The State of Science to Support

an Ecosystem Approach to

Regional Fishery Management

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and

Management Act, Section 406(f)

National Marine Fisheries Service

R E P O R T T O C O N G R E S S

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/SPO-96

April 2009
i

Report to Congress: 

The State of Science to Support an 

Ecosystem Approach to Regional 

Fishery Management

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, Section 406

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-96

April 2009

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Administrator of NOAA 

National Marine Fisheries Service

James W. Balsiger, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The steering committee for this workshop and report to Congress consisted of Jon Brodziak, Elizabeth Clarke, Ned 

Cyr, Patricia Livingston, Alec MacCall, Thomas Noji, and Roger Zimmerman. Rosemary Kosaka, NMFS Office of Science 

and Technology, provided background material for the fishery management council process. David Detlor and Lora 

Clarke, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, assisted with the editing of this report.

Suggested citation: 

National Marine Fisheries Service 2009. Report to Congress: The State of Science to Support an Ecosystem Approach 

to Regional Fishery Management. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-96, 24 p. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from:

Ned Cyr, Ph.D.

Director, Office of Science and Technology

National Marine Fisheries Service

Ned.Cyr@noaa.gov

Or online at:

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/
iii

The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and territorial 

waters of the United States cover more than 11 

million square kilometers of ocean, making it 

the largest EEZ in the world. This immense area 

is home to an abundance of valuable marine 

resources that provide economic, ecological, and 

social benefits. These resources face increasing 

pressures as the human population continues 

to grow and global climate change becomes 

an escalating concern. These challenges call 

for innovative and comprehensive approaches 

to fisheries management to ensure sustainable 

harvest of the EEZ’s valuable resources.

Traditional fisheries management focuses 

on single species, but this approach does not 

consider the reality and complexity of the marine 

environment. Fish, and the humans that harvest 

them, are part of a dynamic marine environment 

characterized by complex relationships between 

biotic and abiotic factors. Due to these complex 

relationships, human activities, including 

fishing, have direct and indirect effects on the 

ecosystem and such activities must be managed 

with these relationships in mind. Consequently, 

management efforts are moving away from 

single species management toward an ecosystem 

approach to management (EAM). 

Congress acknowledged the importance of 

EAM when it directed NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) to establish an 

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (EPAP) 

through the Magnuson Stevens Fishery 

Management Conservation and Management 

Act. This was further reinforced in the 2006 

reauthorization that mandated this report on the 

science needed to support EAM. Both the EPAP 

report and this document are designed to provide 

Congress with practical recommendations to 

advance the ecosystem approach in the context 

of the U.S. Fishery Management Council system. 

As demonstrated in this report, both NOAA and 

the Councils have made significant progress 

in implementing the EPAP recommendations. 

NOAA is fully committed to EAM and has 

reorganized its planning process and program 

structure to facilitate its implementation. 

It is hoped this report will constitute a valuable 

contribution to the practical implementation of 

EAM in the marine waters of the United States.

Steven Murawski, Ph.D.

Director of Scientific Programs and 

 Chief Science Advisor

National Marine Fisheries Service

PREFACE
iv

Section 406 of the 2006 Magnuson Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Reauthorization 

Act charged NMFS, in consultation with the 

Fishery Management Councils, to undertake a 

study on the “state of the science for advancing 

the concepts and integration of ecosystem 

considerations in regional fishery management.” 

Section 406 specifies four objectives: 1) form 

recommendations for scientific data, information, 

and technology requirements for understanding 

ecosystem processes and methods for integrating 

this information from federal, state, and regional 

sources; 2) form recommendations for processes 

for incorporating broad stakeholder participation; 

3) form recommendations for processes to 

account for effects of environmental variation on 

fish stocks and fisheries; and 4) describe existing 

and developing Council efforts to implement 

ecosystem approaches, including lessons learned 

by the Councils.

Regarding objective 1, the most important action 

should be to maintain and expand current fisherydependent and fishery-independent surveys. 

These surveys provide the critical information 

on exploited and unexploited species required to 

support stock assessments, as well as long-term 

data on ecosystem status and trends. Most current 

surveys do not provide sufficient information 

to effectively manage all stocks, and there is 

a particular need to increase their spatial and 

temporal coverage. Additional time-series data on 

benthic environments are also needed to improve 

understanding of the relationship between 

habitat, benthic organisms, and fish species. 

Increased socioeconomic surveys are needed 

to help us understand and predict the behavior 

of harvesters, an important component of the 

ecosystem, with regard to different management 

options. Although we need improved ecological 

models to better understand dynamic ecosystem 

processes, in many cases modelers lack key 

ecological data, upon which predictive models 

depend. Research is needed to fill those gaps and 

the Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem 

Organization (CAMEO) program has significant 

potential to do so. Finally, an ecosystem approach 

to management will require easily interpretable 

products to help integrate and convey complex 

ecosystem information to managers. Integrated 

Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) will facilitate this 

information transfer, and it is recommended that 

IEAs be developed on both regional (large marine 

ecosystem) and sub-regional scales.

Regarding objective 2, broader stakeholder 

participation can be most effectively incorporated 

by expanding membership on Council committees 

to include non-fishing interests, and by increasing 

methods of communication among stakeholder 

groups and between these groups and the 

Councils. This broader stakeholder participation 

is needed to ensure that a more comprehensive 

ecosystem perspective is considered. It is also 

recommended that the rotation of Council 

meeting locations may help ease the cost and 

logistical burdens of stakeholder attendance 

and therefore encourage more stakeholders to 

participate. Stakeholder surveys should also be 

expanded to help ensure that a range of nonfishing views are considered in the fisheries 

management process. Previous survey results 

have demonstrated that stakeholders value 

ecosystem goods and services beyond fisheries 

and have resource use patterns that are important 

to consider in the management process. Finally, 

the level of interagency communication must be 

increased. Multiple agencies have jurisdiction 

over various ecosystem components, and it 

is crucial for these agencies to communicate 

ecosystem knowledge with each other and 

coordinate their management actions from a 

holistic and integrated ecosystem perspective. 

To achieve this, these agencies must be involved 

in the Council processes.

Regarding objective 3, processes to account 

for the effects of environmental variation on 

fish stocks and fisheries must consider climatescale variability. Climate change is a growing 

Executive Summary
v

concern for marine ecosystem management, 

and climate-induced change is inevitable. Thus, 

it is recommended that collaborations with 

climate change researchers be maintained and 

that climate and ecosystems modeling efforts be 

strengthened. Simultaneously, efforts to better 

understand the role of non-climate, humaninduced changes in coastal systems on fish 

populations also must be pursued with added 

vigor. Burgeoning populations in U.S. areas 

adjacent to coasts, estuaries, and rivers directly 

and indirectly impact habitats vital to harvested 

fish and their forage. 

It is recommended that management strategy 

evaluations be used to determine the appropriate 

environmental variables necessary to improve 

stock assessment performance. Incorporating 

environmental variables or indices into stock 

assessments is not an easy task, and environmental 

indices need to be very reliable in order to offset 

the potential risk associated with erroneous 

predictions. Management strategy evaluations 

are a means of determining which indices are 

beneficial. To improve predictive models it is 

also recommended that there be a focus on 

understanding critical mechanisms underlying 

correlations between environmental variability 

and fish productivity. Programs such as FATE 

(Fisheries and the Environment) and NPCREP 

(North Pacific Climate Regimes and Ecosystem 

Productivity) are examples of programs aimed 

at such integration. Environmental variations 

can influence physiological conditions, such 

as growth and reproduction, and finer spatial 

and temporal scale sampling may help to clarify 

these relationships. Finally, while multi-species 

and ecosystem models are being developed 

and improved, there is a need to maintain 

conventional single-species stock assessments, 

as there is no indication these new models will 

reduce the need for conventional models in the 

near term.

Regarding objective 4, existing and developing 

Council efforts to implement ecosystem 

approaches vary by region and many challenges 

remain. While some Councils are actively 

moving forward with ecosystem approaches to 

management (EAM), others are awaiting more 

definitive national guidance. Efforts include 

establishing Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs), 

holding public meetings and workshops to 

discuss EAM, conducting ecosystem user 

surveys, developing ecosystem models, and 

mapping essential fish habitat. It is also important 

to recognize that many existing Council 

management efforts (such as bycatch reduction, 

area closures, and fishing fleet reduction) 

already represent significant progress toward 

an ecosystem approach. Despite this progress, 

additional effort is required. One challenge is 

the lack of sustained, annual support for FEP 

development and implementation. Another 

challenge concerns the complex jurisdictional 

environment in which ecosystem components 

are managed. Multiple federal, state, and local 

agencies have authority over different aspects 

of the ecosystem, and these roles need to be 

further defined and coordinated at the agency, 

inter-agency, and Council levels. Councils should 

consider ways to conduct more extensive outreach 

with these other entities to better incorporate 

their input into the Council process. Similarly, 

other entities should look for opportunities to 

engage the Councils, where appropriate, in their 

processes and issues. This will help to improve 

inter-agency communication and support a broad 

ecosystem perspective.
vi
1

In 1996, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) established the Ecosystem 

Principles Advisory Panel (EPAP) pursuant to 

Section 406 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. The panel 

was charged to submit a report to Congress 

that included: 1) an analysis of the extent to 

which ecosystem principles are being applied in 

fishery conservation and management activities, 

including research activities; 2) proposed actions 

by the Secretary and by the Congress that should 

be undertaken to expand the application of the 

ecosystem principles in fishery conservation and 

management; and 3) other such information as 

appropriate. The panel’s report, submitted to 

Congress in 1999, outlined a number of principles, 

policies, and goals for ecosystem-based fisheries 

management as well as recommendations for 

practical steps that could be taken to implement 

an ecosystem approach (NMFS, 1999).

Now, 10 years later, Section 406 of the reauthorized 

Magnuson-Stevens Act charges NMFS, in 

consultation with the Fishery Management 

Councils, to undertake a study on the “state 

of the science for advancing the concepts 

and integration of ecosystem considerations 

in regional fishery management.” To gather 

information for this study, a workshop was held 

at the NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

in Seattle on January 9–10, 2008. Workshop 

participants included a mix of ecosystem 

scientists from the NMFS Science Centers, NMFS 

Regional Offices, Councils, and some former 

members of the EPAP. This Report to Congress is 

based on the results of this workshop. Its structure 

speaks to the four overall objectives of Section 

406 of the 2007 MSFCMA. 

Introduction
2

Recommendations in the 1999 EPAP Report 

addressed scientific data, information, and 

technology requirements for understanding 

ecosystem processes. These recommendations 

included a call for a description of longterm data and how these data are used for 

monitoring and management, a description of 

habitat needs for different life history stages 

of living marine resources, development of a 

broad suite of indicators to monitor ecosystem 

status, and accountability for total fishery 

removals (NMFS, 1999). A number of efforts are 

underway to provide such information. NMFS 

has published a Data Acquisition Plan that details 

the routine fisheries-dependent and fisheriesindependent data required to support U.S. 

federal marine fisheries management (NMFS, 

1998). Additionally, programs such as the 

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) are 

prioritizing new data collections and providing 

the framework for improving access to those data. 

A new program, Comparative Analysis of Marine 

Ecosystem Organization (CAMEO), focuses on 

improving the science support for ecosystem 

management by uncovering how the structure 

and function of ecosystems respond to change, 

human impacts, and environmental variation. 

Such programs will help to provide some of the 

data called for by the EPAP, but additional data 

are needed for a full understanding of ecosystem 

processes. Some of the major data and information 

requirements, and recommendations to address 

them, are detailed below.

The role of surveys, assessments, and other 

routine data collection efforts and analyses 

in understanding marine ecosystems

Surveys, assessments, and other routine data 

collection efforts and analyses play an important 

role in understanding marine ecosystems. 

Currently, fishery-independent surveys provide 

vital information on the relative abundance 

and ecological characteristics of many fish and 

invertebrate stocks as well as non-fishery species 

(such as marine birds, turtles, and mammals) 

in U.S. marine ecosystems. Zooplankton and 

ichthyoplankton surveys provide long-term time 

series data for early life history stage abundances 

of exploited and unexploited species. Programs 

such as the California Cooperative Oceanic 

Fisheries Investigations (CALCOFI) surveys 

off California, Marine Resources Monitoring 

Assessment and Prediction (MARMAP) and 

Continuous Plankton Recorder surveys in 

New England, and Fisheries-Oceanography 

Coordinated Investigations (FOCI) surveys in 

Alaska provide the basis to monitor secondary 

production and fish recruitment dynamics in 

those regions and provide essential ecosystem 

information. Fishery-dependent sampling 

provides key information on the effects of fishing 

on exploited and unexploited species and includes 

collecting landings data from commercial and 

recreational fisheries, logbook reporting, and 

vessel monitoring systems. In part as a response 

to the EPAP, a comprehensive Observer Program 

has been implemented in all regions of the United 

States to monitor the amount of catch discarded 

at sea so total removals of fished species can be 

calculated. Each of these survey types provides 

the basis for long-term time series of information 

critical for monitoring of ecosystems.

Despite the useful information provided by such 

surveys, notable gaps still exist in necessary 

scientific data. Most surveys target exploited open 

ocean species and species that co-occur with such 

exploited species. As a result, some fish stocks, 

especially those in nearshore habitats and their 

forage, remain virtually unsampled. An unrelated 

issue pertains to survey frequency. In some 

regions, surveys are conducted only every third 

year, which does not provide the necessary data 

1. Recommendations for scientific data, information, and technology requirements for 

understanding ecosystem processes, and methods for integrating such information 

from a variety of federal, state, and regional sources
3

to detect annual fluctuations. Additionally, lack 

of time-series data on the benthos and the failure 

to understand the detailed topography of fishing 

areas, how exploited species (all life history stages) 

are distributed relative to such features, and how 

fisheries species and their forage gain benefit 

from their habitats are daunting impediments 

to understanding relationships between habitat, 

benthic fauna, and fish species. It has limited the 

ability to determine the effects of mobile fishing 

gear on habitats and to fully appreciate both the 

benefits and impacts of Marine Protected Areas 

(MPAs). Knowledge about the benthos is also 

important for understanding energy flow and 

food web dynamics, including benthic-pelagic 

coupling and benthos as prey of commercially 

important species. Expansion and development 

of such surveys will also provide useful data 

on biodiversity, a fundamental property of 

ecosystem structure. Another notable gap 

is in socioeconomic collections, which are 

a key component of ecosystem analysis and 

management. Understanding the behavior of 

harvesters and predicting their responses to 

changes in management measures and associated 

costs is critical. 

Research and technology requirements 

needed to understand critical ecosystem 

processes

Marine ecosystem management can be improved 

through research that elucidates underlying 

dynamics at a variety of scales and increases 

understanding of critical ecosystem processes. 

A critical area of research is the development 

of a variety of modeling methods, such as MPA 

site-selection models, statistical models, and/

or theoretical models. In most cases, modelers 

lack important ecological information, and 

research is required to fill these gaps. For MPA 

site-selection models, appropriate distribution 

and abundance data on most ecological groups 

are lacking. For these models, intensive smallscale surveys of all ecosystem components, 

ranging from physical conditions to marine 

mammals, and socioeconomic data on the human 

drivers and management impacts are necessary. 

Statistical models will improve understanding of 

links between habitat and demographic rates of 

marine organisms, functional feeding responses 

of predators, strength of ecological interaction, 

biodiversity, and connectivity among local 

populations, but to improve these data-driven 

models, process-oriented studies of ecological 

interactions and the increased use of lab, smallscale field, and management experiments are 

needed. Theoretical models are important for the 

development of ecological forecasts and IEAs but 

further information on ecological mechanisms 

is needed. For example, robust data on variation 

in demographic rates, functional responses, 

mechanisms limiting or generating change in 

population size, ecological interactions, and 

the combined effects of density-dependent and 

density-independent processes are needed.

This ecological modeling effort will provide 

a greater basic understanding of ecosystem 

processes and practical tools for evaluating the 

effectiveness of ecosystem-based management 

efforts, but there is also a need for a variety 

of technologies required to efficiently expand 

data collections to meet these needs. New 

sensor capabilities are necessary to realize 

the full potential of in situ ocean observing 

networks and satellite-based observations in 

implementing EAM. Technological advances for 

rapid measurement and integration of surface and 

subsurface chlorophyll concentrations are needed 

for improving estimates of sustainable carrying 

capacity of ecosystem goods and services. 

Moored and autonomous instruments can vastly 

increase spatial and temporal resolution of 

ecosystem monitoring data. Further development 

and adaptation of Automated Underwater 

Vehicles (AUVs), Remote Underwater Vehicles 

(ROVs), autonomous underwater gliders, and 

vehicle types yet to be described, specifically 

for deployment of EAM advanced sensors, are 

also needed. There is also a need to increase the 

capacity to sample adaptively. Critical events 
4

affecting recruitment may be short-lived and/or 

localized. This requires flexible vessel resources 

and instruments designed to sample when a 

trigger threshold is crossed. Programmable 

drifters with behavior and trigger released drifters 

to sample eddies are being developed and can 

increase sampling of key oceanographic features 

at a relatively low cost. Increased deployment 

of autonomous smart instrumentation can 

supplement and extend coverage by shipbased surveys. Continued support of research 

to develop these innovative sensors is critical. 

Remote sensing data are available from the U.S. 

National Aeronautic and Space Administration, 

as well as NOAA, and the continuation and 

development of remote sensing capabilities is 

essential. Continuity of high-resolution, reliable, 

remote sensing data (sea surface temperature, 

sea surface height, ocean color) under the next 

generation of sensors is fundamental for EAM.

Integrating ecosystem information from 

various sources to improve management

There is an ongoing need to integrate the 

ecosystem information collected by multiple 

institutions to improve ecosystem management. 

Partnerships with state and local government 

agencies, research institutions, and universities 

will be the key to integrating information 

effectively. Programs, such as IOOS, have 

been initiated to establish an integrated and 

sustained coastal ocean observation system 

capable of meeting diverse regional and national 

information requirements for the purposes 

of advancing ocean science and resource 

management. The focus of NOAA’s IOOS plan 

is to improve access to high-quality, integrated 

data, and to enhance data products and decision 

support tools (National Ocean Service, 2007). 

Support of integrated information systems, such 

as IOOS, is essential to the development of the 

data needed to conduct EAM. 

The current implementation of IOOS and related 

observational efforts needs to be augmented 

to focus more fully on environmental/habitat 

conditions in nearshore waters, estuaries, and 

coastal rivers; changes in land use and land 

cover; alterations in freshwater delivery to 

coastal systems via rivers and groundwater; and 

atmospheric delivery of substances that affect 

ecosystem functioning and the ability of coastal 

systems to sustain harvestable populations of fish 

and shellfish. Burgeoning populations in U.S. 

areas adjacent to coasts directly and indirectly 

impact habitats vital to harvested fish and their 

forage. The resulting alterations frequently are 

regional in scale and are capable of inducing 

changes as profound in intensity as climate 

alteration. 

There is also a growing need to integrate and 

deliver ecosystem information to managers 

and stakeholders in a broad array of products 

(websites, reports, briefings) to facilitate 

information transfer. Novel ways of distilling 

information into easily interpretable products are 

important. The development of such information 

products (e.g., IEAs) is the key to addressing 

the needs of data integration and production 

of useful products to decision-makers and 

stakeholders. An IEA is a formal synthesis and 

quantitative analysis of information on relevant 

natural and socioeconomic factors in relation to 

specified ecosystem management goals (Levin 

et al., 2008). IEAs involve and inform citizens, 

scientists, managers, and policymakers through 

formal processes to contribute to attaining the 

goals of EAM. IEAs should be developed on 

a regional and sub-regional scale. They will 

provide a framework into which various forms 

and sources of ecosystem data can be integrated 

on a large marine ecosystem scale. 
5

Recommendations

•	 Maintain and expand current levels of 

fishery-dependent and fishery-independent 

data collection activities. 

•	 Expand surveys collecting benthos and 

habitat-related data (e.g., area of coverage, 

scale of data collection, and focus on habitat 

use by resource and forage organisms) and 

increase socioeconomic data collection 

efforts.

•	 Accelerate the development of ecosystem 

models. The CAMEO program has 

the greatest potential to contribute to 

the development and improvement of 

experimental and operational ecosystem 

models.

•	 Develop and implement the next generation 

of sensors and undersea vehicles to fulfill the 

increased data needs for EAM. Deployment of 

innovative technologies such as autonomous 

smart instrumentation will supplement and 

extend coverage by ship-based surveys. 

Flexible and increased vessel resources will 

also be needed to allow adaptive sampling 

as well as the intensive sampling needed 

for understanding processes and rates. 

Continuity of high-resolution, reliable, 

remote sensing data also needs to be 

maintained. 

•	 Support the continued development of 

integrated information systems, such as 

IOOS, which are essential for the provision 

of data needed to conduct EAM.

•	 Enhance data collection and analyses in near 

coastal, estuarine, and riverine systems to 

capture effects of coastal population growth 

on fishery production.

•	 Develop and implement integrated 

ecosystem assessments (IEAs) on regional 

(large marine ecosystem) and sub-regional 

scales to provide a practical framework for 

the integration of ecosystem data and a 

means to make informed ecosystem-based 

management decisions. 
6

The 1999 EPAP report recommendations 

addressed the need for broad stakeholder 

participation in effective ecosystem approaches 

to management. Effective EAM relies on the 

participation, understanding, and support of a 

broader suite of stakeholders than that currently 

participating in the fishery management process. 

In particular, the EPAP noted that effective EAM 

would require including stakeholder groups 

indirectly affected by fisheries as well as industry 

sectors that indirectly affect fisheries (e.g., 

through water quality). The full participation of 

all stakeholders, including the interests of future 

generations, was noted by the EPAP as likely to 

result in policy development and implementation 

that is more fair and equitable.

Many of the Councils have conducted workshops 

and outreach activities to educate and inform 

constitutients on the ecosystem approach to 

fisheries management. Surveys have also been 

implemented to gather public input on a variety 

of ecosystem-related issues. Such actions are 

designed to reach beyond the fishing industry to 

incorporate a broader range of stakeholders into 

the EAM process.

Current stakeholder involvement and mechanisms 

for broadening stakeholder participation in an 

EAM are outlined below.

Major ecosystem stakeholders already 

participating in the fisheries management 

process and those missing from the process

EAM, by its nature, requires participation of a 

broad range of stakeholder groups to provide 

for a more holistic ecosystem perspective. This 

effort must move beyond fisheries interests alone 

to adequately address all emerging management 

concerns and efforts. One possible vehicle for 

this expansion is the Council process, which 

may allow for increased participation by state 

and federal representatives. In the current 

advisory capacity of the Council process, there 

are meetings, hearings, science and statistical 

committees (SSCs), advisory panels (APs), 

and other committees. These processes can be 

broadened through the expansion of current 

bodies to enhance representation, creation of 

new committees, or development of ecosystem 

advisory panels. 

Some but not all ecosystem stakeholders are 

currently participating in the fishery management 

process.  Organizations such as coastal groups, 

coastal developers, regional watershed resource 

managers, and energy companies/organizations 

may have an interest in Council activities and/or 

may be undertaking activities that affect fisheries. 

For example, with the exception of the Coast 

Guard, the U.S. military is often missing from 

the process even though their activities can have 

ecosystem effects and they can be an important 

source of oceanographic and hydrographic 

information. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

and Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

are also important agencies to involve based 

on their data/scientific expertise (USGS) or 

their management goals (MMS), which might 

be in conflict with fishery management goals. 

Currently, the representation of such agencies on 

Councils varies regionally. Even the participation 

of mandated organizations, such as the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, varies regionally 

according to the specific management concerns 

being addressed. Successful EBM will necessitate 

two-way communication between the Councils 

and this broader base of stakeholders.  It will 

be important for the Councils to seek and be 

given the opportunity to provide input into the 

management activities of these stakeholders 

as well. The Councils should seek to establish 

additional forums to engage various other federal 

and state agencies as they pursue their legislative 

mandates in order to broaden coordination and 

align management and science programs.

2. Recommendations for processes for incorporating broad stakeholder participation
7

Effective means of bringing stakeholders and 

their interests into the current management 

council process to provide a broader 

ecosystem perspective

Several means exist to incorporate a broader 

stakeholder base into the current management 

council process. An improved system of outreach 

and notification to pertinent stakeholders could 

encourage increased participation. Current 

means of public notification and communication 

could be expanded to include these other 

stakeholder groups to ensure that they are 

aware of the schedule and agendas for Council 

meetings and/or ecosystem advisory group 

meetings and of the various ways they can 

participate in the Council process. Similarly, 

other stakeholders and management entities 

should look for opportunities to engage the 

Councils in their processes and issues. Council 

meetings are generally rotated among various 

locations, although the locations may be limited 

due to cost or other logistical issues. The rotation 

of meeting locations allows participation of 

more groups by relieving some of the financial 

burden associated with traveling to meetings.

Statistically based surveys of the general public 

and/or more targeted studies of particular 

stakeholder groups may serve as another 

means of increasing stakeholder participation 

by evaluating societal values and resource use 

patterns. A number of these surveys have recently 

been implemented to obtain information on 

ecosystem attitudes, preferences for management 

options, and valuation surveys on MPAs, 

protected species, and corals. These have 

included non-market valuation surveys of public 

willingness to pay for Steller sea lion recovery 

(NMFS, 2007) and studies that have looked at 

the current Council composition and voting 

relative to various issues (Ellis, 2008). Results 

have demonstrated that the public values marine 

resources and has preferences on use patterns. 

NOAA’s vision for EAM specifically includes the 

need to consider stakeholder requirements in 

science and management. Information-sharing 

among affected agencies may assist managers 

in planning and choosing among management 

options that affect various stakeholder groups. 

There is a significant need for an overall increase 

in the level of inter-agency communication 

and collaboration to help decision-makers 

gain a holistic perspective, but some Councils 

have expressed frustration with the lack of 

communication. Increased communication may 

need to be accomplished through establishment 

of formal structures and may need high-level 

intervention to facilitate cooperation among 

agencies. In Alaska, there are some efforts to 

implement this recommendation through the 

Ecosystem Committee of the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, the Alaska Marine 

Ecosystem Forum, and fishery ecosystem plans 

that involve multiple agencies in development 

and implementation (NPFMC, 2008). 
8

Recommendations 

•	 As appropriate, expand Council APs, SSCs, 

and other committees to include relevant 

ecosystem stakeholders and/or create new 

ecosystem committees or advisory panels. 

•	 Develop methods for communicating with 

stakeholders, including rotating Council 

meetings or Council committee meetings 

among coastal communities. Increased 

communication will encourage broader 

participation and the rotation of meeting 

locations will ease the logistical burdens of 

stakeholders interested in participating.

•	 Increase surveys of stakeholders and the 

general public (consider cross-agency surveys 

and other information sharing) to provide 

information on and increase knowledge of 

societal values and resource use.

•	 Increase the level of agency-to-agency 

communication/collaboration. This may 

need to be done through establishment of 

formal structures and may need high-level 

intervention.
9

Recommendations in the 1999 EPAP report focused mainly on general ecosystem issues, and 

were silent with regard to detailed modeling 

of environmental effects, especially in singlespecies assessments. Since that time, global climate change has emerged as a significant threat 

to marine ecosystems and fisheries, and will be 

an important consideration in EAM. NOAA is 

developing strategies for addressing the impact 

of climate on living marine resources and coastal 

ecosystems (Griffis et al., 2008). Consideration 

of the effects of environmental variability on 

fisheries will need to include an explicit emphasis 

on climate-scale variability and change. NOAA 

needs to maintain collaborative interactions with 

global climate change researchers, and climate 

and ecosystem models need to be strengthened.

The influence of environmental variability on 

fish stocks is an area of active scientific research. 

Over the past 10 years, the National Research 

Council, often commissioned by NMFS, has 

published a number of reports discussing the 

incorporation of environmental variability into 

stock assessments and the associated difficulties, 

indicating the importance and complexity of this 

topic (NRC, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2006). NMFS has 

also conducted a variety of workshops covering 

this topic (Mace, 2003; Watters, 2004; Methot, in 

prep). As climate change continues to threaten 

marine ecosystems, understanding relationships 

between environmental influences and fish productivity will continue to be important.

Some of the major challenges associated with 

accounting for environmental variability and the 

ability of current stock assessments to account for 

this variability are discussed below.

Major challenges in accounting for the 

environmental variability on fish stocks 

and fisheries

Accounting for the impact of environmental variability on fish stocks is not an easy task, and many 

challenges still exist. Including environmental 

explanatory variables may potentially improve 

predictions, but this also allows greater scope 

for erroneous predictions, with a corresponding increase in risk. The few relevant simulation 

studies agree that an environmental variable 

must be a very reliable predictor for the benefit to 

outweigh the risk, and in practice this reliability 

standard can seldom be met (Basson, 1999; Kell 

et al., 2005). Simulation studies or “management 

strategy evaluations” need to be conducted to determine which environmental variables in stock 

assessments improve performance and which 

degrade performance.

Improvement of predictive models is dependent 

on increasing the current level of understanding of 

critical mechanisms influenced by environmental 

variability. For example, the capability to predict 

recruitment will require further understanding 

of environmental mechanisms underlying spatial 

and temporal fluctuations in fish production, 

combined with local ocean circulation models 

(e.g., Regional Ocean Modeling System models), 

and will most likely need to be done on a case-bycase basis. Additionally, there are environmental 

influences on physiological condition relating 

to growth, maturation, fecundity, and timing of 

reproduction, but these climate-related properties 

are seldom being monitored in annual fish catches 

or surveys. Increased ecological monitoring and 

modeling will potentially improve understanding 

of fluctuations in natural mortality rates. There is 

a need to maintain emphasis on understanding 

critical mechanisms, especially those underlying 

apparent correlations between environmental 

conditions and fish stock productivity as well 

as increased monitoring of annual fluctuations 

in growth and reproductive condition. Current 

programs, such as FATE (Fisheries and the 

Environment) and NPCREP (North Pacific 

Climate Regimes and Ecosystem Productivity), 

are examples of programs aimed to provide such 

critical information. Further understanding may 

3. Recommendations for processes to account for effects of environmental variation on 

fish stocks and fisheries
10

require finer spatial and temporal resolution of 

physical and biological conditions. As researchers 

and managers consider the possible impacts of 

global climate change on marine ecosystems, it 

will become increasingly important to understand 

these relationships.

Ability of existing stock assessments and/

or harvest advice processes to adequately 

account for the effects of environmental 

variability on fish stocks and fisheries

The present ability to account for environmental 

effects is minimal. It has been repeatedly 

shown that under conventional single-species 

management approaches, there is little benefit 

in anticipating year-to-year fluctuations unless 

those predictions are more reliable than can 

be achieved currently (Walters and Parma, 

1996; Myers, 1998; Stokes et al., 1999; Patterson 

et al., 2001). Current multi-species models 

have very limited predictive accuracy, and 

ecosystem shifts can generally be recognized 

only after they have happened. It will be more 

beneficial to shift from focusing on inter-annual 

variability to low frequency or inter-decadal 

environmental variability and to understanding 

and better predicting the nature and intensity of 

habitat changes resulting from human activities. 

To improve understanding of inter-decadal 

variability, it will be important to continue to 

capture relevant existing historical datasets, as 

sources are discovered and opportunities arise. 

The NESDIS Climate Database Modernization 

Program, run by the National Climatic Data 

Center, has been performing an especially 

valuable service in this regard.

Although the importance of habitat is widely 

recognized, scientists lack the quantitative 

ability to model, assess, and anticipate changes 

in resource productivity resulting from habitat 

alteration, habitat loss, and habitat restoration. 

There is a need for further understanding of 

anthropogenic effects (e.g., degraded water 

quality, habitat loss, and water diversion) and 

for improving the quantitative basis for assessing 

habitat. Anthropogenic habitat alterations, such 

as salinity alterations associated with changes 

in regional water usage and enhanced sediment 

and nutrient loads caused by wide-scale changes 

in land use patterns, are capable of inducing 

changes as profound in intensity (although 

not in geographic scope) as climate alteration. 

Another area where much could be gained from 

better understanding of habitat factors and 

environmental effects is that of stock rebuilding, 

especially where there is reason to believe that the 

present ecosystem and habitat may be different 

from the historical conditions used to develop 

rebuilding targets and expected rebuilding times. 

In the worst cases, such as catastrophic loss of 

habitat (e.g., Sacramento winter run Chinook 

salmon), it may not be possible to rebuild a 

stock to historical levels, but it will be necessary 

to be able to provide a basis for an appropriate 

rebuilding target. 

As NOAA continues to move forward with ecosystem-based management, it will be important 

to maintain single-species stock assessments. 

Although environmental and ecosystem relationships may have promise, such improvements 

can only be built upon a firm single-species 

foundation. A plan needs to be developed and 

implemented articulating the steps for moving 

from single-species to ecosystem-oriented management. In its 2008 evaluation of the state of the 

use of ecosystem models (Townsend et al. 2008), 

NMFS recommended an enhanced program 

to develop, test and implement promising new 

classes of such models.
11

Recommendations

•	 Maintain collaborative interactions with 

global climate change researchers and 

strengthen climate and ecosystem models.

•	 Conduct simulation studies or “management 

strategy evaluations” to determine when 

including environmental variables (including 

those pertaining to habitat) improves stock 

assessment performance. 

•	 Maintain emphasis on understanding critical 

mechanisms, especially those underlying 

apparent correlations between environmental 

conditions and fish stock productivity. This 

may require measurements of physical and 

biological conditions at finer spatial and 

temporal scales.

•	 Increase routine monitoring of annual 

fluctuations in growth and reproductive 

condition. This is a mundane and low-tech 

aspect of fish stock monitoring with very 

high potential for improving understanding 

of environmental effects.

•	 Shift from focusing on interannual variability 

to focusing on low-frequency or interdecadal 

variability (i.e., long strings of good or bad 

years). This may include trends in physical 

and biological patterns as well as shifts at an 

ecosystem level. 

•	 Enhance understanding of anthropogenic 

effects on habitat and fishery productivity. 

Anthropogenic effects may be more influential 

in some regions and fisheries than others, but 

increasingly are being seen as regional rather 

than local in scope. They represent some 

of the most promising opportunities for 

effective science-based anticipatory actions 

leading to management control.

•	 Maintain the emphasis on supplying adequate 

information for conventional single-species 

stock assessments. There is no indication 

that an ecosystem approach will reduce 

the ongoing need for conventional stock 

assessments in the near term.
12

The 1999 EPAP report concluded that the eight 

Councils are implementing many ecosystem 

principles, but these principles are not applied 

comprehensively or evenly across Council 

jurisdictions. Below, the Councils’ efforts, 

successes, and challenges associated with 

implementing EAM are discussed.

Current and developing Council efforts to 

implement ecosystem approaches

The eight Councils are at differing stages of 

progress and have taken different paths in 

developing an EAM. All Councils recognize the 

mandate to incorporate ecosystem principles into 

fishery management, but lack the understanding 

and tools to do so fully. The necessary steps 

for implementing EAM are not always clear, 

and some Councils are not attempting formal 

implementation, but rather have proceeded 

cautiously, awaiting national guidance. At least 

two Councils, however, have actively moved 

forward with implementing EAM. The North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) 

has established a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) 

for the Aleutian Islands (NPFMC, 2007); and the 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Council (WPFMC) has formally established an 

ecosystem policy to develop FEPs according to a 

place-based approach (WPFMC, 2007). 

Councils that have not implemented FEPs 

have taken a vareity of steps towards EAM. 

The Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC) has moved to begin development of 

an Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan that 

could be patterned after the NPFMC FEP and 

is envisioned to take the form of an umbrella 

plan that integrates ecosystem considerations 

across existing FMPs. PFMC has held multiple 

public Council sessions and advisory body 

meetings on the topic and is currently seeking 

funding to convene a plan development team. 

The New England Fishery Mangament Council 

(NEFMC), Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (MAFMC), South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (SAFMC), and the 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(GMFMC) used 2004 congressional funding 

to solicit constituent views about EAM and to 

support local ecosystem-related projects. The 

NEFMC conducted public meetings, workshops, 

and surveys on fishery values, management 

objectives, and tradeoffs between potential loss 

of total allowable catch relative to allocations 

for ecosystem needs. The MAFMC conducted 

educational workshops and activities to acquaint 

Council members, constituents, and the general 

public with the new emphasis on EAM and 

discuss options relative to implementation. Such 

education and outreach efforts have proven to be 

beneficial. Other Councils have used the funds 

to focus on modeling and field efforts to support 

EAM. The SAFMC has begun the development 

of an FEP using EPAP guidance and, like the 

GMFMC, has been exploring fisheries-based 

ecosystem modeling and other trophic models. 

The Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

(CFMC) conceived an ecological approach to 

fishery management as early as the 1980s, but 

funding limitations and FMP requirements did 

not allow for development of FEPs at that time. 

The CFMC has since concentrated on mapping 

and characterization of essential fish habitats 

(EFH), and is currently exploring ecosysytem 

modeling for fisheries management. 

Successful Council steps toward EAM 

implementation

The 1996 Magnuson Stevens Act requirements, 

including the National Standards, and other 

requirements such as the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and the essential fish habitat 

provisions, have resulted in fishery management 

actions that can be considered progress toward the 

4. Description of exisiting and developing Council efforts to implement ecosystem 

approaches, including lessons learned by the Councils
13

implementation of EAM. In addressing requirements relative to bycatch, overfishing, protected 

species, EFH, and cumulative effects assessment, 

the Councils have implemented gear restrictions, time and area closures to protect spawning 

populations, conservative and environmentally 

influenced harvest policies for forage species. 

These policies include harvest prohibitions, 

protection of habitat areas of particular concern 

(HAPCs), catch quotas, and bycatch and fishing 

effort restrictions. Some Councils have become 

involved in understanding and protecting nonfishery species, such as corals, marine mammals, 

sea turtles, and seabirds. All of these actions 

have indirect, if not direct, EAM implications. 

Councils cite success in the ending of overfishing 

of certain species, reduction of fleet capacity, 

and moving from single species to multi-species 

management as moving toward EAM. Mapping 

and characterization of habitats by Councils and 

development of EFH amendments to the FMPs 

also exemplifies the ecosystem approach. 

Councils have taken different approaches toward ecosystem mangement and establishment 

of an ecosystem policy; FEPs by the WPFMC 

and NPFMC provide examples. The WPFMC 

is transitioning from FMPs to FEPs. The new 

FEPs are place-based in consideration of differing local conditions and cultures. The NPFMC 

has established an FEP for the Aleutian Islands 

without replacing existing FMPs. The FEP is 

comprehensive in providing the best available 

science on understanding the ecosystem as a 

framework within which to make fishery management decisions. The PFMC is in the early stages 

of developing a similar umbrella type plan. These 

two differing approaches offer potentially viable 

options for the other Councils.

Challenges associated with ecosystem 

implementation

EAM is a more complex and informationintensive process than traditional fisheries management approaches and will require dedicated 

resources to implement effectively.  At present, 

Councils cannot undertake EAM as a dedicated 

programmatic task and NMFS is unable to provide the required environmental and fisheries 

data and associated predictive analyses.

Another major challenge to implementing EAM 

relates to jurisdiction and authority. Many ecosystem attributes, such as water quality, are impacted 

by activities regulated by other agencies. While 

Councils can certainly include such ecosystems 

components in their management considerations, they currently do not have authority over 

many important ecosystem components. If the 

Councils’ responsibility is extended to encompass 

ecosystem issues beyond target fishery species 

and their habitat, these jurisdictional issues need 

to be addressed. Legislative change that grants 

additional jurisdictional authority may be needed 

to allow the Councils to manage more broadly. 

Furthermore, most Councils prioritize their 

responsibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

to achieve fisheries harvest at optimum yield. 

Finding a balance between achieving a beneficial 

fishery harvest and protecting marine ecosystems 

continues to be a challenge. Jurisdictional authority needs to be redefined at the agency, Council, 

state, and national level. 

In summary, common EAM issues exist across 

the Councils. Foremost among these issues is the 

lack of clarity among Councils as to how to implement EAM. The guidelines for implementation 

are ambiguous, and the role of the Councils in 

the context of ecosystem-based management is 

not defined. Moreover, the additional demands 

of EAM on staff and the funding limitations are 

major impediments toward progress on EAM 

and FEP within NMFS and the Councils. The 

Councils recognize that good science is crucial 

to providing the information and advice that 

will help address EAM, but the lack of dedicated 

funds to support the engagement of the scientific 

community is a problem. 
14

Recommendations 

•	 Provide each of the Councils with sustained, 

annual funding to develop and implement 

FEPs. 

•	 Keep science at the forefront of the process 

in developing FEPs. The Councils strongly 

favor having the “best available science” to 

understand ecosystem attributes for making 

management decisions. 

•	 Provide a better understanding of what 

constitutes an EAM, including more definitive 

and detailed guidance to Councils on how to 

develop FEPs. 

•	 Develop FEPs incrementally, building upon 

each Council’s past and current stage of 

progress moving toward EAM. Determination 

of what constitutes a successful FEP needs to 

be established. 

•	 Clarify and redefine jurisdictional authority 

at multiple levels: 1) within NOAA, 2) within 

the Federal Government (both agencies and 

legislative mandates), 3) at the Council level 

and 4) with respect to the jurisdiction of 

states and other local authorities. Additional 

legislative authority may be needed if the 

Councils are to expand their role in EAM 

beyond fisheries and EFH.

•	 Increase opportunities for and develop 

Council processes, as appropriate, to increase 

and incorporate input from other federal 

agencies (such as the Department of the 

Interior and Environmental Protection 

Agency) and stakeholders with ecosystem 

interests.
15

NOAA and the Councils are continuing to incorporate ecosystem principles into fishery management efforts. As charged by Section 406 of the 

reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, this report 

examines the “state of the science for advancing 

the concepts and integration of ecosystem considerations in regional fishery management.” A 

variety of recommendations will need to be addressed to successfully and fully implement an 

ecosystem approach to management.

While an ecosystem approach to management 

does not require a complete understanding of 

each ecosystem, it does require fundamental 

knowledge of basic ecosystem principles. These 

principles, as outlined by the EPAP (NMFS, 

1999), highlight the complex and dynamic 

nature of ecosystems and researchers’ limited 

ability to predict change. With these principles 

in mind, scientific data, information, and 

technology requirements necessary to further 

understand ecological processes have been 

identified. This will require sustained ecosystem 

observations, process-oriented research, and 

integrative modeling in support of an ecosystem 

approach to management. Specific biological, 

socioeconomic, and climate/physical data 

needs should be addressed to strengthen 

EAM. The CAMEO program was created to 

strengthen the fundamental scientific basis for 

an ecosystem approach to management and will 

be an important ingredient to moving forward. 

An ecosystem approach to management requires 

broad stakeholder involvement. Specifically, it 

should include the participation of stakeholders 

interested in the ecosystem and effects on the ecosystem, beyond fishing alone. These stakeholders 

Summary

should be engaged in the science and management of the resources. Reaching more stakeholders can be done through a variety of means, such 

as improving communication methods, outreach, 

and agency-to-agency collaborations. EAM 

represents a more holistic approach to management and, consequently, a more holistic group of 

stakeholders should be identified.

An ecosystem approach to management 

should also seek to account for the effects of 

environmental variation on fish stocks and 

fisheries. Global climate change is a major 

concern and understanding environmental 

effects will become increasingly important. 

Emphasis should be maintained on understanding 

mechanisms underlying apparent correlations 

between environmental conditions and fish 

stock productivity as well as anthropogenic 

effects. Environmental variation is inherently 

difficult to predict, but increased monitoring and 

models will help to improve the understanding 

of environmental effects. Incorporating this 

knowledge into EAM will not reduce the need 

for conventional stock assessments, however, 

because future improvements will need to be built 

on a solid single-species foundation.

These recommendations will help guide NMFS 

as it strives to improve management policies. 

The waters within U.S. Government jurisdiction 

are home to valuable living resources that must 

be protected and conserved. These resources 

provide substantial economic, social, and cultural 

benefits. Currently, many of these resources 

are harvested at high levels, which necessitates 

conscientious management decisions. 
16

Basson, M. 

1999. The importance of environmental factors 

in the design of management procedures. 

ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56:933-942.

Ellis, B. 

2008. Conflict of interest standards and regional fishery management councils: An 

evaluation of the North Pacific Council’s 

voting record on conservation issues, 14 p. 

Institute of the North, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Griffis, R. B., R. L. Feldman, N. K. BellerSimms, K. E. Osgood, and N. Cyr (editors). 

2008. Incorporating Climate Change into 

NOAA’s Stewardship Responsibilities for 

Living Marine Resources and Coastal 

Ecosystems: A Strategy for Progress. U.S. 

Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-F/SPO-95, 89 p.

Kell, L.T., G. M. Pilling, and C.M O’Brien. 

2005. Implications of climate change for the 

management of North Sea cod. ICES J. Mar. 

Sci. 62:1483-1491. 

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

M. Ernst. 

2008. Integrated ecosystem assessments. U.S. 

Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-92, 20 p.

Mace, Pamela M. (Ed.). 

2003. Proceedings of the Seventh NMFS National Stock Assessment Workshop. NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-62, 46 p.

Methot, Richard D. (Ed.). 

In prep. Proceedings of the Eighth NMFS 

National Stock Assessment Workshop. 

Contact <Richard.Methot@noaa.gov>.

Myers R. A. 

1998. When do environment-recruitment 

correlations work? Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish.

8:285-305. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

1998. NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan. 

Retrieved on October 29, 2008 from http://

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/documents/

DataPlan.pdf

Literature Cited 

1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management: 

A Report to Congress by the Ecosystem 

Principles Advisory Panel, 54 p. U.S. Dep. 

Commer., NOAA, NMFS, Silver Spring, 

MD.

2007. Steller sea lion study: summary of 

survey results. Retrieved on October 

29, 2008 from http://www.afsc.noaa.

gov/REFM/Socioeconomics/Projects/

NCVSSLPM.php

National Ocean Service.

2007. NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing 

System (IOOS) Program. Retrieved on 

October 24, 2008 from http://ioos.noaa.gov/

library/ioos_proj_statplan.pdf.

National Research Council (NRC). 

1997. The Global Ocean Observing System: 

Users, benefits, and principles. National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC.

1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC.

2002. Science and its role in the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. National Academy 

Press, Washington, DC.

2006. Dynamic changes in marine ecosystems: 

Fishing, food webs, and future options. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(NPFMC). 

2007. Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan 

– December 2007. North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 605 West 4th, Suite 

306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252 (http://

www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/contact.htm)

2008. Overview of the Aleutian Islands Fishery 

Ecosystem Plan. 22 p. North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska.

Patterson, K. R., R. Cook, C. Darby, S. Gavaris, 

L. Kell, P. Lewy, B.Mesnil, A. Punt, V. Restrepo, 

D. W. Skagen, and G. Stefánsson. 

2001. Estimating uncertainty in fish stock 

assessment and forecasting. Fish and 

Fisheries 2:125−157.
17

Stokes, T. K., D. S. Butterworth, R. L. 

Stephenson, and A. I. L. Payne. 

1999. Confronting uncertainty in the 

evaluation and implementation of fisheriesmanagement systems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 

56:795–796.

Townsend, H. M., J. S. Link, K. E. Osgood, T. 

Gedamke, G. M. Watters, J. J. Polovina, P. S. 

Levin, N. Cyr, and K. Y. Aydin (editors). 

2008. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Report of the National Ecosystem Modeling 

Workshop (NEMoW). U.S. Dep. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-87, 93 p.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Council (WPRFMC). 

2007. Report on the 2007 Ecosystem Policy 

Workshop – November 2007. Western 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 

Bishop Street 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813 

(http://www.wpcouncil.org/contact.html)

Walters, C. and A. M. Parma. 

1996. Fixed exploitation rate strategies for 

coping with effects of climate change. Can. 

J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53:148-158. 

Watters, George M. (Ed.) 

2004. Proceedings of the NMFS Workshop on 

Building Environmentally Explicit Stock 

Assessments. National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Pacific Fisheries 

Environmental Laboratory. ADMIN REP 

PFEL no.04-01.