Proceedings of the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s 

Habitat-Ecosystem Workshop 

Virginia Beach, VA 

December 13-14, 2010 

Edited by David Packer 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-115 

March 2011 

Proceedings of the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s

Habitat-Ecosystem Workshop 

Virginia Beach, VA 

December 13-14, 2010 

Edited by David Packer 

NOAA/NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, MD 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-115 

March 2011

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 

Eric C. Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
ii 

Suggested citation: 

Packer, David (ed.). 2011. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s 

Habitat-Ecosystem Workshop, Virginia Beach, VA, December 13-14, 2010, 

U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-115, 76 p. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from: 

Office of Habitat Conservation 

NMFS, NOAA 

1315 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 
iii 

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ....................................................................................................... 5

Overview of the National Ocean Policy and Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Framework ............................... 6

POLICY/MANAGEMENT PANEL ................................................................................................................................. 8

Connecting Opportunities in the Mid-Atlantic .......................................................................................................... 8

National Perspectives on the MAFMC’s Habitat/Ecosystem Approaches ................................................................ 9

Habitat Priorities and Council Opportunities from a NOAA/NMFS Regional Program ........................................ 11

NOAA’s Approach to Deep-Sea Coral Research and Management in the Mid-Atlantic Region ........................... 13

NOAA/NMFS’s Habitat Restoration Priorities in the Mid-Atlantic ....................................................................... 16

Supporting Mid-Atlantic Habitat and Ecosystem Priorities through the National System of Marine Protected 

Areas ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18

NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program: Opportunities to Support Mid-Atlantic and New England Canyon 

and Seamount Habitat Conservation ....................................................................................................................... 21

Connecting State Coastal Land Conservation Priorities with Fishery Habitat Conservation Priorities .................. 24

POLICY/MANAGEMENT PANEL DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL ...................................................................... 25

SCIENCE PANEL ............................................................................................................................................................ 26

NMFS Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan (HAIP) – An Overview ................................................................. 26

NMFS Science in Support of New Management Initiatives: Perspectives from Headquarters ............................... 28

Spatial Considerations for Ecosystem-Based Management on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf .................... 31

Strengthening Science to Improve Habitat Protection and Restoration in Chesapeake Bay ................................... 34

Habitat Science at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center ..................................................................................... 37

What Makes Some Parts of the Ocean Sticky to Fish? Ocean Observing for Marine Habitat Science and 

Ecosystem Management .......................................................................................................................................... 39

SCIENCE PANEL DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL ................................................................................................... 43

STAKEHOLDER PANEL ............................................................................................................................................... 45

Perspectives from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) ................................................... 45

Start by Doing What’s Necessary; Then Do What’s Possible; and Suddenly You are Doing the Impossible – 

Francis of Assisi ...................................................................................................................................................... 47

Discovering Reef: Possibilities of Accelerated and Permanent Reef Fish Restoration ........................................... 49

Regulatory Requirements that Exceed Our Knowledge of the Ocean Environment and the Impact on the Public

................................................................................................................................................................................. 51

Preparation Meets Opportunity for Mid-Atlantic Habitat Conservation ................................................................. 53

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Program, Ecosystem Approaches, and Collaboration 

Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................................... 57

Progress on Habitat Conservation and Ecosystems-Based Fisheries Management by the New England Fishery 

Management Council .............................................................................................................................................. 61

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Habitat Conservation, Ecosystem Coordination, and Collaboration

................................................................................................................................................................................. 63

STAKEHOLDER PANEL DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL ...................................................................................... 68

CLOSING REMARKS .................................................................................................................................................... 69

PRESENTER BIOGRAPHIES ....................................................................................................................................... 72

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 76

 

 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (MAFMC’s) Habitat-Ecosystem Workshop was held December 

13-14, 2010 in Virginia Beach, VA. The workshop was organized by the MAFMC in partnership with the NMFS Office 

of Habitat Conservation, the NMFS Office of Science & Technology, and the NMFS Northeast Regional Office. 

Participation and attendance at the workshop reached nearly 100 people, with participants from the MAFMC, NOAA, 

New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (NEFMC, SAFMC), Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (ASMFC), states, regional governance bodies (governors’ regional association, Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Council on the Ocean [MARCO]), environmental organizations, fishing industry, and the public. The one and a half day 

workshop featured 27 presentations grouped by three panels (policy/management, science, and stakeholder), with each 

panel designed to identify the roles of the individual attendees, beginning with introductory talks followed by technical 

presentations and panel discussions. Topics were identified to advance collective efforts to enhance, protect, and restore 

habitats and ecosystems, with extensive discussions on new policies (the President's National Ocean Policy), broader 

perspectives (ecosystem approaches based on regional priorities), new tools (coastal and marine spatial planning, 

integrated ecosystem assessments), and new partnerships (related to ocean energy, national marine sanctuaries, etc.). 

The goal was to identify projects and opportunities for the MAFMC to move toward the forefront in utilizing the 

latest habitat and ecosystem science, policy, and management to provide healthy mid-Atlantic fisheries. The primary 

target for the discussions was the Council membership, who obtained perspective from the presentations on what is 

available from the various offices, programs, research, etc. that will help the Council to do its job better. The workshop 

established and strengthened partnerships to extend these benefits to other mid-Atlantic activities with shared interests, 

beginning with NOAA, other federal and state agencies, environmental and industry NGOs, and constituents. Because 

coastal and marine resources and the habitats that support them are important to many groups in the mid-Atlantic region 

for many reasons, the Council will use its specific role in the fishery management process to forge broader discussions 

about coastal and marine ecosystems, current and projected human activities, and the full array of resource management 

approaches and tools available to improve habitat and ecosystem health in the mid-Atlantic. 

 The primary outcome of this workshop was to identify proposed projects and actions for the Council to implement 

which more fully incorporate habitat science, ecosystem-based fishery management, and coastal and marine spatial 

planning into the Council's management efforts. Each speaker identified what they saw as the next steps in developing 

possible proposals and projects with Council involvement, and the panel discussions helped to reiterate and highlight 

those ideas. Below are the top recommendations from each of the three panels. 

Top Recommendations from the Policy/Management Panel 

 The MAFMC should review the National Ocean Policy for opportunities with the nine priority objectives. 

 Continue/expand these discussions to include groups/issues not represented at this workshop, and learn from 

other efforts elsewhere; pursue opportunities for other sectors/groups to share roles as host, convener, and 

facilitator. Identify pilots and opportunities for specific action to fulfill the intent established at this workshop, 

using existing resources.

 Invest in the process and context of essential fish habitat (EFH) reviews with a view beyond the MAFMC’s 

immediate Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) regulatory requirements to designate EFH in its fishery 

management plans (FMPs). Continue discussing coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP).

 Participate in the NOAA Deep-Sea Coral (DSC) Research and Technology Program’s northeast/mid-Atlantic 

research priorities workshop/fieldwork planning for 2013-15. Exercise MSA discretionary authority to 

designate DSC protection zones, use EFH and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) as tools for DSC 

management, and designate a primary point of contact for coral-related issues. Monitor bycatch and habitat 

impacts of fishing on DSCs.

 Work with regional NOAA/NMFS Restoration Center (RC) staff in their regional prioritization efforts to 

identify priority watersheds and waterbodies for habitat restoration; work with regional RC staff and local 

partners in the mid-Atlantic to develop funding proposals and projects of mutual interest to the Council and 

RC; explore the possibility of becoming a formal partner with the RC in response to their FY 2012 solicitation 

for partnerships; work with the RC to develop outreach products that address the importance of habitat 

restoration for federally managed species; advocate the importance of assessing and understanding the link 

between nearshore and estuarine habitats, diadromous fish species, and federally managed species.

 Develop a regional Marine Protected Area (MPA) network for the mid-Atlantic, and once formed, integrate 

MPAs with the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and work with the North American MPA 

Network (NAMPAN) to develop “condition reports” for the sites. Partner with the National MPA Center 
2 

 (NMPAC) to continue/complete ocean mapping of human uses/activities in the mid-Atlantic. Take advantage 

of training opportunities on adaptation to climate change, developing MPA networks, CMSP, etc. offered by 

NMPAC and NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Take advantage of the NMPAC’s information 

clearinghouse on MPA resources and databases to help inform the Council’s work on spatial management.

 Coordinate with the National Ocean Service and NMFS to convene a workshop on canyon/seamount habitat 

in the mid-Atlantic/New England regions to assess the status of resources, state of knowledge, threats, and 

conservation alternatives available through the MSA and other authorities; support surveys/research to address 

questions regarding the diversity, distribution, and abundance of species living in canyon/seamounts.

 Become familiar with the state Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) leads in the 

region and funding opportunities under the program; review state CELCP plans to identify shared priority 

habitats/landscapes; contact state CELCP leads to share information on additional fisheries priority habitat.

Top Recommendations from the Science Panel 

 NMFS and MAFMC should develop criteria to prioritize stocks and geographic locations that would benefit 

from habitat assessments; NMFS habitat and stock assessment scientists should work together with fishery 

managers to initiate demonstration projects that incorporate habitat data into stock assessment models.

 Maintain the dialogue between NMFS and the Council to develop science products that meet the needs of the 

Council; e.g., develop/update the 5-year research priorities submitted to the NMFS Science Center Directors 

reflecting ecosystem/habitat science needs identified by the Council or improve the protocol for providing 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) habitat-science support to the MAFMC.

 The Council should continue to seek recognition on the Regional Planning Body, participate to the fullest 

extent possible in the CMSP process, and work with state/local partners in protecting fish habitat. 

 The MAFMC should evaluate options for the designation of spatial management units as the basis for 

development of integrated management plans for defined ecoregions. 

 Better connect science/management activities of the Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Goal Team, ASMFC, and 

MAFMC. 

 Convene a NOAA habitat mapping consortium/meeting, organized by the NOAA North Atlantic Regional 

Team and hosted by the NMFS/NEFSC James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, and include 

representatives of the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO), MAFMC, NEFSC, etc. 

 Improve communication pathways/networks to include all sectors with influence over land and marine 

habitats and develop better visualization tools describing ecosystems, their inter-relationships, and the specific 

outcomes that can result from applying ecosystem approaches to management; fully integrate modeling, 

observations, research, and monitoring to facilitate scenario testing and tradeoff discussions. 

 Establish the resilience of the ecosystem and keystone populations in the ecosystem as the goal of ecosystem 

science/management in the mid-Atlantic. Encourage government and academic scientists to openly 

collaborate with the fishing community to perform the science required to identify processes in the midAtlantic ecosystem that promote the resilience of keystone populations and ecosystem. 

 Establish a research set-aside program focused on the goals of ecosystem science and management. 

 Educate the public and stakeholders about the complexity of the mid-Atlantic ecosystem. 

Top Recommendations from the Stakeholder Panel 

 In partnership with MARCO, compile GIS information on offshore areas, and share habitat information, 

particularly on the submarine canyons; exchange data/information through the online MARCO Mapping and 

Planning Portal; coordinate on developing management objectives and creating the Mid-Atlantic’s Regional 

Planning Body and defining roles for the Fishery Management Councils; continue discussions of enhanced 

mechanisms for MAFMC participation in MARCO processes in order to incorporate the needs of the 

commercial/recreational fishing communities. 

 The MAFMC Science and Statistical Committee’s Ecosystem Subcommittee should provide the MAFMC 

with scientific advice to support/inform development of the Council's ecosystem level goals/policies; 

identify/describe scientific advice that the MAFMC could use to address/incorporate ecosystem 

structure/function in its FMPs and quota specification process to ensure the Council’s management practices 

effectively account for ecological sustainability; describe scientific information that the MAFMC could 

consider so as to anticipate/respond to shifts in ecological conditions/processes in its management programs; 

summarize what other regions/countries are doing to incorporate EBFM principles in their management 
3 

plans/programs; describe how ecosystems principles could be used by the MAFMC in the long-term to evolve 

its single/multi-species FMPs into a regional EBFM plan. 

 Coordinate development of EBFM approaches and habitat issues with adjacent Fishery Management 

Councils, states, and ASMFC, and hold workshops. All parties should participate in the Department of 

Interior’s North Atlantic and South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. 

 However, the MAFMC should carefully consider the tradeoffs of adopting EBFM and CMSP approaches 

compared to current fisheries management approaches, and understand and prepare for some of the needed 

changes to organizational structure before embarking on EBFM. 

 Utilize the EFH Omnibus Amendment developed by the NEFMC/MAFMC as a policy vehicle for expanded 

habitat protection and a process that provides public input for decision-making. 

 The SAFMC will share its existing EFH policy statements, and the MAFMC/SAFMC should collaborate on 

developing or linking future ecological models where species may overlap jurisdictions; the SAFMC will also 

cooperate on including updated information for future South Atlantic Fishery Ecosystem Plan revisions for 

mid-Atlantic managed species occurring in south Atlantic waters. 

 The Councils/regions should share information on activities and policies pertaining to offshore energy 

development, marine aquaculture, and marine habitat identification and conservation for diadromous species. 

 Conduct a regional CMSP process that is open and transparent and based on sound science. 

 Interview remaining “old-time” fishers to piece together a picture of what once was in order to protect what 

we have and restore what we’ve lost in terms of fish, invertebrates, and hard bottom habitats; protect/restore 

those hard bottom habitats and focus not on the substrate but on the growth that provides habitat. 

 Recognize that cold water azooxanthellate corals are important to fish populations wherever they now occur 

or did occur, including all shallow/deep waters, and are highly vulnerable to physical disturbance of any kind, 

so they need to be identified/protected via the MSA’s discretionary authority. Strongly consider transportable 

reef units sited in areas with abundant growth to gather natural set corals for later transplant. 

 The ASMFC and MAFMC should strengthen communication between their habitat program staff and 

committees; identify projects for funding by the Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership, Southeast Aquatic 

Resources Partnership, and other National Fish Habitat Partnerships; develop joint habitat educational 

materials; collaborate on essential fish habitat designations; develop and adopt common habitat policies (i.e., 

Resolution 89-IV); partner to build on existing efforts to develop a coast-wide fish habitat Geographic 

Information System. 

As the national and regional habitat-ecosystem initiatives outlined in this workshop move forward, the Council is 

also impelled to move forward on these issues. The workshop showed opportunities the Council can pursue across a 

wide spectrum of agencies, venues, and disciplines. Some of the opportunities will be easily achievable while others 

present longer-term commitments; some involve working with existing programs to identify data and research needs for 

the mid-Atlantic region and may build on the Council’s existing initiatives, particularly those involving ocean 

governance and ecosystem management. The Council has already taken the initiative of incorporating ecological 

considerations into their current fishery management plans and is beginning the transition into ecosystem management 

by appointing an Ecosystem Subcommittee of the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee. The Ecosystem and 

Ocean Planning Committee of the MAFMC will be taking the next steps by categorizing the opportunities presented in 

this workshop and developing a list of priorities and an action plan for consideration by the full Council. 
4 

INTRODUCTION

Thomas B. Hoff, Senior Ecologist, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, DE 

This Habitat-Ecosystem Workshop was proposed 

by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's 

(Council) new Executive Director, Dr. Chris Moore, in 

August of 2010. His proposal originated in discussions 

he had with Tom Bigford, Chief, Office of Habitat 

Conservation/Habitat Protection Division, and Dr. 

Moore's interest in re-invigorating the Council's work 

on habitat and ecosystem issues. 

As a result, the Council staff worked closely with 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) staff in the 

Region and Headquarters to design an ecosystem 

workshop that had a broad agenda and a number of 

invited participants. The workshop was designed with 

the understanding that coastal and marine resources and 

the habitats that support them are important to many 

groups in the mid-Atlantic region for a variety of 

reasons and furthermore that the Council could use its 

specific role in the fishery management process to forge 

broader discussions about coastal and marine 

ecosystems, current and projected human activities, and 

resource management approaches and tools available to 

improve habitat and ecosystem health. 

The workshop was developed around 27 

presentations over 11⁄2 days. Specific workshop topics 

were identified to advance collective efforts to enhance, 

protect, and restore habitat and ecosystems including 

new policies (the President's National Ocean Policy), 

broader perspectives (ecosystem approaches based on 

regional priorities), new tools (coastal and marine 

spatial planning, integrated ecosystem assessments), 

and new partnerships (related to ocean energy, coastal 

managers, national marine sanctuaries, offshore 

aquaculture, or others). The presentations were grouped 

into panels designed to generate discussion and allow 

for Council interaction with the panelists. The panels 

included policy/management, science, and stakeholder.

Nearly 100 people participated in or attended the 

workshop. Participants completed an evaluation 

questionnaire and most respondents stated they were 

very satisfied with the workshop. Numerous 

respondents advocated for an additional workshop with 

additional agencies involved. One of the most telling 

pieces of feedback came from a senior agency scientist 

who felt the workshop was "the most useful meeting I 

participated in all of 2010." 

A primary outcome of this workshop was to 

identify proposed projects and actions for the Council 

to implement which more fully incorporate habitat 

science, ecosystem-based fishery management, and 

coastal and marine spatial planning into the Council's 

management efforts. Each speaker was encouraged to 

identify what they saw as the next steps in developing 

possible proposals and projects with Council 

involvement, and the panel discussions helped to 

reiterate and highlight those ideas. Those steps are 

highlighted in the box that begins each speaker's paper 

in this report. 

In his wrap-up statements for this workshop the 

Council Chairman, Rick Robins, charged the 

Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee to provide 

the blueprint to move the Council forward on habitatecosystem issues. That Committee will meet in 

February 2011 with that sole intent. They will review 

the evaluation questionnaires, prioritize the speaker's 

suggestions, decide whether to hold another workshop, 

and provide guidance on projects for possible Council 

involvement. 
5 

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Gene Kray, Chair, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council/Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee, 

Dover, DE 

Good afternoon. It is my distinct pleasure to 

welcome you to the first Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council Habitat and Ecosystem 

Workshop. My name is Gene Kray and I chair the 

Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee for the 

Council. When I was first appointed to the Council in 

2003 this Committee was called the Habitat Committee. 

Shortly thereafter we saw the need to expand the 

breadth of what we were doing and it became the 

Ecosystem Committee. Two years ago we saw the 

focus widening again and it became The Ecosystem and 

Ocean Planning Committee. You could say that the title 

of the committee evolved, somewhat like what Steve 

Murawski said with his colleagues when he described 

the ecosystem approach to fishery management as an 

“evolution not a revolution”. 

We believe that we are now at a time when the 

science and policy issues are ready to be explored and 

to see how they can come together for the benefit of the 

various species that we manage, as well as our 

stakeholders in this process. The major purpose of this 

workshop is to convene with our partners at the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (ASMFC), the Councils to the north and 

south of us and our stakeholders to develop a road map 

for the Council to follow as we look at our fishery 

management plans. There are obviously many questions 

to be addressed: Should we look at what can be 

accomplished in the short-term (one to three years), or 

as my distinguished colleague Tom Hoff describes it, 

“picking off the low hanging fruit?” The answer to that 

is yes. It has been suggested that we might look at 

summer flounder, since of all of the mid-Atlantic 

species, we believe that it is the most data rich and 

likely to be the most susceptible to man’s impacts in the 

estuaries that we manage. We shall see. We of course 

hope that we select a species or grouping of species that 

we can use as a stepping stone in our plans for all of our 

managed fisheries in the long-term. 

Another question might be: How much and what 

kind of data do we need and who can help us with this 

approach? We hope to have an answer to that question 

at the conclusion of this workshop. 

This workshop was planned as an opportunity for 

the Council to engage in a discussion with the panelists 

and the Council. As you can see we have a very robust 

agenda. As time is available we will invite questions or 

comments from the public. 

I want to thank our steering committee for all of 

their efforts in putting the plans for this workshop in 

place. Their names are listed in the agenda. There were 

many hours of conference calls, emails and individual 

phone calls involved in this process. I also want to 

thank our distinguished speakers and panelists who are 

going to guide our thinking as we deliberate and debate 

the issues that will provide the Council with clear 

direction as to how we can incorporate ecosystembased principles and considerations into our fishery 

management plans. 

Finally I want to thank our Chairman, Rick Robins 

and Executive Director, Chris Moore for their vision 

and support in giving us the tools to make this 

workshop happen. 

In conclusion, I want to point out that a summary 

of these proceedings will be published in a “Technical 

Memo” by NOAA and will be available to all 

participants and guests attending this workshop before 

we put the plans in place for the second workshop on 

Habitat and Ecosystems in the spring or summer of 

2011. 

 
6 

OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY AND COASTAL AND MARINE SPATIAL 

PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Jessica Kondel, Acting Regional Coordinator, NOAA/Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Program, Silver 

Spring, MD 

On July 19th, 2010, President Obama acted upon 

the final recommendations of the Ocean Policy Task 

Force and signed an Executive Order adopting a new 

National Policy for the Stewardship of the Oceans, Our 

Coasts, and the Great Lakes. This is truly a historic 

moment for our oceans as for the first time in our 

nation’s history we have a comprehensive National 

Ocean Policy. 

America’s rich and productive coastal regions and 

waters support tens of millions of jobs and account for a 

significant portion of the national economy. They also 

host a growing number of commercial, recreational, 

scientific, energy, and security activities, and provide a 

wealth of natural resources and ecological benefits. 

Human uses of the ocean are expanding at a rate that 

challenges our ability to manage significant and often 

competing demands. 

To counter the increased demands for our ocean 

and coastal resources, we need a more integrated, 

comprehensive, ecosystem-based, flexible, and 

proactive approach to planning and managing uses and 

activities. Without this, we risk more user conflicts, 

increased costs and delays from planning and 

regulatory inefficiencies, and the potential loss of 

critical economic, ecosystem, social, and cultural 

services for present and future generations. While many 

existing permitting processes for the ocean, coasts, and 

the Great Lakes include aspects of coordinated 

planning, most focus solely on a limited range of 

sector-by-sector, statute-by-statute management tools 

and outcomes. 

To facilitate making comprehensive ecosystembased management of our ocean, coast, and Great Lakes 

resources a reality, the President’s Executive Order 

accomplishes four important things: 

1. For the first time, establishes a National Ocean 

Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts, and 

Great Lakes, including a set of overarching principles 

to guide ocean management decisions. 

2. Creates an interagency National Ocean Council 

(NOC) formed of 27 federal entities, to provide 

sustained, high-level, and coordinated attention to 

advance the National Ocean Policy. 

3. Prioritizes nine key categories for action that 

seek to address the most pressing challenges facing the 

ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

4. Establishes a flexible Framework for effective 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (or CMSP) to 

address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, 

and sustainable use of ecosystem services. 

At present, we regulate human activities in our 

oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes at the federal level with 

over 140 statutes, regulations, and policies. New 

regulation is not the answer. Instead, we have to change 

our approach to recognize that there is only one ocean, 

and that we need to learn to use it without using it up. 

The National Ocean Policy and ecosystem-based 

CMSP do not create new layers of bureaucracy, instead, 

they call for coordination among existing management 

regimes to ensure that community stakeholders can 

participate in managing their own coasts in a fair and 

open forum. By requiring government agencies to work 

together to engage stakeholders, we will grow toward 

fair and open management so that all stakeholders can 

have a seat at the table to participate fairly in planning. 

Because no two regions are exactly alike, there is 

not a one-size-fits-all recipe for CMSP. Each region 

and its stakeholders will have the opportunity and 

responsibility to tailor the process, ensuring that all 

interests and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes users are 

adequately represented. This bottom-up approach will 

ensure that CMSP serves and responds directly to 

community needs. The nine Regional Planning Bodies 

(RPBs) established under the National Ocean Policy are 

designed to mirror the geography of ocean, coast, and 

Great Lakes ecosystems and existing regional 

governance structures, so that communities can work 

together toward developing solutions that make sense 

for issues they share in common with one another. 

The National Ocean Policy and its CMSP 

Framework envision a regionally-based, collaborative 

planning process in which key agencies and 

stakeholders have a meaningful voice and responsibility 

in identifying goals and objectives for their regional 

waters and in designing a CMS Plan that allows the 

desired assortment of uses that reflects those goals. 

Stakeholder and public participation will occur 

throughout the development of regional CMS Plans. As 

a result, when a project is proposed and considered in 

light of the regional CMS Plan, many of the stakeholder 

and public concerns have already been addressed. The 

NOC will also provide guidance and oversight of 

regional CMSP initiatives. 

The underpinning of the National Ocean Policy and 

the CMSP Framework is science. We have data and 

information, but not all of it is accessible or in a useable 

format for CMSP. The solution is better integration 

which will require governments, industries, academics, 

and others to partner together to 1) identify priorities 

for research in a coordinated fashion; 2) explore 

decision support tools to assess trade-offs associated 
7 

with managing for multiple uses and conserving the 

ability of ecosystems to sustainably produce services; 

and, 3) begin development of national and regional 

information systems and data portals to assist with 

CMSP. This will include ensuring nationally consistent 

derived data products from region to region. Scientific 

data and information generated by the Fisheries 

Management Councils (FMCs) will be an important 

part of the national and regional information systems 

designed to support CMSP decision-making. 

As veterans of a similar process, the experienced 

voice of the FMCs will bring immediate depth to the 

CMSP process, which is why the CMSP Framework 

recognizes that their involvement in CMSP is critical. 

In addition to their expertise and science, FMCs also 

have statutory authority to develop management and 

protection measures for fisheries, habitat, and corals. 

These authorities will also help define the roles that 

FMCs play in CMSP. NOAA supports and encourages 

the eight FMCs to continue to actively consult with the 

existing regional governance organizations and work 

with state partners and other regional groups on the 

potential organization and membership of RPBs. The 

Framework directs the NOC to prepare guidance for 

RPBs in meeting these consultative requirements which 

has not yet been developed. Ultimately, the RPB will 

apply this guidance to determine the best outcome for 

their particular circumstances. NOAA will be actively 

involved in the development of this guidance given its 

relationship to and understanding of FMCs and their 

processes under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

Conservation and Management Act (MSA). 

As we move forward with the implementation of 

CMSP some questions remain. However, what we do 

know is that CMSP will facilitate sustainable economic 

growth in coastal communities by providing greater 

efficiencies and predictability for economic investments 

in ocean and coastal-based businesses. This should 

result in reduced costs and conflicts among competing 

uses. CMSP should also improve ecosystem health and 

services by better planning human uses together with 

the conservation of important ecological areas (areas of 

spawning, breeding, and feeding), areas of rare or 

functionally vulnerable marine resources, and migratory 

corridors. CMSP will also provide opportunities for 

community and citizen participation in transparent 

planning processes that will determine the future of the 

ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes. 

Key Question: Pennsylvania is listed as a midAtlantic state and has representation on the 

MAFMC. Would it be imperative that Pennsylvania 

be included as part of the Regional Planning Bodies 

(RPBs)? 

 

Answer: The RPB would likely need representation 

from all of the states to qualify as an RPB. 

Key Question: Will the MAFMC be a member to the 

RPBs? 

Answer: The MAFMC and other Councils will not be 

direct members at this point. The RPBs will be required 

to establish coordination mechanisms with the relevant 

Councils. The Councils will have a consultative role in 

the process. The MAFMC has requested a seat on the 

staff, working group, and Executive Board levels of the 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean 

(MARCO), since existing regional structures may be 

the foundation for RPBs. 

Key Question: If the decisions from the MAFMC 

are inconsistent with the RPB, what happens? 

Answer: The MAFMC would be required to notify the 

RPB. A dispute resolution mechanism has yet to be 

determined. RPB’s will not usurp existing authorities. 

Key Question: When will the RPB’s be in place? 

Answer: The National CMSP Workshop is expected to 

be in May, and the RPBs should form soon after that. 
8 

POLICY/MANAGEMENT PANEL

CONNECTING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE MID-ATLANTIC

Pat A. Montanio, Director, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver 

Spring, MD 

“Overfishing was the challenge of the 20th century; 

the challenge for the 21st century will be habitat 

degradation,” according to Dr. Robert Diaz from the 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science. More specifically, 

our challenge is to maintain suitable coastal and marine 

habitats not only for healthy fisheries but also for other 

ecosystem services – recreation, water quality, 

shoreline protection – all while ocean uses and stressors 

are increasing and our fiscal resources are limited. 

Besides our historic roles, our evolving portfolio 

extends to offshore energy, invasive species, and 

climate change; the latter includes sea level rise and 

ocean acidification. These challenges implore us to 

preserve, restore, and improve habitat conditions so the 

mid-Atlantic can provide the full range of economic 

and societal benefits. 

The National Ocean Policy offers a fresh reminder 

of the complex web of statutes, regulations, and policies 

that govern the use of our coasts and oceans. The 

growing number of groups and partnerships offer new 

opportunities to improve natural resource management 

through coordination and collaboration. We are 

fortunate to have this workshop, hosted by the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council and attended by 

so many partners, which will serve as a valuable step 

forward for the mid-Atlantic regional ecosystem. 

A review of statutes, threats, and opportunities 

reveals the importance of joining forces for our 

common interests. Partnerships offer opportunities to 

leverage our assets, including expertise and funds. In 

the mid-Atlantic we have a strong assemblage of state, 

federal, and joint efforts that offer the promise of 

greater collaboration. Existing and new opportunities 

cover the full sweep of NOAA capabilities (many also 

presenting at this workshop) and extend to other 

agencies and the private sector. We will be strongest by 

moving forward together. 

This workshop serves as a timely introduction for 

us, our agencies, and our shared objectives. The 

National Ocean Policy offers one umbrella under which 

we can and must rally. Individual efforts in coastal 

management, fishery management, energy, 

transportation, environmental protection, and other 

arenas are now expected to intersect, perhaps even 

merge. No one agency or group has been vested with a 

lead. No one partner can succeed alone. It is our 

collective responsibility to organize and plan for shared 

success. I also look forward to continuing these 

discussions. I hope others among us will consider 

hosting the next chapter in this effort. Sharing those 

roles will remind us that these discussions, and all 

benefits from our success, extend beyond the MAFMC 

and fishery management. We have a real opportunity to 

improve the management of – leading to improving the 

condition of – our shared mid-Atlantic ecosystem. 

Major Recommendations 

 The MAFMC should review the National Ocean Policy for opportunities with the nine priority objectives. The 

strategic action plans for each objective are available in mid-2011 at: 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/24/open-comments-ntl-ocean-policy-strategic-action-plans>

offer entrees into regional ecosystem protection and restoration, ecosystem-based management, coastal and 

marine spatial planning, and other national coastal and ocean priorities. Our regional discussions should help us 

identify opportunities for success in the mid-Atlantic and beyond. Similarly, we have much to learn from other 

efforts elsewhere. 

 This workshop highlighted many NOAA programs with potential connections to managing the mid-Atlantic 

regional ecosystem. Let us commit to working with other workshop attendees and others not present but who 

share our interests. Other federal agencies, each state, the private sector (industry and environmental groups), 

separately and through joint efforts, offer opportunities to leverage and succeed.
9 

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE MAFMC’S HABITAT/ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES

Thomas E. Bigford, Chief, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat 

Conservation/Habitat Protection Division, Silver Spring, MD 

The December 13-14, 2010, workshop convened 

by the MAFMC represents an unprecedented 

opportunity to push beyond traditional fishery 

management and toward regional management of 

multiple sectors in a shared ecosystem. The December 

workshop represents one step toward President 

Obama’s aspirations in his July 2010 National Ocean 

Policy (NOP). An increased emphasis on ecosystem 

approaches echoes several goals of that NOP and will 

also position the MAFMC to apply the latest fishery 

management techniques. Working together in an 

unprecedented partnership, other industries, agencies, 

and groups with interests in mid-Atlantic waters and 

coasts can expect a more robust and collaborative arena 

than seemed possible before the President’s policy 

changed expectations. The Council must be 

commended for its earnest first step: now each 

participant and others wishing to join must accept the 

challenge and help us move collectively toward a more 

integrated, ecosystem-based approach to managing 

mid-Atlantic waters and resources. Elsewhere around 

the nation’s coasts, the MAFMC’s vision and its farreaching trust in fellow ecosystem managers mark an 

encouraging step toward a new ocean management 

regime. 

These glimpses of a new era reflect other recent 

activities. As examples, the emphasis by NOAA/NMFS 

on habitat science in 2009-2010 inspired publication of 

the Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan in 2010 and 

culminated in the first-ever National Habitat 

Assessment Workshop in St. Petersburg, Florida in 

May 2010 (published as NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-112 in November 2010). 

Bracketed around that effort has been encouraging 

work on an “integrated ecosystem assessment” (IEA) 

synthesis and analysis of natural and socio-economic 

factors related to regional ecosystem management 

goals. Again reflecting direction in the NOP, IEAs 

promise to infuse habitat into population dynamics 

debates, with the potential to increase the utility of 

models used to manage marine resources for harvest 

and other ecosystem benefits. And the National Fish 

Habitat Action Plan, represented regionally by the 

Atlantic Coast Fish Habitat Partnership, offers a fresh 

approach to resource management with an emphasis on 

habitat and a marked de-emphasis on conventional 

spatial boundaries. Talk about regional approaches to 

coastal and marine spatial planning offer a unified 

frame for combining these efforts, again reflecting the 

NOP and benefitting many who are working in the midAtlantic. Finally, to ease our transition into this new 

paradigm, we have the 2010 release of the draft 

“Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification 

Standard” (CMECS) developed by NOAA and 

NatureServe as a new national standard to classifying 

coastal and marine spatial systems, including those in 

the mid-Atlantic of special interest at the December 

workshop. The NOAA/NMFS Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) is already applying CMECS 

conventions to its data holdings in Hudson Canyon. 

These renewed commitments to regional collaborations, 

uniform standards, and visions offer the prospect of 

achievements and successes that previously would not 

have been possible. 

While much of the group enthusiasm exhibited at 

the December workshop was unprecedented, it was 

clear that like-minded individuals have been shifting 

toward these ecosystem approaches for some time. For 

example, it was encouraging to hear frequent reference 

to “Ecosystem-based Fishery Management for the 

Northeast Continental Shelf” (FS-2010-02) as a 

fundamental change from traditional fishery 

management to integrated plans for discrete, spatially 

explicit, ecological regions. Obviously, practitioners in 

the northeast already have realized the logic and 

inevitability of this transition from species-based 

management to a more holistic space-based approach. 

Major Recommendations 

 Continue and expand these discussions to include groups and issues not represented at the December 2010 

workshop in Virginia Beach, including protected resources, state coastal programs, defense, telecommunications, 

and ocean energy. 

 Pursue opportunities for other sectors or groups to share the roles as host, convener, and facilitator so the 

MAFMC need not carry an undue burden and their issues are not perceived as receiving undue attention. As two 

options, consider the opportunity to work with ASMFC’s Habitat Committee on a joint meeting in April 2011 and 

any options to partner with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO). 

 Identify pilots for specific action in 2011 to fulfill the intent established at the Virginia Beach workshop, using 

existing knowledge, staff, and funds as we shift from business as usual to an ecosystem approach. 
10 

I applaud continued efforts in these directions and 

with broader groups of regional resource managers. I 

encourage us as individuals and the respective agencies, 

industries, and resources we represent to push onward. 

We have much to do in 2011! 

These important steps toward a promising future 

will require our immediate and focused attention. New 

staff and funds are unlikely, so we need a collective 

commitment to shift existing resources from past 

approaches to our new vision. This transition will not 

come swiftly, but it is inevitable. We can ease the 

process by reflecting new ecosystem approaches in our 

stock assessments, essential fish habitat (EFH) 

identifications and designations, and other efforts and 

by partnering with those groups who specialize in our 

priority needs, e.g., coastal and ocean observations in 

support of regional ecosystem management by the MidAtlantic Regional Association Coastal Ocean 

Observing System (MARACOOS). 

 
11 

HABITAT PRIORITIES AND COUNCIL OPPORTUNITIES FROM A NOAA/NMFS

REGIONAL PROGRAM

Peter Colosi, Assistant Regional Administrator, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Regional Office, Habitat Conservation Division, Gloucester, MA 

The NMFS Northeast Regional Office is pleased to 

be a part of this workshop. We’re here to discuss 

NERO Habitat’s profile and share ideas on how the 

Council may utilize “habitat” to do its job of managing 

fishery resources within the setting of broader ocean 

utilization. As one of the charges of the workshop, 

NMFS NERO hopes to help identify opportunities for 

the MAFMC to utilize the latest habitat and ecosystem 

science, policy, and management to provide healthy 

mid-Atlantic fisheries. This is fitting because the living 

marine resources and the habitats that support them are 

important to a wide range of stakeholders in the midAtlantic. In this respect, the Council is to be 

commended for the genesis of this forum. It has long 

been resourceful and innovative, and it recognizes the 

broader ocean use community and its influences on 

fisheries. 

Who is the NMFS/NERO Habitat Conservation 

Division? 

The Habitat Division is among a suite of 

NMFS/Northeast Regional Office programs such as 

Protected Resources, Sustainable Fisheries, Grants, and 

Statistics that cover the northeast U.S. coast from 

Maine through Virginia. Collectively these programs 

carry out NMFS’s strategic goals. The Habitat Division 

portfolio is comprised of the three broad areas of 

habitat fishery management, habitat protection, and 

stewardship/engagement. 

Habitat fishery management 

This is the Habitat Division section that guides the 

Council in incorporating the characterization of 

essential fish habitat (EFH) in the development of 

fishery management plans for federally managed 

species. EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate 

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or 

growth to maturity.” The EFH designations are utilized 

in fishery management plans to address and minimize 

habitat impacts on EFH caused by fishing gear through 

pertinent management measures that are established by 

regulation. These, in concert with fishery catch and 

effort measures help to manage fish stocks at 

sustainable levels of harvest and productivity. 

The Habitat Division integrates its EFH work into 

the work of both the MAFMC and New England 

Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). The Division 

is a member of various Council committees, and helps 

coordinate habitat and science integration into Council 

efforts. The Division advises Council committees on 

the consultations we undertake on development 

projects. Periodically the Division provides services 

and products such as EFH training, a non-fishing 

Major Recommendations 

 Invest in the process and context of essential fish habitat (EFH) reviews. Do so with a view beyond the 

MAFMC’s immediate Magnuson-Stevens Act regulatory requirements to designate EFH in its fishery 

management plans. View it as an investment. While designation will help us manage habitat impacts associated 

with fishing gear and waterway development activities, it is also an opportunity for the Council to expand into an 

ecosystem-based design for EFH designations that can benefit fishery management. This can result in more 

accurate and precise application of EFH in fishery management in terms of the ecological drivers of productive 

capacity of fish resources. In this regard, this Council could be one of the first to incorporate ecosystem-based 

components into its EFH work. It can expand our influence with more precision and focus for fishery 

management, and result in greater influence in the consideration for living marine resource conservation among 

the various interests in the ocean development arena and the broader ocean use discussion. 

 Continue discussing coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP). NMFS is in this discussion also and will 

continue partnering with you. We in the Northeast Regional Office (NERO) are involved with the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO), the Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC), Ocean Special Area 

Management Plan (Ocean SAMP) coordination with states, and soon will be involved in the Ocean Policy Task 

Force Regional Planning Bodies for CMSP. It is our job and yours to integrate fish and the longstanding history 

of fisheries into the considerations of CMSP and the development of marine spatial planning tools. 

 It’s the Council’s insight that counts when framing its habitat agenda. Stay grounded in the perspective of your 

mandates, and see what opportunities there are for the Council to better manage fishery resources for a healthy 

fishing industry. 
12 

habitat impacts primer, and EFH assessment tools and 

resources. 

Habitat protection 

 

Habitat Protection involves marine coastal and 

waterway development activities. This is where the 

Division brings our Council EFH designations forward 

to consult with federal and state permitting agencies to 

assure that we avoid and minimize habitat impacts to 

NOAA trust resources. Consultation actions include 

hydropower, navigational dredging, coastline 

infrastructure, energy development (e.g., hydrokinetic 

turbines), deep water port facilities, etc. Notable 

examples include working with the NOAA Chesapeake 

Bay Office and other agencies on preventing the 

introduction of non-native Asian oysters into 

Chesapeake Bay, and the protection of 100 acres of 

cobble habitat for juvenile cod in Winthrop Bay, 

Massachusetts from dredging. Some of our primary 

statutes include the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection 

Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Our consultations require the permitting agencies 

to characterize and evaluate proposed actions with 

respect to disturbance and impact to EFH. We then 

issue conservation recommendations to the permitting 

agency that are designed to protect EFH and other 

living marine resources. The permitting authorities with 

whom we consult include the U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Bureau of Energy Management Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE), the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC), the EPA, Coast 

Guard, and the states. 

On a side note, there is a nice history here of the 

Division’s association with the MAFMC where we 

have raised issues concerning development actions that 

posed a threat to the fishery resources of the Council 

and to the recreational and commercial fishing industry. 

We are glad to see a resurgence of this interest from the 

Council’s Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Committee, 

the same Committee that gave rise to this forum. This 

resurgence of coordination is particularly relevant 

considering the increased interest in ocean renewable 

and traditional energy development. A key in this arena 

is project siting that would be done in such a manner as 

to preserve traditional fisheries and ecosystem integrity 

for fish resources amidst the competing societal needs 

for broad ocean use. (This, of course, has been a driver 

for astute marine spatial planning.) 

Stewardship/engagement 

This represents a significant expansion in the 

Division’s portfolio, and is generally where the 

Division steps outside its regulatory role to engage in 

the many collaborative discussions that can set the 

structures for ocean use and marine spatial planning. 

The Division must be involved in order to be 

conversant and to remain relevant. 

There are many forums that the Habitat 

Conservation Division is participating in, including 

forums involving energy development in the northeast. 

For example, BOEMRE is conducting collaborative 

task force discussions for ocean-based wind power 

facilities siting and development across our region, and 

recently the governors of New York, Delaware, 

Maryland and New Jersey have signed a joint 

consortium for the promotion of energy development 

which will stimulate proposals for new marine energy 

projects. 

There are also regional councils on ocean 

management, e.g., the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council 

on the Ocean (MARCO) and the Northeast Regional 

Ocean Council (NROC). Several of the northeastern 

states have developed or are in the process of 

developing ocean special area management plans, and 

with the recent release of the National Ocean Policy, 

there will be more collaborative ocean based forums. 

The long-standing collaborative aspects of our fishbased forums in the northeast round out the stewardship 

forums which are available for engagement. The 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 

and the more recent Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat 

Partnership (ACFHP) are good examples of 

stewardship opportunities in which many of us here in 

this workshop have long been engaged. 

Key Question: With respect to the consultation 

process, do you see opportunities for the Council to 

strengthen its influence on projects which impact 

fisheries? 

Answer: The Council has the ability to consult with 

NMFS under EFH and Magnuson statutes. There are 

examples in New England where the Army Corps of 

Engineers has denied permits based on Council 

involvement. NMFS Northeast Regional Office 

personnel are willing to provide support to the Council 

and work with the Council to identify and inform them 

of projects which may impact fisheries. 

Key Comment: Brian Hooker, of the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE), recommended direct 

and/or informal engagement between BOEMRE and 

the Council as offshore energy issues move forward. 
13 

NOAA’S APPROACH TO DEEP-SEA CORAL RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT IN THE 

MID-ATLANTIC REGION

Chih-Fan Tsao, Thomas F. Hourigan, David Packer, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, MD 

What are deep-sea corals? 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) defines structure-forming 

deep-sea corals as any colonial, azooxanthellate corals 

generally occurring at depths below 50 m that provide 

vertical structure above the seafloor that can be utilized 

by other species. These include both deep reef-building 

stony corals (e.g., Lophelia pertusa), as well as 

individual branching colonies of corals (e.g., 

gorgonians and black corals). Found in all U.S. regions, 

these complex structures provide habitat for rich and 

diverse fish and invertebrate communities, including 

commercially important species. Because deep-sea 

corals are slow-growing, they are vulnerable to physical 

damage, especially damage caused by mobile bottomtending gear. 

Like deep-sea corals, sponges too can grow at a 

high density to form complex habitat and support 

benthic communities. Therefore, deep-sea sponges are 

included in the scope of NOAA’s research and 

management efforts for deep-sea corals. 

What does NOAA do to study and manage deep-sea 

coral ecosystems? 

In 2010, NOAA released a “Strategic Plan for 

Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems: Research, 

Management, and International Cooperation.” The plan 

describes goals, objectives and approaches that will 

guide NOAA activities over the next 10 years to further 

deep-sea coral science and conservation. 

A central component of these activities is the Deep 

Sea Coral Research and Technology Program 

(DSCRTP), authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSA 

Sec. 408). The program’s mission is to provide sound 

scientific information needed to conserve and manage 

deep-sea coral ecosystems. The DSCRTP received its 

first funding in FY 2009 and currently supports threeyear fieldwork operations in two U.S. regions at a time. 

The fieldwork efforts are developed in consultation 

with the regional Fishery Management Councils and 

typically include locating, mapping, and characterizing 

deep-sea coral habitats (e.g., using multibeam 

technologies and groundtruthing with remotely 

operated vehicles [ROVs] or submersibles) along with 

research to understand their ecology and document 

associated species. The DSCRTP is planning to conduct 

deep-sea coral fieldwork in the northeast U.S., 

including the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery 

Management Council regions, in 2013-15. Additionally, 

the DSCRTP funds smaller, non-fieldwork projects 

throughout the U.S. every year, and these projects range 

from developing computer models that predict suitable 

habitats for deep-sea corals, to analyzing fisheries data 

and thereby pinpointing locations of high coral bycatch. 

In addition to the DSCRTP, many NOAA 

programs and offices engage in a variety of activities 

relevant to deep-sea corals. For NMFS Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center has been characterizing the 

benthic environment in and around Hudson Canyon 

since 2001. Also, NMFS is assisting with the New 

England Fishery Management Council’s ongoing effort 

Major Recommendations 

 Participate in the Deep-Sea Coral Research and Technology Program’s northeast/mid-Atlantic research priorities 

workshop and fieldwork planning for 2013-15. The Council’s participation is critical to ensure the fieldwork 

informs the Council’s management needs. The workshop is planned for spring 2011. 

 Exercise discretionary authority to designate deep-sea coral protection zones. The New England Fishery 

Management Council (NEFMC) is actively exploring the use of the MSA Section 303(b) authority to designate 

deep-sea coral zones for its fisheries, including those in areas that are managed cooperatively with the MAFMC, 

so this effort can be precedent-setting. 

 Use essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) as tools for deep-sea coral 

management. Several fishery management councils in the U.S. have designated biogenic habitats, such as deepsea coral and sponge areas, as EFH and HAPCs. This is a tool at the Council’s disposal for use in managing 

fishing impacts and ensuring consultation on potential non-fishing impacts on deep-sea coral and sponge habitats. 

 Monitor bycatch and habitat impacts of fishing. Strengthened monitoring of fishing impacts will help fine-tune 

management measures designed to reduce gear interactions with corals. 

 To enable effective and efficient collaboration between MAFMC and NOAA on these and other deep-sea coral 

endeavors, it would be beneficial for the Council to designate a primary point of contact for coral-related issues.
14 

to develop alternatives to designate deep-sea coral 

protection zones, using the discretionary authorities 

under MSA Section 303(b). Moreover, NOAA’s Office 

of Ocean Exploration and Research is partnering with 

the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(formerly Minerals Management Service) and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in a 2010-13 study to 

explore and study several mid-Atlantic canyons with an 

emphasis on deep-sea corals. 

Further reading 

Implementation of the Deep-Sea Coral Research 

and Technology Program 2008–2009. Report to 

Congress. February 2010. 

 <http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/pub_deep_coral_

report_2010.pdf> 

NOAA, Coral Reef Conservation Program. 2010. 

NOAA Strategic Plan for Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge 

Ecosystems: Research, Management, and International 

Cooperation. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coral Reef 

Conservation Program. NOAA Tech. Memo. CRCP 11. 

< http://coris.noaa.gov/activities/deepsea_coral/> 

Lumsden S.E., Hourigan T.F., Bruckner A.W., 

Dorr G. (eds.). 2007. The State of Deep Coral 

Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

CRCP-3. Silver Spring, MD. 

< http://coris.noaa.gov/activities/deepcoral_rpt/> 

Key Question: Please explain more about biomedical 

research on deep-sea corals? For research and 

production, are deep-sea corals being harvested? 

Answer: Researchers are interested in deep-sea corals 

potentially because of special disease-fighting 

compounds that they may contain. Scientists are 

investigating the ability to replicate these compounds in 

the lab for both deep-sea corals and sponges. Right now 

the research is in its infancy, being conducted by a 

research team at Harbor Branch, FL. If in the future 

they will be commercially harvested, there should be a 

fishery management plan in place, which is the 

approach the South Atlantic and Pacific Islands Fishery 

Management Councils have taken. 

Key Question: Do each of the NMFS Science 

Centers have their own multi-beam sensors and 

other equipment? 

Answer: No, resources are limited, so some work is 

done by and on charter boats. 

Key Question: Do we have both presence and 

absence information for corals in the northeast? 

Answer: We only have presence information. We know 

little about those habitat characteristics which allow for 

suitable colonization and growth. 

Key Question: If the Council were to consider 

adding deep-sea coral protection under the 

discretionary provisions of the MSA, would it be 

possible to utilize the information from the USGS 

study in the northeast prior to the 2013 and 2015 

research cruises? 

Answer: If requested for protection, the location and 

other information about deep-sea corals would be 

compiled by the DSCRTP and presented to the Council. 

This information would then available for the Council 

to utilize, and the deep-sea coral research team will 

work with the Council to meet this objective if it is the 

Council’s wish. 

Key Question: Are deep-sea corals acting as habitat 

for fisheries species, and is our gear affecting them? 

Answer: Studies show differing degrees of habitat 

function in different regions. For example, in Alaska, 

80% of commercially important rockfish species were 

observed in association with deep-sea corals. Other 

studies have shown a correlation between deep-sea 

corals and fisheries species. The current theory is that at 

the minimum, deep-sea corals provide complex habitat, 

and fish like complex habitat, but further research is 

needed to discern the specifics of this relationship. If 

the ecological relationships, locations, and gear impacts 

to deep-sea corals are a priority for the Council, it was 

recommended to the Council that they indicate these 

topics as research priorities to the Science Centers. 

Key Question: Has funding been identified to 

continue research on deep-sea corals in the canyons? 

Answer: The current plan is to provide approximately 

$800,000 per year for 3 years in FY13-15 for the midAtlantic and New England regions, depending on the 

budget. 

Key Question: Have you conducted a study to 

determine the accurate age of the coral colonies? 

Answer: While studies are limited in the northeast 

region, recent research conducted in the Pacific Islands 

found colonies up to 4,000 years old. In the south 

Atlantic region gold corals have been found that are up 

to 2,000 years old. 
15 

Key Question: How do you study coral distribution, 

bycatch, and impacts to corals from fishing? 

Answer: Bycatch monitoring is one way to identify 

impacts to corals. Trawl surveys conducted by Science 

Centers also provide valuable information. Some reefforming corals are identifiable in multibeam maps, but 

non-reef forming corals often do not show up. These 

non-reef forming corals are often found in relatively 

featureless areas, so it is critical that we identify their 

locations and distributions as well. 
16 

NOAA/NMFS’S HABITAT RESTORATION PRIORITIES IN THE MID-ATLANTIC 

John Catena, Northeast Regional Supervisor, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat 

Conservation/Restoration Center, Gloucester, MA

Introduction

Habitat restoration is a major tool that 

NOAA/NMFS uses to address the loss or degradation 

of fishery habitat. This presentation provides an 

overview of the NOAA/NMFS Restoration Center 

habitat restoration priorities in the mid-Atlantic region. 

Restoration Center programs

NOAA/NMFS’s Restoration Center manages a 

number of programs to restore fishery habitat 

throughout the United States. The goals of these 

programs are to rebuild fishery habitat lost to adverse 

impacts caused by wetland filling, diking, dam 

construction and other forms of development, oil spills, 

erosion, and other causes of degradation; to increase 

and sustain fish populations; and to increase public 

stewardship by engaging local citizens in habitat 

restoration. NMFS provides funding and technical 

assistance to carry out a wide array of habitat 

restoration activities to accomplish these goals. 

However, we look to the local community to carry on 

and sustain the activities once we have completed a 

project. 

NOAA/NMFS’s Community-based Restoration 

(CRP) and Open Rivers Initiative (ORI) Programs 

provide funds and technical assistance to local, state, 

and regional organizations for habitat restoration 

projects through national and regionally competitive 

solicitations that run throughout the course of the year. 

Project proposals are evaluated on the basis of their 

technical merit, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and 

benefits to NOAA trust resources. We seek to leverage 

additional funding and stewardship through 

collaboration with other major funding organizations. 

Funding amounts for projects can vary from $50,000 to 

more than $500,000 per project. A major cornerstone of 

our CRP and ORI programs is collaboration through 

national and regional partnerships. We have established 

formal three-year partnerships with a number of 

national and regionally-based organizations to assist us 

in funding and implementing projects. These 

partnerships take advantage of NOAA/NMFS’s and our 

partner’s technical and administrative strengths and can 

streamline the application and funding process for local 

grant recipients. Typically the Restoration Center works 

with the national or regional partner to identify, fund, 

and oversee the implementation of habitat restoration 

projects that meet the particular partner’s and 

NOAA/NMFS’s goals. These partnerships are highly 

successful in leveraging both additional funding and 

technical expertise from both our formal partners and 

from other local, state, and regional organizations. 

Those national and regional partnerships relevant to the 

Northeast include Chesapeake Bay Trust, American 

Rivers, Trout Unlimited, Gulf of Maine Council on the 

Marine Environment, Restore America’s Estuaries, The 

Nature Conservancy, and Fish America Foundation. 

NOAA/NMFS received nearly $167 million from 

the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) 

in 2009 to restore coastal habitat and help jump start the 

economy by supporting thousands of jobs. In the 

northeast region we awarded $35 million to 11 projects 

in nine states from Maine to Virginia which were 

selected through a nationally competitive request for 

proposals. Funding amounts for these projects ranged 

from $750,000 to $10.6 million. ARRA funds have 

allowed the Restoration Center to implement larger 

scale projects in the northeast and other regions where 

we have not had that opportunity in the past and 

allowed for a much quicker transition to on the ground 

implementation as grant recipients did not have to 

search for multiple sources of funds to complete their 

projects. The selected ARRA projects address fish 

passage and dam removal, tidal wetlands restoration, 

Major Recommendations 

 Participate with regional Restoration Center staff in our regional prioritization efforts to identify priority 

watersheds and waterbodies for habitat restoration. 

 Work with regional Restoration Center staff and local partners in the mid-Atlantic to develop funding proposals 

and projects of mutual interest to the Council and the Restoration Center. 

 Explore the possibility of becoming a formal partner with the Restoration Center in response to our FY 2012 

solicitation for partnerships. 

 Advocate the importance of assessing and understanding the link between nearshore and estuarine habitats, 

diadromous fish species, and federally managed species. 

 Work with the Restoration Center to develop outreach products that address the importance of habitat restoration 

for federally managed species. 
17 

oyster restoration, and eelgrass restoration. For 

example, NOAA/NMFS is working with the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources and American Rivers 

to restore fish passage to the Patapsco River in 

Maryland. Just over $4 million was provided to remove 

the Union and Simkins dams, with dam removal 

completed in 2010. Additional funding from this ARRA 

grant is now being used to monitor the ecological and 

physical responses to the dam removals and to design 

the removal of the Bloede dam, which is the first 

blockage on the river. Completion of these projects will 

open passage to 25 miles of mainstem habitat in the 

river and an additional 374 miles of habitat in 

tributaries to the Patapsco. 

NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and 

Restoration Program (DARRP) seeks to restore natural 

resources injured by oil spills and hazardous waste 

discharges. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup and 

Liability Act (or “Superfund” law) authorizes NOAA 

and other natural resource trustee agencies to claim 

damages for injuries to natural resources and to use 

those funds to restore the injured natural resources. In 

general, the program assesses and quantifies injuries to 

natural resources, seeks damages for those injuries from 

the responsible parties, implements restoration, and 

monitors progress to ensure restoration goals are met. 

Throughout the northeastern U.S. there are 

approximately 100 active sites where NOAA is 

working with co-trustees to assess injuries and restore 

injured natural resources. For example, NOAA, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the states of 

Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey recently 

approved a $24 million settlement for the Athos oil spill 

which occurred in the Delaware River in 2004. These 

funds will be used for a variety of projects to restore 

fish passage, wetlands, degraded shorelines, and 

waterfowl habitat throughout the Delaware estuary. 

Regional restoration priority activities

In the northeastern U.S., the Restoration Center 

funds and carries out a variety of habitat restoration 

projects to address degraded fishery habitat under the 

different programs described above. However, of 

primary importance in the mid-Atlantic region are 

projects to restore diadromous fish, tidal wetlands, and 

shellfish resources. Diadromous fish restoration 

projects in the mid-Atlantic typically target alewife 

(Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa 

aestivalis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), and 

American eel (Anguilla rostrata). Projects to restore 

these resources include dam removals, structural fish 

ladders, and other forms of fish passage including rock 

ramps and fish by-pass channels. Removal of unwanted, obsolete dams that no longer serve a useful 

societal purpose is the Restoration Center’s priority. 

However, in those situations where removal is not 

feasible, construction of other means of fish passage 

can be an acceptable alternative. All of these methods 

are intended to restore access to historic spawning and 

rearing habitat for these species. Thousands of 

blockages in rivers and streams throughout the region 

have been identified as one of the primary limiting 

factors to the successful restoration of these species. In 

addition to restoring access to historic spawning and 

rearing habitat, dam removal projects can also provide 

other ecological benefits such as improving water 

quality, restoring a more natural discharge of sediment, 

and improving resident fish and benthic invertebrate 

populations. Beyond their ecological benefits, dam 

removals can also remove a financial and safety 

liability for the local property owner, which often is a 

local municipality. 

Tidal wetland restoration projects in the midAtlantic typically consist of reconnecting tidal 

hydrology to formerly impounded or filled wetlands 

and constructing “living shorelines” in areas 

experiencing wetland loss due to erosion and/or 

subsidence. Fill removal projects typically consist of 

excavating filled areas, regrading to intertidal 

elevations, planting native intertidal wetland vegetation, 

and creating tidal channels to connect the restored 

wetland to the adjacent waterbody. Living shoreline 

projects are a technique that has largely been used in 

the Chesapeake Bay region, but has also been employed 

in a limited fashion in other parts of the mid-Atlantic. 

The technique is an alternative, more ecologically 

friendly means of controlling shoreline erosion and 

minimizing further loss of shoreline habitat and 

degradation of the immediate nearshore habitat. 

Traditional hardened structures along the shoreline; 

e.g., seawalls, bulkheads, and rock revetments cause an 

abrupt transition in ecological zones and diminish the 

natural ecological value of a shoreline. Specifically, 

they increase loss of intertidal habitats, decrease the 

diversity and quality of habitats on both sides of the 

structure, and impede those natural processes that are 

necessary and beneficial for healthy aquatic 

ecosystems. Conversely, living shorelines typically use 

a combination of sand, intertidal wetland vegetation, 

and rock sills to maintain stability for the newly created 

intertidal shoreline. The goal is to retain much of the 

wind, tide, and storm-related wave protection of a hard 

structure, while maintaining some of the ecological 

values of natural shorelines. 

Shellfish restoration in the mid-Atlantic is largely 

focused on oyster restoration with some limited efforts 

focused on hard-clam restoration on Long Island. 

NOAA/NMFS’s oyster restoration funding consists of 

relatively large scale efforts in the Chesapeake Bay, 

working closely with the states of Maryland and 

Virginia. Limited funding for oyster restoration has also 

gone to other parts of the region including the HudsonRaritan estuary and Delaware Bay. Techniques used to 

enhance local oyster populations is to create oyster 

reefs by planting oyster or other available shell to create 

a substrate for natural settlement of oyster spat. In 
18 

addition, funds are used to plant oyster “spat on shell” 

on oyster reefs where natural spawning populations are 

limited. Oyster restoration is a key priority for the 

Restoration Center in the mid-Atlantic because of the 

precipitous decline this resource has experienced 

relative to historic levels and the high ecological value 

oysters provide to the ecosystem, including serving as a 

habitat for other benthic and fish species and their 

ability to improve water quality. 

To improve the Restoration Center’s selection and 

performance of projects in order to ensure we are 

spending our limited funding in the most cost-effective 

manner, we are embarking on two new efforts. We are 

working across the region to develop geographic 

priorities for our fish passage, wetland, and shellfish 

restoration projects; i.e., identifying those watersheds 

and water bodies throughout the region where we 

believe our funding will have the most significant 

impact. Currently we are selecting and funding projects 

on an opportunistic basis in response to a number of 

request for proposals (RFPs) that are issued throughout 

the year. The goal of the prioritization effort is to assist 

us in geographically targeting our funding in a more 

strategic manner such that we are spending our funds to 

have the greatest benefit for NOAA trust resources. We 

are currently working with partners in the Chesapeake 

Bay region to identify the highest priority fish passage 

blockages throughout that region’s watersheds. This 

effort will result in a list of priority diadromous fish 

passage projects and priority watersheds in the region. 

Another effort to improve project selection and 

performance is the development of a regional integrated 

monitoring program. While we have been providing 

funds to monitor the ecological response to our 

restoration projects, we have not been doing so in a 

consistent fashion nor have we been feeding the results 

of those monitoring efforts in a consistent fashion back 

into program performance. The goals of the regional 

monitoring program are to assess project quality, assess 

the project’s ecological effectiveness, improve future 

project implementation, address questions of regional 

significance and regional performance, and develop an 

information base to drive future priorities. For each of 

our project types a regional network of sites is being 

established that will be monitored in a consistent 

manner to address regionally important questions, the 

results of which will be integrated back into the 

program to influence program priorities and project 

selection and to improve restoration techniques. 

Key Question: What organizations does the 

Restoration Center partner with? 

Answer: The Restoration Center often works with the 

Army Corps of Engineers. Recently, the Restoration 

Center worked with the Corps on impacts to oysters in 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Key Question: How are the size and cost of 

restoration projects determined? 

Answer: In instances of damage remediation, 

settlements are determined through the damage 

assessment process. Damage is typically quantified 

through estimates of the acreage or populations 

impacted. The restoration project is then scaled to 

match the injury to the resource. The cost of the project 

is then calculated. 

 
19 

SUPPORTING MID-ATLANTIC HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES THROUGH THE 

NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 

Lauren Wenzel, National MPA System Coordinator, NOAA/National Ocean Service, National Marine 

Protected Areas Center, Silver Spring, MD

The National System of Marine Protected Areas 

(MPAs) is authorized by Executive Order 13158 to 

“develop a scientifically based, comprehensive national 

system of MPAs representing diverse U.S. marine 

ecosystems and the Nation’s natural and cultural 

resources.” The national system was formally 

established with the completion of the “Framework for 

the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the 

United States of America” in November 2008, and the 

first sites joined the system in April 2009. It provides a 

mechanism for MPA programs across all levels of 

government to work together toward common 

conservation objectives. The system currently includes 

254 federal, state and territorial MPAs covering an area 

of 175,000 square miles and will expand over time 

through an annual nomination process. In all, the 

system includes sites in 31 states and territories, plus 

additional offshore areas under federal jurisdiction; 4% 

of U.S. waters (0-200 nautical miles, including 

estuarine areas and the Great Lakes) are covered by the 

national system sites and every major ecoregion in the 

U.S. is represented in the national system. The national 

system has three goals: conserving and managing 

natural heritage, conserving and managing cultural 

heritage, and the sustainable production of marine 

resources. 

As noted in the Framework, marine areas in the 

U.S. are threatened by “coastal and offshore 

Major Recommendations 

 Developing a regional MPA network for the mid-Atlantic. The MPA Center is working to support regional 

coordination and networks of MPAs as resources permit through training and small grants. Networks can help 

protect a wide range of habitats needed by species at different life stages, and can provide opportunities for 

partnerships and sharing of resources. For example, Friends of Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 

is leading an effort to develop a regional MPA plan for the southeast that will establish common priories and 

actions. A similar type of effort could be undertaken for the mid-Atlantic. 

 Conducting “condition report” workshops for selected MPAs. The MPA Center has been working with the North 

American MPA Network (NAMPAN), a cooperative effort among MPA agencies in the U.S., Canada, and 

Mexico, to develop a “report card” format on MPA conditions, based on the Conditions Reports used by the 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. NAMPAN is interested in extending this effort to the Atlantic Coast, and 

is interested in identifying potential partners who wish to develop condition reports for their sites as both a 

monitoring and a communications tool. 

 Mapping human uses of the ocean. The MPA Center has developed a participatory GIS methodology to map 30 

major human activities across three sectors (industrial and military, fishing, and non-consumptive). These maps 

will contribute to improved management and planning for MPAs and other approaches to coastal and marine 

spatial planning. The MPA Center has completed human use mapping for some states, and is interested in 

partnering in the mid-Atlantic region to continue and complete ocean use mapping. 

 Integrating MPAs with the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). The MPA Center is working with the 

national IOOS program and its regional associations to identify issues for coordination between these two 

national systems, including how MPAs can be used as platforms for ocean monitoring, the range of observing and 

monitoring requirements at MPAs, and the ocean monitoring parameters and processes most important to 

monitoring environmental changes at the national scale. The MPA IOOS Task Team is interested in identifying 

key monitoring parameters for MPAs at the regional scale, and ways in which climate change monitoring can be 

better incorporated into regional and national observing systems. 

 Providing training. The MPA Center has established a partnership with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(ONMS) to bring the international training expertise of the ONMS to a domestic audience. ONMS and MPA 

Center have the capacity to provide training on adaptation to climate change, developing MPA networks, coastal 

and marine spatial planning, and other topics. 

 Providing an information clearinghouse on MPA resources. The MPA Center hosts several databases on MPAs 

and spatial management, including the MPA Inventory and the de facto MPA Inventory (includes areas conserved 

for reasons other than conservation, such as safety zones). The MPA Inventory is currently being expanded to 

include more data on MPA resources and authorities. This information is readily accessible, and can help inform 

the MAFMC’s work on spatial management.
20 

development, overfishing, a changing climate, natural 

events, and other sources, straining the health of marine 

ecosystems and the Great Lakes. Impacts to these 

intricately balanced environments include declining fish 

populations, degradation of.... vital habitats, threats to 

rare or endangered species, and loss of artifacts and 

resources that represent the diverse cultural heritage of 

the United States. The effects of these losses are 

significant and jeopardize the social and economic 

fabric of the nation.” These threats are also present in 

the mid-Atlantic, together with the pressure for a wide 

range of existing and emerging ocean uses. MPAs are 

an important tool for conserving resources in the face of 

these pressures, and the national system can help 

existing MPA programs work together more 

effectively. 

The majority (65%) of the total area of the national 

system is in either uniform or zoned multiple use sites 

that allow a variety of human activities, including 

fishing and other extractive uses. In contrast, about 27% 

of the area of the national system is considered no-take 

and prohibits the extraction or significant destruction of 

natural or cultural resources. Papahanaumokuakea 

Marine National Monument, a zoned no-take site that 

has eleven no-take zones covering approximately 

44,000 square miles, makes up nearly all of the no-take 

area in the national system. Less than 1% of U.S. 

waters overall are no-take. 

The National System of MPAs was established to 

both strengthen and expand protection of marine 

resources through MPAs. The system is working to 

support existing federal, state, and territorial MPA 

programs through technical assistance, training, and a 

new partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation to provide MPA Partnership Grants to 

national system members to work together on common 

conservation priorities. The national system will also 

support the protection of marine resources by informing 

decisions about the establishment of new MPAs by 

providing data, information and tools on ecologically 

important areas and human uses of the ocean. These 

efforts will be coordinated with the U.S. Ocean Policy, 

including the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning 

Initiative. 

In the mid-Atlantic, the national system contains 

43 sites, with 34 sites managed by federal agencies; 

New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia have nine statemanaged sites in the system. The MAFMC and NMFS 

have nominated four MPAs under the Tilefish 

Management Plan to be members of the national system 

– Lydonia Canyon, Norfolk Canyon, Oceanographer 

Canyon, and Veatch Canyon. These are expected to 

become members of the national system in early 2011. 

The MPA Center has committed, through the 

Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, to work with the 

mid-Atlantic states to identify their interest in mapping 

ocean uses, and to continue to support existing MPA 

programs through the national system of MPAs. 

Key Question: What are the main hurdles faced by 

MPAs? 

Answer: There is a perception that MPAs are 

automatically no fishing or no take areas, but we know 

that’s not the case. MPAs are set aside for a specific 

purpose, which does not always include bans on 

fishing. For example, an MPA with fishing access was 

recently created for tilefish. Only about 1% of MPAs in 

the U.S. are no take. 

Key Question: Is there a resource for education and 

outreach on MPAs? 

Answer: The MPA program has sponsored an edition 

of Current, a magazine for marine educators, and would 

be happy to share it. 
21 

NOAA’S NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM: OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT 

MID-ATLANTIC AND NEW ENGLAND CANYON AND SEAMOUNT HABITAT 

CONSERVATION

Reed Bohne, Northeast and Great Lakes Regional Director, NOAA/National Ocean Service, Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries, Savannah, GA

Recently there has been increasing interest in 

protecting and conserving the rich and diverse 

biological resources found in the submarine canyons 

and seamounts off the mid-Atlantic and New England 

coasts. The area which corresponds generally with the 

jurisdiction of the MAFMC is being evaluated for 

special protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and other 

authorities. In 2009, the Governors of New York, New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia addressed the 

importance of protecting these submarine features 

through their work under the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Council on the Ocean (MARCO). A recent MARCO 

report noted: 

The varied ocean habitats of the mid-Atlantic 

region support a rich diversity of marine life. Some 

of the most remarkable ocean habitats in the midAtlantic region are its submarine canyons. These 

canyons are located 70-100 miles offshore along 

the edge of the continental shelf, and vary in size 

and length with some as deep as 10,000 feet and as 

large as the Grand Canyon. The canyons are 

physically complex with outcrops, steep slopes, 

varying substrates, and support a rich diversity of 

marine life... One of the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Council on the Ocean’s (MARCO’s) goals is to 

ensure that key ocean habitats of the mid-Atlantic 

are protected from activities that threaten their 

sensitive and unique features, marine populations, 

and ecological processes. 

In addition to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA 

offers opportunities to consider comprehensive 

protection, conservation, and management of areas such 

as canyon and seamount features through the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Established in 1972, 

national marine sanctuaries are designated to protect 

those areas of the marine environment which are 

considered to be of special national significance. 

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

currently manages 14 separate sites ranging in size from 

less than a square mile to over 139,000 square miles. 

Each sanctuary is governed by individual site 

regulations adopted to address the specific resources 

and threats of that particular site. While some 

sanctuaries focus primarily on shipwrecks or even 

particular species, all sites develop a management plan 

tailored to the specific resource conditions and needs of 

the area. Each management plan addresses the 

fundamental elements in support of NOAA’s trustee 

responsibilities to conserve, protect, and enhance the 

biodiversity, ecological integrity, and cultural legacy 

within each sanctuary area. These key elements include: 

resource protection programs; science to understand 

ecological processes and monitor and predict change; 

education and outreach activities for national, regional, 

and local audiences; and, a strong commitment to local 

community and civic engagement in ocean governance 

at each national marine sanctuary. 

Advisory Councils 

Every sanctuary has established an Advisory 

Council comprised of citizens representing the diverse 

interests of the community whether they are 

recreational, commercial, scientific, educational, or 

business oriented. The Councils advise and help guide 

ongoing sanctuary management and future plans as 

devised through the sanctuary management plan 

process. Like the Fishery Management Councils the 

sanctuary Advisory Councils ensure that the interests of 

the stakeholders are well represented, and that they 

have an independent and influential voice in both the 

management of sanctuary resources and the decisions 

affecting relevant conservation policies and practices. 

Major Recommendations 

 The National Ocean Service and NMFS will coordinate with MAFMC and other interested organizations to 

convene a workshop on canyon and seamount habitat in the mid-Atlantic and New England regions to assess the 

status of resources, state of scientific knowledge, resource threats, and conservation alternatives available through 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and other 

authorities. 

 Support and encourage surveys and research to address fundamental questions regarding the diversity, 

distribution, and abundance of species living in canyon and seamount features in the mid-Atlantic and New 

England regions. 
22 

Advisory Councils have been particularly active in 

the last few years in advocating for expansions of a 

number of existing sanctuaries. They have encouraged 

NOAA and their Congressional representatives to 

consider boundary expansions at the Gulf of the 

Farallones, Cordell Bank, Thunder Bay, and the 

Monitor sanctuaries. Other federal, state, local and nongovernmental interests have proposed new sanctuary 

areas in many regions of the country. In the midAtlantic region the Sanctuary Program is evaluating 

proposals that have been submitted for a possible site in 

the Chesapeake Bay, and a site or sites that protect midAtlantic canyon areas. 

Mid-Atlantic and New England canyon and 

seamount proposal 

In 2010, a request to consider mid-Atlantic and 

New England canyon and seamount areas for possible 

sanctuary designation was submitted to NOAA by 

seventeen marine scientists predominantly from 

northeast and mid-Atlantic universities. The request 

identified fifteen submarine canyons from Norfolk 

Canyon in the mid-Atlantic north to Heezen Canyon off 

Georges Bank in New England. They also listed four 

New England seamount features further offshore for 

consideration. The letter emphasized that: 

Today we recognize how extraordinary and 

vulnerable these canyons and seamounts are and 

recent marine spatial planning efforts have 

highlighted these areas for protection. As human 

uses of the sea expand ever deeper, we suggest it is 

time to again consider the inclusion of submarine 

canyons and seamounts off the northeast United 

States in the network of National Marine 

Sanctuaries. 

In response to the letter, NOAA Administrator Jane 

Lubchenco encouraged the scientists to work closely 

with the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils and further stated that: 

Your letter specifically recommends that NOAA’s 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) 

and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

collaborate to consider these potential areas. I fully 

support this recommendation. ONMS staff will 

continue to work with NMFS in evaluating your 

proposal. They will inform you as to the next steps 

regarding whether to initiate more formal and 

public consideration of canyons and seamounts as 

potential locations for sanctuary designation, 

fishery closures, or other actions. 

Sanctuary review and recommendation 

The procedures for designating new National 

Marine Sanctuaries are described in regulations (15 

CFR Part 922) implementing the provisions of the 

National Marine Sanctuary Act. The regulations specify 

the steps required to list an area for potential 

consideration and the extensive process which follows 

the provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act for public review and evaluation prior to 

designation. NOAA has not at this time made a decision 

to list the New England and mid-Atlantic canyons and 

seamounts described in the request as a potential area or 

areas for sanctuary designation. As indicated in the 

letter from NOAA Administrator Lubchenco, 

preliminary consultations within the Agency to evaluate 

the merits of protections through the Sanctuaries Act or 

Magnuson-Stevens Act have been initiated. NOAA 

intends to work closely with the New England and MidAtlantic Fishery Councils, MARCO, the academic 

community, and non-governmental interests to assess 

the appropriate measures necessary to ensure that the 

valuable and vulnerable resources of canyon and 

seamount communities are properly conserved. 

The President’s National Ocean Policy establishes 

a framework for comprehensive and coordinated 

approaches to supporting ecosystem protection and 

restoration in areas such as the submarine canyons of 

the mid-Atlantic region. These features have been 

highlighted in recent marine spatial planning efforts for 

the region. NOAA plans to integrate assessment of 

these habitats with the emerging regional coastal and 

marine spatial planning initiatives in partnership with 

MARCO to consider use of possible sanctuary or 

fishery authorities for improved conservation of canyon 

resources. 

Key Question: When there is a petition or request 

for a sanctuary designation, what is the usual 

timeline? 

Answer: Once it’s been formally initiated, it typically 

takes 4-6 years to complete the process and bring a 

sanctuary online. The procedures for sanctuary creation 

are currently being reevaluated, and that process needs 

to play out before any new areas will be considered. 

Key Question: What is the status of the Monitor 

National Marine Sanctuary? 

Answer: The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary has 

had initial scoping meetings for potential expansion. 

There are suggestions to encompass other shipwrecks in 

the area. If an expansion is enacted, it would be 

completed as a separate process in addition to the 

standing Monitor National Marine Sanctuary plan. That 

expansion would not be part of the ongoing National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to update 

the current Monitor National Marine Sanctuary plan. 

The Sanctuary Program would consult with the Council 

at the very beginning of the process for considering 

expansion, particularly if there were impacts to 

fisheries. 
23 

Key Question: What are the differences between 

designating protections through the MagnusonStevens Act or as a sanctuary? Does the Council 

have the final say in the Sanctuaries Act for 

developing fishing regulations? 

Answer: The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act 

provides a number of tools to accomplish the goals of 

the protected area. The main distinction is that under 

the Sanctuaries Act all activities that may impact the 

resources can be managed and regulated. Also, 

programmatically there is permanence to a sanctuary – 

through dedicated staff, educational programs, research, 

and enforcement. These can act to supplement the 

authorities in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The final 

authority for fishing regulations would lie with the 

Secretary of Commerce, so the sanctuaries work with 

the Councils early and often to avoid elevation. 

Key Question: Regarding the proposal to initiate the 

process for establishing a sanctuary in Chesapeake 

Bay, what is the timeframe and where is the 

proposed area? 

Answer: The proposal identified Mallows Bay on the 

Potomac, as a number of WWI vessels were sunk there. 

This is the largest concentration of shipwrecks in the 

U.S. The process is in the beginning stages; the 

Sanctuary Program has not yet formally initiated the 

process. 

 
24 

CONNECTING STATE COASTAL LAND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES WITH FISHERY 

HABITAT CONSERVATION PRIORITIES

Elaine Vaudreuil, Manager, NOAA/National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, Silver Spring, MD

The objective of this presentation is to give the 

Council an overview of the Coastal and Estuarine Land 

Conservation Program (CELCP) and identify potential 

connections between fishery habitat conservation 

priorities and habitats or areas that have been identified 

as priorities by coastal states for long-term 

conservation. Coastal states and Fishery Management 

Councils are likely to have a lot of common habitat 

interests in coastal watersheds and estuaries, from tidal 

and forested wetlands to vegetated shoreline buffers. 

This presentation identifies ways the MAFMC may 

engage with the CELCP. 

Overview of the Program 

•The purpose of the CELCP is to protect lands with 

significant ecological, conservation, recreational, 

historic, and aesthetic values or lands that are 

threatened by conversion, giving priority to those 

projects that can be effectively managed and protected, 

have significant ecological value, are under imminent 

threat of conversion, and mitigate the impacts of coastal 

population growth 

•The CELCP was established in 2002 and 

transitioned from an earmarked to a fully competitive 

program in 2007. 

• The Program received $20 million in FY 2010 

appropriations and the President’s budget request for 

the CELCP for FY 2011 is $25 million. 

•Since its inception, the Program has funded more 

than $200 million in conservation projects in 28 states 

and territories, protecting a total of more than 50,000 

acres. 

•Projects can vary significantly in the types of 

habitats or features they protect. They frequently 

feature tidal and freshwater wetlands, dunes or barrier 

islands, large forested coastal tracts, vegetated shoreline 

buffers, habitats suitable for restoration, waterfront 

open space and/or access for non-motorized watercraft, 

etc. 

How the Council might get involved with the 

Program 

•Get to know a state’s priorities for coastal land 

conservation – read their CELCP plan. 

•Get to know a state’s CELCP lead. Contact the 

state CELCP lead if you’d like to discuss, coordinate; 

or, if the plan is in draft, submit comments. 

•If you have a property or area in mind, contact the 

CELCP lead to understand the state’s process for 

nominating projects and find out if there might be a 

public entity or non-governmental organization (NGO) 

partner interested in pursuing the project. 

•Consider writing letters of support for project 

proposals that support the Council’s habitat 

conservation priorities. 

Key considerations for participating 

A variety of key considerations for participating in 

CELCP acquisition projects include the timeline for 

project proposals and funding (in a typical year), the 

requirement for willing seller transactions only, and 

public ownership and permanent protection of lands 

acquired through the Program for long-term 

conservation. Additional information on the detailed 

requirements for acquisition projects (and information 

for potential project applicants) can be found on the 

CELCP website at <http://coastalmanagement.noaa.

gov/land/> under the links for “Funding Opportunities” 

and “For Recipients.” 

Key Question: What is the annual funding level? 

Answer: The Program receives $80-100 million in 

proposed projects; of that, they typically are able to 

fund $20-25 million. 

Major Recommendations 

 MAFMC staff and NMFS regional habitat conservation should get to know the state Coastal and Estuarine Land 

Conservation Program (CELCP) leads in the region. Their contact information can be found at: 

< http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/land/media/celcpstateleadcontacts.pdf> 

 Council staff should review state CELCP plans to identify shared priority habitats or landscapes, and, if desired, 

contact state CELCP leads to share information on additional fisheries priority habitats, if not addressed in the 

plan. 

 CELCP staff should notify the MAFMC and NMFS regional offices of funding opportunities under the program. 
25 

POLICY/MANAGEMENT PANEL DISCUSSION WITH 

COUNCIL

Rapporteur: Joe Nohner, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science & Technology, Silver 

Spring, MD 

Summation

The discussion focused on specific actions the 

MAFMC could take to ensure sustainable fish 

populations and a robust fisheries economy, 

emphasizing the significance of EBFM and habitat to 

achieving these goals. In the current funding 

environment, it is necessary to weigh future benefits 

against current needs carefully. The MAFMC should be 

strategic in supporting and collaborating to maximize 

benefits at both time scales. In order to influence the 

production of priority science for the Council and 

provide the tools necessary for improved EBFM and 

habitat conservation, there were a number of 

recommendations from the discussion. 

It was suggested that the Council identify key 

decision processes. The Council was advised to begin 

writing letters on behalf of projects which were 

beneficial to the Council’s interests. Lou Chiarella 

(NMFS/Northeast Regional Office, Habitat 

Conservation Division; speaking for Peter Colosi), 

advised that this strategy has been a successful strategy 

for the NEFMC. The NEFMC, for example, tends to 

write letters for large conservation and restoration 

projects that would have significant beneficial impacts. 

It would also be possible to write letters raising 

concerns about projects which pose a threat to fisheries 

resources. Lou Chiarella offered to be a point of contact 

for information on such projects should the Council 

request it, and offered to provide information on 

projects which come to his attention or those which the 

Council expresses interest in. 

It was also recommended that the Council build 

upon activities and processes which they already utilize. 

For example, it was recommended that designation and 

consultations for EFH and habitat areas of particular 

concern (HAPCs) is an area in which the Council could 

have more input through letters to the NMFS Regional 

Office (Lou Chiarella). 

One suggestion was prioritizing the inclusion of 

habitat information into stock assessments and to factor 

habitat limitations into fisheries management. The 

suggestion built upon the observation that habitat 

condition is generally decreasing, and thus population 

baselines and predictions may be overestimates. In 

order to account for considerations such as this, stock 

assessments which include habitat-specific life history 

rates (e.g.; mortality, growth), habitat-specific sampling 

protocols (e.g., refining estimates based on habitat 

type), and other improvements to the understanding 

about how habitats and ecosystems affect population 

dynamics should be a priority for the Council. By 

highlighting these science needs and incorporating 

available habitat information, the Council might better 

maximize fisheries production. 

Offshore habitat issues were highlighted as a broad 

and growing concern. After the presentation on deepsea corals and comments from the audience, it was clear 

that more information about the distribution of corals in 

both nearshore and offshore environments was needed. 

The impacts of corals and other structures on fish 

communities, fish population dynamics, and ultimately 

fisheries productivity require more study. 

In the short term, it was recommended that the 

Council utilize partnerships with the various 

management and science groups throughout the region 

for collaboration in new projects, collecting and 

synthesizing information, and leveraging existing funds 

to accomplish the habitat and ecosystem science 

objectives of the Council. Such collaborations, built 

upon mutual interests within the same geographic area, 

are rare but necessary. In the long term, it was 

recognized that the Council should identify and support 

the development of new resources to implement 

ecosystem-based management and habitat conservation. 

A recurring point in the discussion was that habitat 

conservation, marine protected areas, and other 

ecosystem based fishery management approaches 

should and do focus on providing sustained, productive 

fisheries and jobs based off of those fisheries. 

Conclusions 

•The panel recommended that the Council identify 

decision processes in NMFS management and express 

their support for projects which align with the Council’s 

objectives. Possible examples for such decisions are the 

identification of key areas for restoration and EFH or 

HAPC consultations. 

•The panel recommended that the Council write 

letters on behalf of projects of interest. Lou Chiarella, 

NMFS/Northeast Regional Office, offered to provide 

information on projects which could be targeted for 

Council support. 
26 

SCIENCE PANEL

NMFS HABITAT ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN (HAIP) – AN OVERVIEW 

Thomas Noji, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Director, 

James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ 

The National Marine Fisheries Service published in 

2010 a new planning document, the “National Marine 

Fisheries Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan” 

(HAIP). Through this Plan, NMFS establishes the 

framework to coordinate its diverse habitat research, 

monitoring, and assessments and to guide the 

development of budget alternatives and increased 

support for habitat science. The HAIP was written by a 

team of scientists from NMFS headquarters offices and 

Science Centers. It represents input from a variety of 

NMFS staff engaged in habitat science, stock 

assessments, and resource management at the six 

Science Centers and Regional Offices, the Office of 

Science and Technology, the Office of Habitat 

Conservation, and science program managers at each 

Science Center. 

The goals of the HAIP are to: 

•assist NOAA in developing the habitat science 

necessary to meet the mandates of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act and the economic, social, and 

environmental needs of the nation; 

•improve our ability to identify EFH and HAPCs; 

•provide information needed to assess impacts to 

EFH; 

•reduce habitat-related uncertainty in stock 

assessments; 

•facilitate a greater number of “Marine Fisheries 

Stock Assessment Improvement Plans” (SAIPs); 

•contribute to assessments of ecosystem; and 

•contribute to ecosystem-based fishery 

management (EBFM), integrated ecosystem 

assessments (IEA’s), and coastal and marine spatial 

planning (CMSP). 

Habitat can be characterized and described by the 

physical, chemical, biological, and geological 

components of the ocean environment. Habitat science 

is the study of relationships among species and their 

environment. Habitat science is not synonymous with 

ecosystem science, but habitats form the structural 

matrix of ecosystems, and an understanding of 

geospatial associations of species and their habitats can 

be one of the first steps in producing integrated 

ecosystem assessments. Notably, habitat science has 

received relatively little programmatic support 

compared to that received for other major disciplines 

(e.g., stock assessment science), and yet habitat 

information is needed in almost every NOAA program. 

A habitat assessment is the process and the 

products associated with consolidating, analyzing, and 

reporting the best available information on habitat 

characteristics relative to the population dynamics of 

fishery species and other living marine resources. 

Indicators of the value and condition (or status) of 

habitat can be developed through a habitat assessment 

by understanding the relationships between habitat 

characteristics, the productivity of fishery species, and 

the type and magnitude of various impacts. 

The HAIP defines three Tiers of Excellence for 

Habitat Assessments: 

Tier 1 – Assess habitat associations for all life 

stages of Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) stocks 

using existing data. 

Tier 2 – Upgrade habitat assessments to a 

minimally acceptable level for all FSSI stocks and life 

stages, which will require new or expanded data 

collection and research initiatives. This effort includes 

the production of habitat maps, determination of 

habitat-specific biomass or abundance, consideration of 

temporal and spatial variability in habitat use, and 

development of habitat theory and proxies to apply to 

data-poor stocks. 

Tier 3 – Determine habitat-specific vital rates by 

life stage to quantify relationships between habitats and 

fishery production. This effort explicitly incorporates 

habitat and ecosystem considerations into stock 

assessments, develops habitat sensitivity and recovery 

indices to improve risk assessments and plans for 

protection and restoration, and develops baselines for 

IEA’s. 

Major Recommendations 

 NMFS, along with the Fishery Councils, should develop criteria to prioritize stocks and geographic locations that 

would benefit from habitat assessments. 

 NMFS habitat and stock assessment scientists should work together with fishery managers to initiate 

demonstration projects that incorporate habitat data into stock assessment models, perhaps focusing on wellstudied species. 
27 

From the HAIP questionnaires, NMFS scientists, 

resource managers, and Science Center program 

managers identified the following as major obstacles to 

producing and using credible habitat assessments: 

•lack of habitat-specific abundances; 

•insufficient staff to collect, process, analyze, and 

model habitat data; 

•insufficient research on environmental effects; 

•insufficient research on multispecies effects; and 

•lack of habitat-specific biological information. 

Key Question: The MAFMC created an Ecosystem 

Subcommittee, and one of the long-term terms of 

reference is identifying how we might transition 

toward EBFM. Eventually there is going to be the 

question of data needs and identifying the process 

for obtaining data. How can the Council work with 

the NEFSC on the prioritization side and what 

specific opportunities are there for the NEFSC to 

have more interactions with managers? 

Answer: It’s important to have more meetings like this 

and to make sure these dialogues and discussions 

continue as various levels. Having these sorts of forums 

is very important because you get the right people in the 

room; but it’s even more important to follow up with 

some tangible actions. The fact that the Council 

changed the name of the Subcommittee is good because 

the Council recognizes that “habitat” in its most 

complex form becomes “ecosystem.” The ecosystem is 

a matter of scale; the ecosystem approach really does 

begin with the aggregation of habitat information. Also, 

some of the programs and funding mechanisms at 

certain levels need to be well coordinated and we’re 

seeing that within NOAA; for example, when you see 

the nine priorities of the Nation Ocean Policy. These 

are well coordinated in some larger programs, but that 

coordination doesn’t stop at the federal level and some 

of that has to go down to the state and community 

levels also. 
28 

NMFS SCIENCE IN SUPPORT OF NEW MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES: PERSPECTIVES 

FROM HEADQUARTERS

Ned Cyr, Director, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science & Technology, Silver 

Spring, MD

NMFS supports both traditional and new scientific 

approaches to providing sustainable fisheries and 

ecosystems. By incorporating ecosystem and climate 

change information into fisheries science, NMFS seeks 

to provide more accurate information for the resources 

we have the responsibility to manage. The National 

Ocean Policy helps to guide NOAA and NMFS science, 

and the Priority Objectives are highly relevant to the 

MAFMC. The Priority Objectives highlight a renewed 

emphasis on ecosystem-based fisheries management 

(EBFM). Given these objectives and the guidance of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, there is a 

need to determine how fisheries science and 

management fits into EBFM through Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). NMFS Science 

addresses these questions to support improved fisheries 

management support. 

The cornerstone science product for NMFS 

management is the stock assessment. Across all Fishery 

Management Councils, NMFS needs to increase the 

number of stock assessments, reduce uncertainty in 

assessments, and incorporate ecosystem considerations 

into those assessments. The Stock Assessment 

Improvement Plan (SAIP) provided an inventory and 

analysis of stock assessments to determine needs going 

forward, and identified Tier 3 stock assessments as the 

goal for all fish stocks. Tier 3 stock assessments utilize 

equilibrium or non-equilibrium production models 

aggregated both spatially and over age and size. This 

inclusion of spatial and habitat information in stock 

assessments is important to minimize uncertainty and 

maximize accuracy. The number of stocks for which 

NMFS has produced an adequate assessment is 

increasing in large part due to the creation and use of 

the Expand Annual Stock Assessments (EASA) budget 

line. With $51 million in FY11, the EASA budget has 

increased the number of stocks with adequate 

assessments to nearly 140. This funding also supports 

research programs underpinning stock assessments such 

as Fisheries and the Environment (FATE), habitat 

assessments, and advanced sampling technology to 

improve surveys. 

The application of EBFM will yield better fisheries 

science and management by accounting for the 

cumulative impacts of multiple concurrent factors such 

as pollution, coastal development, overharvest, 

predator-prey dynamics, and other ecosystem factors. 

NMFS has developed the integrated ecosystem 

assessment (IEA) framework to improve the study and 

management of the resources in the entire ecosystem. 

Science needs for EBFM include ocean observing 

systems, systematic reporting on the status of marine 

and coastal ecosystems through IEAs, ecosystem 

research plans which link human activities to 

ecosystems, and decision support tools that support 

adaptive approaches to human ecosystem uses. 

Successful EBFM will enable NMFS to restore fish 

populations, control invasive species, maximize 

ecosystem services, and restore species and the habitats 

upon which they depend. 

The Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel, which 

convened as a result of the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act, concluded that conservative single 

species management is the starting point from which to 

move toward EBFM. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 

2006 builds toward the EBFM goal through the 

implementation of annual catch limits (ACLs). ACLs 

rely on reliable and accurate stock assessments, 

fisheries-independent surveys, and advanced 

technology to improve or enable surveys in untrawlable 

habitat. Improving NMFS’s technical capacity 

Major Recommendations 

 NMFS supports an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, and seeks to develop and provide tools to 

accomplish this goal. NMFS strongly encourages the efforts of the MAFMC to build an ecosystem approach and 

recommends maintaining a dialogue to develop science products that meet the needs of the Council. One potential 

mechanism to accomplish this would be to develop and update the 5-year research priorities submitted to the 

NMFS Science Center Directors reflecting ecosystem and habitat science needs identified by the Council. 

 NMFS supports the Council’s acknowledgement of the importance of marine, estuarine, and riverine habitat to 

fish stocks and their ecosystems, and recommends a renewed effort to work with state and local partners in 

protecting fish habitat. 

 NMFS recommends that the Council continue to seek recognition on the Regional Planning Body and that the 

Council participates to the fullest extent possible in the coastal and marine spatial planning process in order to 

maximize its impact on the process. 
29 

maximizes the accuracy of assessments and ACLs. 

These improvements enable the Councils to achieve the 

goal of setting ACLs as close to the Allowable 

Biological Catch (ABC) as possible without risking 

overfishing. It is important to include ecosystem 

considerations such as available habitat and impacts to 

reproduction and population dynamics in assessments 

and predictions for fisheries production. 

Functioning habitat is essential to supporting a 

robust and healthy ecosystem, and is critical for 

successful fisheries. NMFS is focusing on providing 

improved and more usable habitat science to improve 

stock assessments, inform CMSP, and aid in the siting 

of renewable energy, aquaculture, and Marine Protected 

Areas. It is essential to have better information on the 

quantity, quality, and impact of fish habitat. The 

Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan (HAIP) is 

analogous to the SAIP, and is a plan to build resources 

for a habitat assessment and monitoring program to 

complement and support improved fisheries science. 

The HAIP and the National Habitat Assessment 

Workshop identified a number of habitat science goals, 

including funding pilot projects, prioritizing habitat 

assessment needs, improving the quality and usefulness 

of habitat assessments, and producing stock 

assessments that utilize habitat science. The long-term 

goal is to develop stock assessments with habitat data, 

tying species specific rates of production to habitat. 

Such improvements would result in greater accuracy 

and precision, providing increased confidence in ACLs, 

and benefitting the fisheries that we manage. 

Climate change poses a serious threat to fisheries. 

Climate change may impact fisheries through changes 

to fish habitats, stock locations and dynamics, fishery 

allocations, communities and economies relying on 

fisheries, increased threats to vulnerable species, 

changing use and efficacy of protected habitats, and 

increased threats from invasive species. Studies suggest 

that the sea level could rise in the mid-Atlantic by as 

much as 0.3 m by end of the century, altering 

productive habitats. The National Climate Service Set 

(NCS) was established to provide scientific information 

addressing the causes of these problems. Specifically, 

the NCS’s objectives are improved understanding of the 

changing climate system, integrated assessments of 

current and future states of the climate, mitigation and 

adaptation choices supported by climate science, and a 

climate-literate public that understands vulnerabilities 

to a changing climate and makes informed decisions. 

NMFS science seeks to build from NCS data products 

by determining how climate change will impact the 

fisheries NMFS manages. A recent study in the 

northeast, sponsored by NMFS’s FATE program, 

identified changes in the distribution of populations for 

24 of 36 species. Species shifted their distributions 

northward and down in the water column, presumably 

as a response to ocean warming. Critical issues facing 

NMFS include how to incorporate information such as 

this into stock assessments, how to conduct assessments 

differently to address shifts in populations or resources, 

and how to consider this information in management. 

Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) are the 

cornerstone tool for NOAA’s implementation of 

EBFM. IEAs are a synthesis and quantitative analysis 

of information on relevant physical, chemical, 

ecological and human processes in relation to specified 

ecosystem management objectives. An IEA is a means 

to put a framework to EBFM approaches, allowing us 

to begin to quantify priorities for ecosystem and discern 

tradeoffs for different management decisions. 

Contingent upon FY11 funding, the northeast shelf IEA 

will conduct a region-wide stakeholder scoping session, 

work with Fishery Management Councils, industry, 

non-governmental organizations, and others to 

incorporate and prioritize objectives to implement an 

EBFM approach. Through this process, IEAs develop a 

means to bring ecosystem considerations into 

management responsibilities. 

NMFS must balance current and future fisheries 

management needs. Increasing the number of days-atsea funded by NOAA for stock assessments is a top 

priority in accomplishing NMFS’s core science 

objectives. In 2011, NMFS may need to repurpose 

significant funds to mitigate declining survey days-atsea. In addition to these surveys, the NMFS Office of 

Science and Technology supports about $8 million 

annually in projects that develop a deeper 

understanding of marine fisheries and the ecosystems 

that support them. NMFS is investing in new 

techniques for stock and habitat assessments to increase 

the efficiency, accuracy, and precision of science 

provided to fisheries managers. Developments in 

advanced sampling technology enable assessments in 

hard-to-sample habitats and increase the efficiency of 

current surveys. FATE’s research puts such information 

in the context of environmental variability and 

addresses environmental impacts to productivity. The 

Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem 

Organization further develops these ecosystem 

considerations, investigating ecosystem dynamics and 

building predictive models to inform decisions. 

Through the Ocean Acidification program and 

collaborations with the National Climate Service, 

NMFS seeks to build context and understanding for 

long-term challenges facing fisheries management. 

NMFS science seeks to utilize both cutting edge 

ecosystem science and traditional stock assessment 

science to address current management objectives, 

supporting a move toward improved ecosystem-based 

fisheries management. 

Key Question: Where are the funding sources for 

marine mammal work, and what about sea turtles? 

Answer: There are other funding lines which are 

addressing marine mammals, and there’s quite a robust 

research program. For sea turtles, there’s recently been 

a National Research Council (NRC) study on sea turtle 
30 

population assessment methods; what we’re trying to 

do is support some research on assessment methods that 

are closely tied to what the NRC recommendations 

were. Basically we’re trying to base our assessments 

more on at sea surveys rather than beach surveys as has 

been traditionally done, which was one of the major 

recommendations coming out of the NRC. 

Key Question: It appears that a considerable 

amount of time, funds, and staff are going toward 

studies and “paper” products, rather than 

addressing such pressing issues as sea level rise. 

More consideration should be given to being 

proactive with these priorities, and coming up with 

actual mitigation strategies and practical solutions, 

and towards better utilizing funding and resources. 

Answer: It’s always a balancing act. We’re trying to 

balance our core science of doing and supporting stock 

assessments versus emerging issues. Climate change is 

something that we’re going to have to deal with; it’s 

inevitable. With climate change, it can either be 

addressed through mitigation or adaptation. NMFS does 

not deal with the mitigation aspects of climate change, 

but NMFS is concerned with adaptation and if we know 

that sea level rise or climate change is going to affect 

habitats then we have to take that into account in terms 

of our scientific assessments and management. We’re 

already losing habitat to sea level rise in other areas; we 

may also see that in the mid-Atlantic quite soon so we 

can’t afford to get too far behind on those issues. But 

point well-taken about the need to balance 

between/among priorities. 

Key Question: Discuss the uses of regional observing 

systems such as Integrated Ocean Observing System 

(IOOS) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Association 

Coastal Ocean Observing System (MARACOOS). 

Answer: Typically when climate scientists talk about 

observing systems they’re talking about the global 

systems; for example, the global CO2 observing 

networks, the Argo profile floats in the deep ocean, etc. 

But the information that comes from the global 

observing networks may not help us regionally. We 

need to know how it’s going to affect us here in the 

mid-Atlantic, what’s it going to do to circulation, to sea 

level rise, etc., that’s where the regional observing 

systems are going to be effective and feed into our 

science. 

Key Question: Why was EBFM left out of the last 

reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act? 

Answer: The challenge with EBFM is developing 

operational frameworks that fully account for all of our 

ecosystem processes, and that is a difficult thing to do. 

Some examples: the Ecosystems Principles Advisory 

Panel made a recommendation to develop fisheries 

ecosystems plans for all the Fishery Management 

Councils, there is the IEA framework, there are a 

number of different frameworks or approaches that one 

could use. If we’re eventually able to migrate toward 

one of those approaches, there could be more comfort 

in terms of putting EBFM explicitly into the MagnusonStevens Act. 

 
31 

SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT ON THE 

NORTHEAST U.S. CONTINENTAL SHELF

Mike Fogarty, Robert Gamble, Sean Lucey, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Woods Hole Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 

Kimberly Hyde, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Narragansett 

Laboratory, Narragansett, RI 

Charles Keith, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole 

Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 

The recent signing of an Executive Order 

establishing a new National Ocean Policy for the nation 

lends special urgency to adopting the basic tenets of 

ecosystem-based management: 1) a commitment to 

establishing spatial management units based on 

ecological rather than political boundaries; 2) 

consideration of the inter-relationships among the parts 

of the ecosystem and with the physical environment; 

and, 3) the recognition that humans are an integral part 

of the ecosystem. To address this first need, we 

assembled a set of physiographic, oceanographic, and 

biotic (lower trophic level) variables to identify 

ecological production units on the northeast U.S. 

continental shelf. The physiographic variables 

considered in this analysis include bathymetry and 

surficial sediments. The physical oceanographic and 

hydrographic measurements include satellite-derived 

estimates of sea surface temperature, annual 

temperature span, and temperature gradients. We also 

employed ship-board estimates of surface and bottom 

temperature and salinity in spring and autumn based on 

NEFSC research vessel surveys. The biotic 

measurements considered include satellite-derived 

estimates of chlorophyll a and primary production, and 

chlorophyll gradients. Temperature and chlorophyll 

gradients are included to identify frontal zone positions. 

We employed a principal components analysis 

(PCA) to examine the multivariate structure of the data 

and as a prelude to classification of ecological 

production units. We then used a K-means cluster 

analysis on the principal component scores to define 

our spatial units. We identified seven major cluster 

units. The clusters represent major ecological 

production units on the shelf including (1) Eastern Gulf 

of Maine-Scotian Shelf, (2) Western-Central Gulf of 

Maine, (3) Inshore Gulf of Maine, (4) Georges BankNantucket Shoals, (5) Intermediate Mid-Atlantic Bight 

(6) Inshore Mid-Atlantic Bight and (7) Continental 

Slope (Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank). These spatial 

units are considered to be open and interconnected, 

reflecting oceanographic exchange and species 

movement and migratory pathways. 

We can further consolidate some ecological 

subareas to reflect movement patterns of exploited 

species from both the shelf-break region and the 

immediate nearshore regions to the adjacent shelf areas. 

These regions would then be considered special zones 

associated with the adjacent shelf regions. We can 

further retain the option for special management 

considerations to be implemented in both nearshore and 

shelfbreak areas in a nested array to reflect the 

distribution of ecologically sensitive species, areas of 

high biomass and species richness, and the confluence 

of multiple human use patterns in nearshore regions. 

Following this approach, we specify four major 

ecological zones including (1) the Western-Central Gulf 

of Maine, (2) the Eastern Gulf of Maine-Scotian Shelf, 

(3) Georges Bank-Nantucket Shoals, and (4) the MidAtlantic Bight. For mapping purposes we have included 

estuaries and embayments with the nearshore regions 

but note that it may be desirable to identify these areas 

separately as yet another nested layer in the overall 

spatial structure. 

Consideration of the place of humans in fishery 

ecosystems and its implications for shaping spatial 

management units is no less important in devising 

Major Recommendations 

 We recommend that the MAFMC evaluate options for the designation of spatial management units as the basis 

for development of integrated management plans for defined ecoregions. The proposed ecological units cleanly 

delineate the main area of responsibility of the council in the Mid-Atlantic Bight although for some migratory 

species under council authority, coordination with other management authorities (notably the ASMFC and the 

NEFMC) will be necessary. A transition strategy can be defined that first adopts place-based management as the 

ultimate goal for the Council and then begins to assess how existing management plans can be adjusted to 

accommodate broader ecosystem objectives. These extended plans would then ultimately be absorbed into a fully 

integrated Ecosystem-Based Management Plan for the Mid-Atlantic Bight.
32 

effective strategies for EBFM and for gaining 

acceptance of this concept within fishing communities. 

The connection between humans and the geography of 

the sea has been well documented in the northeastern 

United States, providing important perspectives on how 

we might integrate the human dimension into spatial 

management within the general context of EBFM. To 

assess general concordance between our proposed 

ecological subregions and human use patterns (with a 

focus on fishing activity), we mapped the distribution 

of fishing effort by vessel size, gear type, and port of 

origin. The observed distribution patterns reflect 

important social considerations on how, when, and 

where fishers operate as well as constraints imposed by 

logistical factors and management requirements. Not 

surprisingly, small vessels with more limited fishing 

ranges are often characterized by distribution patterns 

predominately in one of the proposed ecological units. 

Increasing vessel size and mobility is reflected in more 

spatially diverse fishing patterns and occupation of 

multiple ecological subunits. We find that fishing 

patterns also often follow major boundaries of our 

ecological subunits, reflecting topographical and 

productivity features that are often not represented by 

more conventional stock areas used under present 

management regimes. 

An analysis of operational fishery units defined by 

species catch composition, seasonal and spatial fishing 

patterns, and gear type also finds strong correspondence 

between the proposed ecological subunits and the 

spatial extent of these fishing assemblages. The 

confluence between ecological structures related to 

productivity patterns and spatial fishing strategies does 

suggest the potential utility of the ecoregions defined in 

this study as management units for EBFM. 

These considerations hold important implications 

not only for defining potential management units for 

EBFM but for identifying both ecologically important 

areas and regions of critical importance for fishing 

communities. Decisions in marine spatial planning will 

hinge on demonstrating the importance of spatially 

defined regions of joint human and ecological concern. 

In conclusion: 

• ecological subunits of the northeast continental 

shelf can be effectively defined based on physiographic, 

oceanographic, and lower trophic variables; 

•the number and size of the major spatial 

management units ultimately chosen will involve 

tradeoffs involving interchange among areas (smaller 

units involve more interchange); 

• hierarchical spatial management structures can be 

defined to reflect distribution of vulnerable species, 

biomass and biodiversity, human use patterns, and 

management requirements; and 

•these mapping exercises highlight areas of 

importance to fisheries and can be used to represent 

fisheries interests in marine spatial planning. 

Key Question: Is the idea to change our 

management plans from different areas and instead 

come up with fewer plans based on spatial 

management units? 

Answer: The idea is to actually build on the plans and 

establish a different framework; right now we’re 

pretending these things are separate and they’re really 

not in many ways. There have been tremendous 

advances in management and stock assessment 

methodologies that help us to understand many of the 

vulnerabilities of many species, and we should take 

advantage of that and build it into what we’re doing. 

But, if we’re going to do EBFM, it’s important to 

remember that the properties of the ecosystem are not 

the same thing as the properties of its parts. Right now 

we’re trying to manage the properties of its parts and 

pretending that they’re not interacting and that there are 

no connections among them. Looking at it from an 

ecosystem point of view means we’re trying to reestablish this whole concept from a different 

perspective and move it forward. So what’s being done 

now is simply incomplete, and going forward it should 

be done in a way that’s simpler and takes advantage of 

ecosystem properties that are more stable and 

predictable than all the individual parts. We want to 

take advantage of that greater stability so as to have 

greater predictability and starting from that higher level, 

and then ultimately we’ll have to make allocation 

decisions based on a species basis because that, of 

course, is what really makes a difference to the fishers. 

Key Question: Place-based management may be 

simple for benthic species, but how will it work for 

species like spiny dogfish that has a wide 

distribution and crosses many of the proposed 

management areas/units, and simultaneously may 

also have inter-annual variation in its distribution? 

Answer: That’s an important and critical issue. There 

are many species that move through the different areas, 

but without minimizing the difficulties, we do know a 

lot about their spatial and temporal distribution through 

our NEFSC surveys, through commercial fishing vessel 

trip reports, etc. So it is possible to use that information 

and apportion the amount of time the species spends in 

the different areas and also figure out how much 

production they’re both contributing to and removing 

through predation. There is a certain amount of year-toyear variation we have to live with when we manage 

them on a stock basis; for example, recruitment. But 

looking at the broader patterns of the distribution and 

the times and places where these species are using the 

data from the commercial fisheries and our NEFSC 

surveys, there’s a lot to go on and we can begin to get 

an idea of how we could apportion the production 

among the different parts. 
33 

Key Question: You say the choice of the actual 

spatial management units is the prerogative of the 

management agencies. This will sooner or later lead 

to realignment of Council responsibilities by state 

and/or by species. How will changing the 

management scheme work? 

Answer: In this talk there is a transition strategy that 

tries to address this issue. The idea is to take baby steps 

and for a while we’ll stay with what we have but then 

begin to look at connections between the species and 

stocks that we manage both within a management plan 

and between management plans and look for 

interactions among them that we need to take into 

account. Whether they’re fishery interactions with their 

bycatch problems that aren’t fully being resolved now 

or whether it’s biological interactions like predator/prey 

interactions, those will be taken into account. We’ll also 

begin to lay a firm foundation in terms of looking at 

climate influences and environmental influences in a 

systematic way. That’s already being done in part in 

some of the management plans but we want to do it in a 

more systematic way. This will get people more 

comfortable with the idea that ultimately we’re going to 

manage in terms of ecological units instead of stock 

units, and that’s where we’re ultimately headed. 

 
34 

STRENGTHENING SCIENCE TO IMPROVE HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 

IN CHESAPEAKE BAY

Peyton Robertson, Director, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat 

Conservation/Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, MD

The Chesapeake Bay is the nation’s largest estuary 

and its network of streams, creeks, and rivers hold 

tremendous ecological, cultural, economic, historic, and 

recreational value for the region and its citizens. But the 

Bay and its tributaries remain in poor health, with 

polluted water, stressed populations of fish and 

shellfish, degraded habitats and landscapes lost to 

development. The health of the Bay is closely linked to 

the health of the Atlantic coastal region where the 

interplay of estuarine, coastal, oceanic, and atmospheric 

processes shape the Northeast Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem (<http://www.lme.noaa.gov/index.

php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:lme7&

catid=41:briefs&Itemid=72>). Protection and 

restoration of critical Chesapeake Bay habitats such as 

tidal wetlands, marshes, shorelines, forests, submerged 

aquatic vegetation (SAV), open water, oyster reefs, 

beaches and dunes, and islands directly influences the 

health and productivity of Atlantic coastal living 

resources. This is particularly true for fishery resources 

with life histories that require and/or utilize both 

estuarine and oceanic habitats, including menhaden, 

striped bass, American eel, river herring, shad, 

horseshoe crab, spiny dogfish, flounder, bluefish, and 

black sea bass. 

On May 12, 2009 President Obama issued 

Executive Order 13508 on Chesapeake Bay Protection 

and Restoration, declaring the Chesapeake Bay a 

“national treasure” and ushering in a new era of federal 

leadership, action, and accountability. The purpose of 

the Executive Order is “to protect and restore the 

health, heritage, natural resources, and social and 

economic value of the nation’s largest estuarine 

ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its 

watershed.” The Executive Order directed federal 

agencies to define environmental goals for the 

Chesapeake Bay, develop a strategy to protect and 

restore the watershed, and design and implement annual 

action plans to achieve meaningful environmental 

outcomes. The strategy reflects an unparalleled effort 

by the federal government to restore clean water, 

recover habitat, sustain fish and wildlife, conserve land, 

increase public access, expand citizen stewardship, 

develop environmental markets, respond to climate 

change and strengthen scientific knowledge. To 

implement this strategy, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay 

Office (NCBO) is supporting six important elements to 

strengthen science: 

1. Providing habitat characterization and 

assessment. 

2. Understanding fisheries status and trends. 

3. Improving observational platforms and real-time 

monitoring. 

4. Delivering data tools and applications. 

5. Enhancing models and ecosystem forecasting. 

6. Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to 

Management. 

Providing habitat characterization and assessment 

NCBO is collecting, processing, and analyzing 

multi-beam bathymetry, side-scan sonar, video, and 

sediment grab data to create benthic habitat 

characterization spatial data products to support native 

oyster restoration, essential fish habitat, and other 

resource assessments and management 

(<http://www.chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/acousticseafloor-mapping>). Bathymetric differences can be 

used to evaluate oyster reef morphology and to compare 

the utility of different reef materials. Habitat 

characterization surveys will serve as a spatial baseline 

for monitoring the performance of oyster reef 

restoration projects and help establish benchmarks on 

which other restoration projects can be evaluated. 

Major Recommendations 

 Explore opportunities to better connect the science and management activities of the Chesapeake Bay Fisheries 

Goal Team, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and MAFMC. 

 Convene a NOAA habitat mapping consortium/meeting, organized by the NOAA North Atlantic Regional Team 

and hosted by the NMFS/NEFSC James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, including representatives of the 

NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO), MAFMC, NEFSC, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, 

The Nature Conservancy, and others. 

 Improve communication pathways and networks to include all sectors with influence over land and marine 

habitats and develop better visualization tools describing ecosystems, their inter-relationships, and the specific 

outcomes that can result from applying ecosystem approaches to management. 

 Fully integrate modeling, observations, and research to facilitate scenario testing and tradeoff discussions.
35 

Understanding fisheries status and trends 

NCBO manages a multispecies fisheries science 

program aimed at improving knowledge of single 

species and ecosystem level dynamics as they relate to 

fisheries management. This program considers the 

cumulative impacts on fisheries from various sources, 

including multiple factors such as pollution, coastal 

development, harvest pressure, predator/prey and other 

ecological relationships, and watershed management. 

Recent studies funded through this program have 

considered the impact of mycobacteriosis on striped 

bass and quantified the contribution of the Chesapeake 

Bay as a nursery for the coastal menhaden stock. 

NCBO is also considering emerging issues such as 

the possible ecological impacts of non-native blue 

catfish which could be affecting Bay and coastal 

species such as blue crab, shad, and river herring. 

In addition, NCBO is working with the 

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center to 

quantify fish utilization of natural and restored 

shoreline and shallow water habitats, including 

different types of shoreline armoring 

(<http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/resourcelanduse/

current/msrp.aspx>). 

Improving observational platforms and real-time 

monitoring 

NCBO operates and maintains the Chesapeake Bay 

Interpretive Buoy System (CBIBS), a network of nine 

buoys along the mainstem of Chesapeake Bay and 

selected tributaries (<http://www.buoybay.org>). The 

buoys provide real-time weather and water observations 

for use by scientists, managers, and citizens. CBIBS is 

also a component of Chesapeake Bay Observing 

System and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Association 

Coastal Ocean Observing System (MARACOOS). 

NCBO is also working with partners to enhance 

ecosystem forecasting capabilities in the Chesapeake 

Bay including harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. In 

addition, sensors are being tested and deployed on 

buoys to detect movements and migrations of fish 

species, including Atlantic sturgeon. This technology 

should prove particularly useful when a buoy is 

deployed at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay in the spring 

of 2011. 

Delivering data tools and applications 

NCBO is developing an Oyster Data Tool which is 

a geo-referenced oyster data base that enables spatial 

visualization of all facets of oyster management 

(population surveys, harvest, disease, bathymetry, 

habitat, and restoration activities). The tool allows 

managers to pull up information for a given oyster 

bar/project using their web browser to display the data 

on maps and generate reports. For example, the tool 

allows temperature, salinity, and bathymetry data to be 

overlaid on a map with oyster restoration and disease 

data. This integration and visualization of data will help 

make decisions on targeting of new restoration and 

facilitate evaluation of past projects. The vision is to 

expand this database to include information on a range 

of other species and restoration activities. 

Enhancing models and ecosystem forecasting 

The Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Ecosystem Model 

(CBFEM) is a trophic model of the Chesapeake Bay 

developed using Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software. 

The model helps scientists and others understand the 

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Explorations using 

CBFEM have focused on interactions between 

menhaden and striped bass (and other predators), 

potential effects of hypoxia on fisheries species, and the 

habitat-mediation effects of submerged aquatic 

vegetation on blue crab stocks. 

The Chesapeake Atlantis Model (CAM), currently 

under development, is based on the Atlantis software 

developed by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific 

and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). This 

model is an approach for conducting formal 

management strategy evaluation — a simulation that 

accounts for tradeoffs in performance across a range of 

management objectives. CAM will incorporate spatially 

explicit information about the biological, geochemical, 

and physical forcings of the Bay and its tributaries, the 

effects of different user groups, and dynamically tracks 

the interaction of these factors over time. This modeling 

approach allows exploration of the ecosystem effects of 

environmental changes, policy options, and 

management strategies. For example, CAM will help 

project scenarios such as the likely ecosystem effects of 

eelgrass loss or loss/gain of marsh habitat, 

increasing/decreasing nutrient input, and increasing 

population size along the coasts of the Chesapeake. 

Implementing ecosystem approaches to management 

In 2006, NCBO published “Fisheries Ecosystem 

Planning for Chesapeake Bay” (<http://chesapeakebay.

noaa.gov/images/stories/pdf/FEP_FINAL.pdf>) to 

provide strategic guidance for ecosystem-based 

approaches to fisheries management and information on 

the function and structure of the Chesapeake Bay 

ecosystem. This comprehensive planning document and 

prototype fisheries ecosystem plan (FEP) was 

developed in response to key recommendations by the 

NMFS Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. The FEP 

describes components of the Chesapeake Bay 

ecosystem and formulated recommendations for 

management and research required to develop EBFM 

plans. 

Since then, NCBO has helped form a new 

Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team 

(Fisheries GIT) under the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

This new group marks the first time that fisheries 
36 

management has been an official part of the 

Chesapeake Bay Program's management structure. 

There were groups in the past that coordinated fisheries 

management baywide, but they were only loosely 

affiliated with the CBP, leaving the impression that 

they were still primarily state-by state efforts. The 

Fisheries GIT is composed of the state fisheries 

managers from around the Bay and is currently chaired 

by the director of the NCBO. The Fisheries GIT draws 

together a diverse group of managers and scientists to 

improve management and recovery of oysters, blue 

crab, menhaden, striped bass, and alosines. It focuses 

on advancing EBFM by using science to make 

informed fishery management decisions that cross state 

boundaries and improve regional fishery management 

collaboration. Institutions represented on the Fisheries 

GIT include the NCBO, Virginia Marine Resources 

Commission, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, District 

of Columbia Division of Fish and Wildlife, and 

MAFMC. 

Current priorities of the Fisheries GIT include 

improving the communication between land use 

planning and decision-making and fisheries managers 

to reduce impacts to fish and habitat. 

Key Question: Is blue channel catfish considered an 

invasive species, and for oysters, is the restoration 

focus on native oysters or Asian oysters? 

Answer: Yes, the blue channel catfish is considered 

invasive because it was introduced in the James and 

Rappahannock Rivers as a trophy sportfish in the 70s 

and 80s and it’s moved into other tributaries of the Bay. 

For oysters, the policy decision was to retain the focus 

on native oyster restoration and not introduce Asian 

oysters. 

Key Question: How far reaching are your efforts to 

stem farm runoff, paper mill runoff, etc. into the 

Bay from the upper watersheds? 

Answer: EPA is the lead for water quality in the Bay 

and under the President’s Executive Order, the focus on 

water quality improvement has become much more 

rigorous. Implementing the provisions of the Clean 

Water Act that deal with establishing loads for the 

watersheds and allocating those loads for the upper 

watershed states have been done and now those states 

have developed Watershed Implementation Plans 

(WIPs) for implementing the load reductions. 

Key Question: How do we fill in data gaps and 

proceed with effective management of noncommercial species? Also, what about species like 

oysters that are critical not only as a commercial 

species, but they’re also a keystone ecological 

species? 

Answer: The first question involves work on habitat 

characterization and species utilization; we are trying to 

fill in the data gaps on those non-commercial species. 

We would eventually like to include more EBFM in 

Chesapeake Bay, including the spatial component, but 

right now we’re focused more on indices of ecosystem 

health and that’s the tool we’re using. For oysters, 

theoretically, the re-establishment of successful oyster 

reefs that are kept in sanctuary or kept for their 

ecological value and not commercially exploited – we 

will see a change in species diversity and ultimately 

better understand the ecological services those species 

provide for higher up the food chain. Overall, this 

shows why we might want to move toward spatial 

management because the reality is that there’s too much 

that can fall between the cracks, and when we have 

management plans aimed at individual species we don’t 

have strict rules that tell us when you need to have a 

management plan for an individual species. But if you 

move towards EBFM where you have a component of 

spatial management, then we have a way of protecting 

other parts of the ecosystem and can do it in a way that 

both meets the needs of protecting harvested species so 

that we have greater sustainability for them but also 

focus on biodiversity that would protect a much broader 

spectrum of the ecosystem. 

 
37 

HABITAT SCIENCE AT THE NORTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER

Thomas Noji, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Director, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ

The James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory 

began operations in 1961 as the Sandy Hook Marine 

Laboratory directed by Dr. Lionel A. Walford, and was 

part of the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife. The laboratory was incorporated 

into the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) within the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in 1970. Facilities at the Howard Laboratory 

include an extensive seawater system capable of 

providing up to 350 gallons per minute. The seawater 

system supports research in 11 seawater labs and a 

32,000 gallon aquarium, with a focus on growth, 

feeding, reproduction, migration, and other life habits 

and behavior of coastal marine species. A control room 

contains computers for configuring, controlling and 

monitoring the lighting and seawater systems. Several 

dedicated laboratory suites are available to support 

research on analytical chemistry, trace-metal chemistry, 

organic chemistry, and microbiology. Further, the 

Howard Laboratory houses the Lionel A. Walford 

Library, which is noted for its extensive collection of 

fisheries-related archives and journals. 

Most of the NOAA staff at Sandy Hook is part of 

the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Ecosystems 

Processes Division (EPD). The mission of the Division 

is to understand the effects of environmental variability 

and human disturbances on fish and shellfish 

productivity relative to habitat, with a focus on the 

Northeast Shelf. Our job is to conduct ecosystem-based 

research and assessments of living marine resources, to 

promote the recovery and long-term sustainability of 

these resources, and to generate social and economic 

opportunities and benefits from their use. 

The Division operates through four branches. The 

Oceanography Branch conducts studies on the physical 

environment and plankton populations in order to 

understand how these ecosystem components influence 

the distribution and abundance of fish and shellfish. 

The Coastal Ecology Branch focuses on assessing the 

condition of habitats important for these living marine 

resources. The Behavioral Ecology Branch elucidates 

important ecological processes and habitat requirements 

of fish in all life history stages. The Marine Chemistry 

Branch focuses on understanding biogeochemical 

effects of habitats on fish and uses chemical methods 

for stock identification. 

The Division’s current research priorities are: 

•effects of climate change, ocean acidification, and 

human activities (e.g., renewable energy production) on 

coastal habitats and fisheries; 

•coastal and marine spatial planning including 

mapping and assessment of fish habitat condition; 

•habitat-dependent processes and fish life histories 

in support of resource management modeling. 

Major initiatives currently being conducted by the 

Division include: 

•lead of a 5-year climate research plan; 

•one of only three Centers of Expertise for ocean 

acidification; 

•GIS habitat mapping to create a habitat atlas for 

northeast coastal and marine ecosystems; 

•broad-scale habitat investigations at the Hudson 

Canyon and on Georges Bank; 

•ecological investigations on summer flounder, 

winter flounder, and other species; 

•deep-sea coral surveys and ecology; and 

•habitat modeling with foci on the synthesis of 

diverse sets of data to describe both pelagic and benthic 

habitats in support of fisheries stock assessment and 

management. 

The Division provides several services to local, 

regional, national, and also international clients. For 

example, we work with community groups on shellfish 

restoration, with the New England and Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Councils on the designation of 

essential fish habitat, with other federal agencies on the 

threats to deep-sea coral communities, and with North 

American and European partners on the effects of 

climate change. Our research is conducted through field 

monitoring and surveys from the northern tip of Maine 

to Cape Hatteras, NC, as well as through field and 

laboratory experiments and analyses of environmental 

samples. 

Most of Ecosystems Processes Division’s 

permanent staff of about 50 researchers, technicians, 

and support personnel are located at Sandy Hook, with 

Major Recommendations 

 Incorporate more habitat information in the fisheries management process. 

 Prioritize species and habitats whose management would benefit most from additional habitat-specific 

information. 

 Establish an improved protocol for providing Northeast Fisheries Science Center habitat-science support to the 

MAFMC. 
38 

other staff located at laboratories in Narragansett, RI 

and Woods Hole, MA. In addition, every year the 

Division engages volunteers, academic interns, and 

contract employees to assist us with our research. 

For more information about the Ecosystems 

Processes Division and research activities, please 

contact the Division Chief, Dr. Thomas Noji, 

Thomas.Noji@noaa.gov. Also, please see our public 

websites: 

<http://sh.nefsc.noaa.gov> for the James J. Howard 

Marine Sciences Laboratory; 

<http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/epd> for the EPD; 

<http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov> for the NEFSC. 

Key Question: Does your scientific assessments 

consider predation on, as well as natural mortality 

of, eggs and larvae, for example? 

Answer: We would consider those factors that affect 

mortality rates as critical components of the habitat and 

that would include the environmental variables that 

cause predator-prey overlap, the structural features that 

influence the interaction strengths, and the nature of 

those predators. So we do include species interactions 

when we talk about habitat. We’ve looked at this before 

at the scale of an estuary and examined predator-prey 

interactions and actually tried to quantify mortality in 

winter flounder. It could be done offshore but it’s 

expensive to do. It could be done in process studies that 

focused on key spawning grounds in order to 

understand them from a process point of view and then 

how variability within the environment; e.g., climate 

change, and finer scale local forcing could affect those 

processes and lead to inter-annual variability. 

Key Question: Is there a way that the results of your 

research can lead to an action plan that could, for 

example, bring a managed species back or rebuild a 

stock to a more sustainable level for harvesting? 

Answer: There’s the decision-making that goes beyond 

the science. Our job is to provide the best science that 

we can and any science advice and information as 

requested. 

 
39 

WHAT MAKES SOME PARTS OF THE OCEAN STICKY TO FISH? OCEAN OBSERVING 

FOR MARINE HABITAT SCIENCE AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

John P. Manderson, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Ecosystems Processes Division, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ 

Josh Kohut, Rutgers University, Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, New Brunswick, NJ

Marine organisms have evolved in an aqueous 

environment, with a high viscosity, high heat capacity, 

and solute concentrations similar to those in the spaces 

of their living cells. The organisms are exposed to 

motions and environmental conditions in the sea that 

are dramatically slower and less variable than similar 

motions and conditions in the atmosphere. Furthermore, 

since the density of seawater is only slightly less than 

the density of living tissues, drag rather than gravity is 

the dominant force controlling movements in the sea. 

The oceans are inhabited by nearly neutrally buoyant 

organisms that grow in direct contact with the 

“hydrosphere” throughout life cycles that usually 

include egg and larval stages a few millimeters long 

and adults with body sizes that can range from 10's of 

centimeters to meters. Rates of metabolism, growth, 

survival, dispersal, and reproduction in marine 

organisms are tightly coupled to many scales 

(millimeters to 1000s of kilometers; seconds to 

decades) of variability in the water column as well as 

the seabed as the organisms make the dramatic habitat 

transitions usually required to complete their life cycles. 

In contrast, early development in most terrestrial 

animals is internal (or external, as well as aquatic in 

amphibians and some insects), and juveniles and adults 

are exposed to the atmosphere over a range of body 

sizes an order of magnitude smaller than marine 

organisms. Terrestrial organisms are largely constrained 

to two spatial dimensions by gravity and have evolved 

elaborate mechanisms to decouple metabolism and 

other physiological rates from the short-term variability 

of the atmosphere. Despite these profound differences 

we often use terrestrial frameworks to think about and 

investigate the ways marine organism use and are 

affected by their habitats. We treat seascapes as 

analogues of landscapes; as two-dimensional matrices 

of habitat patches with slow spatial dynamics. We use 

our own experiences as terrestrial organisms inhabiting 

Major Recommendations 

 Establish the resilience of the ecosystem and keystone populations in the ecosystem as the goal of ecosystem 

science and management in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. This is a different goal than the central goal of single species 

fisheries management which is to maximize the abundance of exploitable stocks. Preserving resilience requires 

managing variance and diversity rather than maximizing the mean. Resilience is provided by different forms of 

“storage.” For single species populations this storage takes the form of habitat and age class diversity. For 

ecosystems it is provided by species diversity and the functional redundancy that results from it. Identifying and 

managing the diversity of habitats and the connections between them that promote resilience to ecosystem 

keystone populations and others that provide functional redundancy to the ecosystem is central to ecosystem 

based management. 

 The physical and biological data required for space based ecosystem science and management are spatially finegrained but regional in extent. For water column features it must also be very fine-grained in time. These kinds of 

data are expensive to collect and there appears to be a lot of redundancy in the data collection and analyses being 

performed in the region. The Council needs to strongly encourage open data and information sharing along with 

collaborative monitoring efforts in the region. The regional Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) is 

providing a great deal of information about critical pelagic processes. A collaborative, well-organized effort to 

identify the bottom data available; to merge it, identify the gaps, and then to systematically address those gaps 

needs to be strongly encouraged by the MAFMC. These data should be merged with the regional IOOS into an 

open access portal(s). 

 A research set-aside program focused on the goals of ecosystem science and management needs to be established 

in the region. While there are other parties with stakes in the ecosystem, the fishing community has the most 

extensive practical ecological knowledge of the ecosystem. Government and academic scientists should be 

encouraged to openly collaborate with the fishing community to perform the science required to identify 

processes in the Mid-Atlantic Bight ecosystem that promote the resilience of keystone populations and the 

ecosystem as a whole. 

 Education of the public and stakeholders about the complexity of the ecosystem is absolutely critical for effective 

ecosystem management. 
40 

landscapes to draw inferences about the constraints 

seascapes impose on the forms and ecologies of marine 

organisms, often overlooking the dynamic water 

column processes that define habitats even for 

organisms strongly associated with the seabed. Further, 

even when we do recognize that the vital rates of 

marine organisms and dynamics of their populations are 

strongly regulated by the ocean's “hydrosphere”, the 

absence of data describing the dynamics and structure 

of the water column at ecologically relevant space-time 

scales has made it difficult to consider the ocean's fluid 

explicitly in the design and analyses of relationships 

between species and their habitats in the sea. 

Now, however, the state-of-the-art Integrated 

Ocean Observing System (IOOS) monitors and models 

the physical and primary production dynamics of the 

ocean at the broad spatial scale as well as the fine time 

scales required to understand the ways water column 

processes affect the vital rates of marine organisms and 

dynamics of their populations. IOOS is an 

intergovernmental/interagency effort focused on the 

development of ocean observing and forecasting 

systems. IOOS themes range from public health and 

safety to marine operations and natural resource 

conservation. As part of the U.S. IOOS program, 

partners in the mid-Atlantic region along the U.S. east 

coast have developed a regional scale ocean observing 

network. The footprint of the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Association Coastal Ocean Observing System 

(MARACOOS; <http://www.maracoos.org/>) stretches 

along 1000 km of coastline from Cape Hatteras, NC to 

Cape Cod, MA and offshore to the continental shelf 

break. MARACOOS uses a multi-platform approach to 

characterize the fine scale structure and dynamics of the 

coastal ocean. The platforms include U.S. and foreign 

satellites in space, a network of high-frequency (HF) 

radars deployed along the shore, and a fleet of robotic 

gliders flying beneath the ocean’s, surface 

(<http://rucool.marine.rutgers.edu/index.php/COOLData/COOL-Data.html>). Satellites provide time series 

maps of surface temperature, chlorophyll-A, and other 

ocean color products describing light absorption and 

backscatter. Ensemble clustering is applied to the 

satellite information to objectively identify and 

visualize water masses and the surface fronts between 

them. The HF radar network provides hourly surface 

current measurements from the edge of the continental 

shelf into estuaries. These current measurements can be 

processed to show near-real time and statistical 

forecasts of horizontal surface flows, upwelling and 

downwelling dynamics, and the evolution of surface 

fronts. Robot gliders that carry sensors measuring 

temperature, salinity, chlorophyll-A, and particle 

backscatter describe seasonal to inter-annual changes in 

the vertical structure of the ocean. Satellite, HF radar, 

and glider data are assimilated into an ensemble of 

numerical circulation models (UMD-HOPS, NYHOPS, 

ROMS) that are evaluated by comparing model 

realizations to field measurements. MARACOOS data 

and model forecasts provide spatially and temporally 

explicit descriptions of the physical forcing, flows of 

materials, and primary productivity that structures and 

regulates the Mid-Atlantic Bight ecosystem. In addition 

to an extensive data archive, MARACOOS makes these 

data freely available in real time via Internet portals 

managed by trained operational oceanographers. 

Developments in high speed wireless communications 

and Internet infrastructure now permit real time virtual 

collaboration between marine habitat and ecosystem 

ecologists in the field and operational oceanographers 

with expertise in IOOS data streams and forecasts. 

Access to IOOS data and expertise allows ecologists to 

easily consider processes in the water column as well as 

on the seabed in studies of the life history processes that 

ultimately determine recruitment and the dynamics of 

populations of ecologically and economically 

organisms in the Mid-Atlantic Bight ecosystem. 

Over the past six years we have been developing an 

approach to integrate IOOS remotely sensed data and 

short-term model forecasts into regional scale habitat 

studies. Our approach has included the development of 

distribution based habitat models for resource species 

that are also ecologically important in the mid-Atlantic 

ecosystem, as well as adaptive surveys designed to 

measure habitat specific distributions and life history 

processes rates for these species. We are nearing 

completion of a NOAA Fisheries and the Environment 

(FATE) funded project in which we have used 

multivariate and single species modeling to evaluate the 

power of IOOS data to describe distributions of 

organisms with different vertical habitat preferences in 

the mid-Atlantic region using abundance data collected 

on NEFSC center bottom trawl surveys. In analyses 

targeted at species important in the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

food web, we have found that our models, built using 

remotely sensed surface measurements, explain more of 

the abundance variation for pelagic species (longfin 

inshore squid and butterfish, ~73%) than demersal 

species (spiny dogfish and summer flounder, ~50%). 

However, bottom habitat variables (e.g., rugosity and 

depth) and surface pelagic features measured by IOOS 

remote sensing (e.g., surface fronts, vertical and 

horizontal current velocities) were equally important for 

all species, while in situ shipboard measurements of 

water column stability and structure were more useful 

for modeling pelagic species. All species were 

associated with specific surface current flows, regions 

of upwelling, and/or surface fronts identified with 

IOOS remote sensing, indicating that pelagic processes 

affecting energy costs of movement, prey production, 

and prey aggregation influenced distributions of the 

animals regardless of their vertical habitat preferences. 

We found that most of our IOOS-informed habitat 

models had greater explanatory power and out-ofsample prediction capabilities than previously 

published models built using the same analytical 

technique, but without the benefit of access to IOOS 

data streams. 
41 

We have begun to extend our IOOS-informed 

habitat studies in two directions. In one project recently 

funded by the NOAA/NEFSC Cooperative Network we 

are collaborating directly with members of the Garden 

State Seafood Association to use the ecological 

knowledge of fishers to refine our habitat models in an 

effort to develop tools to reduce the bycatch of 

butterfish in the longfin inshore squid fishery. The 

goodwill required for this close collaboration between 

the fishing industry, government, and academic 

scientists was developed in IOOS regional association 

meetings that serve as “neutral ground” for many 

stakeholders with diverse and sometimes competing 

interests in the services of the ecosystem. In another 

project we are using archived IOOS data along with 

NEFSC bottom trawl survey data for summer flounder 

adults and NEFSC Marine Resources Monitoring, 

Assessment, and Prediction (MARMAP) summer 

flounder survey data for eggs to identify the 

characteristics of their spawning grounds in the midAtlantic region. Our preliminary analyses indicates that 

autumn spawning may be concentrated outside the 

mouths of several large estuaries where processes of 

nutrient enrichment from estuarine outflows and coastal 

upwelling, high phytoplankton productivity, and 

processes of particle concentration along water mass 

convergences may create pelagic habitats promoting the 

survivorship and growth of summer flounder larvae. 

Furthermore we have been using MARACOOS 

assimilative circulation model nowcast and short-term 

forecasts to adaptively route surveys investigating 

habitat quality for fish larvae. On these cruises we have 

collected large numbers of summer flounder larvae that 

appear, based on estimates of larval age and particle 

tracking in surface currents measured with HF radar, to 

be derived from a specific spawning ground identified 

in the analysis of summer flounder spawning grounds 

described above. While this study is still in its infancy, 

we believe our IOOS-informed approach that combines 

regional scale habitat analysis and modeling with 

adaptive process based field studies will allow us to 

develop broad scale habitat models that couple 

ontogenic habitats and important life history processes 

for this and other species in the mid-Atlantic region. 

This is just the kind of approach required for effective 

space-based ecosystem management. 

We believe our IOOS-informed approach to habitat 

science will be most useful for the development of 

tactical tools for ecosystem assessment and 

management. There are several pathways toward the 

development of habitat science in the service of 

ecosystem management in the region. The first of these 

is to develop single species models focused on 

ecosystem keystone species indentified in ecosystem 

modeling efforts in the northwest Atlantic (e.g., Link et 

al. 2008, 2010). The rationale behind this approach is 

that the identification and conservation of habitats 

maintaining the resilience of ecosystem keystone 

populations should be translated across a level of 

ecological organization to promote the resilience of the 

ecosystem as a whole. By resilience we mean the 

tendency of populations and ecosystems to return 

relatively rapidly to healthy states after significant 

perturbation (see Levin and Lubchenco 2008). One 

potential flaw with this approach is that rapid changes 

in climate are producing rapid changes in the 

distributions of animals, particularly in regions of 

faunal transition like the Mid-Atlantic Bight (see Nye et 

al. 2009; Sorte et al. 2010). If this is the case the 

identity of ecosystem keystones may also be changing 

and thus approaches targeted at a few individual species 

could fail to meet the goal of promoting ecosystem 

resilience. What is most intriguing about our study of 

summer flounder spawning grounds is that the 

hydrographic processes and structures we have 

identified that may promote nutrient enrichment, 

concentration, and larval delivery are the same “ocean 

triad” of processes that appear to define important 

spawning grounds for pelagic species in the eastern 

Pacific Ocean and Mediterranean sea (see Bakun 1996; 

Agostini and Bakun 2002). Thus we may be able to 

shift focus from habitat studies of individual keystone 

species toward investigations of “keystone habitats” 

where physical and biological processes in the water 

column and on the seabed promote the survival of 

critical life history stages of many species rather than 

just a few. This habitat processes-based approach will 

be essential if the ecosystem is changing rapidly due to 

climate change. But no matter what approach we take, 

habitat science in support of ecosystem assessment and 

management will require close, honest and open 

collaboration between physical and chemical 

oceanographers, habitat ecologists and ecosystem 

scientists, as well as fisherman who, arguably, have the 

most intimate and practical understanding of the 

ecosystem as a whole. 

Further reading 

Agostini V.N., Bakun A. 2002. ‘Ocean triads’ in 

the Mediterranean Sea: Physical mechanisms 

potentially structuring reproductive habitat suitability 

(with example application to European anchovy, 

Engraulis encrasicolus). Fish. Oceanogr. 11(2): 129-

142. 

Bakun, A. 1996. Patterns in the ocean: ocean 

processes and marine population dynamics. California 

Sea Grant College System, University of California, La 

Jolla, CA. 

Link J., Overholtz W., O'Reilly J., Green J., Dow 

D., Palka D., Legault C., Vitaliano J., Guida V., 

Fogarty M., Brodziak J., Methratta L., Stockhausen W., 

Col L., Griswold C. 2008. The Northeast U.S. 

continental shelf Energy Modeling and Analysis 

eXercise (EMAX): Ecological network model 

development and basic ecosystem metrics. J. Mar. Sys. 

74: 453-474. 
42 

Link J.S, Fulton E.A., Gamble R.J. 2010. The 

northeast U.S. application of ATLANTIS: A full 

system model exploring marine ecosystem dynamics in 

a living marine resource management context. Prog. 

Oceanogr. 87: 214-234. 

Levin S.A., Lubchenco J. 2008. Resilience, 

robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. 

BioScience 58 (1): 27-32. 

Nye J.A., Link J.S., Hare J.A., Overholtz W.J. 

2009. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in 

relation to climate and population size on the northeast 

United States continental shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

393: 111-129. 

Sorte C.J.B., Williams S.L., Carlton J.T. 2010. 

Marine range shifts and species introductions: 

Comparative spread rates and community impacts. 

Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 19(3): 303-316. 

Key Question: For harvestable species that co-occur 

in time and space with bycatch: with all your habitat 

analyses, can you come up with a risk analysis to 

actually target areas or habitat in both time and 

space that will allow fishers to maximize harvest of 

the harvestable species but avoid the bycatch? For 

example, while fishing for squid, many fishermen 

know when and where to fish certain areas in order 

to avoid the bycatch of butterfish. 

Answer: This is a difficult problem but we’re trying as 

much as possible to be practical about this and to learn 

from the fishermen; first, what habitat is from the 

fisherman, then what is possible because the overlap 

between butterfish and squid is remarkable when you 

handle the trawl data. But we recognize the value of 

using the fishermen’s knowledge as they have been on 

the ocean every day and they’re good ecologists, so we 

want to introduce them to the data, sit in the room with 

them, maybe go out on the boat with them, and actually 

sit down and try to tackle this problem together. Our 

current research approach might not work but there are 

other approaches having to do with real-time reporting 

or the autocorrelation between catches, bycatches, and 

time and space that would be appropriate. But we’ll all 

learn from each other and I think that the relationships 

that we develop will useful for other projects in the 

future. 

 
43 

SCIENCE PANEL DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL

Rapporteur: David Packer, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Ecosystems Processes Division, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ 

Key Question: We do have some opportunities both 

on a large scale and local scale for incremental steps 

toward EBFM – can you discuss those starting 

points toward progress? 

Answer: We start with internal capacity. This goes 

back to organizational dynamics – getting familiar with 

what others are doing in your Agency is a first step. 

And within NOAA over the years a lot of what you’ve 

heard about integrated coastal ocean mapping, for 

example, has gone a long way towards bringing various 

parts of the Agency together. The various technical 

capabilities of the Agency are starting to come together, 

in the context of cross-Agency integration/coordination, 

and as the technology improves we can apply some of 

these capabilities across our missions so that we can 

start to develop products that are useful to a wide 

variety of applications. But also it’s as simple as 

identifying a time and place for some of this capacity 

that exists within NOAA in the mid-Atlantic to get 

together and talk about some of the projects we might 

do together. In other words, bring together the various 

capabilities of the Agency across its major line offices, 

not just NMFS, but the National Ocean Service, 

National Weather Service, etc. and perhaps hold a 

workshop that pulls together all this capacity and do a 

little more hands on match-up of the mapping capability 

and the survey capability, etc. 

But in addition, the single biggest change is for us to 

say that ultimately we’re going to have management 

plans for ecological regions. We want to replace single 

species or stock management plans with integrated 

plans for ecological regions, which alone would put us 

on the path toward EBFM. It’s not a simple process. 

The basic outcome is that there are a range of nested 

spatial and temporal scales that are important in terms 

of the ecology of these systems and we’re trying to 

define the larger scales first as potential management 

units. So, you have a handful of areas that you develop 

an integrated management plan for – but then within 

that recognize that there’s much finer and richer spatial 

detail that you’re going to want to take into account. 

John Manderson’s presentation gives some nice 

examples of finer scale oceanographic processes that 

are quite important to the ecology of the region. The 

NEFSC has tried to lay out one possible roadmap for 

actual implementation. It’s a starting point for a 

discussion which will be shaped and melded by the 

needs of the Councils. EBFM is coming, and we must 

start laying the groundwork now, and get ahead of the 

curve. 

Key Question/Comment: I agree that some habitats 

are indeed essential and these habitats will be 

essential for a lot of species, but what is never 

clarified is: when are they essential? There are key 

times when these fish use these habitats, and it’s 

generally predictable. This is important, for 

example, for the bycatch issue: if you could tell us or 

map when and where to fish or not to fish in order 

to avoid the bycatch, that would be a powerful tool. 

So, one step that may be helpful in terms of going 

from single species management to EBFM is that 

whenever a Center scientist does a stock assessment, 

for example, they then also do a visual simulation 

map of the general migratory patterns of that stock 

or species throughout the year and, if also possible, 

from larvae to adult. This becomes your best 

representation of how that fish migrates in the 

region throughout the year, and you then do that for 

the other stocks in the region and eventually overlap 

them all. Thus, taking a single species assessment 

and overlapping that with another or other single 

species assessments so you can visualize those 

species interactions both spatially and temporally 

would be very useful. 

Answer: Essentially what you’re saying is that you 

need those products that would help you do your jobs 

better, so the better we can identify those products, the 

better we can tinker with our various models and 

visualizations – the latter is essentially what you are 

describing. Visualizations which can take you from 

static maps and written text that describe the status of 

the stocks to true interactive maps that could better 

show the spatial and temporal movements of species. 

It’s not true ecosystem evaluation, it’s more like a 

multispecies approach, but it’s a good beginning, and it 

is important because the fisheries themselves, of course, 

also operate on spatial and temporal scales. The 

challenge for us is to come up with these kinds and 

types of products that would help you, and we’ve 

already started working on producing these types of 

products: some are prototypes, some are under 

development, some are being researched, and some are 

just ideas at this point in time. 

Key Question: The take home message, particularly 

from Mike Fogarty’s presentation, appears to be 

that the most important step we can take here is to 

lay the groundwork for spatial management units, 

and it appears that we already have the tools to do 

that now. It’s just a matter of directing staff to make 

it a priority as a Council. The question is: why 
44 

aren’t we doing that? Can Mike Fogarty share what 

steps the New England Fishery Management 

Council (NEFMC) is already taking in this regard?

Answer: First, Rick Robins has been very proactive in 

establishing a new Ecosystem Subcommittee within the 

MAFMC’s Science and Statistical Committee (SSC), 

and that’s an important step forward. In the NEFMC, 

their SSC was asked to develop a white paper for the 

NEFMC on ways to go forward toward EBFM. This 

was presented in November, 2010 to the NEFMC and it 

will be published in Commercial Fisheries News; the 

latter will get the information about how to move 

toward EBFM more into the hands of the fishing 

community. In addition, the NEFSC web page has a 

new website (<http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/>) 

about ecosystem considerations that’s really geared 

toward getting this information into the hands of 

stakeholders. But from the NEFSC’s point of view, the 

MAFMC, NEFMC, and the ASMFC are all our 

“clients” and we provide them with the scientific 

underpinning to all this. The NEFSC wants to be in a 

position to meet the requests and needs from both 

Councils and the Commission. But to reiterate, the 

bottom line is that the spatial issue is really at the heart 

of all of this. 

Key Comment: The white paper that’s being 

referenced is a product of a workshop held by the 

NEFMC’s SSC. That will be reviewed and 

considered by the MAFMC’s Subcommittee of the 

SSC as they begin to provide the Council with 

advice. But if that is really the essential forward step 

needed to advance EBFM, and that’s the consensus 

of the SSCs from both Councils, then that is going to 

require a coordinated approach because now you’re 

really getting into spatial management and 

obviously there’s going to be a lot of details that 

have to be considered, not simply in the context of 

the MAFMC’s SSC or the MAFMC itself, but in a 

broader context. So I would anticipate that type of 

advice to be coming out of the MAFMC’s 

Subcommittee as they go through their terms of 

reference. 
45 

STAKEHOLDER PANEL

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL COUNCIL ON THE OCEAN 

(MARCO) 

Greg Capobianco, Director, Ocean and Great Lakes Program, New York State Department of State, Albany, 

NY 

Increasing national attention is being paid to the 

need for broader partnerships and more comprehensive 

approaches to protect our ocean ecosystems. The 

Governors of the mid-Atlantic states (NY, NJ, DE, MD, 

VA) created the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the 

Ocean (MARCO) to improve regional coordination 

among the five states to address shared ocean issues 

that cross our borders, to avoid unintentional conflicts 

across state lines, and to create more reliable regulatory 

processes. The creation of MARCO is intended to 

respect and not duplicate important efforts already 

underway through existing interstate partnerships in the 

region. Rather than focus on a specific geographic area 

or management issue as those partnerships do, MARCO 

is a regional collaboration that seeks to address the 

ocean environment across all five states as a whole 

ecosystem, through the principles of ecosystem-based 

management. 

The “Mid-Atlantic Governors’ Agreement on 

Ocean Conservation,” which created MARCO, 

identified initial priorities for collaborative action 

among the five MARCO states. MARCO continues to 

be led by a core team of state leads from the coastal 

management programs, known as the MARCO 

Management Board, who are responsible for advancing 

these priorities. The MARCO Management Board is 

focusing primarily on two of the priorities identified in 

the Governors’ Agreement, and has added a third 

priority. For each priority, one of the MARCO 

Management Board members will lead the formation of 

a state-federal work group and the development of a 

work plan to advance the priority area in 2011-2012. 

The first MARCO priority is to coordinate the 

protection of important habitats and sensitive and 

unique offshore areas on a regional scale. The midAtlantic region is home to areas – like the offshore 

canyons – that provide the critical underpinnings for the 

health of the ocean ecosystem and support our 

commercial and recreational fisheries. MARCO’s 

current focus in the area of habitat protection is 

coordination and collection of information that will 

help identify the best ways to protect the attributes that 

make these habitats unique. Working with federal 

partners and other organizations, we have developed an 

online portal that displays geospatial information to aid 

in identifying regionally-important habitats. Over time, 

we will add to and refine the portal’s underlying data, 

and develop new portal applications that can be used by 

MARCO, other decision makers, and the public. 

To protect important habitats, the states will 

identify the impacts that impair ecosystem function, and 

then identify the appropriate regulatory tools to ensure 

those impacts are avoided. Through MARCO we will 

be seeking the engagement of federal entities and 

stakeholders with an interest in the canyons, to ensure 

that we leverage all existing resources and authorities, 

and take the holistic perspective that ecosystem-based 

management requires. The MARCO management board 

has followed with great interest the work of the New 

England Fishery Management Council to protect 

canyon habitats in the northwest Atlantic. Eventual 

protection measures in the mid-Atlantic will build from 

the regulatory authority of NMFS and the two Fishery 

Management Councils, as well as the states’ authority 

through the Coastal Zone Management Act and the 

states’ coastal management programs. 

The second MARCO priority is to support the 

sustainable development of renewable energy in 

offshore areas. Given the state of technology, most 

commercial development interest in offshore renewable 

Major Recommendations 

 Compile GIS information on offshore ocean areas, and share specific information on habitats that we have a 

mutual interest in protecting, particularly the offshore canyons. The exchange of data and information through the 

online MARCO Mapping and Planning Portal will help to coordinate regulatory and planning activities based on 

the best available science, and will help identify information gaps. 

 Coordinate on developing overarching management objectives and a path forward for the creation of the MidAtlantic’s Regional Planning Body, and defining roles for the two Fishery Management Councils. 

 Continue discussions of enhanced mechanisms for MAFMC participation in MARCO processes in order to 

incorporate the needs of the commercial and recreational fishing community into our future work. 
46 

energy focuses on wind. Siting offshore wind projects 

in a responsible way, however, requires understanding 

the potential impacts on the environment as well as on 

existing uses, like commercial and recreational fishing, 

and refining regulatory processes accordingly. In 

particular, we are seeking a more regionally consistent 

and compatible approach to the collection of 

information, through the development of shared survey 

and monitoring protocols. Through MARCO we also 

plan to develop standards for the siting of offshore wind 

turbines that will apply region-wide. The collection of 

information on existing uses and the development of 

siting standards will likely be of interest to NMFS and 

the MAFMC, given the possible effects of wind 

development on commercial and recreational fishing. 

The federal government also is interested in 

advancing a regional framework that will address 

habitat protection and renewable energy development 

goals. This past summer, President Obama initiated a 

national framework for coastal and marine spatial 

planning (CMSP) that is regionally-driven, with 

oversight provided by new “Regional Planning 

Bodies,” or RPBs. The constitution of these RPBs will 

include state, federal, and tribal representatives. It is 

most likely that MARCO will play a strong, influential 

role in coordinating the mid-Atlantic states’ 

involvement in the work of the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Planning Body. MARCO states already have been 

involved in developing plans for potential funding in 

Fiscal Year 2011 that would have advanced CMSP and 

provided additional support for stakeholder outreach. 

Because of the significance of the new federal 

ocean framework and its relevance to MARCO’s 

habitat and energy priorities, the MARCO Management 

Board has added CMSP as a new work priority for 

MARCO. The online MARCO Mapping and Planning 

Portal, one of the first collaborative products that has 

resulted from MARCO and the first such portal 

produced by a regional ocean partnership, is one of the 

key tools that will help advance CMSP in the midAtlantic. Made possible by financial support from the 

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program and 

collaboration with state and federal agencies and other 

partners, the portal allows state, federal, and local 

decision‐makers and the public to map and analyze 

regional ocean and coastal data. Developing the portal 

is the first step in collecting and analyzing the data 

necessary for making informed decisions on habitat 

protection and energy development through CMSP. 

The MARCO Management Board values the input 

of the fishing community and is keenly interested in 

developing mechanisms for NMFS and the MAFMC to 

engage in MARCO activities and products. In June of 

2009, the MARCO states hosted the first Mid-Atlantic 

Governors’ Ocean Summit, held in lower Manhattan. 

This Summit combined an official release ceremony for 

the Governors’ Agreement with a day-long set of 

meetings that brought together state and federal agency 

partners to immediately begin conversations on 

advancing the four priorities. In December of 2009 the 

MARCO states convened some of the region’s key 

stakeholders to discuss the Governors’ Agreement and 

to generate positive momentum and commitments for 

action. Following on these meetings and subsequent 

conversations, the MARCO Management Board has 

identified a number of recommendations and 

opportunities for enhanced partnership with the 

MAFMC and NMFS, as described above. 

Key Question: MARCO seems poised to provide 

regional structure that could influence regional 

planning. Do you envision a role for regional fishery 

management organizations such as the MAFMC and 

ASMFC? 

Answer: There certainly could be a role for fishery 

management bodies, with a structure that improves 

regional efforts rather than adding a layer of 

duplication. Right now MARCO is focusing on the full 

range of ocean uses and users. Wind power has our 

immediate attention since that new industry could affect 

existing stakeholders within and adjacent to the midAtlantic region. 

Key Question: With respect to membership, were 

adjacent states such as North Carolina asked to join 

MARCO? If not partners, could others serve as 

close partners? 

Answer: Virginia’s coastal program approached North 

Carolina to share information but in the end North 

Carolina was not included. Through other means, such 

as regional and coast-wide fishery management 

organizations, North Carolina does have an active 

voice. Connections to adjacent states, north and south, 

and organizations are crucial to our success. We need to 

maintain open lines of communication between regions. 

To improve the prospects of success, MARCO should 

consult with the states, councils, interstate commission, 

and other interested, regional partners before any 

actions are taken. 
47 

START BY DOING WHAT’S NECESSARY; THEN DO WHAT’S POSSIBLE; AND 

SUDDENLY YOU ARE DOING THE IMPOSSIBLE – FRANCIS OF ASSISI

Jason S. Link, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole 

Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, and Chair, Ecosystems Subcommittee, MAFMC /Science and Statistical 

Committee 

Sometimes there’s a perception that doing 

ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is too 

intractable, is too ill-defined, and is too difficult to 

attempt. What I note here is that there are obvious steps 

that can be taken as we move towards such 

implementation. There is a clear need to transition from 

how we manage fisheries now, to an intermediate step, 

to a fuller, more, integrated system perspective. It is 

recognized that the MAFMC has well over a dozen 

fishery stocks to manage (and many more if 

coordination with the NEFMC and ASMFC is 

considered). Currently they are managed in a group of 

half a dozen or so plans, but the individual stocks are 

essentially not managed with any explicit consideration 

of ecological, environmental, habitat or related such 

concerns. Most stocks are being managed classically 

via the typical fisheries advice (fishing mortality 

instantaneous rate and biomass) and effectively in 

isolation from other stocks. The goal is to have 

management of all such stocks considered 

simultaneously, for a given spatial area, and cognizant 

of the effects of other ocean-use sectors on fisheries and 

the effects of fisheries on other ocean-use sectors. This 

would be done with a fully integrated and coordinated 

set of factors in one, ecosystem-based plan for an 

appropriate region. 

Yet it is recognized that to meet current mandates 

while moving towards the more “systemic” approach 

will require a transition set of plans. One way to do this 

transitional step is to consider a set of significant issues 

affecting related stocks and then attempt to develop 

plans that have a broader range of considerations for 

species as they interact. These proposed plans would 

contain joint management recommendations as 

coordinated for appropriate groups of stocks rather than 

treating those stocks in isolation (even if under the 

same plan cover). Here I provide several examples of 

such issues that could be addressed. 

As the title of this talk, quoted from St. Francis, 

implies, we need to start with what is necessary. The 

following lists some proposed issues that have been 

identified as germane, needed by the MAFMC to 

provide the best management of these stocks available, 

and potentially useful for the mid-Atlantic region to 

move towards EBFM. The issues presented here are 

meant to be exemplary and by no means represent the 

full range of factors that should be considered, but 

likely are some of the more prominent issues facing the 

stocks and this region for which the MAFMC is 

responsible. The example issues are also linked to those 

stocks that are known or strongly suspected to be 

affected by them: 

•evaluate any potential effects of climate for all 

MAFMC managed stocks; 

•evaluate any potential effects of predatory 

removals on mackerel, longfin inshore and northern 

shortfin squid, butterfish; 

•evaluate and identify specific/localized habitat 

requirements for black sea bass, scup, tilefish, Atlantic 

surfclam, ocean quahogs, and summer flounder; 

•explore areas/regions/features of interest for all 

stocks; and 

•explore tradeoffs among full system and total 

fisheries production potential for all stocks. 

It is clear that these example issues are important. 

But that begs the question: can we possibly do anything 

about them in the near future? That is, are there any 

Major Recommendations 

 Work with the MAFMC (especially the Council's Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Committee) to provide the 

MAFMC with scientific advice to support and inform the development of the Council's ecosystem level goals, 

objectives, and policies. 

 Identify and describe scientific advice that the MAFMC could use to address and incorporate ecosystem structure 

and function in its fishery management plans and quota specification process to ensure that the Council’s 

management practices effectively account for ecological sustainability. 

 Describe scientific information that the MAFMC could consider so as to anticipate or respond to shifts in 

ecological conditions (e.g., climate change and other externalities) or processes in its management programs. 

 Summarize what other countries and regions are doing to incorporate ecosystem-based fishery management 

principles in their management plans and programs. 

 Describe how ecosystems principles could be used by the MAFMC in the long-term to evolve its single-species 

and multi-species fishery management plans into a regional ecosystem-based fishery management plan. 
48 

data, tools, or approaches that are available now that 

can help to address these issues? The answer is yes. 

For instance, to evaluate any potential effects of 

climate we can use what are mainly empirical 

approaches from the NEFSC bottom trawl survey and 

observer data, along with some Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) downscaling, 

extended stock assessment models (ESAMs), and biophysical models that are extant. To evaluate any 

potential effects of predatory removals we can apply a 

wide range of ESAMs, minimal realistic models 

(MRMs), and multispecies (MS) models. To evaluate 

and identify specific/localized habitat requirements, we 

can use a range of habitat models and empirical studies, 

particularly as they are informed by fisher observations. 

To explore areas or regions or features of interest, we 

can employ coastal and marine spatial planning 

(CMSP), additional types of habitat models, the 

ecosystem status report (ESR), and continue to hold 

interactive, focused stakeholder workshops. To explore 

tradeoffs among full system and total fisheries 

production potential, we can utilize information in the 

ESR, employ management strategy evaluation (MSE) 

approaches using aggregate, food web, and end-to-end 

models, and hold focused stakeholder workshops. The 

point being that the scientific and informational 

capacity is extant to begin to address these issues. 

Further, the organizational and governance structures 

may admittedly need to adapt to these novel streams of 

information, but we can largely utilize existing 

structures and processes to begin to transition towards 

addressing these EBFM issues. 

One of the simpler ways to begin the 

implementation of such a transition would be to 

develop joint plans that have coordinated and modified 

information. For instance, to evaluate any potential 

effects of climate one could develop and use adjusted 

biological reference points (BRPs) and associated risk 

analyses (RAs) that consider the effects of potential or 

realized environmental effects on stocks as they 

influence the estimation of standard decision criteria. 

Similarly, to evaluate any potential effects of predatory 

removals, one could additionally consider using 

adjusted BRPs and RAs that have been estimated while 

being cognizant of species interactions. To evaluate and 

identify specific or localized habitat requirements, one 

could perhaps develop habitat reference points (Hab 

RPs/SASI) or similarly adjusted BRPs and RAs for 

stocks conditioned upon habitat considerations. To 

explore areas or regions or features of interest, one 

could utilize refined MSPs, extant environmental 

impact assessments (EIAs), or various zoning (of ocean 

uses) approaches. To explore tradeoffs among full 

system and total fisheries production potential, 

ultimately one would need a coordinated fisheries 

ecosystem plan or ecosystem-based fisheries 

management plan (FEPs/E-BFMPs) that would be the 

document from which the MAFMC’s goals and 

priorities would not only be stated, but used as the 

source for implementation. Obviously, executing such 

an implementation strategy is going to take time, many 

iterative steps, and will not be without its challenges. 

Yet doing so is in fact now quite feasible and the tools 

to do so are already in existence. That is arguably the 

main point of this short communiqué; that, although 

challenging, we can start taking steps to implement 

EBFM. 

The MAFMC has already signified its intent to do 

so via the Ecosystems and Ocean Planning 

Subcommittee and a comparable supporting 

Subcommittee of the SSC. The terms of reference for 

the SSC’s Ecosystem Subcommittee are provided in the 

“Major Recommendations” box, above; the point is that 

the MAFMC is demonstrating progressive thinking in 

instituting these groups. Furthermore, it is quite a 

positive development that by doing what is necessary 

and possible, we may end up doing what was heretofore 

thought impossible. 

Key Question: How much time would be involved in 

progressing from where we are now to the more 

complex and promising ecosystem management 

approaches? 

Answer: Some approaches can be implemented now or 

very soon. A key factor in fishery management is the 

MAFMC’s annual management priorities. A regional 

approach could establish agreement to balance options 

and establish priorities. I understand that’s a central 

product of this workshop. 

Key Question: Where are we in terms of the 

sophistication of our understanding of predatorprey relationships? 

Answer: The NEFSC has an enormous database on that 

subject and are beginning to consolidate it into a useful 

form. As an example of one application – we can now 

consider predator consumption by a given managed 

species, such has Loligo squid, and consider that 

function as another “fleet” in assessment models. We 

have a lot less data for consumption by mammals and 

birds. 
49 

DISCOVERING REEF: POSSIBILITIES OF ACCELERATED AND PERMANENT REEF FISH 

RESTORATION 

Captain Monty Hawkins, Owner/Operator, Party Boat Morning Star, Ocean City, MD

As a party boat captain, my observations of finescale habitat change are in no way reflected in current 

habitat science for the region. Absent fishing, reef-fish 

abundance would be determined by reef-habitat 

abundance. A clear baseline for habitat restoration can 

be developed from both historical accounts and current 

recreationally and commercially important fish 

abundances on remnant habitats. 

Our challenge is to leave a legacy of improved 

habitat and vastly improved fisheries. Though many 

have already thrown in the towel, we know structured 

habitat with vertical relief is valued by many midAtlantic stocks. It’s very simple to replicate; just roll 

rocks off a barge. 

Recent discussions about the mid-Atlantic 

ecosystem, prompted by the MAFMC but not limited to 

fishing, offer glimpses of new approaches to these old 

problems. Fishers’ observations should be considered 

when industry brings telecommunication cables and 

wind turbines to these waters. 

Anecdotes are always and forever insufficient. I 

encourage you to view video evidence presented to the 

Council’s Ecosystem Committee, including: 

•Nick Caloyianis reef footage: 

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3nGYeXvkxE&f

eature=related>; YouTube keyword search: MidAtlantic Reef Natural Reef. 

•Monty Hawkins video from 2004: 

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n77WF9XQRJM&

feature=related>; YouTube keyword search : Common 

Seafloor Habitats. 

•Video Presentation to MAFMC Ecosystem 

Workshop December 14, 2010: 

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cMC8JVa2Bk>; 

YouTube keyword search: Maryland Corals or 

Nearshore Reef MAB. 

Those videos and other information demonstrate 

that: 

•cold water azooxanthellate corals reefs exist in 

near-shore shallow waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight; 

•those reefs are clearly essential fish habitat (EFH), 

though these reefs and reef species have yet to be 

considered as such; 

•though classed as non-reef forming, clearly these 

cold water corals do form reef and vital reef habitat for 

federally managed species; 

•stern-towed fishing gears have physical impacts to 

mid-Atlantic habitats that decrease the reef footprint 

and diminish ecosystem services, including fish 

production; 

•our continued lack of understanding about these 

habitats and reef ecology will prevent true reef fish 

restoration; 

•the importance of seafloor habitat restoration must 

be recognized; present restoration priorities involving 

Major Recommendations 

 Interview remaining old-timers to piece together a picture of what once was. Insights will highlight the need to 

protect what we have and restore what we’ve lost. Listen attentively and use charts dating to the era for 

perspectives on: 

◦ species that once fouled nets and hooks but are now rare, e.g., deadman's sponge; 

◦ fish populations that have moved from inshore habitats to offshore, with similar impacts on fleet movements 

and effort and be vigilant for shifts over the years and decades; e.g., extirpation of red hake within 20 

nautical miles of shore, white marlin was once caught 4 to 8 miles out and now 60 is caught plus miles, and 

scup having been a major fishery but now has been absent for 40 years; and 

◦ insights from fishing techniques and navigation devices used to indicate former reef footprint, even use of 

rudimentary equipment like a weighted grapple on steel cable to locate rocky patches by feel. 

 Protect remnant hard bottom habitats either with paper protections/regulations or with large boulders. 

 When contemplating an action to protect or restore habitat, focus not on the substrate but on the growth that 

provides habitat. Any rock will work fine – concrete rubble too. Eventually, engineered concrete units to 

maximize fishery production in a given area could be built. 

 Strongly consider transportable reef units sited in areas with abundant growth to gather natural set corals for later 

transplant. 

 Recognize that cold water azooxanthellate corals are important to fish populations wherever they now occur or 

did occur, including all waters. 

 The term “high energy environment’ is a scapegoat. There are many corals growing in 25 feet of water and 

fantastic assemblages in 40 feet of water in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. 
50 

coastal wetlands and estuaries are important too, but 

habitat issues extend across the continental shelf and 

beyond; and, 

•we must replenish reef habitat if we expect to 

rebuild stocks. Management based on catch-restrictions 

alone cannot recreate historical abundances of fish. 

Reef protection, restoration, and manufacture can 

create reef fish abundances beyond any known 

historical value. Amazing success awaits. 

Key Question: From your observations in the midAtlantic, can you offer any comments on threats 

warranting our special attention? 

Answer: Chemicals may be an issue but we need to 

consult an expert. Tires remain a concern since even 

those deployed as ballasted structure for artificial reefs 

can break free from the reef and destroy bottom habitat 

until removed, often by cash-strapped state marine 

fisheries agencies. While the tire reef experiment failed, 

hard surfaces can attract corals and other settling 

animals. 

Key Question: Could artificial reefs improve 

regional ecosystem health? 

Answer: Perhaps. There are strong arguments on both 

sides of that question. There is more reef fishing now 

than in the recent past, sometimes attributed to the 

addition of artificial reefs to shelf waters. There are 

seven licensed sites: two in Maryland waters and five in 

the adjacent federal zone, and there are more tautog 

now than a decade or so ago. Although it seems logical 

that bottom trawlers and dredgers would avoid rock or 

reefs to conserve their gear, observations support some 

concern that bottom-tending gear has flattened some 

areas. Corals and other habitat types are now evident as 

remnants of what could have been more diverse 

habitats. Restoring those areas could be vital to 

rebuilding some species, especially habitat-dependent 

populations of red hake and black sea bass. 

 
51 

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT EXCEED OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE OCEAN 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC

Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association, Trenton, NJ

The Garden State Seafood Association is 

concerned that aspects of Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Planning may ultimately undermine domestic fisheries 

management. Congress created the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in 

1976 to manage U.S. marine fishery resources within 

the EEZ and throughout the range of a given managed 

species (See 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). It is unclear to 

members of the commercial fishing industry how 

federally-approved fishery management plans, 

developed by regional Fishery Management Councils 

and approved by the Secretary of Commerce will be 

considered should these plans be deemed inconsistent 

with the principles of CMSP. The councils are actively 

working to address CMSP issues within their 

jurisdiction, including gear usage, habitat impacts, 

time/area closures, by-catch, and the need to conserve 

marine resource populations for the longer term, 

including protected and harvested species plus their 

habitat. These efforts must not be frustrated by an 

expanded bureaucracy that complicates the open 

regional council planning process with a separate 

dispute resolution process that may dilute scientific 

information serving as the basis for management 

decisions. 

The National Ocean Council (NOC) would be the 

commanding entity regarding final decisions on 

regional plan consistency, plan compliance, dispute 

resolution, and any associate penalties for noncompliance. The NOC will be advised by a governance 

body that could be susceptible to political pressures 

which reward those entities with seats on the national 

committee. 

While GSSA agrees with many characteristics of a 

national CMSP program, we are especially concerned 

with adopting an ecosystem-based approach. That 

approach has in recent years become politically correct 

and fashionable yet never implemented. In fact, 

aggressive efforts failed to include a mandatory 

requirement in the 2006 MSA reauthorization. The 

legitimate reasons for that failure form the basis of our 

opposition, namely: the concept is overly broad, 

sufficient scientific information to meet measurable 

objectives is lacking, and the idea is often connected to 

the precautionary principle, which is also poorly 

supported by information. 

First, ecosystem-based management is not clearly 

defined in the CMSP, the National Ocean Policy, or the 

Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task 

Force even though it constitutes a core component of 

both programs. There are many references to EBM 

requirements and broad-based EBM principles but no 

clear definition. Thus, constituents are left to their own 

perceptions regarding how the Administration intends 

to use CMSP and EBM to: manage and regulate the 

protection of key species that are critical to ecosystem 

function and resiliency; improve species adaptation; 

achieve healthier and more productive environments; 

and restore, protect, and maintain protected species 

populations, ecosystems, and biological diversity. In 

some examples of EBM the intent is to manage the 

ecosystem to the microbial level. In other instances, 

resources such as protected species are given greater 

consideration and support than harvested species. The 

inability of Congress and agencies to manage all 

resources based on the same principles cuts squarely 

against the argument for a formal, balanced, sciencebased EBM plan. Thus, we have little faith the EBM 

approach embodied in the CMSP will address needed 

changes but simply be more of the same dysfunction. 

Second, the CMSP contains many references 

regarding the need for sound science as the basis for 

EBM but offers little in the way of an actual plan to 

inform decision-making. Arguably, the lack of 

scientific information and funding required to procure it 

has frustrated similar efforts in the past. The only 

attempt to address the gathering of scientific 

information is contained in the CMSP work plan which 

allows for the Regional Planning Body to consult with 

scientists and technical experts about myriad topics but 

apparently with little understanding of the scope, 

timing, and cost of these data needs. 

Based on the timelines provided in the CMSP work 

plan and the lack of additional funding we believe 

regional planning will prevail even as CMSP efforts 

proceed. Also, there is no specific funding mechanism 

provided in the CMSP to enable state/federal agencies 

to conduct the necessary scientific research to support 

the plan. Thus, they are left to do more with less yet 

also support a new complicated system that is 

supposedly “built on this foundation of sound science.” 

From an industry perspective the math is simple – less 

Major Recommendations 

 Be wary of how CMSP may duplicate fishery management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We needn’t 

recreate processes that work well. 
52 

money for science means less data, less data means 

more precaution, more precaution means less fishing, 

less fishing means fewer jobs, less revenues, and less 

food harvested by domestic fishermen resulting in 

increased seafood imports and an unbalanced trade 

deficit. The expansive concept of EBM and lack of 

scientific information (and funding for scientific 

research) leads to our final concern – the application of 

the precautionary approach as the guide for decisions 

where adequate data are lacking. The precautionary 

approach fosters a disincentive for managers to seek, 

secure, and spend manpower and funding to gather 

scientific data if conservative decisions can be made 

simply by invoking precaution. This should not be the 

guiding doctrine of the CMSP. 

CMSP documents suggest we already have “...vast 

stores of natural and social science information about 

ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems and their 

uses.” Despite this apparent wealth of science we 

continue to struggle with current efforts to manage 

marine resources absent basic scientific information. 

The condition of hundreds of finfish, marine mammal, 

and sea turtle stocks are unknown and regional Fishery 

Management Councils are now required to meet new 

MSA scientific standards with little new information. 

GSSA wonders: How a new layer of government with 

greater data requirements will perform if the necessary 

scientific information is currently missing at the most 

basic levels of resource management? 

Key Question: How do the topics discussed at this 

workshop relate to coastal and marine spatial 

planning? Are we discussing the right topics with 

the appropriate people? 

Answer: Collectively we are not doing CMSP now but 

we are touching on similar issues both individually in 

our own arenas and together as a group. No mandates 

have been surrendered but roles could shift. New 

industries are adding complexity and new partners may 

bring new ideas. Heavy government representation at 

this workshop needs to be balanced with more speakers 

from other sectors, including states and industries.
53 

PREPARATION MEETS OPPORTUNITY FOR MID-ATLANTIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

Jay Odell, The Nature Conservancy, Mid-Atlantic Regional Program, Richmond, VA

National context

 Marine resource use sectors such as fishing, 

offshore energy development, recreation, sand and 

gravel extraction, tourism, and shipping are economic 

engines that support coastal communities and our 

Nation. The U.S. ocean economy provides more jobs 

and more economic output than the entire farm sector 

(USCOP 2004). Ocean management today is divided 

among over 20 different federal agencies that oversee 

more than 140 different and often conflicting and 

competing laws affecting marine resources (Crowder et 

al. 2006), with many additional state and local 

authorities and laws. As a result, our ocean is managed 

sector-by-sector, with little attention to trade-offs 

between management choices made by separate 

agencies and cumulative impacts to coastal and marine 

ecosystems and resource users. 

On June 12, 2009, President Barack Obama 

released a memorandum affirming that “the United 

States needs to act within a unifying framework under a 

clear national policy, including a comprehensive, 

ecosystem-based framework for the long-term 

conservation and use of our (ocean, coast, and Great 

Lakes) resources.” The Interagency Oceans Policy Task 

Force (IOPTF) subsequently developed a draft national 

ocean policy with coastal and marine spatial planning 

(CMSP) as a foundation for a “comprehensive, 

integrated, ecosystem-based approach that addresses 

conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and 

sustainable use.” 

Mid-Atlantic context 

After extensive public engagement including six 

regional listening sessions that drew over 1,900 people 

and collection and review of about 5,000 written 

comments, the IOPTF issued final recommendations. 

On July 19, 2010 President Obama issued an Executive 

Order that established the first ever National Policy for 

Ocean Stewardship, adopting the recommendations, 

including a national CMSP framework (CEQ 2010). 

The CMSP framework calls for Regional Planning 

Bodies (RPB) to create and implement CMS Plans for 

the mid-Atlantic and eight other regions. These 

developments and several other factors have combined 

to create extraordinary enabling conditions for 

significant advances in mid-Atlantic habitat 

conservation and ecosystem-based management 

approaches. 

The mid-Atlantic has the most abundant and easily 

developed offshore wind energy resources in the U.S. 

(NWF 2010) and energy companies have been 

intensively working with mid-Atlantic states and the 

federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) for the last 

few years to identify potential development areas. A 

large scale build-out of offshore wind energy in this 

region may provide significant benefits but also poses 

ecological and socio-economic risks that will need to be 

carefully considered and mitigated as appropriate. The 

need for new state and federal policy, institutional 

capacity, data and methods to address planning and 

Major Recommendations 

 Near-term: The Essential Fish Habitat Omnibus Amendment that is being jointly developed by NEFMC and 

MAFMC provides a policy vehicle for expanded habitat protection and a process that provides for substantial 

public input as decisions are shaped and made. Additionally, the Councils have a new tool under the MagnusonStevens Act (Section 303(b)(2)), discretionary authority to protect deep-sea corals that urgently need protection. It 

is likely that the mid-Atlantic region contains substantial cold water coral resources at depths as shallow as 15 

meters, in addition to those well documented offshore of Maryland (e.g., Astrangia poculata and new records for 

Leptogorgia virgulata). These habitats are well known to support high densities of MAMFC managed species 

such as black sea bass and tautog. Regardless of depth, deep-sea coral habitats are highly vulnerable to physical 

disturbance of any kind and their damage and loss has potentially serious and difficult to reverse ecological and 

economic impacts. Conversely, their identification and protection would provide lasting benefits. 

 Long-term: A regional CMSP process can help the ocean use and conservation sectors to more precisely develop 

their individual and shared goals and subsequently develop a plan that best meets multiple objectives. It should be 

no surprise that, despite stereotypes, fishermen and environmental groups have many common interests. Some 

valuable and important ocean use sectors such as sand mining, shipping, transportation, and energy development 

can be sustained in severely degraded ocean ecosystems, but biodiversity conservation, fishing, and some forms 

of tourism cannot. A CMSP process that is conducted openly and transparently and based on sound science can 

provide managers with choices for better alignment of human uses with their most ecologically and socioeconomically compatible places to provide lasting benefits for people and nature. 
54 

management for a new industrial ocean use was a major 

driver for the new National Ocean Policy and CMSP, 

and for the formation of the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Council on the Ocean (MARCO). MARCO was 

initiated by Coastal Zone Management Program 

Directors and other key staff and formed by agreement 

of the Governors of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, 

New Jersey, and New York in June 2009. The five 

states agreed to work together to identify regional goals 

and to take actions that address the mid-Atlantic 

region’s most pressing ocean conservation and 

management challenges (MARCO 2009). 

For over three decades, MAFMC has used its 

authorities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to manage 

the region’s recreational and commercial fisheries in 

federal waters. This work included evaluation of stock 

assessment and fishery data and setting harvest rules, 

seasons, and allocations to meet the individual and 

shared goals of states. The combined efforts of NMFS, 

MAFMC, and others have led to considerably better 

understanding of ecosystem structure and function, 

accumulated over the years and documented in fishery 

management plans and other documents. 

Implementation of the new overharvest provisions 

provided when the MSA was reauthorized in 2006 by 

MAFMC has begun, to good effect; based on legal 

definitions, overfishing is not occurring in any 

MAFMC managed stock and most stocks are not 

overfished. It should however be noted that the quantity 

and quality of available information for all MAMFC 

managed “forage” species (smaller pelagics such as Ilex

and Loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, and butterfish) is 

insufficient to determine whether these populations are 

overfished. This problem – lack of adequate funding for 

stock assessment and analysis for federally managed 

species, is not unique to the mid-Atlantic region. 

During most of the past decade, the MAFMC was 

not perceived as being proactive or effective relative to 

habitat conservation concerns. However, with new 

leadership for both staff and Council, the MAFMC has 

recently demonstrated substantially increased attention 

to the critical role of habitat in supporting fisheries 

production and protecting it from fisheries impacts, as 

provided for or required under the MSA. In addition to 

this very encouraging development, the Council is also 

now facilitating dialogue between diverse stakeholders 

about new approaches to improving ecosystem health in 

the mid-Atlantic. 

For over a decade science and policy experts have 

pointed to the urgent need for a more holistic, 

ecosystem-based approach for ocean management, but 

the transition from theory to practice has been slow. 

The fragmentation of ocean management agencies at 

both state and federal levels has been an impediment to 

progress, and in particular the division of the expertise 

and regulatory authority held by habitat/coastal zone 

and fisheries management agencies has been 

problematic. Therefore, the growing communication 

between MARCO and MAFMC, a recent resolution by 

MAFMC in support of MARCO and their plans for 

collaboration in a CMSP context offer hope for creation 

of an operational framework for ecosystem-based 

management in the mid-Atlantic region. Successful 

implementation of regional CMSP pursuant to the new 

National Ocean Policy will require strong leadership by 

representatives of the regional Fishery Management 

Councils along with state and federal agencies, tribes, 

and local governments. 

There are strong incentives and benefits for federal 

Fishery Management Council representatives to help 

lead the RPBs responsible for CMS Plan development. 

New uses of the ocean such as offshore wind energy 

development or aquaculture could potentially reduce 

access to traditional fishing areas and such conflicts and 

impacts may be avoided or minimized through a CMSP 

process. It has often been noted by fishers and others 

during fishery management plan amendment processes 

that although non-fishing impacts to fisheries resources 

(e.g., coastal habitat loss and damage) reduce 

populations of harvest species and fishing opportunity, 

fishery management entities such as MAFMC have 

very little ability or authority to regulate and abate such 

impacts. A robust CMSP process may provide a new 

venue for highlighting and addressing these concerns –

managing the mid-Atlantic as one place as opposed to 

separately, use by use. 

New data and tools 

Effective CMSP and ecosystem-based management 

approaches require multiple map layers indicating or 

estimating the distribution of valuable ecological and 

socio-economic resources as well as the distribution 

and intensity of current and future human uses of 

coastal and marine resources. Ideally, these data should 

describe and predict human interactions with coastal 

and marine ecosystem features in places (latitude and 

longitude), depths and times (i.e., four dimensions). 

Although there are substantial unmet data needs (e.g., 

marine mammal and sea bird migration paths, benthic 

habitat maps), ocean stakeholders and resource 

managers in the northeast region of the U.S. are 

fortunate to have substantial CMSP data and modeling 

resources currently available or in development. 

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) 

has led efforts to collect spatially referenced data on the 

distribution, abundance, and trophic dynamics of 

marine resources for over four decades and in the last 

several years made those data available in diverse 

formats, developed ecosystem state condition 

indicators, and created spatially explicit models to 

predict regional scale ecosystem responses to 

management choices (e.g., Fogarty 2005; EAP 2009; 

Smith and Link 2010; Link et al. 2010). Other federal 

agencies including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

BOEMRE have also produced a wealth of CMSP 
55 

relevant data, and their efforts are ongoing. If plans to 

produce an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) are 

implemented, the IEA would provide a huge leap 

forward in understanding the region’s ecological 

structure and function to inform and improve CMSP 

and ecosystem-based management processes (Levin et 

al 2009). Recently, new collaborations between NEFSC 

and Mid-Atlantic Regional Association Coastal Ocean 

Observing System (MARACOOS) staff are leveraging 

real time integrated ocean observing system data to 

produce some of the first pelagic habitat models that 

predict the spatial and temporal locations of critical 

spawning areas and other ecosystem features (see John 

Manderson’s presentation, above). 

Protection of deep-sea corals is a particular concern 

for conservation organizations and others, yet they are 

in general very poorly mapped. However NOAA’s 

Office of Habitat Conservation in partnership with 

other federal partners and academics has recently made 

substantial progress in compiling and interpreting 

existing information that will be very useful for 

modeling coral distribution and focusing upcoming 

surveys (Packer et al. 2007). While these data are 

almost entirely restricted to deep water near and within 

the shelf-slope break, limited video survey data reveals 

extensive coral patch habitats adjacent to the Maryland 

coast, extending seaward from less than ten miles off 

the beach (see Monty Hawkins’s presentation, above). 

High resolution acoustic or video surveys have not yet 

been conducted to test the hypothesis that similar 

nearshore coral patch habitat occurs adjacent to other 

mid-Atlantic states, but it seems unlikely that it would 

be restricted to Maryland. 

The Nature Conservancy recently completed a 

marine ecoregional assessment for the northwest 

Atlantic, from Cape Hatteras, NC to the Bay of Fundy. 

This assessment is intended to support CMSP and 

regional ecosystem‐based management (EBM). In order 

to support and advance these goals, this assessment 

integrates information about multiple species and their 

habitats from many different federal, state and 

academic sources. The results summarized in the report 

include maps and data on concentrations of high 

biodiversity and critical species-specific areas for 

refuge, forage, and spawning, and also some of the 

limited available spatial data for human uses such as 

shipping lanes, port facilities, and fishing effort. This 

assessment is designed to be used by diverse 

stakeholders to inform diverse decisions, and to be 

freely available online for public use (Greene et al 

2010). 

Organizing and summarizing the large amount of 

available information and data to make good decisions 

requires robust decision support tools (DST), 

particularly if diverse stakeholders are to be engaged in 

the planning process. One example of a DST is the 

Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) model developed by 

NEFMC staff and partners to support habitat 

conservation decisions made pursuant to the ongoing 

Essential Fish Habitat Omnibus Amendment (see Chris 

Kellogg’s presentation, below). The Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) recently 

developed the online Mid-Atlantic Mapping and 

Planning Portal to allow state, federal, and local 

decision‐makers and the public to visualize, query, 

map, and analyze ocean and coastal data (see Greg 

Capobianco’s presentation, above). To fully support a 

CMSP process, the portal will need to evolve to include 

more sophisticated decision support features, including 

the ability for ocean users and managers to create 

spatial management scenarios and evaluate how well 

they meet goals held by diverse ocean resource 

stakeholders (Fox et al 2010). 

Progress will be made through partnerships – 

collaborative projects that take advantage of the 

complementary skills, resources, and world-views held 

within academia, diverse government agencies, ocean 

stakeholders, and non-profits. The coincidence of all 

the factors noted above provide an urgent opportunity 

to learn from history, to leverage past efforts and to 

move forward with new coordinated science and policy 

to help ensure that the public’s coastal and marine 

habitats continue to support life and produce the 

material and aesthetic goods and services that people 

want and need for generations to come. 

Further reading 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. 

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/

initiatives/oceans >. 

Crowder, L.B., Osherenko, G., Young, O. R., 

Airamé, S., Norse, E.A., Baron, N., Day, J.C., Douvere, 

F., Ehler, C.N., Halpern, B.S., Langdon, S.J., McLeod, 

K.L., Ogden, J.C., Peach, R.E., Rosenberg, A.A., 

Wilson, J.A. 2006. Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean 

governance. Science 313: 617-618. 

Ecosystem Assessment Program (EAP). 2009. 

Ecosystem Assessment Report for the Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. U.S. Dept. 

Commer, NEFSC Ref Doc. 09-11: 61 pp. 

Fogarty, M.J. 2005. Ecology of the northeast 

continental shelf. NMFS Northeast Regional Office. 

Gloucester, MA. 23 pp. 

Fox E., Burt, C., Ferdaña, Z., Odell, J., Crichton, 

G. 2010. Information flow in coastal and marine spatial 

planning: A conceptual framework to inform 

technological choices to meet planning needs. 

MarineMap Consortium. 21 pp. 

<http://marinemap.org/framework>. 

Greene, J.K., Anderson, M.G., Odell, J., Steinberg, 

N. (eds.). 2010. The Northwest Atlantic Marine 

Ecoregional Assessment (Phase I): Species, habitats 

and ecosystems. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern U.S. 

Division. Boston, MA. 

<http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/

states/easternusmarine/>. 
56 

Levin, P.S., Fogarty, M.J., Murawski, S.A., 

Fluharty, D. 2009. Integrated ecosystem assessments: 

Developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based 

management of the ocean. PLoS Biol. 7: 23-28. 

Link, J.S., Fulton, E.A, Gamble, R.J. 2010. The 

northeast U.S. application of ATLANTIS: A full 

system model exploring marine ecosystem dynamics in 

a living marine resource management context. Prog. 

Oceanogr. 87: 214-234 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean 

(MARCO). 2009. Mid-Atlantic Governors’ agreement 

on ocean conservation. 

<http://www.midatlanticocean.org/agreement.pdf>. 

National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 2010. 

Offshore wind in the Atlantic: Growing momentum for 

jobs, energy independence, clean air, and wildlife 

protection. Reston, VA. 62 pp. 

Packer, D.B., Boelke, D., Guida, V., McGee, L.-A. 

2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the northeastern 

U.S .region: Maine to Cape Hatteras. In: Lumsden, 

S.E., Hourigan, T.F., Bruckner, A.W., Dorr, G. (eds.). 

The state of deep coral ecosystems of the United States. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. CRCP-3. pp. 195-232. 

Smith B, Link J. 2010. The trophic dynamics of 50 

finfish and 2 squid species on the northeast U.S. 

continental shelf. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NE 216: 

640 pp. 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP). 

2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st Century, final 

report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 

Washington, D.C. 522 pp. 

Key Question: How can we balance state and federal 

rights in regional ecosystem management?

Answer: We have a mix of approaches represented at 

this workshop, a mix that might offer examples of the 

complex nature of our challenge. MARCO is a regional 

body comprised only of states. That approach might be 

more appropriate than a national body such as the 

National Ocean Council. There are other arenas such as 

energy that might warrant other management structures.
57 

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION HABITAT PROGRAM,

ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES, AND COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITIES 

Wilson Laney, Coordinator, Department of the Interior/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Atlantic 

Fisheries Coordination Office, Raleigh, NC

Patrick A. Campfield, Science Director, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Arlington, VA

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC or Commission) was formed by the 15 

Atlantic coast states in 1942 and subsequently chartered 

in 1950 as an Interstate Fisheries Management 

Commission by Congress, in recognition that fish do 

not adhere to political boundaries. The current mission 

of the Commission is “to promote the better utilization 

of the fisheries, marine, shell and anadromous, of the 

Atlantic seaboard by the development of a joint 

program for the promotion and protection of such 

fisheries, and by the prevention of physical waste of the 

fisheries from any cause.” The Commission’s vision is 

“healthy, self-sustaining populations for all Atlantic 

coast fish species or successful restoration well in 

progress by the year 2015.” The Commission serves as 

a deliberative body, coordinating the conservation and 

management of the states’ shared nearshore (within 

three miles of shore) fishery resources – marine, shell, 

and anadromous – for sustainable use. Commission 

authority, aside from that provided in the initial 

congressional charter, derives largely from the Atlantic 

Striped Bass Conservation Act (1984), and the Atlantic 

Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (1993). 

The latter Act mandated that the Secretary of 

Commerce in cooperation with the Secretary of Interior 

“...shall develop and implement a program to support 

the interstate fishery management efforts of the 

Commission.” The program was mandated to include 

activities to support and enhance state cooperation in: 

collection, management, and analysis of fishery data; 

law enforcement; habitat conservation [emphasis 

added]; fishery research, including biological and 

socioeconomic research; and fishery management 

planning. For detailed information regarding the 

ASMFC Habitat Program, including resolutions, 

documents from the Habitat Management Series, and 

other materials, visit the ASMFC web site at 

<http://www.asmfc.org/>. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

Habitat Program 

The Commission’s Habitat Program originated in 

1980 with formal resolutions adopted to address 

habitat-related issues (Stephan et al. 1999, see 

Appendix 1 of that document for complete text of all 

resolutions). The initial resolution dealt with harmful 

estuarine impacts of chlorine use in sewage treatment 

operations, requesting review of federal and state 

policies. For the next decade, additional resolutions 

addressed habitat issues such as ocean dumping (1987, 

1993), oil spills (1989), federal Fishery Management 

Council habitat policies (1989), toxic materials in 

artificial reefs (1990), dam construction (1993) and 

federal legislation protecting estuarine habitat (1993). 

Habitat was included inconsistently in fisheries 

management planning done under the Interstate 

Fisheries Management Program (Stevenson 1997). 

While many of the early Fishery Management Plans 

(FMPs) contained useful biological and life history 

data, they lacked specific habitat information and 

habitat management recommendations. The initial 

striped bass (Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Tidal Fisheries Division 1981) and river 

herring (ASMFC 1985) management plans were the 

first to significantly address habitat. Since 1990, plans 

include more specific habitat-related information and 

recommendations. The winter flounder FMP (Howell et 

al. 1992) and horseshoe crab FMP (Schrading et al. 

1998) are the only Commission FMPs to include 

Major Recommendations 

The ASMFC and MAFMC should: 

 Strengthen communication between their habitat program staff and committees. 

 Hold joint meetings and workshops focused on EBFM. 

 Identify projects for funding by the Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership, Southeast Aquatic Resources 

Partnership, and other National Fish Habitat Partnerships. 

 Develop joint habitat educational materials. 

 Collaborate on essential fish habitat designations. 

 Develop and adopt common habitat policies (i.e., Resolution 89-IV, revisit and update). 

 Partner to build on existing efforts to develop a coast-wide fish habitat Geographic Information System. 
58 

habitat-related compliance criteria which member states 

are obligated to implement under the Atlantic Coastal 

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. 

The Commission’s Habitat Program was further 

refined with the development of a formal habitat policy 

through passage of Resolution 89-VI (see Stephan et al. 

1999, page 24). The resolution acknowledges that the 

ASMFC “recognizes the need for a cooperative effort to 

address critical habitat issues effecting the health of 

marine resources,” and resolved that the ASMFC 

“...supports the efforts of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council to implement and refine an 

acceptable and effective model habitat policy and 

intends to participate in a cooperative effort to share the 

document with other Councils for discussion and 

eventual consolidation into a single, unified Council 

habitat document.” A Habitat Committee (HC) was 

appointed by the Commission Chair in December, 

1991. The HC was charged with the development of 

program goals and objectives. These centered on two 

goals: policy formulation and analysis, and 

communication and education, which were contained in 

an Initial Statement of Policy and Activities, Habitat 

Program (ASMFC 1992). Habitat provisions within 

FMPs were further refined through the publication of 

guidance for the preparation of FMP habitat sections 

and source documents (Stephan et al. 1998), and the 

Habitat Program’s initial Strategic and Management 

Plan (Stephan et al. 1999). The first Habitat 

Coordinator for the program was hired as a part-time 

position beginning in 1993 (Stephan et al. 1999). 

Current guidance for the ASMFC Habitat Program 

is contained in the Habitat Program Five-Year Strategic 

and Management Plan, 2009-2013 (ASMFC 2009; also 

available on the ASMFC web site). The current mission 

of the HC is “to work through the Commission, in 

cooperation with appropriate agencies and 

organizations, to enhance and cooperatively manage 

vital fish habitat for conservation, restoration, and 

protection, and to support the cooperative management 

of Commission managed species (ASMFC 2009).” 

Program components consist of the Habitat Committee 

appointed by the Commission chairman, an Artificial 

Reef Committee, and a staff Habitat Coordinator 

(currently vacant). Although the initial HC membership 

included Commissioners and limited federal agency and 

Fishery Management Council representatives, the 

current HC membership consists of representatives 

from the fifteen member states, representatives from 

five key federal agencies (Army Corps of Engineers, 

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, NMFS, and National Ocean Service), 

and two non-governmental organizations 

(Environmental Defense Fund and The Nature 

Conservancy). The HC reports to the Commission’s 

Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board. 

The ASMFC Habitat Program goals are currently 

as follows: 

•identify important habitat areas for managed 

species; 

•effectively protect, restore, and enhance Atlantic 

coastal fish habitat through fisheries management 

programs and partnerships, such as the Atlantic Coastal 

Fish Habitat Partnership (ACFHP); 

•build and support partnerships with fishery and 

non-fishery management agencies, researchers, and 

habitat stakeholders to leverage regulatory, political, 

and financial resources; 

•educate ASMFC Commissioners, stakeholders, 

and the general public about the importance of 

protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat to achieve 

successful fisheries management; 

•implement performance metrics to focus efforts 

and monitor progress of the Habitat Program; 

•engage local governments in habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement programs; and, 

•promote development of effective fish passage 

approaches and projects through state and federal 

collaboration. 

The Habitat Program, working through staff and 

the HC, has achieved significant accomplishments. 

These include: establishing and supporting the Atlantic 

Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership (first two projects 

funded 2010); coordinating artificial reef activities 

(Artificial Reef Committee); developing a Submerged 

Aquatic Vegetation Policy (Stephan et al. 1997); 

preparing Habitat Sections of ASMFC FMPs; staff 

serving on the South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council Habitat and Environmental Protection 

Advisory Panel and Chesapeake Bay Habitat Suitability 

Quantitative Ecosystem Team; producing Habitat 

Source Documents (part of ASMFC Habitat 

Management Series publications, on web site; e.g., see 

Greene et al. 2009); producing and distributing Habitat 

Hotline Atlantic newsletter; hosting numerous 

workshops; producing other educational materials 

(accessible from the web site); and establishing an 

ASMFC Fish Passage Working Group. The latter group 

arose from an HC sponsored workshop, and has thus far 

produced a resolution for the Commission on Fish 

Habitat Connectivity, a Passage Efficiency Policy, and 

a Layman’s Guide to Passage Technology for ASMFC 

Species. 

ASMFC ecosystem-based fishery management 

The ASMFC initially became involved in an 

ecosystem-based fishery management (EBFM) 

approach to stock assessment through the hosting of a 

multispecies workshop in 2002 (ASMFC 2003) and 

through subsequent development of a multispecies 

virtual population assessment model (ASMFC 2005). 

The HC also had promoted an ecosystem approach 

through the habitat sections of FMPs, through the 

Habitat Management Series reports, and by facilitating 

the establishment of a National Fish Habitat Partnership 

(Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership). 
59 

In 2010, the Interstate Fisheries Management 

Program Policy Board tasked the ASMFC Management 

and Science Committee (MSC) with the development 

of a proposal for formally incorporating ecosystem 

considerations into the Commission’s interstate 

fisheries management process. The MSC is leading a 

team comprised of selected Commissioners, the chair of 

the Multispecies Management Committee, chair of the 

HC, and chair of the Assessment Science Committee to 

develop the proposal. The HC was also charged to work 

with the federal Fishery Management Councils to 

develop ecosystem approaches for collaboration. To 

this end, the Commission sponsored an EcosystemBased Fishery Management workshop in August, 2010. 

Workshop objectives were to consider external 

approaches to EBFM; identify ASMFC ecosystem 

priorities, determine next steps; and, review and modify 

the draft EBFM strategy. 

The participants received presentations on EBFM 

approaches employed by the New England Fishery 

Management Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee, South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, and Chesapeake Bay Program. Participants 

also conducted exercises to prioritize ASMFC tasks 

related to EBFM, and reviewed the initial draft goals, 

objectives, and components of a potential EBFM 

approach, which employed an example for American 

shad developed from the existing ASMFC FMP and 

amendments. This work is ongoing, with priorities and 

next steps defined into two categories as follows: 

Management and Policy 

•develop Commission policy regarding ecosystem 

based approach to fisheries management; 

•form a working group of Commission and Council 

representatives who will work towards developing 

compatible, cooperative approaches to EBFM; and, 

•evaluate implications of how management 

measures for one species may affect other managed 

species. 

Ecosystem Science 

•Improve/adapt data collection and research to 

support EBFM strategies; 

•expand multispecies virtual population analysis 

(MSVPA) to other suites of predators and prey, and use 

models to evaluate environmental influences on these 

species; and, 

•describe ecosystem structure and function, 

habitats, species assemblages, and socioeconomic 

patterns across the management region. 

The draft strategy, revision of which is ongoing, 

includes three objectives: 1) identify steps to 

incrementally transition the interstate FMPs to 

incorporate ecosystem considerations; 2) modify the 

existing assessment and management process to 

consider ecosystem effects on stock and fishery 

dynamics, and also consider fishery effects on 

ecosystems; and, 3) establish realistic expectations for 

incorporation of ecosystem principles based on 

available data, resources, and analytical tools. 

The Habitat Committee and ASMFC Habitat 

Program staff see the opportunity for much future 

collaboration with the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils as all 

move forward with measures to conserve, protect, and 

restore riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats and 

refine ecosystem-based approaches to fishery 

management. The ASMFC appreciated the opportunity 

to participate in the MAFMC’s workshop, and 

anticipates further productive collaborations in the 

future. 

Further reading 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC). 1985. Fishery management plan for the 

anadromous alosid stocks of the eastern United States: 

American shad, hickory shad, alewife and blueback 

herring. Phase II in interstate planning for migratory 

alosids of the Atlantic Coast. Washington, D.C. XVIII 

+ 347 pp. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC). 1992. Initial statement of policy and 

activities: Habitat Program. Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC). 2003. Linking multispecies assessments to 

single species management. Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. Special 

Report No. 79: 1-55. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC). 2005. Multispecies VPA (MSVPA-X) 

internal peer review terms of reference and panel 

report. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

Washington, D.C. Special Report No. 84: 1-12. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC). 2009. Habitat Program five-year strategic 

and management plan 2009-2013. Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

Greene, K.E., Zimmerman, J.L., Laney, R.W., 

Thomas-Blate, J.C. 2009. Atlantic Coast diadromous 

fish habitat: a review of utilization, threats, and 

recommendations for conservation and habitat needs. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

Washington, D.C. Habitat Management Series No. 9: 1-

464. 

Howell, P., Howe, A., Gibson, M. Ayvazian, S. 

1992. Fishery management plan for inshore stocks of 

winter flounder Pleuronectes americanus. Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Fisheries Management Report No. 21: 1-136. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidal 

Fisheries Division. 1981. Interstate fisheries 

management plan for the striped bass of the Atlantic 

coast Maine to North Carolina. Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. Fisheries 

Management Report No. 1. 329 pp. 

Schrading, E., O’Connell, T., Michels, S., Perra P. 

1998. Interstate fishery management plan for horseshoe 
60 

crab. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

Washington, D.C. Fishery Management Report No. 32: 

1-57. 

Stephan, C.D., Goldsborough, W.J., Dunnigan, 

J.H., Sandifer, P.A. 1997. Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Policy. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

Washington, D.C. Habitat Management Series No. 3: 1-

9. 

Stephan, C.D., Hughes, P., Nero, L., 

Goldsborough, B., Dornbusch, P., Laney, W., Newell, 

A., Bigford T.E., Bellinger, J., Spagnolo, R. 1998. 

Guidance for the development of ASMFC fishery 

management plan habitat sections and source 

documents. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, Washington, D.C. Habitat Management 

Series No. 4: 1-15. 

Stephan, C.D., Bigford, T.E., Caruso, P., Hughes, 

P., Newell, A.J., Shipman, S., Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission Habitat Committee. 1999. 

Habitat Program Strategic and Management Plan. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 32 pp. 

Stevenson, D.K. 1997. Habitat information and 

habitat management recommendations in ASMFC 

fishery management plans. In: Stephan, C.D., Beidler, 

K. (eds). Management of Atlantic coastal marine fish 

habitat: proceedings of a workshop for habitat 

managers. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, Washington, D.C. Habitat Management 

Series No. 2:1-223. pp. 16-29. 

Key Question: Fish passage for diadromous species 

seems like an important part of a regional approach 

in the mid-Atlantic. What are some key steps? 

Answer: We need more and better data so we can 

improve our models and assessments. We need an 

inclusive approach to resource management. For 

example, when managing diadromous species such as 

river herring, we need a coast-wide approach that 

includes utility service company personnel. Industry 

experts can help us develop best practices guidance. 

One challenge is calculating efficiency; we can count 

the number passing through a dam but need to know 

how many arrive at a designated upstream habitat. 

Key Question: How can the MAFMC get more 

involved? Are there roles for others? 

Answer: The MAFMC and ASMFC have many shared 

processes, goals, programs, and constituents. That’s 

probably true for other regional industry sectors. Scarce 

dollars can be leveraged by them and with others, as the 

Council and Commission are already doing. This 

workshop helps to establish a dialog that extends 

beyond fishery management and toward ecosystembased approaches. We can also improve education and 

marketing efforts so the public learns about the value of 

river herring and the need for action. West coast salmon 

offers a lofty model. Striped bass is a good success 

story along the Atlantic coast but hopefully we can 

improve efforts to restore herring and shad. The 

Susquehanna system showed an increase followed by a 

decline in the latter two, perhaps constrained by striped 

bass predation and offshore bycatch. More work is 

needed to identify contributing factors. Generally, we 

need improved information on how each species uses 

habitat types throughout its life. The network modeling 

done on blueback herring in North Carolina could 

inform us. We need to manage on a system-by-system 

basis; i.e., riverine instead of coastwide assessments. 

We also need to manage from a riverine perspective or 

a regional basis as we move offshore. 

 
61 

PROGRESS ON HABITAT CONSERVATION AND ECOSYSTEMS-BASED FISHERIES 

MANAGEMENT BY THE NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Christopher Kellogg, Deputy Director, New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, MA

The following summary draws largely on the work 

of Michelle Bachman and the New England Fishery 

Management Council’s (NEFMC’s) Habitat Plan 

Development team in reference to habitat protection 

measures and on a paper, Ecosystem-Based Fishery 

Management for New England Fishery Management 

Council, prepared for the NEFMC by O’Boyle at al. 

(2010). 

The New England Fishery Management Council 

began its EFH Omnibus Amendment 2 in 2005 with 

two main goals. The first was to review and update 

EFH designations for all managed species. Because 

there is not adequate information on how specific types 

of habitats or specific habitat locations contribute to the 

productivity of managed stocks, the EFH descriptions 

are fairly general. In most cases, the spatial distribution 

of EFH is based largely on the spatial distribution of the 

species/lifestage to which the designation applies. As 

might be expected, there is a high degree of overlap in 

the EFH designations of the various species managed 

by the NEFMC. 

The second major goal of EFH Omnibus 

Amendment 2 was to optimize the minimization of 

adverse effects across fishery management plans 

(FMPs). This requires both a method for estimating 

adverse effects, and a strategy for minimizing those 

effects, which led to the development of the Swept Area 

Seabed Impact (SASI) model. The SASI model is a 

geo-referenced analytical tool that estimates the adverse 

effects (Z) of fishing on seabed structures by combining 

fishing effort data, seabed substrate and energy data, 

and gear-specific habitat vulnerability parameters. 

Previous EFH evaluations conducted for NEFMC 

FMP actions were ad-hoc, and could not be compared 

across plans in a straightforward manner. One 

important way in which the SASI model improves upon 

previous adverse effect analyses is to compare the 

magnitude of adverse effects across different fishing 

gear types and FMPs. This comparison can be made 

because all fishing effort is converted into area swept 

units, regardless of whether trawl, dredge, or fixed 

gears are being evaluated. In addition, a single range of 

susceptibility and recovery values were selected to 

parameterize the model, no matter which gear type was 

being evaluated, so the magnitude of Z∞ estimates can 

be compared across gears. Also economic values can be 

incorporated into the model to evaluate the 

practicability of minimization measures. 

The SASI model is scheduled to for a peer review 

in February 2011.The NEFMC expects to develop and 

approve EFH designation and impacts minimization 

alternatives as well as deep-sea coral protection 

measures in late 2011 as part of the Habitat Omnibus 

Amendment 2. 

Ecosystems-Based Fishery Management and 

Ecosystems-Based Management 

The NEFMC’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee completed a background paper in November 

2010 outlining a strategy to implement EBFM over the 

next three to five years (O’Boyle et al. 2010). The paper 

outlines a transition strategy and proposed next steps. 

As part of the strategy, three approaches to 

implementing EBFM were identified. The first 

‘incremental approach’ outlines how existing fisheries 

management plans can be modified to address the needs 

of EBFM. The second ‘holistic approach’ provides a 

broader ‘ecosystem basis’ for management through 

employing constraints imposed by overall ecosystem 

productivity to guide an allocation strategy of species – 

specific catches. The third ‘blended’ approach employs 

multispecies models to inform current stock assessment 

and management. The implementation strategy starts 

with the ‘incremental’ approach, moves through the 

‘blended approach’ and achieves full implementation of 

the ‘holistic approach’ within three to five years. The 

current nine fishery management plans would be 

replaced by two EBFM plans, one for the Gulf of 

Maine and the other for Georges Bank. 

An EBFM Plan will require the NEFMC to identify 

1) areas or “ecosystem production units” that are based 

upon ecosystem processes that would be the focus of 

management, including the Western-Central Gulf of 

Maine, Eastern Gulf of Maine-Scotian Shelf, Georges 

Bank-Nantucket Shoals, and the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

Major Recommendations 

 Carefully consider the tradeoffs of adopting EBFM approaches compared to current fisheries management 

approaches. 

 Understand and prepare for some of the needed changes to organizational structure before embarking on EBFM. 

 Coordinate development of EBFM approaches with adjacent Fishery Management Councils, states, and the 

ASMFC. 
62 

(see presentation by Fogarty et al., above); 2) 

ecosystem components being impacted by fishing in 

these area and mitigation of prioritized risks; 3) 

conceptual and operational objectives including 

indicators and reference points; 4) management actions 

to mitigate impacts (specific and cumulative); and, 5) 

assessment activities to monitor progress against the 

objectives. 

Challenges 

The transition to EBFM must acknowledge the ongoing requirements of fisheries management while at 

the same time developing the building blocks for 

EBFM with full and transparent stakeholder 

involvement, and consideration of the social values of 

the marine resources. NEFMC institutions (i.e., 

processes and procedures) would need to be designed to 

address the implications of cumulative ecosystem 

impacts of fishing. Institutional changes required by 

EBFM depend on the form of EBFM that the NEFMC 

decides to implement. Some of the many challenges in 

transitioning to EBFM are: 

1. Moving from FMPs defined by species and 

stocks to biological or socio-cultural definitions of 

ecosystems. 

2. Resolving jurisdictional issues with states and 

with the MAFMC in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. 

3. EBFM may require the NEFMC to consider 

activities that it does not directly regulate and to 

broaden public input into its EBFM process. 

4. Single species management has led to the 

establishment of constituents with historical interests in 

particular fisheries which will heighten the difficulties 

and the potential disagreements that may arise in setting 

objectives and making trade-offs. The Council may 

have to change some of its consultative processes, as 

well as build on creating a participatory and transparent 

governance process. 

5. Major shifts in management approaches 

(including the implementation of a number of catch 

share programs) have required significant changes in 

the way fishermen and fishing communities operate and 

relate with the marine environment and with each other. 

6. The NEFMC plan development process may be 

too cumbersome for developing EBFM Plans, making it 

difficult to include the full range of expertise needed. A 

number of changes to the NEFMC’s plan development 

process, including to fishery oversight or species 

committees, advisory panels, plan development teams, 

the SSC and the SAW or other assessment processes 

(e.g., Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee 

or TRAC), are probably needed. 

7. Under current national guidelines, reference 

points such as minimum stock size and maximum 

fishing mortality thresholds must be defined for each 

stock to the extent possible and each stock must be 

managed to achieve these reference points within fixed 

time periods. It will be necessary to configure 

ecosystem reference points consistent with these 

guidelines. 

Overall, the implementation of full EBFM in the 

northeast region has significant consequences for what 

the NEFMC has to achieve and how it organizes itself 

to achieve these. 

Further reading 

O’Boyle, R., Cadrin, S., Georgianna, D., Kritzer, 

J., Sissenwine, M., Fogarty, M., Kellogg, C., Fiorelli, P. 

2010. Ecosystem–based fishery management for New 

England Fishery Management Council. Paper presented 

to the NEFMC, November 16, 2010, Barnstable, MA. 

Key Question: How are the impact data generated 

and does this reflect a single year or multiple years? 

Are they confirmed with groundtruthing? 

 

Answer: The data reflect mean impacts over a threeyear time period and are generated by the model based 

on effort data and habitat vulnerability. The adverse 

impacts described by the model are qualitative in that 

the denominator is qualitative. 

Key Question: How will the NEFMC’s work, or our 

efforts to manage regional ecosystems more 

generally, evaluate impacts in terms of MagnusonStevens Act National Standard 8 – impacts to 

communities? 

Answer: Communities are important, as represented by 

a variable inserted by the new social scientists on the 

NEFMC’s SSC. 

Key Question: There once was some discussion 

about opening up some currently closed areas and 

closing currently open areas. Has that been further 

discussed? 

Answer: Potential action alternatives have not yet 

reached the NEFMC for action but it is clear our 

analytical tools will enable the NEFMC to evaluate 

those types of options. It is generally common 

knowledge that some of the groundfish closed areas on 

Georges Bank score low in terms of habitat impacts, 

suggesting that re-opening those areas might not result 

in a significant increase in impacts from bottom fishing, 

for example. 
63 

SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL HABITAT CONSERVATION,

ECOSYSTEM COORDINATION, AND COLLABORATION 

Roger Pugliese, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, North Charleston, SC

Wilson Laney, Coordinator, Department of the Interior/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Atlantic 

Fisheries Coordination Office, Raleigh, NC

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC), using the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Plan 

as the cornerstone, adopted a strategy to facilitate the 

move to an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries 

management in the region. This approach required a 

greater understanding of the south Atlantic ecosystem 

and the complex relationships among humans, marine 

life, and the environment including essential fish 

habitat. To accomplish this, a process was undertaken 

to facilitate the evolution of the Habitat Plan into a 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), thereby providing more 

comprehensive understanding of the biological, social, 

and economic impacts of management necessary to 

initiate the transition from single species management 

to ecosystem-based management in the region. 

SAFMC habitat and environmental protection 

policy 

In recognizing that species are dependent on the 

quantity and quality of their essential habitats, it is the 

policy of the SAFMC to protect, restore, and develop 

habitats upon which fisheries species depend, to 

increase the extent of their distribution and abundance, 

and to improve their productive capacity for the benefit 

of present and future generations. For purposes of this 

policy, “habitat” is defined as the physical, chemical, 

and biological parameters that are necessary for 

continued productivity of the species that is being 

managed. The objectives of the SAFMC policy will be 

accomplished through the recommendation of no net 

loss or significant environmental degradation of 

existing habitat. A long-term objective is to support and 

promote a net-gain of fisheries habitat through the 

restoration and rehabilitation of the productive capacity 

of habitats that have been degraded, and the creation 

and development of productive habitats where 

increased fishery production is probable. The SAFMC 

will pursue these goals at state, federal, and local levels. 

The Council shall assume an aggressive role in the 

protection and enhancement of habitats important to 

fishery species, and shall actively enter federal, 

decision-making processes where proposed actions may 

otherwise compromise the productivity of fishery 

resources of concern to the Council. 

EFH and EFH Habitat Area of Particular Concern 

(EFH-HAPC) designations translated to cooperative 

habitat policy development and protection 

In addition to implementing regulations to protect 

habitat from fishing related degradation, the SAFMC in 

cooperation with NMFS actively comments on nonfishing projects or policies that may impact fish habitat. 

Appendix A of the Comprehensive Amendment 

Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery 

Management Plans of the South Atlantic Region 

(SAFMC 1998b) outlines the SAFMC’s comment and 

policy development process and the establishment of a 

four-state Habitat Advisory Panel. Members of the 

Habitat Advisory Panel serve as the SAFMC’s habitat 

contacts and professionals in the field. Advisory Panel 

members bring projects to the SAFMC’s attention, draft 

comment letters, and attend public meetings. NMFS, 

Major Recommendations 

 An initial step is sharing the existing EFH policy statements shown below. Other areas include evaluating linking 

between or collaboration on the development of future ecological models where species may overlap jurisdiction. 

To further the mutual cooperation, we could also cooperate on including updated information for future South 

Atlantic Fishery Ecosystem Plan revisions for mid-Atlantic managed species occurring in south Atlantic waters 

(e.g., bluefish, summer flounder). 

 Some timely issues the Councils can continue to share information on is in developing activities and policies 

pertaining to offshore energy development or marine aquaculture. To expand the broader view of habitat and 

understanding impacts across regions there may be the opportunity to hold joint workshops on habitat issues with 

other east coast Councils and the ASMFC. 

 One newer opportunity for collaboration may be in respective organization participation in the Department of 

Interior’s North Atlantic and South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperatives depending on the desired 

focus areas of each region. Finally, an area where regions can also share experiences and policy development is in 

marine habitat identification and conservation for diadromous species. 
64 

state and other federal agencies apply EFH and EFHHAPC designations and protection policies in the dayto-day permit review process. With guidance from the 

Advisory Panel, the SAFMC has developed and 

approved EFH policy statements to provide the 

SAFMC and commenting partners a more rapid 

response to proposed activities which may impact 

essential fish habitat. 

SAFMC EFH Policy Statements 

With guidance from the Advisory Panel, the 

SAFMC has developed and approved the following 

habitat policy statements which are available on the 

Habitat and Ecosystem Section of the SAFMC website: 

•Protection and Restoration of EFH from Marine 

Aquaculture: 

<http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/HabitatPolicies/

SAFMCAquaPolicyFinalJune07.pdf> 

•Protection and Enhancement of Marine 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: 

<http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/HabitatPolicies/

SAFMCSAVPol.pdf> 

•Protection and Restoration of EFH from Beach 

Dredging and Filling: 

<http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/HabitatPolicies/

BeachPolicy.pdf> 

•Protection and Restoration of EFH from Energy 

Exploration, Development, Transportation and 

Hydropower Re-Licensing: 

<http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/HabitatPolicies/

SAFMCEnergyPolicyFinal05.pdf> 

•Protection and Restoration of EFH from 

Alterations to Riverine, Estuarine and Nearshore Flows: 

<http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/HabitatPolicies/

FlowsPolicy.pdf>

Moving to ecosystem-based management

The SAFMC adopted broad goals for ecosystembased management to include maintaining or improving 

ecosystem structure and function; maintain or 

improving economic, social and cultural benefits from 

resources; and maintaining or improving biological, 

economic, and cultural diversity. Development of a 

regional FEP (SAFMC 2009a) provided an opportunity 

to expand scope of the original SAFMC Habitat Plan 

and compile and review available habitat, biological, 

social, and economic fishery and resource information 

for fisheries in the south Atlantic ecosystem. The 

SAFMC views habitat conservation at the core of the 

move to EBM in the region. Therefore, development of 

the FEP was a natural next step in the evolution and 

expands and significantly updates the SAFMC Habitat 

Plan (SAFMC 1998a), incorporating comprehensive 

details of all managed species (SAFMC, south Atlantic 

states, ASMFC, and NMFS highly migratory species 

and protected species) including their biology, food 

web dynamics, and economic, and social characteristics 

of the fisheries and habitats essential to their survival. 

The FEP presents more complete and detailed 

information describing the south Atlantic ecosystem 

and the impact of the fisheries on the environment. This 

FEP updates information on designated EFH and EFHHAPCs; expands descriptions of biology and status of 

managed species; presents information that will support 

ecosystem considerations for managed species; and 

describes the social and economic characteristics of the 

fisheries in the region. In addition, it expands the 

discussion and description of existing research 

programs and research needs to identify the biological, 

social, and economic research needed to fully address 

ecosystem-based management in the region. The 

comprehensive scope of the FEP provides the SAFMC 

source information by fishery, habitat, or major 

ecosystem in their consideration of actions to address 

bycatch reduction, habitat conservation, consideration 

of prey-predator interactions, maintaining biodiversity, 

and spatial management needs. This FEP serves as a 

living source document of biological, economic, and 

social information for all fishery management plans 

(FMPs). Future environmental assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements associated with 

subsequent amendments to Council FMPs will draw 

from or cite by reference the FEP. 

The Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the south Atlantic 

region encompasses the following volume structure: 

•FEP Volume I – Introduction and Overview of 

FEP for the South Atlantic Region; 

•FEP Volume II – South Atlantic Habitats and 

Species; 

•FEP Volume III – South Atlantic Human and 

Institutional Environment; 

•FEP Volume IV – Threats to South Atlantic 

Ecosystem and Recommendations; 

•FEP Volume V – South Atlantic Research 

Programs and Data Needs; 

•FEP Volume VI – References and Appendices. 

Spatial and ecosystem approaches to management

The SAFMC, to conserve species and protect 

habitat, has employed a wide range of area management 

actions in the region. Initial gear area regulations 

include banning the use of fish traps, roller rig trawls, 

drift gill nets, and bottom long lines (inshore). The 

SAFMC has also designated Special Management 

Zones which limit the use of efficient or damaging gear 

on permitted artificial reefs and more recently 

established Deepwater Marine Protected Areas which 

prohibit harvest of all snapper grouper species. 

The SAFMC manages coral, coral reefs, and 

live/hard bottom habitat, including deep-sea corals, 

through the Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral 

Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitat of the South 

Atlantic Region (Coral FMP). Mechanisms exist in the 

FMP, as amended, to further protect deep-sea coral and 

live/hard bottom habitats. The SAFMC’s Habitat and 
65 

Environmental Protection Advisory Panel and Coral 

Advisory Panel supported proactive efforts to identify 

and protect deep-sea coral ecosystems in the south 

Atlantic region. Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based 

Amendment 1 (CE-BA1) (SAFMC 2009b) established 

deep-sea coral HAPCs (C-HAPCs) to protect what is 

thought to be the largest continuous distribution (> 

23,000 square miles) of pristine deep-sea coral 

ecosystems in the world. In addition, the CE-BA1 

created areas within the C-HAPC for traditional fishing 

in limited areas which does not impact deep-sea coral 

habitat. The CE-BA1, supported by the FEP, also 

addresses non-regulatory updates for existing EFH and 

EFH-HAPC information and addresses the spatial 

requirements of the Final EFH Rule (i.e., GIS presented 

for all EFH and EFH-HAPCs). 

South Atlantic Bight Ecopath Model

The SAFMC worked cooperatively with the 

University of British Columbia and the Sea Around Us 

project to develop a straw-man and preliminary food 

web models (Ecopath with Ecosim) to characterize the 

ecological relationships of south Atlantic species, 

including those managed by the SAFMC. This effort 

was envisioned to help the SAFMC and cooperators in 

identifying available information and data gaps while 

providing insight into ecosystem function. More 

importantly, the model development process provides a 

vehicle to identify research necessary to better define 

populations, fisheries, and their interrelationships. 

While individual efforts are still underway in the south 

Atlantic (e.g., Biscayne Bay) only with significant 

investment of new resources through other programs 

will a comprehensive regional model be further 

developed. 

Building from a habitat to an ecosystem network to 

support the evolution

Starting with our Habitat and Environmental 

Protection Advisory Panel, the SAFMC expanded and 

fostered a comprehensive habitat network in our region 

to develop the Habitat Plan of the South Atlantic 

Region that was completed in 1998 to support the EFH 

rule. Building on the core regional collaborations, the 

SAFMC facilitated an expansion to a habitat and 

ecosystem network to support the development of the 

FEP and CE-BA as well as coordinate with partners on 

other regional efforts. 

These efforts include participation as a member 

and on the Board of the Southeast Coastal Ocean 

Observing Regional Association (SECOORA) to guide 

and direct priority needs for observation and modeling 

to support fisheries oceanography and integration into 

the stock assessment process through the SouthEast 

Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR). Cooperation 

through SECOORA is envisioned to facilitate the 

following: 

•Refining current or water column designations of 

EFH and EFH-HAPCs (e.g., Gulf Stream and Florida 

Current). 

•Providing oceanographic models linking benthicpelagic habitats and food webs. 

•Providing oceanographic input parameters for 

ecosystem models. 

•Integration of ocean observing system information 

into the stock assessment process in the south Atlantic 

region. 

•Facilitating ocean observing system collection of 

fish and fishery data and other research necessary to 

support the SAFMC’s use of area-based management 

tools in the region including, but not limited to, EFH, 

EFH-HAPCs, Marine Protected Areas, Deepwater 

Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, Special 

Management Zones, and Allowable Gear Areas. 

•Integration of ocean observing system program 

capabilities and research Needs into the South Atlantic 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan. 

•Collaboration with SECOORA to integrate ocean 

observing system products on the SAFMC’s Habitat 

and Ecosystem Internet Mapping System to facilitate 

model and tool development. 

•Expanding Internet Map Server (IMS) and 

ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) services will 

provide permissioned researchers access to data or 

products including those collected/developed by south 

Atlantic ocean observing system partners. 

In addition, the SAFMC serves on the National 

Habitat Board and, as a member of the Southeast 

Aquatic Resource Partnership (SARP), has highlighted 

the collaboration by including the Southeast Aquatic 

Habitat Plan and associated watershed conservation 

restoration targets into the FEP. Many of the habitat, 

water quality, and water quantity conservation needs 

identified in the threats and recommendations volume 

of the FEP are directly addressed by on-the-ground 

projects supported by SARP. This cooperation results in 

funding fish habitat restoration and conservation 

intended to increase the viability of fish populations and 

fishing opportunities which also meets the needs to 

conserve and manage EFH for SAFMC managed 

species or habitat important to their prey. 

Initially discussed as a South Atlantic Eco-regional 

Compact, the SAFMC has also cooperated with south 

Atlantic states in the formation of a Governor’s South 

Atlantic Alliance. This will also provide regional 

guidance and resources that will address state and 

SAFMC broader habitat and ecosystem conservation 

goals. The Alliance was initiated in 2006. An Executive 

Planning Team, by the end of 2007, had created a 

framework for the Governors South Atlantic Alliance. 

The formal agreement between the four states (NC, SC, 

GA, and FL) was executed in May 2009. The 

agreement specifies that the Alliance will prepare a 

“Governors South Atlantic Alliance Action Plan” which 

will be reviewed annually for progress and updated 

every five years for relevance of content. Alliance 
66 

mission and purpose is to promote collaboration among 

the four states, and with the support and interaction of 

federal agencies, academia, regional organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector, to 

sustain and enhance the region’s coastal and marine 

resources. The Alliance proposes to regionally 

implement science-based actions and policies that 

balance coastal and marine ecosystems capacities to 

support both human and natural systems. 

One of the more recent collaborations is the 

SAFMC’s participation as Steering Committee member 

for the newly establish South Atlantic Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative. Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives (LCCs) are applied conservation science 

partnerships focused on a defined geographic area that 

inform on-the-ground strategic conservation efforts at 

landscape scales. LCC partners include Department of 

Interior agencies, other federal agencies, states, tribes, 

non-governmental organizations, universities and 

others. 

Building Tools to support EBM in the south Atlantic 

region

The Council has developed a Habitat and 

Ecosystem Section of the website: 

<http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/Home/Ecosystem

Home/tabid/435/Default.aspx> 

and, in cooperation with the Florida Wildlife Research 

Institute (FWRI), developed a Habitat and Ecosystem 

IMS: 

<http://www.safmc.net/EcosystemManagement/Ecosyst

emBoundaries/MappingandGISData/tabid/632/Default.

aspx >. 

The IMS was developed to support SAFMC and 

regional partners’ efforts in the transition to EBM. 

Other regional partners include the NMFS Office of 

Habitat Conservation, other federal partners, south 

Atlantic states, local management authorities, 

universities, conservation organizations, and 

recreational and commercial fishermen. As technology 

and spatial information needs evolve, the distribution 

and use of GIS demands greater capabilities. The 

Council has continued its collaboration with FWRI in 

the evolution to ArcGIS services initially for essential 

fish habitat: 

<http://ocean.floridamarine.org/SAFMC_EFH/> 

and fishery regulations: 

<(http://ocean.floridamarine.org/SAFMC_

Regulations/> 

and is developing ones for a permissioned service for 

fishery independent research as well one for ocean 

energy activities in the region (e.g., wind, wave, and 

current). 

Ecosystem-based actions, future challenges, and 

needs 

The SAFMC has implemented ecosystem-based 

principles through several existing fishery management 

actions including establishment of deepwater Marine 

Protected Areas for the snapper grouper fishery, 

proactive harvest control rules on species (e.g., dolphin 

and wahoo) which are not overfished, implementation 

of extensive gear area closures which in most cases 

eliminates the impact of fishing gear on essential fish 

habitat, and use of other spatial management including 

Special Management Zones. Pursuant to the 

development of the Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based 

Amendment, the SAFMC is taking an ecosystem 

approach to protect deepwater ecosystems while 

providing for traditional fisheries for the golden crab 

and royal red shrimp in areas where they do not impact 

deep-sea coral habitat. The stakeholder based process 

taps in on an extensive regional habitat and ecosystem 

network. Support tools facilitate SAFMC deliberations 

and with the help of regional partners, are being refined 

to address long-term ecosystem management needs. 

One of the greatest challenges to the long-term 

move to EBM in the region is funding high priority 

research, including but not limited to, comprehensive 

benthic mapping and ecosystem model and 

management tool development. In addition, collecting 

detailed information on fishing fleet dynamics, 

including defining fishing operation areas by species, 

species complex, and season, as well as catch relative to 

habitat, is critical for assessment of fishery, community, 

and habitat impacts and for SAFMC use of place-based 

management measures. Additional resources need to be 

dedicated to expanding regional coordination of 

modeling, mapping, characterization of species use of 

habitats, and full funding of regional fishery 

independent surveys (e.g., Marine Resources 

Monitoring, Assessment and Prediction [MARMAP], 

Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program 

[SEAMAP], and Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey [SEFIS]) which 

are linking directly to addressing high priority 

management needs. Development of ecosystem 

information systems to support SAFMC management 

should build on existing tools (e.g., regional habitat and 

ecosystem GIS and ArcGIS services) and provide 

resources to regional cooperating partners for expansion 

to address long-term SAFMC needs. 

The FEP and CE-BA complement, but do not 

replace, existing FMPs. In addition, the FEP serves as a 

source document to the CE-BA. NOAA should support 

and build on the regional coordination efforts of the 

SAFMC as it transitions to a broader management 

approach. Resources need to be provided to collect 

information necessary to update and refine our FEP and 

support future fishery actions including, but not limited 

to, completing one of the highest priority needs to 

support EBM: the completion of mapping of near-
67 

shore, mid-shelf, shelf edge, and deepwater habitats in 

the south Atlantic region. In developing future FEPs, 

the SAFMC will draw on Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports which NMFS is 

required to provide the SAFMC for all FMPs 

implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 

FEP, serving as the source document for CE-BAs, 

could also meet NMFS SAFE requirements if 

information is provided to the SAFMC to update 

necessary sections. 

Further reading 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC). 1998a. Habitat Plan for the south Atlantic 

region. SAFMC, Charleston, SC. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC). 1998b. Comprehensive Amendment 

addressing Essential Fish Habitat in fishery 

management plans of the south Atlantic region. 

SAFMC, Charleston, SC. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC). 2009a. Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the south 

Atlantic region. Volumes I-V. SAFMC, North 

Charleston, SC. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC). 2009b. Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based 

Amendment 1. SAFMC, North Charleston, SC. 

 
68 

STAKEHOLDER PANEL DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL

Rapporteur: Jim Armstrong, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, DE 

Key Question: With regards to the The Nature 

Conservancy’s information “portal,” will 

commercial and recreational fishermen’s knowledge 

be incorporated into the model? 

Answer: Yes, The Nature Conservancy is partnering 

with several universities and is developing a 

stakeholder working group to gather input on the 

importance of certain areas and address social and 

economic questions. 
69 

CLOSING REMARKS

John Boreman, Chair, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council/Science and Statistical Committee, Dover, 

DE 

Any science-based decision process in fisheries 

management needs to function with imperfect 

knowledge with respect to habitat-related information. 

Managers cannot afford the cost or the time to obtain 

every relevant piece of information there is about 

northeast shelf habitats before making judgments about 

the real or potential impacts of natural and 

anthropogenic events. Where key knowledge does not 

exist, a body of theory needs to be developed, much the 

same way that theory has evolved to support stock 

assessments (e.g., the von Bertalanffy growth and 

Ricker stock-recruitment models) — habitat science is 

lacking in this regard. 

Habitat science should take advantage of new 

sampling and data handling technologies. Sampling 

tools such as moored and mobile sensor arrays, LiDAR 

(Light Detection And Ranging) and side-scanning 

sonar, and pop-up satellite tags can all be integrated 

with traditional sampling techniques to gain 

information about the relationship between habitat 

types and fisheries species productivity. Expanding 

partnerships between scientists and the fishing industry 

to sample fisheries species and their local environments 

is not only useful but necessary; fishermen possess a 

vast store of knowledge about natural history that 

scientists need to access and use in their single species, 

multi-species, and habitat- and ecosystem-based 

assessments. To support expanding data collection, 

suitable end-to-end data management architecture is 

needed to guide how the data are being collected, 

archived, and used in products useful to fisheries 

science and management, as well as the public at large.

 As the body of theory and new sampling and data 

handling techniques are being developed, the focus of 

habitat science and the management it supports should 

be on what is immediately important to fishery stock 

assessments. Specifically, habitat effects on fisheries 

species productivity should be translated into mortality 

rates that can be readily incorporated into stock 

assessment models. 

Habitat science is currently being conducted by a 

multitude of government agencies and organizations, so 

where does the MAFMC fit into the picture? Being on 

the receiving end of the information being generated by 

scientists and the fishing industry related to habitat and 

its relation to fisheries productivity, the MAFMC can 

serve as a habitat information clearinghouse by 

focusing efforts on coordinating the development and 

continually improving the packaging of the information 

so that it suits fisheries management needs, as is best 

exemplified by this workshop. 

In addition, the MAFMC can support NMFS in its 

efforts to implement the recently developed Habitat 

Assessment Improvement Plan, and continue to refine 

terms of reference for stock assessments as more 

knowledge is gained about the relationship between 

habitats and fisheries species productivity. Most 

importantly, the MAFMC needs to ensure that habitat- 

(and ecosystems-) based management is undertaken 

within the existing bounds of scientific knowledge; 

both management and science need to evolve in 

tandem. 

 
70 

David H. Wallace, Wallace & Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MD 

I would like to discuss two different groups or 

categories. The first group could be considered as the 

“regulators,” that is, the Councils, ASMFC etc.; in other 

words, the people who create the policy. They all have 

to deal with the same problems involving habitat loss, 

whether natural or man-made, and with trying to go 

from single species management to multi-species 

management under EBFM. The latter is a challenge 

because there is such an enormous lack of knowledge 

about how such things as predator-prey relationships 

operate, and how all these species interact with the 

habitat. For example, I thought it was interesting what 

John Manderson had to say: that habitat is not just the 

bottom or bottom structure, but the overlying water as 

well. I had never considered that before, and I’m sure a 

lot of other people here today realized what a revelation 

that was, especially because we’re always talking about 

impacts to the bottom, either natural or man-made. 

So, the Councils are attempting to deal with these 

various habitat issues through closures or through the 

creation of protected areas. For example, the SAFMC 

has some very large habitat closures, especially for 

deep-sea corals. The SAFMC has always been at the 

forefront of having public participation and getting all 

the stakeholders to buy into the process. They’ve done a 

really good job of bringing together all the 

stakeholders, and they did this from the bottom up, not 

from top down management. On the other hand, the 

NEFMC has a number of habitat closures, and what’s 

interesting is that a number of those closures were not 

the ones intended, but they were the results of political 

decisions, and not a biological or habitat decision. 

That’s what happens when you’re trying to push the 

system and trying to make it comply with laws or 

mandates from Congress. 

 The second group consists of people like Jason 

Link, the NMFS scientist, Jay Odell from TNC, an 

environmental organization, and the fishermen. They 

are particularly involved in three different issues: 

habitat, ecosystems, and coastal and marine spatial 

planning. CMSP doesn’t fall under the auspices of the 

Councils but it’s clear that this will have a significant 

impact on the Council system because it appears that 

the Regional Planning Bodies may not be the regional 

governance bodies and there’s a good chance that the 

Councils are not going to have any real participation in 

this at all. Now, the National Ocean Policy establishes a 

framework for CMSP that is supposed to address user 

conflicts. My personal opinion is that conflict resolution 

is going to come to the fore when the Councils are 

faced with this notion that they are going to zone the 

ocean and they won’t have any jurisdiction over this. 

This is going to have a significant impact when 

fisheries comes into conflict with other forms of ocean 

usage, especially energy development such as wind 

farms. So we have this interesting situation, and on a 

number of occasions today we’ve talked about tradeoffs. The fact of the matter is we need to think about the 

trade-offs because they are going to be far more 

extensive than we now realize. 
71 

Rick Robins, Chair, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, DE

I would like to commend Gene Kray, Tom Hoff 

and the Steering Committee for planning and 

assembling such an impressive group of habitat and 

ecosystems experts to engage the Council in this 

workshop. I would also like to thank all of the panelists 

and participants for their presentations and 

contributions to the dialogue. 

It is clear that the workshop has generated a lot of 

genuine excitement within the scientific community 

and, more broadly, both excitement and concern in the 

stakeholder community. 

The workshop is extremely timely, for several 

reasons: 

The National Ocean Policy will soon be moving 

from concept to implementation, resulting in the 

creation of a Regional Planning Body and vision for the 

mid-Atlantic region. 

Offshore energy development promises to generate 

a steady stream of future initiatives that will require the 

Council’s proactive and constructive engagement in the 

Coastal Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) arena. 

Public interest in the management and conservation 

of offshore marine habitats is growing and involves 

other management agencies and legislative authorities, 

as we saw recently with the proposal to consider 

protecting the offshore seamounts and canyons under 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. 

As these national and regional initiatives move 

forward, it is clear that the Council has an important 

and expanding role to play with respect to the 

management of coastal and offshore habitats, and this 

workshop has revealed opportunities for Council 

engagement that are both timely and important. 

At the same time, the Council has already taken an 

important first step to incorporating ecological 

considerations into our current fishery management 

plans and how to transition into ecosystem management 

by appointing an Ecosystem Subcommittee of the 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee. 

The presentations were informative and thought 

provoking on a wide range of issues. Rather than 

recapping them, I would like to focus on next steps. As 

Pat Augustine reminded us throughout the workshop, 

actions are more important than meeting summaries. 

The presentations revealed opportunities that the 

Council can pursue across a wide spectrum of agencies, 

venues, and disciplines. Some of these opportunities are 

easily executed and others represent long-term 

opportunities and commitments. In a number of cases, 

we can work with existing programs to identify data 

and research needs for our region. Many of these 

opportunities build on the Council’s existing initiatives, 

particularly with respect to ocean governance and 

ecosystem management. I believe the Council’s role 

within the fast changing context of ocean governance 

goes well beyond simply describing and identifying 

essential fish habitat. Our challenges and opportunities 

associated with ocean governance will inevitably 

require a broader engagement with other agencies and 

stakeholders through the Regional Planning Body. 

Additionally, the scientific and technological 

developments that were highlighted in this workshop, 

including the application of fine-scale ocean 

observations to the management of fisheries 

interactions and the prospect of a coral assessment for 

the region, among others, present the Council with a 

range of opportunities to increase our understanding of 

the ecological connections between the marine 

environment, the fisheries that we manage as a Council, 

and the other activities and interests in the mid-Atlantic. 

Finally, in terms of where do we go from here, I 

would suggest that the Council task the Ecosystem and 

Ocean Planning Committee with categorizing the 

opportunities presented in this workshop and 

developing a list of priorities and an action plan for 

consideration by the full Council by mid-2011.
72 

PRESENTER BIOGRAPHIES

Thomas Hoff, Senior Ecologist, has worked for the 

MAFMC for nearly 30 years. He has been responsible 

for or worked on each of the Council’s FMPs and has 

been the lead for habitat and ecosystem efforts. Prior to 

working for the Council he spent six years with two 

environmental consulting firms working on the Hudson 

River. He has B.S. (Zoology) and M.S. (Ecology) from 

Pennsylvania State University and a Ph.D. (Marine 

Studies) from the University of Delaware. 

Gene Kray has been on the MAFMC for eight years 

and has chaired the Ecosystems Committee (now the 

Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Committee) for much 

of that time. He is a retired teacher and educational 

administrator, retiring from West Chester University, 

PA, in 1995. He has been a recreational fisherman for 

65 years. 

Jessica Kondel has worked for NOAA for over 10 

years in various positions in California and DC, 

including serving as a NOAA Corps officer, Advisor to 

the Deputy Under Secretary for NOAA, and Fisheries 

Management Specialist. Currently she is the Acting 

Regional Coordinator for NOAA’s Coastal and Marine 

Spatial Planning (CSMP) Program and is responsible 

for assisting with the NOAA-wide implementation of 

the CMSP Framework. She is responsible for 

coordinating NOAA’s regional engagement with 

Regional Planning Bodies and other partners to develop 

and ultimately implement coastal and marine spatial 

plans. 

Pat Montanio is Director of the NMFS Office of 

Habitat Conservation and a long-term NOAA employee 

focused on environmental policy. She oversees the 

conservation, protection, and restoration of oceanic, 

coastal, estuarine, and riverine habitats vital to our 

nation’s marine fisheries and coastal economics. 

Programs include community-based restoration, Open 

Rivers, essential fish habitat, deep-sea corals, wetlands 

protection, coral conservation, and NOAA Chesapeake 

Bay Office. Previously, she held management positions 

in NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration and 

Office of Protected Resources. She holds a B.S. 

(Zoology) from the University of Maryland. 

Thomas E. Bigford is Chief of the NMFS/Habitat 

Protection Division in the Office of Habitat 

Conservation, Silver Spring, MD. He directs marine, 

estuarine, and riverine programs to manage the essential 

fish habitat program, assure fish passage for 

diadromous species at hydropower and water diversion 

projects, develop policy for traditional and alternative 

energy issues, implement wetland policies, streamline 

permitting and licensing reviews, coordinate policy and 

science associated with human activities affecting 

living marine resources, and manage the Agency’s coral 

program. He has 34 years of experience in research, 

management, and program direction including three 

years with EPA and 28 years with NOAA (19 years 

with NOAA headquarters and NOAA NMFS 

headquarters, and nine years with NOAA regional 

offices). He holds leadership positions with The Coastal 

Society and the American Fisheries Society. He has a 

B.S. (Fishery Biology) from Michigan State University, 

an M.S. (Zoology/Marine Biology) from the University 

of Rhode Island, and a Masters in Marine Affairs from 

the University of Rhode Island. 

Peter Colosi is Chief of the NMFS/Habitat 

Conservation Division, Northeast Region, whose major 

activities include implementing essential fish habitat 

provisions and review of coastal development activities 

in order to protect habitats of living marine resources. 

His earlier NMFS assignments include seventeen years 

in fisheries management and later heading up a fishery 

policy analysis office. He received a B.A. (Biology) 

form Salem State University and an M.S. (Biology) 

from Northeastern University. 

Fan Tsao, Deep-Sea Coral Research Specialist at the 

NMFS/Office of Habitat Conservation, coordinates 

NOAA’s research and management activities related to 

deep-sea corals and sponges, including the 

implementation of the Deep Sea Coral Research and 

Technology Program. She has a Masters in Marine 

Affairs from the University of Washington. 

John Catena is the Northeast Regional Supervisor for 

the NOAA/NMFS Restoration Center in Gloucester, 

MA. He is responsible for managing NOAA’s habitat 

restoration programs throughout the northeastern U.S. 

from Maine to Virginia and supervises 15 professional 

and technical staff. He has been involved in managing, 

planning, and overseeing habitat restoration projects for 

over 15 years, with specific experience in the 

conceptual design, planning, and monitoring of tidal 

wetland, shellfish, riverine, and anadromous fish 

restoration projects including fish passage and dam 

removal projects. He received a B.S. (Marine Science) 

from the University of South Carolina in 1984 and an 

M.A. (Marine Affairs) from the University of Rhode 

Island in 1987. 

Lauren Wenzel has worked for the National Marine 

Protected Areas Center for seven years, and serves as 

the Coordinator for the National System of Marine 

Protected Areas. Prior to joining NOAA, she worked on 

Chesapeake Bay restoration issues for the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources. She has a B.A. from 
73 

Oberlin College and an M.S. (Natural Resources Policy 

and Management) from the University of Michigan. 

Reed Bohne is Regional Director for the northeast and 

Great Lakes region of NOAA’s Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries. He has worked for the sanctuary 

program for 25 years and prior to his current 

appointment was Superintendent of the Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary in Georgia. He received his 

B.S. from the College of William and Mary and M.S. 

from the University of Michigan. 

Elaine Vaudreuil manages the Coastal and Estuarine 

Land Conservation Program with NOAA’s Office of 

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, and led the 

development of NOAA’s guidelines for this program in 

2002. For the past 12 years she has also represented the 

Coastal Zone Management Program and National 

Estuarine Research Reserves in NOAA’s strategic 

planning and budget formulation processes and other 

policy development under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. She received a Master of Regional 

Planning from the University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill, specializing in land use planning and 

coastal management, and a Bachelor’s in Urban and 

Environmental Planning from the University of 

Virginia. 

Joe Nohner is a Knauss Sea Grant Fellow in the 

NMFS/Office of Science & Technology. He has been 

responsible, in part, for the implementation of the 

Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan and conducting 

an assessment of estuarine fish habitats for the National 

Fish Habitat Action Plan. He received a B.S. 

(Environmental Sciences) from Notre Dame and an 

M.S. (Aquatic Resources and Management) from the 

University of Michigan where he developed a GISbased spawning habitat model for muskellunge. 

Tom Noji completed his B.A. in the U.S. and did 

graduate work in Germany, receiving his Ph.D. 

(Biological Oceanography) from the University of Kiel 

in 1987. He worked as an oceanographic researcher at 

the University of Kiel and at the Institute of Marine 

Research in Bergin, Norway until 2001, and then 

became Director of NMFS/NEFSC’s James J. Howard 

Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ and Chief 

of the Ecosystems Processes Division. He serves on 

several international, national, and regional advisory 

committees and has held graduate courses at Rutgers 

University (NJ). His own research includes oceanic 

plankton ecology, harmful algal blooms, benthicpelagic coupling, oceanic carbon pumps, marine 

biogeochemical cycles, marine contaminant transport, 

habitat mapping and classification, and effects of broadscale hydrographic changes on ecosystem processes. 

Ned Cyr is Director of the NMFS/Office of Science & 

Technology. He joined NOAA in 1992. He was an 

International Affairs Specialist with NOAA’s Office of 

International Interests, a Fisheries Biologist with the 

NMFS/Office of Protected Resources, Head of the 

Ocean Science and Living Resources Program of the 

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of 

UNESCO, and Chief of the Marine Ecosystems 

Division in NMFS/Office of Science & Technology. 

His interests include fisheries oceanography, the effects 

of climate change on marine ecosystems, ecosystem 

approaches to fisheries management, the design and 

implementation of large-scale marine ecological 

observing systems, and international ocean science. He 

was Technical Secretary for the Living Marine 

Resources Panel of the Global Ocean Observing 

System, and Coordinator of the NMFS Ecosystem 

Principles Advisory Panel. He received his B.S. from 

the University of Notre Dame in 1985, and his Ph.D. 

(Marine Science) from the University of South Carolina 

in 1991. 

Mike Fogarty is the Chief of the Ecosystem 

Assessment Program at the NMFS/NEFSC Woods Hole 

Laboratory, MA, where he has worked for 30 years. He 

received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the 

University of Rhode Island. He has served on numerous 

national and international committees including the 

Global Ocean Observing System Steering Committee, 

the U.S. Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics Program 

Scientific Steering Committee (Chair 1997-2002), the 

Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem 

Organization Scientific Board, and the Scientific and 

Statistical Committees of the MAFMC (past) and 

NEFMC (current). 

Peyton Robertson has been with NOAA for the past 

18 years, working on nonpoint source pollution, 

monitoring needs, coastal management, and ocean 

policy. In August 2007, he became the Director of the 

NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO) in Annapolis, 

working to bring all of NOAA’s capabilities to bear on 

the ecosystem management challenges of the Bay. 

NCBO provides state-of-the-art science, technical 

assistance and funding, and outreach and education to 

advance the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay 

ecosystem, increasing citizen stewardship throughout 

the watershed. He has a B.A. (Environmental Science) 

and a Masters (Urban and Environmental Planning) 

from the University of Virginia. 

John Manderson is a Research Fisheries Biologist for 

the Ecosystems Processes Division at NMFS/NEFSC’s 

James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, NJ. His 

research interests include applications of integrated 

ocean observing systems to marine habitat ecology and 

understanding the ways habitat specific processes are 

translated across spatial scales and levels of ecological 

organization to affect regional population and 

ecosystem dynamics. He received his Ph.D. (Natural 

Resources Conservation) from the University of 
74 

Massachusetts, Amherst. He currently serves on the 

steering committee for the Working Group on the 

Northwest Atlantic Regional Sea for the International 

Council for the Exploration of the Sea, as NEFSC 

liaison to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Association 

Coastal Ocean Observing System, and on the Science 

and Technical Committee for the Barnegat Bay 

Partnership. 

David Packer, Marine Ecologist, works for the 

Ecosystems Processes Division at NMFS/NEFSC’s 

James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, NJ and 

is currently on rotational assignment to the NMFS/ 

Office of Habitat Conservation in Silver Spring, MD. 

Prior to working for NMFS he worked for several other 

federal agencies including the National Park Service, 

National Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

Smithsonian Institution, and the EPA Chesapeake Bay 

Program. His current and past research and policy work 

includes essential fish habitat, deep-sea corals, climate 

change literacy training, gravel mining in anadromous 

fish streams, salt marsh restoration, sedimentology, 

fish-benthos trophic interactions, and mollusk 

taxonomy. He also provides scientific 

information/advice to the MAFMC and NEFMC. He 

has a B.S. (Zoology) from Ohio State University and an 

M.S. (Oceanography) from the University of Maine. 

Greg Capobianco has been with the New York State 

Coastal Management Program for 20 years working 

across the marine and Great Lakes districts to 

implement New York’s Significant Coastal Fish and 

Wildlife Habitats Program. He has served as Project 

Manager for the New York Ocean and Great Lakes 

Ecosystem Conservation Council and now serves as 

Director of the New York Ocean and Great Lakes 

Program. He helped lead the formation of the MidAtlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) and 

continues to serve as principal New York representative 

to MARCO. Currently he is leading an ocean planning 

initiative focused on identifying ocean habitats in need 

of greater protection and developing siting criteria for 

offshore renewable energy. He received his B.S. 

(Biology) from SUNY Albany. 

Jason Link has been a Research Fisheries Biologist for 

the NMFS/NEFSC Woods Hole Laboratory, MA, for 

almost 15 years. He has led the Food Web Dynamics 

Program for many of those years and has recently 

helped to form and transitioned to the Ecosystem 

Assessment Program. Previously he worked on Gulf of 

Mexico and Laurentian Great Lakes fishery 

ecosystems. He is an adjunct professor at multiple 

regional universities and serves on and chairs several 

national and international working groups, review 

panels, and committees dealing with fisheries 

ecosystem issues. He received his B.S. from Central 

Michigan University and his Ph.D. from Michigan 

Technological University. 

Capt. Monty Hawkins is owner/operator of the party 

boat Morning Star, Ocean City, MD. He has 30 years of 

party boat fishing experience in the mid-Atlantic and is 

self-educated. He believes rebuilding the region’s reef 

fisheries is not possible until the role of seafloor habitat, 

especially its holding capacity and importance to 

fishery production, is understood and incorporated into 

management. He is the author of a weekly fish report 

and has written extensively to the management 

community. 

Greg DiDomenico serves as the Executive Director of 

the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA). GSSA 

is a trade association comprised of commercial 

fishermen, shore-based processors, commercial dock 

facilities, seafood markets, restaurants, and various 

industry support businesses from New Jersey. He has 

been an advocate for the New Jersey commercial 

fishing industry for six years. He is currently involved 

in fishery management plans for the MAFMC and 

NEFMC, where he acts as liaison between the scientists 

and fishing industry. He has been involved with the 

development of numerous scientific proposals 

involving several fish stocks, testing of alternative gear 

modifications, developing cooperative research, and has 

attended numerous stock assessments conducted by the 

NEFSC. Prior to joining GSSA, he was Executive 

Director of the Monroe County Commercial 

Fishermen’s Association, where he analyzed fishery 

management plans for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. 

Jay Odell is the Director of The Nature Conservancy’s 

Mid-Atlantic Marine Program. He works with partners 

to advance efforts to restore and conserve living marine 

resources, seeking solutions that work for people and 

nature. Prior to his work at TNC, he spent 13 years with 

the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 

helping to lead stock assessments, harvest management, 

and intergovernmental relations with treaty tribes. He 

received a B.S. (Biology) from Evergreen State College 

in 1986 and an M.S. (Wildlife and Fisheries 

Conservation) from the University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst in 2003. 

Wilson Laney is the South Atlantic Fisheries 

Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

is based at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, 

NC. He is in his thirtieth year with the US FWS, having 

worked for 10 years in the Ecological Services Division 

before moving to Fisheries in 1991. He has been 

intensively involved in the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) processes for 

nearly 20 years, and currently serves on the ASMFC 

Habitat, Management and Science, and Interstate 

Tagging Committees, in addition to a number of 

Technical Committees and Plan Review Teams. He 
75 

serves on six SAFMC committees, including Habitat 

and Environmental Protection, Ecosystem-Based 

Management, and Protected Resources. He has a B.S. 

(Biology) and an M.S. and Ph.D. (Zoology, Marine 

Science minor) from North Carolina State University. 

Christopher Kellogg has worked for the NEFMC for 

nearly 30 years. He has been responsible for FMPs for 

groundfish, scallops, herring, and lobster. Currently he 

is the NEFMC’s Deputy Director and supervises its 

technical staff. Before joining the NEFMC staff, he 

worked as a resource economist with the Massachusetts 

Division of Marine Fisheries. He has an M.A. 

(Economics) from the University of Delaware and an 

M.S. (Finance) from Brandeis University. 

Roger Pugliese is Senior Fishery Biologist with the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and has 

over 25 years facilitating development of FMPs ranging 

from Red Drum to Dolphin and Wahoo to habitat plans 

for Coral and Live Bottom Habitat and Pelagic 

Sargassum. He is responsible for the Council's spatial 

GIS, habitat conservation, and ecosystem coordination 

efforts and the development of the Council’s Habitat 

Plan, as well as their Fishery Ecosystem Plan 

supporting their first Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based 

Amendment. He also serves on the Southeast Coastal 

Ocean Observing Regional Association (SECOORA) 

Board of Directors, the South Atlantic Regional 

Research Plan Development Team, is a member of the 

South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

Steering Committee and Southeast Aquatic Resources 

Partnership (SARP) Steering Committee, chairs the 

Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment ProgramSouth Atlantic (SEAMAP-SA) Committee and is a 

member of the South Atlantic Governor’s Alliance 

Executive Planning Team. 

James Armstrong has worked for the MAFMC for 

eight years. He is staff lead on the bluefish, spiny 

dogfish, and monkfish FMPs, and is also a GIS analyst 

and manages the Council’s website. Prior to working 

for the Council he worked for four years as a stock 

assessment scientist for the North Carolina Division of 

Marine Fisheries. He has B.S. (Marine Biology) from 

the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and an 

M.S. (Fisheries and Wildlife Science) from North 

Carolina State University. 

John Boreman is former Director of the 

NMFS/Northeast Fisheries Science Center and the 

NMFS/Office of Science & Technology. Since retiring 

from the federal government in 2008 he has been a 

member of the faculty in the Department of Biology at 

North Carolina State University and an Executive 

Management Consultant for natural resource agencies 

and organizations. He is the Chair of the MAFMC’s 

Science and Statistical Committee. He is also serving as 

1st Vice President of the American Fisheries Society. 

He received his B.S. from the SUNY College of 

Environmental Science and Forestry, and has M.S. and 

Ph.D. degrees from Cornell University. 

David H. Wallace is proprietor of Wallace & 

Associates, Inc., a firm that has been dealing with 

fisheries issues for the last 30 years. His experience 

prior to forming his current company includes the 

position of Chief Operating Officer of a large vertically 

integrated fishing and seafood processing company as 

well as owner and operator of specialized seafood 

harvesting and processing operations. He is a current 

member of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee 

and the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory 

Committee. He is the Chair of the NEFMC’s Habitat, 

Ecosystem, and Marine Protected Areas Advisory Panel 

and a member of the NEFMC’s Skate Advisory Panel. 

He also serves on the MAFMC’s Surfclam and Ocean 

Quahog Advisory Panel. He also served on the 

MAFMC’s Habitat Advisory Committee until it was 

disbanded. He is a member of the American Fisheries 

Society and the Society of Naval Architects and Marine 

Engineers. 

Rick Robins was appointed to the MAFMC in 2007 

and has served as Chairman since 2008. He has served 

as an Associate Commissioner with the Virginia Marine 

Resources Commission since 2004 and chairs the 

Commission’s Crab Management Advisory Committee. 

He is an avid recreational angler and owns a shellfish 

processing business on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. He 

received a B.A. (Economics and History) from 

Washington and Lee University and an M.B.A. from 

the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
76 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The genesis for this Habitat-Ecosystem Workshop 

was proposed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council's new Executive Director, Chris Moore, before 

he even left the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Conversations with Tom Bigford (NMFS-HQ) and Pete 

Colosi (NMFS-Northeast Regional Office) led to the 

desire to re-invigorate the Council's habitat and 

ecosystem efforts. This workshop would not have been 

possible without the assistance and dedication of 

numerous individuals. Tom Hoff (Council staff) 

coordinated with Tom Bigford and Pete Colosi initially 

on the best first steps to stimulate the Council's efforts 

and it was decided a workshop was the appropriate

forum. As the workshop grew other individuals were 

added to form a Steering Committee: Gene Kray 

(Council member), Dave Packer (NEFSC), Joe Nohner 

(NMFS-HQ), and Kirsten Larsen (NMFS-HQ). In 

particular, a special thank you goes to the numerous 

presenters and authors who contributed their 

knowledge, experience, and time to draft this document. 

Finally, a huge acknowledgment goes to Tom Bigford, 

who assumed co-editing responsibilities and helped to 

make sense out of the widely divergent types and 

quality of manuscripts the authors provided in order to 

make this workshop publication a coherent, timely, and 

useful product.