics average equals the median value.
50 - 75: The five-year forage fish small pelagics average is higher than the median value.
75 - 90: The five-year forage fish small pelagics average is much higher than the median value.
90 - 100: The five-year forage fish small pelagics average is very high compared to the median value.
Indicator information:
Forage fish or otherwise known as small pelagics are fish and invertebrates (like squids) that inhabit - the pelagic zone - the open ocean. Small pelagic species are often important to fisheries and serve as forage for commercially and recreationally important fish, as well as other ecosystem species (e.g. seabirds and marine mammals). The number and distribution of pelagic fish vary regionally, depending on multiple physical and ecological factors (i.e., the availability of light, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, predation, abundance of phytoplankton and zooplankton, etc.). Small pelagics are known to exhibit “boom and bust” cycles of abundance in response to these conditions. Examples include anchovies, sardines, shad, menhaden and the fish that feed on them.
This indicator is produced by the Northeast Integrated Ecosystem Assessment team and represents Spring Planktivore biomass in kg^tow -1.
Data background and caveats:
Units, time series, and species vary by region for this indicator, so no national score is provided. Best practices and caveats vary by region.
No Caveats.
Seabirds
Between 2011 and 2019 the seabird count per nautical mile showed no significant trend.

Values indicate estimated seabird abundance based off of the number of seabirds identified by kilometer on Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species research cruises
Description of time series:
Between 2011 and 2019 the seabird count per nautical mile showed no significant trend.
Description of gauge:
The gauge value of 76 indicates that the number of seabirds counted per mile in the Northeast on Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species research cruises between 2015 and 2019 was much greater than the median number of all seabirds counted between 2011 and 2019
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.
Description of seabirds:
Seabirds are a vital part of marine ecosystems and valuable indicators of an ecosystem’s status. Seabirds are attracted to fishing vessels and frequently get hooked or entangled in fishing gear, especially longline fisheries. This is a common threat to seabirds. Depending on the geographic region, fishermen in the United States often interact with albatross, cormorants, gannet, loons, pelicans, puffins, gulls, storm-petrels, shearwaters, terns, and many other species. We track seabirds because of their importance to marine food webs, but also as an indication of efficient fishing practices. We present estimates of seabird abundance in the Alaska, California Current, Gulf of Mexico and Northeast regions.
Indicator and source information:
Seabird count and transect length data for the Northeast are extracted from the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) annual reports. Counts for all seabirds observed are summed and divided by the sum of the transect length in nautical miles.
Overfished Stocks
Between 2017 and 2022 the number of overfished stocks shows an upward trend.

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 an upward 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.
Endangered Species Act Threatened or Endangered Marine Mammals
Gauge and Trend Analyses were not appropriate for marine mammal data.

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.
Marine Mammal Protection Act Strategic/Depleted Marine Mammal Stocks
Gauge and Trend Analyses were not appropriate for marine mammal data.

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.
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.
Marine Species Distribution - Latitude
Between 2014 and 2019 the average species latitudinal shift was very high compared to the median average latitudinal shift between 1980 and 2019.

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 showed an increasing trend, indicating a northward shift in distributions.
Description of Gauge: The gauge value of 95 indicates that between 2014 and 2019 the average species latitudinal shift was very high compared to the median average latitudinal shift between 1980 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.
Marine Species Distribution - Depth
Between 2014 and 2019 the average species water column depth shift was high compared to the median average water column depth shift between 1980 and 2019 with species moving deeper.

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 26 indicates that between 2014 and 2019 the average species water column depth shift was high compared to the median average water column depth shift between 1980 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.
Coastal Population
The coastal population between 2014 and 2019 for the Northeast was higher than 94% of the coastal population values between 1970 and 2019.

Values correspond to the total coastal population for a given region
Time Series
The 2014 – 2019 average coastal population in the Northeast 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 Northeast 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.
Coastal Tourism GDP
Between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county tourism sector GDP was much higher than the median change in coastal county tourism sector GDP between 2006 and 2018.

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 85 indicates that between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county tourism sector GDP was much 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.
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 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.
Coastal Tourism Employment
Between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county tourism sector employment was higher than the median change in coastal county tourism sector employment between 2006 and 2018.

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 no significant trend.
Description of Gauge: Between 2014 and 2018 the average change in coastal county tourism sector employment was higher 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.
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 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.
Coastal Tourism Wages
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.

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 no significant 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.
Coastal Employment
Coastal employment between 2014 and 2019 for the Northeast was higher than 87% of all years between 2005 and 2019.

Values correspond to total employment in all industries in the coastal counties of a given region
Time Series
Average coastal employment within the Northeast between 2014 and 2019 was similar to historical levels, and an increasing trend is apparent over that same period.
Gauge
The gauge value of 87 indicates that coastal employment between 2014 and 2019 for the Northeast 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.
Commercial Fishery Landings
The mean annual commercial landings between 2016 and 2021 for the Northeast was higher than 3% of all years between 1950 and 2020.

Values correspond to landings in millions of metric tons
Commercial Landings Time Series
Between 2016 and 2021, commercial landings from the Northeast were substantially below historic levels, although there is no recent trend apparent.
Commercial Landings Gauge
The gauge value of 3 indicates that the mean annual commercial landings between 2016 and 2021 for the Northeast was higher than 3% 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.
Commercial Fishing Revenue
The mean annual commercial revenue between 2015 and 2020 for the Northeast was higher than 88% of all years between 1950 and 2020.

Values correspond to real revenue is 2020 US Dollars
Commercial Revenue Time Series
Between 2015 and 2020, average annual commercial revenue from the Northeast was similar to historical patterns, there is a decreasing trend in values.
Commercial Revenue Gauge
The gauge value of 88 indicates that the mean annual commercial revenue between 2015 and 2020 for the Northeast was higher than 88% 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.
Recreational Fishing Effort
The recreational fishing effort between 2015 and 2020 for the Northeast was higher than 52% of the recreational fishing effort values between 1982 and 2020

Values correspond to cumulative number of angler trips
Description of time series:
Between 2015 and 2020, recreational fishing effort in the Northeast is around historic levels and shows no trend.
Description of gauge:
The gauge value of 52 indicates that the recreational fishing effort between 2015 and 2020 for the Northeast was higher than 52% 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.
Recreational Fishing Harvest
The recreational fishing harvest between 2015 and 2020 for the Northeast was higher than 35% of the recreational fishing harvest values between 1982 and 2020.

Values correspond to harvest in millions of fish
Description of time series:
Between 2015 and 2020, recreational harvest from Northeast are around historic levels. There is no significant trend apparent.
Description of gauge:
The gauge value of 35 indicates that the recreational fishing harvest between 2015 and 2020 for the Northeast US was higher than 35% 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.
Commercial Fishing Engagement
The mean annual commercial fishing engagement between 2014 and 2019 for Northeast communities was higher than 27% of all years in the time series.

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 Northeast. Commercial fishing engagement is measured by the number permits, fish dealers, and vessel landings across the Northeast.
Description of time series:
This time series shows the percent of communities moderately or highly engaged in commercial fishing in the Northeast from 2009 to 2019. Between 2014 and 2019 the percent of communities moderately or highly engaged in commercial fishing showed a downward trend, with the 2019 level near the series low.
Description of gauge:
The gauge value of 27 indicates that the mean annual commercial fishing engagement between 2014 and 2019 for Northeast communities was higher than 27% of all years in the time series.
Description of Northeast 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
Recreational Fishing Engagement
The average annual recreational fishing engagement between 2014 and 2019 for the Northeast was only higher than 36% of all years between 2009 and 2019

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 Northeast.
recreational Engagement Time Series
This time series shows the percent of communities moderately to highly engaged in recreational fishing in the Northeast US 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 36 indicates that the average annual recreational fishing engagement between 2014 and 2019 for the Northeast was only higher than 36% 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 Northeast recreational engagement indicator is measured using shore, private vessel and for-hire vessel fishing activity estimates.
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
Between 2017 and 2021 the average number of beach closure days in the Northeast region was above 36% of all beach closure days between 2000 and 2021.

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 Northeast region from 2000 to 2021. During the last five years, there has been no notable trend and values have remained within the 10th and 90th percentiles of all observed data in the time series.
Gauge: The gauge value of 36 indicates that between 2017 and 2021 the average number of beach closure days in the Northeast region was above 36% 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.
Billion-Dollar Disasters
The number of billion dollar disasters between 2017 and 2021 for the Northeast was higher than 93% of all years between 1980 and 2021.

Values correspond to the number of events in a given year
Time Series
The number of billion dollar disasters within the Northeast is variable over time. The number of disasters over the past 5 years is substantially higher than historical levels of events, and there is an upward trend in the number of events.
Gauge
The gauge value of 93 indicates that the number of billion dollar disasters between 2017 and 2021 for the Northeast 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.
Source and analysis of data:
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.
Resources
Northeast IEA Indicator data
The Northeast Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) provides a framework that brings social and ecological science and management advice to managers in a manner that is useful under current governance structures while supporting the adoption of Ecosystem-Based Management.
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report
The purpose of a condition report is to use the best available science and most recent data to assess the status and trends of various parts of the sanctuary’s ecosystem.
Northeast Ocean Data
The Northeast Ocean Data Portal is a centralized, peer-reviewed source of data and interactive maps of the ocean ecosystem and ocean-related human activities in the northeastern United States.
Integrated Sentinel Monitoring Network (ISMN)
The Integrated Sentinel Monitoring Network for Change in Northeast U.S. Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems (ISMN) initiative is a joint project of NERACOOS and NROC (Northeast Regional Ocean Council), which was established based on a pressing regional need to establish an integrated network to observe and interpret changes in the ecosystem (Runge, et. al 2012).
Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (NERACOOS)
The Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (NERACOOS) spans coastal waters from the Canadian Maritime Provinces to the New York Bight.
NOAA Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA): Regional Portals
The Environmental Response Management Application is a web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) tool that assists emergency responders and environmental resource managers in dealing with incidents that may adversely impact the environment.
Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal
The Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal is an online toolkit and resource center that consolidates available data and enables state, federal and local users to visualize and analyze ocean resources and human use information such as fishing grounds, recreational areas, shipping lanes, habitat areas, and energy sites, among others.
Mid-Atlantic Regional Association Coastal Ocean Observing System (MARACOOS)
MARACOOS is a regional association of partners that collect unique ocean and coastal data that is transformed into information products that support jobs, the economy, safety and well-being for the more than 78 million people living, visiting, and working in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Gulf of Maine Marine Biodiversity Observation Network
The Gulf of Maine (GoM) lies at the epicenter of the most rapid warming trend in U.S. coastal waters. The GoM ecosystem supports the most valuable U.S. fishery (lobster) and the most valuable U.S. fishing seaport (New Bedford). Evidence is mounting that recent warming is affecting ecosystem structure and services, for example, closure of the northern shrimp fishery, impacts on Atlantic cod recovery, and recovery of endangered North Atlantic right whales.
Gulf of Maine Harmful Algal Bloom Forecast
Annual Alexandrium catenella blooms in the Gulf of Maine produce potent neurotoxins that accumulate in shellfish and cause Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) in human consumers. These models have been developed to better predict and monitor these blooms and shellfish toxicity with the goal to minimize impacts to public health and coastal economies.
Choptank River Complex Habitat Focus Area
The Choptank River complex is located on Maryland’s Eastern Shore and includes the Choptank River and its major tributaries. This treasured part of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem represents critical habitat for spawning striped bass and river herring, as well as historically abundant oyster reefs. Residents of the watershed—including many families who have lived there for multiple generations—have traditionally been employed in agriculture or commercial fishing. Recreational fishing, hunting, and boating attract millions of people each year and contribute significantly to the region’s economy.
Penobscot River Habitat Focus Area
The Penobscot River is New England’s second largest river, draining nearly one-third of the State of Maine with a watershed area of 8,570 square miles. The Penobscot River is used as a spawning or nursery area by 11 migratory fish species, including three listed under the Endangered Species Act. The river hosts the largest run of Atlantic salmon left in the United States. Historically, fisheries on the Penobscot River were bountiful, with an estimated 14 to 20 million alewives, 75,000 to 100,000 Atlantic salmon, and 3 to 5 million American shad.
NOAA Digital Coast
The Digital Coast was developed to meet the unique needs of the coastal management community. The website provides not only coastal data, but also the tools, training, and information needed to make these data truly useful. Content comes from many sources, all of which are vetted by NOAA.
Data sets range from economic data to satellite imagery. The site contains visualization tools, predictive tools, and tools that make data easier to find and use. Training courses are available online or can be brought to the user’s location. Information is also organized by focus area or topic.
NOAA North Atlantic Region
NOAA’s North Atlantic Regional Collaboration Team currently focuses on two topical areas: Climate & Watersheds and Coastal & Ocean Uses. This includes NOAA collaboration on habitat restoration, working waterfronts, offshore wind, and aquaculture, as well as climate and ecosystem monitoring and community resilience. Engagement and a functional focus on diversity, equity and inclusion round out our current priorities.
DisMAP
DisMAP provides access to distribution information for more than 800 marine species caught in NOAA Fisheries bottom trawl surveys in five regions in the United States (Northeast, Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, West Coast, and Alaska). In this first version of the portal all species distribution products are derived from NOAA Fisheries regional bottom trawl survey data. They do not take into account alternative sources of fisheries data such as long-line, plankton, video, or fishery-dependent surveys. Because of this, distribution products are not available for the Pacific Islands or Caribbean regions at this time as those regions do not have bottom-trawl surveys; however incorporating these additional data sources is an area of interest for future releases.