NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-92

Integrated Ecosystem

Assessments

June 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-NWFSC Series

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series to issue scientific 

and technical publications. Manuscripts have been peer 

reviewed and edited. Documents published in this series 

may be cited in the scientific and technical literature.

The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFSF/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been 

split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center.

Reference throughout this document to trade names does 

not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, NOAA.

This document should be referenced as follows:

Levin, P.S., M.J. Fogarty, G.C. Matlock, and M. Ernst. 

2008. Integrated ecosystem assessments. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-92, 20 p.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-92

Integrated Ecosystem

Assessments

Phillip S. Levin, Michael J. Fogarty,1

Gary C. Matlock,2

 and Marjorie Ernst3

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division

2725 Montlake Boulevard East

Seattle, Washington 98112

1 Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Fisheries and Ecosystems Monitoring and Analysis Division 

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543

2 National Ocean Service

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Ecosystem Goal Team

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

June 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service
ii

Most NOAA Technical Memorandums

NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov)

Copies are also available from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone orders (1-800-553-6847)

e-mail orders (orders@ntis.fedworld.gov)
Table of Contents 

List of Figures.........................................................................................................................................v 

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vii 

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................ix 

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................xi 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................. xiii 

Background.............................................................................................................................................1 

What Is an Ecosystem?.....................................................................................................................1 

What Is an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment?................................................................................1 

Why IEAs? .......................................................................................................................................2 

The Importance of Scale...................................................................................................................2 

Applying the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Concept ......................................................................3 

A Five Step Process for an IEA........................................................................................................3 

IEA Products ....................................................................................................................................7 

Further Reading on IEAs..................................................................................................................7 

References...............................................................................................................................................9 

Appendix A: The DPSIR framework....................................................................................................11 

Appendix B: Bibliography....................................................................................................................15 

Conceptual Framework Documents ...............................................................................................15

Methods and Tools .........................................................................................................................16 

Evaluations of Integrated Assessment Products and Processes......................................................17 

Integrated Assessment Implementation..........................................................................................18 

iii
iv
List of Figures 

Figure 1. A five step process for an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment......................................................4 

Figure 2. A visualization of the risk status of theoretical indicators............................................................5 

Figure 3. A schematic of the management strategy evaluation ...................................................................6 

Figure A-1. The DPSIR framework for classification of ecosystem indicators.........................................13 

v
vi
List of Tables 

Table A-1. Examples of DPSIR components of interest for IEAs.............................................................12 

vii
viii
Executive Summary 

The reports of the U.S. Oceans Commission, the Pew Oceans Commission, the Ocean 

Priorities Plan, and other nationwide reviews highlight the importance of incorporating 

ecosystem principles in ocean and coastal resource management. An ecosystem approach to 

management (EAM) is one that provides a comprehensive framework for marine, coastal, and 

Great Lakes resource decision making. Integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs) are a critical 

science-support element enabling an EAM strategy. An IEA is a formal synthesis and 

quantitative analysis of information on relevant natural and socioeconomic factors in relation to 

specified ecosystem management goals. It involves and informs citizens, industry 

representatives, scientists, resource managers, and policy makers through formal processes to 

contribute to attaining the goals of EAM. 

An IEA uses approaches that determine the probability that ecological or socioeconomic 

properties of systems will move beyond or return to within acceptable limits as defined by 

management objectives. An IEA must provide an efficient, transparent means of summarizing 

the status of ecosystem components, screening and prioritizing potential risks, and evaluating 

alternative management strategies against a backdrop of environmental variability. To this end, 

IEAs should follow five steps: 

1. Scoping. Identify management objectives, articulate the ecosystem to be assessment, 

identify ecosystem attributes of concerns, and identify stressors relevant to the ecosystem 

being examined. 

2. Indicator development. Researchers develop and test indicators that reflect the ecosystem 

attributes and stressors specified in the scoping process. Specific indicators are dictated 

by the problem at hand and must be linked objectively to decision criteria. 

3. Risk analysis. This analysis is hierarchical in approach and moves from a 

comprehensive, but initially qualitative analysis, through a more focused and 

semiquantitative approach, and finally to a highly focused and fully quantitative 

approach. The goal of these risk analyses is to fully explore the susceptibility of an 

indicator to natural or human threats, as well as the ability of the indicator to return to its 

previous state after being perturbed. 

4. Overall ecosystem assessment. Results from the risk analysis for each ecosystem 

indicator are then integrated in the assessment phase of the IEA. The assessment 

quantifies the overall status of the ecosystem relative to historical status and prescribed 

targets. 

5. Evaluation. The final phase of the IEA evaluates the potential of different management 

strategies to influence the status of the ecosystem. 

IEAs compel decision makers to squarely confront both the spatial and temporal scales 

over which ecosystem dynamics, management issues, and societal impacts occur. Scales must be 

ix
consistent with the ability to recognize and explain the most important drivers and threats to the 

ecosystem. 

There is a clear need to actively integrate diverse physical, biological, and socioeconomic 

data and think critically about the ways in which decisions affect the ecosystem goods and 

services that society values. The IEA process we describe accomplishes this task, and provides 

critical assessment support to the institutional framework upholding societal interests in healthy 

and productive ecosystems. 

x
Acknowledgments 

The authors thank the members of the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Priority Task 

Team for comments on this paper. Discussions with Dave Fluharty, Mary Ruckelshaus, Tony 

Smith, Chris Harvey, Isaac Kaplan, Jameal Samhouri, Beth Fulton, John Stein, Chris Costello, 

Sarah Lester, Steve Gaines, Heather Tallis, and numerous participants of IEA workshops helped 

sharpen our thinking. We are extremely grateful to Lora Clarke for her hard work in creating 

this technical memorandum. Phillip Levin also thanks Alberto Contrador for inspiration over the 

final hurdles. 

xi
xii
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

DPSIR Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response 

EAM Ecosystem Approach to Management 

IEA Integrated Ecosystem Assessment 

MSE Management Strategy Evaluation 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

xiii
xiv
Background 

Reports of the U.S. Oceans Commission, the Pew Oceans Commission, the Ocean 

Priorities Plan, and other nationwide reviews highlight the importance of incorporating 

ecosystem principles in ocean and coastal resource management. Specific to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a critical objective is to “protect, restore, and 

manage the use of coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources through an Ecosystem Approach to 

Management (EAM)” (NOAA 2005). An ecosystem approach to management is one that 

provides a comprehensive framework for marine, coastal, and Great Lakes resource decision 

making. In contrast to individual species or single issue management, an EAM considers a wider 

range of ecological, environmental, and human factors bearing on diverse societal objectives 

regarding resource use and protection. 

What Is an Ecosystem? 

As defined by NOAA: 

“An ecosystem is a geographically specified system of organisms (including 

humans), the environment, and the processes that control its dynamics” 

(Murawski and Matlock 2006). NOAA further defines the environment as “the 

biological, chemical, physical, and social conditions that surround organisms. 

When appropriate, the term environment should be qualified as biological, 

chemical, and/or social” (Murawski and Matlock 2006). 

What is an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment? 

An Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) is a critical science-support element enabling 

an EAM strategy. An IEA is a formal synthesis and quantitative analysis of information on 

relevant natural and socioeconomic factors relative to specified ecosystem management goals. It 

involves and informs citizens, industry representatives, scientists, resource managers, and policy 

makers through formal processes to contribute to attaining the goals of EAM. In this technical 

memorandum, we outline a stepwise approach that will guide the science of IEAs. 

IEAs begin with an identification of critical management and policy questions to define 

the scope of information and analyses necessary to inform management. IEAs use quantitative 

analyses and ecosystem modeling to integrate a range of social, economic, and natural science 

data and information to assess the condition of the ecosystem relative to the identified scope. 

IEAs also identify potential management options and these are evaluated against EAM goals. 

IEAs are peer-reviewed and communicated to stakeholders, resource managers, and policy 

makers. IEAs differ from other assessments such as Environmental Impact Statements in that 

they explicitly consider all components of the ecosystem and address the broad goals of EAM. 
An IEA consists of the following components: 

• Identification of key issues of concerns and stressors that management and policy should 

address 

• Assessment of status, indicators, and trends of the ecosystem condition relative to 

established management targets or thresholds 

• Assessment of the environmental, social, and economic causes and consequences of these 

trends 

• Forecast of ecosystem condition under a range of policy or management actions or both 

• Periodic reevaluation of management effectiveness in the context of emerging ecosystem 

issues 

• Identification of crucial knowledge and data gaps that will guide future research and data 

acquisition efforts 

Why IEAs? 

A key goal of IEAs is to move toward clear, well-defined ecosystem objectives built on a 

science strategy that fuses ecosystem components into a single, dynamic fabric in which human 

and natural factors are intertwined. Periodic assessment of biological, chemical, physical, and 

socioeconomic attributes of ecosystems allows for coordinated evaluations of national marine, 

coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems to promote their sustainability under a variety of human 

uses and environmental stresses. Moreover, IEAs involve and inform a wide variety of 

stakeholders and agencies that rely on science support. IEAs integrate knowledge and data 

collected by NOAA and regional entities including other federal agencies, states, 

nongovernmental organizations, and academic institutions. IEAs also identify critical knowledge 

and data gaps, which if filled will reduce uncertainty and improve our ability to fully employ 

ecosystem approaches to management. 

The Importance of Scale 

IEAs must explicitly consider both spatial extent and time domains over which ecosystem 

dynamics and management issues occur. Scales must be consistent with the ability to recognize 

and explain the most important drivers and threats to the ecosystem. Ecosystems typically do not 

have sharp boundaries; rather, one ecosystem blends into another. As a consequence, ecosystem 

boundaries are human constructs, and a first step in any IEA endeavor must be to identify the 

spatial scale of the problem under consideration. The spatial scale of an IEA is a function of the 

ecology, geology, and oceanography of a region, as well as the scale of management issues and 

governance structures. For example, while an IEA may focus on a small embayment, 

consideration of large-scale issues such as climatic variability as well as linkages to adjacent 

ecosystems are important. IEAs should address the linkage of terrestrial, coastal, and oceanic 

environments as part of or affecting the ecosystem. Additionally, IEAs must be cognizant of 

appropriate temporal scales. In particular, IEAs require attention to the temporal baseline against 

which current status is compared. For example, different conclusions may be drawn when the 

comparing current ecosystem conditions to those of 25 years versus 75 years ago. 

2
Applying the Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessment Concept 

An IEA uses approaches that determine the probability that ecological or socioeconomic 

properties of systems will move beyond or return to within acceptable limits as defined by 

management objectives. An IEA must provide an efficient, transparent means of summarizing 

the status of ecosystem components, screening and prioritizing potential risks, and evaluating 

alternative management strategies against a backdrop of environmental (e.g., climatic, 

oceanographic, seasonal, real-time weather) variability. An IEA provides a means of evaluating 

trade-offs in management strategies among potentially competing ecosystem use sectors. 

A Five Step Process for an IEA 

The five step IEA process discussed here is comprised of scoping, indicator identification 

and testing, risk analysis, risk analysis integration into the assessment process, and strategies 

evaluation. The process is conceptually portrayed in Figure 1. 

Step 1. A scoping process initiates the IEA. Scoping begins with a review of existing documents 

and information and concludes with stakeholder, resource manager, and policy maker 

involvement to identify the management objectives, articulate the ecosystem to be 

assessed, identify ecosystem attributes of concern, and identify stressors relevant to the 

ecosystem being examined. While general EAM goals may be broad, a key component 

of an IEA is to move from broad goals to specific ecosystem objectives that management 

and policy makers need to consider. 

Step 2. Following the scoping process, researchers develop and test indicators that reflect the 

ecosystem attributes and stressors specified in the scoping process. Specific indicators 

are dictated by the problem at hand and must be linked objectively to decision criteria. In 

some cases, this simply means following the abundance of a single species (e.g., in the 

case of an endangered species) or suites of species (e.g., coral reefs, harmful algal 

blooms). In other instances, the indicator may be a proxy for an ecosystem “attribute” 

indicated in Step 1. For example, resiliency to perturbation might be an attribute and 

species diversity might be an “indicator” of resiliency. For many problems, suites of 

indicators that span a wide range of processes (with different associated rates), biological 

groups, and indicator types (e.g., “early warning,” “integrated system state”) will be 

necessary. Importantly, this step allows us to identify indicators that should be monitored 

even when current monitoring efforts are insufficient. 

Step 3. Once indicators are chosen, an analysis is performed that evaluates the risk to the 

indicators posed by human activities and natural processes. This analysis is hierarchical 

in approach and moves from a comprehensive, but initially qualitative analysis, through a 

more focused and semiquantitative approach, and finally to a highly focused and fully 

3
Scoping: 

Identify goals of EAM and 

threats to achieving goals 

Develop ecosystem indicators

and targets 

Risk analysis 

Assessment of ecosystem status 

relative to EAM goals 

Management strategy evaluation 

Monitoring of 

ecosystem 

indicators 

and management

effectiveness 

Figure 1. A five step process for an IEA. The solid line from the monitoring box to the risk analysis box 

indicates that analyses will be updated as more data become available. The dotted lines to the scoping 

box and the indicators and targets box indicate that these steps may need revisiting as more data are 

collected. 

4
 quantitative approach. This step initially screens out many potential risks, so that more 

intensive and quantitative analyses are limited to a subset of ecosystem indicators and 

human or natural threats. The goal of these risk analyses is to fully explore the 

susceptibility of an indicator to natural or human threats as well as the ability of the 

indicator to return to its previous state after being perturbed. Another goal of the risk 

analyses is to explain, if the indicator has settled at a new value, whether the new value is 

due to natural variability in the system. A full discussion of ecological risk analysis as it 

pertains to marine ecosystems can be found in Hobday et al. (2006). 

The likelihood of an ecosystem changing can be viewed as the relationship of the 

susceptibility of a particular indicator to impact versus the resiliency of the indicator 

(Figure 2). An indicator is likely to change when susceptibility to impact is high and 

resiliency is low, while an indicator is not likely to change when susceptibility to impact 

is low and resiliency is high. IEAs will also include a social and economic overlay to the 

ecological risk assessments to capture impacts to individuals and communities. 

Figure 2. A visualization of the risk status of theoretical indicators. Indicator A has a low resiliency 

(ability to persist in the face of change) and high susceptibility to natural or human disturbance; 

thus it has a high risk. Indicator C shows an indicator with low susceptibility and high resilience 

and thus has low risk. Indicators B, D, and E have difference combinations of susceptibility and 

resilience yielding a moderate level of risk. 

5
Step 4. Results from the risk analysis for each ecosystem indicator are then integrated in the 

assessment phase of the IEA. The assessment quantifies the status of the ecosystem 

relative to historical status and prescribed targets. Thus the risk analysis rigorously 

quantifies the status of individual ecosystem indicators, while the full assessment 

considers the state of all indicators simultaneously. 

Step 5. The next phase of the IEA uses ecosystem modeling frameworks (e.g., the Atlantis 

ecosystem model, Brand et al. 2007) to evaluate the potential of different management 

strategies to influence the status of natural and human system indicators. To accomplish 

this, a formal Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) is employed (Figure 3). In MSE, 

a simulation model is used to generate “true” ecosystem dynamics. Data are sampled 

from the model to simulate research surveys, then these data are passed to risk analysis 

and assessment models. These assessment models estimate the predicted status of 

individual indicators and the ecosystem as a whole. Based on this assessment of the 

simulated ecosystem, a management decision is simulated. Human response to this 

simulated decision is modeled and potentially influences the simulated ecosystem state. 

By repeating this cycle, we can simulate the full management cycle. This allows us to 

test the utility of modifying indicators and threshold levels, assessments, monitoring 

plans, management strategies, and decision rules. MSE in the context of an IEA can thus 

serve as a filter to identify which policies and methods meet stated management 

objectives (e.g., Butterworth and Punt 1999). 

Ecosystem 

Simulation Model

Observations

Implementation

Monitoring or Surveys

Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessment

Decision Rule

Figure 3. A schematic of the MSE. An ecosystem model is used to simulate the ecosystem. The 

ecosystem is then “sampled,” an IEA is performed, and a management strategy is implemented. 

The cycle is then repeated, and ultimately the potential outcomes of a range of management 

strategies can be estimated. 

6
IEA Products 

IEAs are peer-reviewed and communicated to stakeholders, resource managers, and 

policy makers. IEAs may be communicated in the form of a static MSE framework or as Webbased dynamic documents that are updated as new data become available. The frequency with 

which IEAs should be revised and updated cannot be fully prescribed. As new information 

arises or management changes occur, risks can be reevaluated and documented as before. IEA 

products may also serve as a tool to educate a variety of stakeholders. 

Further Reading on IEAs 

The concept of IEAs is well established and a number of examples are relevant in both 

domestic and international settings. Appendix B provides a selected, annotated bibliography of 

existing IEA documents as well as Web-based resources describing the concept in more detail. 

7
8
References 

Brand, E. J., I. C. Kaplan, C. J. Harvey, P. S. Levin, E. A. Fulton, A. J. Hermann, and J. C. Field. 2007. 

A spatially explicit ecosystem model of the California Current’s food web and oceanography. 

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-84. 

Butterworth, D. S., and A. E. Punt. 1999. Experiences in the evaluation and implementation of 

management procedures. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56:985–998. 

Hobday, A. J., A. Smith, H. Webb, R. Daley, S. Wayte, C. Bulman, J. Dowdney, A. Williams, M. 

Sporcic, J. Dambacher, M. Fuller, and T. Walker. 2006. Ecological risk assessment for the 

effects of fishing: Methodology. Rep. R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management 

Authority, Canberra. 

Murawski, S. A., and G. C. Matlock (eds.). 2006. Ecosystem science capabilities required to support 

NOAA’s mission in the year 2020. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-74. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2005. New priorities for the 21st century—

NOAA’s strategic plan: Updated for FY 2006-FY 2011. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA, Silver 

Spring, MD. Online at http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/Strategic_Plans/ 

FY06-11_NOAA_Strategic_Plan.pdf [accessed 27 June 2008]. 

9
10
Appendix A: The DPSIR framework 

The strategy described in this technical memorandum can be cast in the context of a 

Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework for classification of indicators. The 

DPSIR approach has been broadly applied in environmental assessments of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Drivers are factors that result in pressures that in turn cause changes in the system. For 

the purposes of an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA), both natural and anthropogenic 

forcing factors are considered; an example of the former is climate variability while the latter 

include factors such as human population size in the coastal zone, associated coastal 

development, demand for seafood, etc. In principle, human driving forces can be assessed and 

controlled. Natural environmental changes cannot be controlled but must be accounted for in 

management. 

Pressures include factors such as coastal pollution, habitat loss and degradation, and 

fishing effort that can be mapped to specific drivers. For example, coastal development results 

in increased coastal armoring and the loss of associated intertidal habitat. 

State variables are indicators of the condition of the ecosystem (including physical, 

chemical, and biotic factors). 

Impacts comprise measures of the effect of change in these state variables such as loss of 

biodiversity, declines in productivity and yield, etc. Impacts are measured with respect to 

management objectives and the risks associated with exceeding or returning to below these 

targets and limits. 

Responses are the actions (regulatory and otherwise) that are taken in response to 

predicted impacts. Forcing factors under human control trigger management responses when 

target values are not met as indicated by risk assessments. Natural drivers may require 

adaptational response to minimize risk. For example, changes in climate conditions that in turn 

affect the basic productivity characteristics of a system may require changes in ecosystem 

reference points that reflect the shifting environmental states. 

The different classes of indicators identified within the DPSIR framework can be mapped 

to the needs of the management strategy evaluation described above and identified with respect 

to their roles in model formulation, parameterization, and validation. Table A-1 provides 

examples of DPSIR components. Figure A-1 shows the conceptual framework. 

11
Table A-1. Examples of DPSIR components of interest for IEAs. 

Components Anthropogenic Natural 

Drivers Human population size in the coastal zone 

Per capita seafood demand 

Water-dependent international trade 

Coastal development 

Temperature 

Precipitation 

Winds 

Ice cover 

Hydrodynamics 

Pressures Fishing effort 

Habitat loss and degradation 

Pollution transport and fate 

Marine transportation 

Effluent discharges 

Oil and hazardous material spills 

Pathogens 

Land use patterns 

Extent of thermal habitat 

Nutrient regeneration 

Current speed and direction 

Habitat change 

Species range shifts 

States Commercial fishery landings 

Recreational fishery landings 

Aquaculture and fish farming production 

Water quality and quantity 

Chlorophyll concentration 

Zooplankton biomass 

Benthic biomass 

Shellfish biomass 

Fish biomass 

Harmful algal blooms 

Pathogens 

Aquatic mammal abundance 

Impacts Fishery yield 

Aquaculture production 

Recreational income 

Nonindigenous species 

Human health risks 

Employment 

Loans at risk 

Commercial cash value 

Biodiversity 

Changes in ecosystem function 

Responses Alter fishing mortality 

Alter stormwater regulations 

Require watershed buffers 

Restore habitat 

Contaminant mitigation 

12
Driver

State

Impact

Response

Pressure

Risk assessment

Status quo

Low Risk

Medium – High

Risk

Figure A-1. The DPSIR framework for classification of ecosystem indicators. The process begins with 

the driver box. 

13
14
Appendix B: Bibliography 

The following is a bibliography, annotated for many documents, of integrated ecosystem 

assessment concepts, methods, evaluations, and implementation examples. 

Conceptual Framework Documents 

DFO Canada (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). Canada’s oceans strategy: Policy and 

operational framework for integrated management of estuarine, coastal, and marine 

environments in Canada. 2002. Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Oceans 

Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario. Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/ 

oceans/ri-rs/index_e.asp [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

The Canadian Oceans Act calls on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to lead and 

facilitate the development of a national oceans strategy that will guide the management of 

Canada’s estuarine, coastal, and marine ecosystems. This strategy provides the overall 

strategic framework for Canada’s oceans-related programs and policies, based on the 

principles of sustainable development, integrated management, and precautionary 

approach. The central governance mechanism of the strategy is applying these principles 

through the development and implementation of integrated management plans. This 

document is intended to foster discussion about integrated management approaches by 

setting out policy in the legislative context, along with concepts and principles. The 

document also proposes an operational framework with governance, management by 

areas, design for management bodies, and the type of planning processes that could be 

involved. 

Link, J. S. 2005. Translating ecosystem indicators into decision criteria. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 

62:569–576. 

Defining and attaining suitable management goals probably represent the most difficult 

part of ecosystem-based fisheries management. To achieve those goals, we ultimately 

need to define ecosystem overfishing in a way that is analogous to the concept used in 

single-species management. Ecosystem-based control rules can then be formulated when 

various ecosystem indicators are evaluated with respect to fishing-induced changes. 

However, these multiattribute control rules will be less straightforward than those applied 

typically in single-species management, and may represent gradient rather than binary 

decision criteria. Some ecosystem-based decision criteria are suggested, based on 

indicators empirically derived from the Georges Bank, Gulf of Maine ecosystem. Further 

development in the translation of ecosystem indicators into decision criteria is one of the 

major areas for progress in fisheries science and management. 

Rice, J. 2003. Environmental health indicators. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46:235–259. 

15
Sherman, K. 1991. The large marine ecosystem concept: Research and management 

strategy for living marine resources. Ecol. Appl. 1(4):349–360. 

Methods and Tools 

DFO Canada (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2006. Identification of ecologically 

significant species and community properties. DFO Canadian Science Advisory 

Secretariat, Science Advisory Rep. 2006/041. Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc

.ca/csas/Csas/status/2004/ESR2004_006_E.pdf [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

As with the criteria described above for ecologically and biologically significant areas, 

consistent criteria and guidance for their application are needed also for the identification 

of species and community properties for which protection should be enhanced, while 

allowing sustainable activities to be pursued in the ecosystem. This report contains the 

results of a national workshop held in 2006 to develop a priori criteria to assess species 

and community properties that are “particularly important” or “significant” with regard to 

maintaining ecosystem structure and function. Assessments using these criteria as a tool 

to rank species and community properties by their ecological significance are an 

important step in developing ecosystem objectives for integrated management. 

For a recent geographic application of these criteria please see: Dept. Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada. 2006. Proceedings of the zonal workshop on the identification of 

ecologically and biologically significant areas within the Gulf of St. Lawrence and 

estuary. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Proceed. Ser. 2006/011. Online at 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/Proceedings/2006/PRO2006_011_B.pdf [accessed 

12 June 2008]. 

Edmonds, J. A., and N. J. Rosenberg. 2005. Climate change impacts for the conterminous 

USA: An integrated assessment. Clim. Change 69:1–162. 

This special issue of the journal Climatic Change describes an effort to improve 

methodology for integrated assessment of impacts and consequences of climatic change. 

The methodology developed involves construction of climate change scenarios that are 

used to drive individual sectoral models for simulating impacts on crop production, 

irrigation demand, water supply, and change in productivity and geography of 

unmanaged ecosystems. Economic impacts of the changes predicted by integrating the 

results of the several sectoral simulations models are calculated through an agricultural 

land use model. While these analyses were conducted for the conterminous United 

States, their global implications are also considered, as is the need for further 

improvements in integrated assessment methodology. The final chapter summarizes 

highlights of the first seven sector-specific chapters that constitute this special issue. 

These projects were supported by the National Science Foundation through the Methods 

and Models in Integrated Assessment Program and in some cases also by the U.S. 

Department of Energy Integrated Assessment Program, Biological and Environmental 

Research. 

16
Farber, S., R. Costanza, D. L. Childers, J. Erickson, K. Gross, M. Grove, C. S. Hopkinson, 

J. Kahn, S. Pincetl, A. Troy, P. Warren, and M. Wilson. 2006. Linking ecology and 

economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience 56:121–133. 

ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). 2004. Supporting European 

marine integrated ecosystem assessments: Specific support actions. Copenhagen, 

Denmark. Online at: http://www.ices.dk/globec/regns/SEMIEA.pdf [accessed 12 June 

2008]. 

Link, J. S., C. A. Griswold, E. T. Methratta, and J. Gunnard (eds.). 2006. Documentation for 

the Energy Modeling and Analysis eXercise (EMAX). Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center. Ref. Doc. 06-15. Online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/series/ 

crdlist.htm [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

Peirce, M. 1998. Computer-based models in integrated environmental assessment. Tech. 

Rep. 14, prepared for the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Online at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/TEC14/en [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

Shanmuganathan, S., P. Sallis, and J. Buckeridge. 2006. Self-organizing map methods in 

integrated modeling of environmental and economic systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 

21:1247–1256. 

Evaluations of Integrated Assessment Products and Processes 

Costanza, R., and S. E. Jorgensen (eds.). 2002. Understanding and solving environmental 

problems in the 21st century: Toward a new, integrated hard problem science. 

Elsevier Science. Online (description) at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/ 

bookdescription.cws_home/623393/description#description. [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

DFO Canada (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2005. Guidelines on evaluating ecosystem 

overview and assessments: Necessary documentation. DFO Canadian Science 

Advisory Secretariat Rep. 2005/026. Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/ 

status/2005/SAR-AS2005_026_E.pdf [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

The integrated management of human activities on the sea under Canada’s Oceans Act 

calls for implementation strategies based on an ecosystem approach. In planning many of 

the activities necessary for integrated management, such as setting ecosystem objectives, 

identifying areas requiring enhanced protection, and developing regulatory approaches to 

various activities, it is necessary to have a reasonable understanding of the ecosystem 

being managed. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has adopted an approach of 

preparing two types of documents—ecosystem overview reports and ecosystem 

assessments—to provide a common factual basis for dialogue among the parties in 

integrated planning and management. Initial ecosystem overview reports and partial 

integrated ecosystem assessments were prepared for two ecosystems for which integrated 

management approaches are currently being developed: the Eastern Scotian Shelf and 

Gulf of St. Lawrence systems. The overview and assessment documents for the two 

systems were prepared in different ways, allowing the Department of Fisheries and 

17
Oceans to report here on insights gained from a review held in 2005 on the desirable 

contents to be included in both types of documents. 

NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program). 1991. Report from the Oversight 

Review Board. The experience and legacy of NAPAP. National Science and 

Technology Council, Washington, DC. 

Parsons, E. 1995. Integrated assessment and environmental policy making: In pursuit of 

usefulness. Energ. Policy 23:463–475. 

Toth, F. L. 2001. Participatory integrated assessment methods—An assessment of their 

usefulness to the European Environmental Agency. Tech. Rep. 64, prepared for the 

European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Online at http://reports 

.eea.europa.eu/Technical_report_no_64/en [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

Integrated Assessment Implementation 

National Examples 

CENR (Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources). 2000. National assessment of 

harmful algal blooms in U.S. waters. National Science and Technology Council, 

Washington, DC. Online at http://www.cop.noaa.gov/pubs/habhrca/Nat_Assess 

_HABs.pdf [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

CENR (Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources). 2003. An assessment of coastal 

hypoxia and eutrophication in U.S. waters. National Science and Technology Council, 

Washington, D.C. Online at http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/documents/coastalhypoxia 

.pdf [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

Turgeon, D. D., R. G. Asch, B. D. Causey, R. E. Dodge, W. Jaap, K. Banks, J. Delaney, B. D. 

Keller, R. Speiler, C. A. Matos, J. R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C. S. Rogers, Z. 

Hillis-Starr, R. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G. P. Schmahl, M. W. Miller, D. A.Gulko, J. E. 

Maragos, A. M. Friedlander, C. L. Hunter, R. S. Brainard, P. Craig, R. H. Richond, G. 

Davis, J. Starmer, M. Trianni, P. Houk, C. E. Birkeland, A. Edward, Y. Golbuu, J. 

Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. Tafileichig, and N. Vander Velde. 2002. The 

state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific freely associated 

states: 2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean 

Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. Online at 

http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/documents/status_coralreef.pdf [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

Waddell, J. E. (ed.). 2005. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and 

Pacific freely associated states: 2005. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring 

and Assessment’s Biogeography Team, Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS 

NCCOS 11. Online at http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coralreef/coral_report 

_2005/ [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

18
Regional Examples 

Boldt, J. (ed.). 2007. Stock assessment and fishery evaluations, Appendix C, Ecosystem 

considerations for 2008. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. Online at 

http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/reem/EcoWeb/content/pdf/AppendixC.pdf [accessed 12 June 

2008]. 

Brown, B. S., W. Munns Jr., and J. F. Paul. 2002. An approach to integrated ecological 

assessment of resource condition: The Mid-Atlantic estuaries as a case study. 

J. Environ. Manag. 66:411–427. 

CENR (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources). 2000. Integrated assessment of 

hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and Technology Council, 

Washington, DC. Online at http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html#fia

[accessed 12 June 2008]. 

Hare, J. A., and P. E. Whitfield. 2003. An integrated assessment of the introduction of 

lionfish (Pterois volitans/P. miles complex) to the western Atlantic Ocean. NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NOS NCCOS 2. Online at http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/documents/ 

lionfish_ia.pdf [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

Link, J., and J. Brodziak, (eds.). 2002. Report on the status of the northeast U.S. continental 

shelf ecosystem. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Ref. Doc. 02-11. Online at 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0211/ [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

NCCOS (NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science). 2005. A biogeographic 

assessment of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: A review of 

boundary expansion concepts for NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS NCCOS 21. Online (DVD format) at http://ccmaserver.nos 

.noaa.gov/products/biogeography/cinms/order.html [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

NCCOS (NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science). 2006. An ecological 

characterization of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary region: 

Oceanographic, biogeographic, and contaminants assessment. Prepared by NCCOS’s 

Biogeography Team in cooperation with the National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS NCCOS 45. Online at http://www.ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ 

products/biogeography/stellwagen/welcome.html [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. National coastal condition report II: 

Chapter 9—Health of Galveston Bay for human use. EPA-620/R-03/002. EPA 

Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC. Online at 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/Chapter9_GalvestonBay.pdf [accessed 12 

June 2008]. 

International Examples 

DFO Canada (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2003. State of the eastern Scotian Shelf 

ecosystem. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Ecosystem Status Rep. 

19
20

2003/004. Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2003/ESR2003 

_004_e.pdf [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

European Environment Agency. 2005. The European environment—State and outlook 2005. 

State of Environment Rep. No. 1/2005. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 

Denmark. Online at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/state_of_environment_report_2005_1/en

[accessed 12 June 2008]. 

European Environment Agency. 2006. The changing faces of Europe’s coastal areas. EEA 

Rep. No. 6/2006. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Online at 

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_6/en [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). 2006. Report of the Regional 

Ecosystem Study Group of the North Sea (REGNS), 15-19 May 2006. ICES 

Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2006/RMC:06. Online at 

http://www.ices.dk/reports/RMC/2006/REGNS/regns06.pdf [accessed 12 June 2008]. 

This report summarizes the results of a meeting of the study group held in May 2006 to 

evaluate and prepare plans for finalization of an integrated assessment of the North Sea 

ecosystem, an activity this group initiated in 2003. The assessment, based on the 

compilation and analyses of a comprehensive integrated data set, has provided some 

valuable insights into the significance of the relationships between different human 

pressures (e.g., nutrient inputs and fisheries) and state changes (e.g., plankton, fish, and 

seabirds) at different spatial scales and the time scales over which changes take place. 

For example, plankton community data in relation to the physical and chemical 

oceanography reveals both gradients of response to the major riverine inputs of nutrients 

into the North Sea and sources of nutrients from the Atlantic. In addition, an assessment 

of all variables reveals two relatively stable states in the North Sea, one pre-1983 and the 

other post-1997. The intervening years are dominated by high ecosystem variability, 

which represents a transition from one state to another and in part explains the number of 

studies which highlight different years for regime shifts. The sensitivity of such analysis 

to changes in temporal and spatial scales is explored, as is the dependency on the number 

and type of ecosystem variables. By better understanding the relationship between the 

causes of change at different scales in time and space, it should be possible to set more 

realistic targets for the management of human pressures. 
Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov).

Recent NOAA Technical Memorandums

published by the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC91 Wainwright, T.C., M.W. Chilcote, P.W. Lawson, T.E. Nickelson, C.W. Huntington, J.S. Mills, K.M.S. 

Moore, G.H. Reeves, H.A. Stout, and L.A. Weitkamp. 2008. Biological recovery criteria for the Oregon 

Coast coho salmon evolutionarily significant unit. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-

 NWFSC-91, 199 p. NTIS number pending.

90 Ward, L., P. Crain, B. Freymond, M. McHenry, D. Morrill, G. Pess, R. Peters, J.A. Shaffer, B. Winter, and 

B. Wunderlich. 2008. Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan–Developed pursuant to the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act, Public Law 102-495. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-90, 168 p. NTIS number pending.

89 Holt, M. 2008. Sound exposure and Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca): A review of current 

knowledge and data gaps. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-89, 59 p. NTIS

 number pending.

88 Olson, O.P., L. Johnson, G. Ylitalo, C. Rice, J. Cordell, T. Collier, and J. Steger. 2008. Fish habitat use 

 and chemical contaminant exposure at restoration sites in Commencement Bay, Washington. U.S. Dept. 

 Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-88, 117 p. NTIS number pending.

87 Keller, A.A., B.H. Horness, V.H. Simon, V.J. Tuttle, J.R. Wallace, E.L. Fruh, K.L. Bosley,

 D.J. Kamikawa, and J.C. Buchanan. 2007. The 2004 U.S. West Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish 

resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-87, 134 p. NTIS number pending.

86 Keller, A.A., V.H. Simon, B.H. Horness, J.R. Wallace, V.J. Tuttle, E.L. Fruh, K.L. Bosley,

 D.J. Kamikawa, and J.C. Buchanan. 2007. The 2003 U.S. West Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish 

resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-86, 130 p. NTIS number pending.

85 Norman, K., J. Sepez, H. Lazrus, N. Milne, C. Package, S. Russell, K. Grant, R.P. Lewis, J. Primo,

 E. Springer, M. Styles, B. Tilt, and I. Vaccaro. 2007. Community profiles for West Coast and North 

Pacific fisheries–Washington, Oregon, California, and other U.S. states. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-85, 602 p. NTIS number pending.