Benchmarking the 1999 EPAP 

recommendations with existing 

Fishery Ecosystem Plans

Erin B. Wilkinson and Karen Abrams

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-5 

November 2015

doi:10.7289/V5WD3XK7

Benchmarking the 1999 EPAP recommendations 

with existing Fishery Ecosystem Plans

Erin B. Wilkinson1 and Karen Abrams2

1

Earth Resources Technology, Inc. Under contract to NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office 

of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

2

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-5 

November 2015 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny S. Pritzker, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kathryn D. Sullivan, Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service

Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

doi:10.7289/V5WD3XK7
ii

Recommended citation: 

Wilkinson, E.B and Abrams, K. 2015. Benchmarking the 1999 EPAP recommendations with 

existing Fishery Ecosystem Plans. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OSF-5, 22 p. 

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

Domestic Fisheries Division

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

doi:10.7289/V5WD3XK7
iii

Table of Contents

1.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 SUMMARY OF BENCHMARK REVIEW ............................................................................. 4

3.1 North Pacific Fishery Management Council......................................................................... 4

3.2 Pacific Fishery Management Council ................................................................................... 6

3.3 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council ..................................................................... 9

3.4 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council ..................................................................... 11

4.0 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Discussion of the EPAP recommendations......................................................................... 15

4.2 Discussion of key elements of FEPs not contained in the EPAP recommendations .......... 18

5.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 19

6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... 20

7.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 20

Tables

Table 1 % of FEPs that incorporated in detail, partially incorporated, or minimally/did not 

incorporate each EPAP recommendation ................................................................... 16 

1 

Abstract: Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM)is a holistic, multi-species (vs. 

single species) approach to fisheries management that recognizes the physical, biological, 

economic, and social complexities of managing living marine resources. In 1999 the Ecosystem 

Principles Advisory Panel published a report to Congress that outlined eight recommendations 

for creating Fishery Ecosystem Plans. We benchmarked those eight recommendations against 

ten existing Fishery Ecosystem Plans from four Regional Fishery Management Councils. We 

found that Councils addressed and applied most of the EPAP recommendations in their FEPs, 

and structured their FEPs differently depending on the specifics of their ecosystems, fisheries, 

and available information. We found that several recommendations were not addressed in FEPs 

because the recommendation was either too expansive to be applied with existing information or 

it was unclear how to apply the recommendation to an FEP. Through our review, we also 

identified three key concepts central to the development of FEPs that are not addressed directly 

in the EPAP recommendation, but that would further strengthen FEPs. These include the 

establishment of ecosystem goals and objectives, using ecosystem indicators to monitor progress 

or conservation and management needs, and the role of trade-off analysis in optimizing yield 

across an ecosystem. The wide range of approaches and use of the FEPs also shows that each 

Council has different needs and priorities for approaching EBFM. Future guidance on the 

development of FEPs should reflect the need for flexibility in fisheries management, while also 

promoting consistency in development, implementation and use of FEPs between regions. 

1.0 Background

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is a holistic, multi-species (vs. single species) 

approach to fisheries management that recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social 

complexities of managing living marine resources (Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1993; Grumbine 

1994; Griffis and Kimball1996, Patrick and Link 2015). NOAA Fisheries defines EBFM “as a 

systematic approach to fisheries management in a geographically specified area that ensures the 

resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem; recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and 

social interactions among the affected components of the ecosystem, including humans; and 

seeks to optimize benefits among a diverse set of societal goals.” (NMFS, 2015). NOAA 

Fisheries considers EBFM applicable to recreational and commercial fisheries, and recognizes 

that fishing for a single species is only one variable that affects the health and sustainability of a 

fish population. Interactions with other species, pollution, and environmental changes, such as 

climate also affect fish stocks and the communities that depend on them. 

Federal agencies, including NOAA Fisheries, have promoted EBFM since at least the mid 

1990’s. A 1994 U.S. Government Accountability Office report on ecosystem management 

identifies steps to more effectively implement ecosystem-based management across government 

agencies (GAO, 1994). In 1996, the Magnuson Steven’s Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA) was reauthorized and called for the creation of an Ecosystem Principles Advisory 

Panel (EPAP) to develop recommendations to expand the application of ecosystem principles in 
2 

fisheries management (16 U.S.C.§1882). The 1996 MSA also authorized the Secretary of 

Commerce to support regional pilot programs with Fishery Management Councils (Council) to 

implement the EPAP recommendations. More recently, the U.S commission on Ocean Policy 

Report called for ecosystem-based management in 2004 (U.S Commission on Ocean Policy, 

2004). 

In 1999, the EPAP published its report to Congress and identified fishery ecosystem plans

(FEPs) as an important mechanism for implementing EBFM in U.S. fisheries (EPAP 1999). 

Using FEPs complements the existing fishery management framework required by the MSA, 

which requires that Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) develop Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs) that contain conservation and management measures consistent with 

ten National Standards and other required provisions under section 303(a) of the MSA. The 

EPAP recommended that Councils should use existing FMPs for single species or species 

complexes but that they should be amended to reflect approaches consistent with a FEP. The 

EPAP further clarified that FEPs are useful mechanisms for incorporating core ecosystem 

principles, goals, and policies, and that they do not replace FMPs. To operationalize the use of 

FEPs, the EPAP laid out eight recommendations: 

1. Delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s) that occur within the Council’s

authority, including characterization of the biological, chemical, and physical 

dynamics of those ecosystems and “zone” the area for alternative uses. 

2. Develop a conceptual model of the food web. 

3. Describe the habitat needs of different life history stages for all plants and animals 

that represent the “significant food web” and how they are considered in conservation 

and management measures.

4. Calculate total removals, including incidental mortality. Show how they relate to 

standing biomass, production, optimum yields, natural mortality and trophic structure. 

5. Assess how uncertainty is characterized and what kinds of buffers against uncertainty 

are included in conservation and management. 

6. Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management. 

7. Describe available long-term monitoring data and how they are used. 

8. Assess the ecological, human, and institutional elements of the ecosystem which most 

significantly affects fisheries, and are outside the Council/Department of Commerce’s

authority. Included should be a strategy to address those influences in order to 

achieve both FMP and FEP objectives. 

The 1999 EPAP report is the most comprehensive document detailing how to implement EBFM 

using FEPs, however there is no requirement that FEPs conform with the EPAP 

recommendations. Since then, several Fishery Management Councils have developed FEPs in 

the North Pacific, Pacific, Western Pacific, and South Atlantic, and others are currently planning 

to develop FEPs. In response to renewed interest nationally in ecosystem-based fisheries 

management (EBFM) and the use of FEPs in the fishery management process, NOAA Fisheries 
3 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, reviewed the eight EPAP recommendations and benchmarked

them against existing FEPs. The purpose of this review is to: 

• Summarize how the Council’s implementation of FEPs compares with the 1999 EPAP 

recommendations. 

• Characterize the diverse ecosystem planning needs and approaches across Councils. 

• Better understand how Councils use their FEPs to meet their goals and objectives 

• Develop suggestions to improve upon the existing EPAP recommendations to support the 

needs and approaches that Councils are using to advance EBFM. 

2.0 Methods

The Office of Sustainable Fisheries reviewed ten existing FEPs against the eight EPAP 

recommendations described above: Aleutian Islands FEP, Pacific Coast FEP for the U.S. Portion 

of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem, American Samoa FEP, Hawaii FEP, 

Marianas FEP, Pacific Remote Island Areas FEP, Pelagics FEP, South Atlantic FEP, 

Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1 (CEBA1), and Comprehensive EcosystemBased Amendment 2 (CEBA2). Our review focused on the FEP documents and the degree to 

which the FEP address the EPAP recommendations. Although we focused our analysis on the 

FEPs themselves, we also recognized that in many instances there were other supporting 

documents that also addressed some portion of an EPAP recommendation, and we have 

referenced them in the discussion. In addition to reviewing all FEPs, we spoke with Council 

and regional office staff about the approaches, priorities, and challenges of developing and using 

FEPs for their fisheries and associated ecosystems. 

We based our review of each FEP and the degree to which it addresses each EPAP 

recommendation on the following qualitative criteria: incorporated in detail, partially 

incorporated, or minimally incorporated/not mentioned. Many of the EPAP recommendations 

were multi-part or multi-faceted recommendations. We considered a recommendation 

incorporated in detail if all or most facets of the recommendation were addressed and if the FEP 

also addressed the implications of that topic to the specific components of the ecosystem covered 

within the FEP. We considered a recommendation partially incorporated if only one facet of the 

recommendation was addressed and if the discussion in the FEP addressed only the general 

implications of that recommendation on the ecosystem. We considered a recommendation 

minimally incorporated if there was no mention of the topic or it was only broadly addressed in a 

way that was not specific to the ecosystem covered in the FEP. We applied these criteria to all 10 

FEPs and have summarized the results into Table 1 that shows the degree to which each EPAP 

recommendation has been used across all FEPs. 
4 

3.0 Summary of Benchmark Review 

3.1 North Pacific Fishery Management Council

For the North Pacific, we reviewed the “Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan” (AIFEP). The 

AIFEP, as published in 2007, is described as a living document to be updated annually and reevaluated every 3-5 years. The goal of the plan is to serve as a reference document that provides 

scientific information and measureable indicators to evaluate and promote sustainable fisheries, 

ecosystem health and vibrant communities in the Aleutian Islands region. The plan was created 

as an informational document, and does not authorize management measures or changes to 

fishery regulations. Included is a statement that while the plan makes suggestions and ideas for 

change and improvement, any changes to management would need to be implemented through 

the FMP amendment process. 

3.1.1 Delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s)

The AIFEP delineates the geographic extent of the ecosystem and includes a description of the 

components of the ecosystem. Historical background information about the ecosystem including 

commercial exploitation of the area is described. Various animal populations that use the 

ecosystem are also described (marine mammals, sea birds, fish) and general habitat information 

is included. Physical dynamics of the ecosystem are divided into short sections about the 

benthic, pelagic and terrestrial habitat areas. Chemical relationships were not addressed and the 

area was not zoned for alternative uses. 

3.1.2 Develop a conceptual model of the food web 

The AIFEP describes a model of the food web that outlines and explains each of the major 

components of the ecosystem. Major energy flows are described in the model, as are 

relationships between lower and higher trophic levels. The food web model was also simplified 

to show the position of key species and the energy flows between them. The plan includes a 

description of the role of Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, and myctophids in the ecosystem, 

and spatial relationships between food web components. For example, groundfish sometimes

distribute themselves vertically along the shelf at different depths to maximize their access to 

prey. 

3.1.3 Describe the habitat needs for all plants and animals included in the significant food web 

The AIFEP does not include specific information about habitat needs for different life stages of 

plants and animals that are considered part of the ‘significant food web’. Some characteristics of 

habitat are described in detail, such as diet composition of Atka mackerel and pollock in a 

discussion of feeding habitat. Some habitat ranges are described for species in the Aleutian 

Islands, but the habitat needs, and needs of various life states, are not addressed. The plan does 

recognize that while the Council places boundaries on the ecosystem, the actual foraging and 

range distribution of the marine species (and humans) that use the ecosystem are not confined to 
5 

those boundaries. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements for essential fish habitat under 

section 303 (a) 7 of the Magnuson Stevens Act, Council FMPs already identify and describe 

essential fish habitat for the fishery. 

3.1.4 Calculate total removals 

The AIFEP does not include estimates of total removals or incidental mortality. Plan authors 

refer to a two million metric ton cap for the entire Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management 

regions and across eighteen stock or stock complexes. However, only six of the eighteen

managed species or species groups have total catch allocated separately for the Aleutian Islands 

and the Bering Sea. This total catch is one way of beginning to estimate total removal for the 

Aleutian Islands. The plan does not include a discussion about how total removals may relate to 

standing biomass, production, optimum yield, natural mortality or trophic structure. 

3.1.5 Assess how uncertainty is characterized 

Uncertainty is discussed throughout the AIFEP but there is not a discussion of the types of 

buffers against uncertainty that might be included in the conservation and management of the 

ecosystem.

3.1.6 Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management. 

The AIFEP states that one of the goals of the document is to provide information on measureable 

indicators that evaluate and promote ecosystem health but the plan does not include such indices. 

The plan includes a statement that it would be easier to provide recommendations for 

maintaining a healthy ecosystem if ‘ecosystem health’ was defined, or if the Council defined 

“healthy ecosystem”. The Plan includes a statement indicating that further ways to develop the 

FEP would be to define ‘ecosystem health’ through a comprehensive ecosystem assessment. 

3.1.7 Describe available long-term monitoring data and how they are used. 

The AIFEP describes existing long-term monitoring programs (groundfish self-reporting and 

observer programs, monitoring of incidental take of marine mammals). To track critical 

ecosystem interactions a list of indicators were put into one of three categories: available via 

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports; based on data that is not monitored by 

the Council; and those for which data is not available. Although the framework of indicators has 

been identified, mechanisms, time frames, and process for monitoring the indicators have not 

been established. Additionally, there is little physical oceanographic data for the Aleutian 

Islands that could describe the current state of physical forcing in the ecosystem or that could be 

used to monitor changing conditions for an ecosystem indicator. The plan identifies several 

research and monitoring priorities for oceanographic information (including long-term 

temperature monitoring) that over time may strengthen the use of indicators for EBFM planning. 
6 

3.1.8 Assess the ecological, human, and institutional elements of the ecosystem. 

The AIFEP includes a summary of risk assessments for fisheries, regulatory issues, climate 

change, socio-economic topics, and predator prey interactions. The plan also identifies which 

risk factors may be outside Council control (e.g. water temperatures, ocean acidification, weather 

patterns). The plan does not include a strategy to address non-fishing risk factors that could 

affect attainment of fishery ecosystem objectives. It lays out possible actions for the Council to 

take if they are not already addressing a particular risk factor. 

3.1.9 Summary 

Overall the North Pacific Council’s AIFEP incorporated parts of most of the eight EPAP 

recommendations. The document has not been updated since its publication in 2007, but 

contains relevant and useful information about the Aleutian Islands ecosystem and the fisheries 

in the region. The Council uses the plan primarily as an informational reference. Combined with 

the regularly updated ecosystem chapter of the SAFE reports, the Council has ready access to 

comprehensive and recent available information about the Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem. 

3.2 Pacific Fishery Management Council

For the Pacific, we reviewed the “Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of 

the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem” (PCFEP). The plan, published in 2013, 

supports the Council’s fishery stock-specific management with ecosystem science, ecosystem 

considerations, and management policies and helps the Council coordinate management across 

its individual FMPs and the California Current Ecosystem. FMPs for the West Coast include 

goals and objectives related to avoiding overfishing, minimizing bycatch, maintaining 

sustainability in landings, minimizing impacts to habitats, and accommodating existing fishing 

sectors. The plan aims to build on those FMP goals and objectives and includes three main

fishery ecosystem objectives: improve and integrate ecosystem information used in Council 

decision-making; build toward fuller stock assessments that can inform more developed 

descriptions of the greatest long-term benefits from the conservation and management of marine 

fisheries, optimum yield and tradeoffs; and provide administrative structure and procedures for 

coordinating conservation and management measures across the Council’s jurisdiction. The plan 

does not directly change existing fishery management strategies or policies contained in FMPs, 

and was designed as a guidance document to inform future conservation and management 

measures in FMPs. The plan includes an Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix that describes ten

“Initiatives” around topics such as forage fish, age and size distribution in managed stocks, biogeographic region identification, and bycatch and catch monitoring policies. These initiatives are 

meant to provide concrete steps for implementing measures that address ecosystem goals and 

objectives contained in the plan. The Pacific Fishery Management Council decided to 

implement the first initiative addressing forage fish in 2014. The Council continues to regularly 

revisit the other initiatives as they incrementally build their ecosystem-based approach to 

fisheries management. 
7 

3.2.1 Delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s)

The PCFEP delineates the geographic extent of the ecosystem as the entire U.S. West Coast 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This area includes parts of the California current ecosystem 

(CCE) within the EEZ. While the geographic extent of the Pacific Coast ecosystem excludes 

freshwater and estuarine ecosystems of the CCE, the Council does recognize the importance of 

these habitats, and is considering expanding the plan to include such habitats in the future. The 

plan does not zone any of the area for alternative uses. 

3.2.2 Develop a conceptual model of the food web 

The PCFEP includes a model of the food web that outlines and explains each of the major 

components at each trophic level: high trophic non-fish species, mid to high trophic fish and 

invertebrates, and low trophic fish and plankton. Marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles of 

the CCE are the primary components of the non-fish mid to higher trophic level, and most are 

protected species. Fishes at the higher trophic level tend to be highly valued target species. The 

plan also includes examples of species interactions from the CCE. 

3.2.3 Describe the habitat needs for all plants and animals included in the significant food web 

The PCFEP does not include specific information about habitat needs for different life stages of 

plants and animals that are considered part of the ‘significant food web’. While essential fish 

habitat for managed fish is identified and described in amendments to the Council’s FMPs for 

groundfish, salmon, highly migratory species and coastal pelagic species, the plan does not 

describe all life stages of plants and animals in the ‘significant food web’. Within the plan some 

characteristics of habitat are described in detail, such as abiotic, geological, and water column 

properties, and there is some discussion of the major habitat types and their importance, 

including microbial algal blooms, kelp beds and structure forming invertebrates. The plan

mentions activities that are likely to affect habitat including both fishing and non-fishing related, 

but the plan does not include discussion about specific habitat needs for the ‘significant food 

web’ and how they would be considered in conservation and management. 

3.2.4 Calculate total removals 

The PCFEP includes commercial landings data for all stocks from 2001 to 2011, which ranged 

from a high of 546,000 metric tons to a low of 403,000 metric tons. However, total removals, 

including incidental mortality or discards, are not part of that estimate. The plan also does not 

calculate or recommend a total removal amount across managed stocks. The plan does not 

include a discussion about how total removals may relate to standing biomass, production, 

optimum yield, natural mortality or trophic structure. 
8 

3.2.5 Assess how uncertainty is characterized 

The PCFEP touches on how uncertainty may be characterized in each of the individual FMPs for

the West Coast. However, the plan does not address uncertainty, or how uncertainty across 

ecosystems may be characterized. There is not a discussion of the types of buffers against 

uncertainty that might be included in the conservation and management of the ecosystem or 

individual fisheries. 

3.2.6 Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management. 

The PCFEP does not include targets for ecosystem health or management. However the plan 

appendix includes examples of how the Council could address issues that affect two or more 

Council FMPs, or coordinate major Council policies across all FMPs to address needs at the plan

level. The Council, in support of its ecosystem-based managed process, has requested that 

NMFS, in coordination with other interested agencies, develop a concise annual state-of-theecosystem report that reflects best available science. The plan also notes that the concept of a 

healthy ecosystem is subjective and has yet to be defined in objectively quantifiable terms. A 

fished and ‘healthy’ ecosystem is very different from an ecosystem that has never been fished, 

and there is not a comprehensive understanding of possible long-term consequences of fishing 

activities on ecosystems. 

3.2.7 Describe available long-term monitoring data and how they are used. 

One of the objectives of the PCFEP is to inform FMP fisheries management actions with 

ecosystem information generated through the implementation of the plan, including information 

about the cumulative ecological effects of management actions taken for FMP species and 

fisheries. This ecosystem information is generated in part from the results of existing monitoring 

programs used for managing coastal pelagic, groundfish and highly migratory fisheries. The 

plan describes the role of observers, how monitoring contributes to effective enforcement, and 

the importance of monitoring for bycatch in single stock fisheries management. The plan also 

describes monitoring programs that that are part of the West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean 

health, which is a partnership to manage coastal and ocean resources and the economies they 

support along the west coast. This partnership also seeks to expand ocean and coastal scientific 

information, research and monitoring. The plan does not describe approaches for using existing 

monitoring data to either develop indicators or evaluate progress in ecosystem-based fishery 

management or identify new data collection priorities. 

3.2.8 Assess the ecological, human, and institutional elements of the ecosystem. 

The PCFEP discusses five broad categories of ecological and human elements of the ecosystem. 

These five categories include: fish abundance within the CCE; the abundance of nonfish 

organisms within the CCE; changes in biophysical habitat; changes in fishing community 

involvement in fisheries and dependence on fishery resources; and aspects of climate change 
9 

expected to affect living marine resource populations within the CCE. The Ecosystem Initiatives 

appendix to the plan addresses more institutional elements of the ecosystem such as how the 

Council could address issues that affect two or more Council FMPs or coordinate major Council 

policies across the FMPs to fulfill identified FEP needs. Initiatives discussed in the appendix 

included protection for unfished forage fish, long-term effects of harvest policies on age and size 

distribution in managed stocks, bio-geographic region identification, cross FMP bycatch and 

catch monitoring, cross FMP essential fish habitat, safety, human recruitment to the fisheries, 

and socio-economic effects of fisheries management, and effects of climate shifts.

3.2.9 Summary 

Overall the PCFEP incorporated parts of most of the eight EPAP recommendations. The 

document has not been updated since its publication in 2013, but contains relevant and useful 

information about the California Current Ecosystem and the fisheries in the region. The Council 

also continues to review and revisit the initiatives described in the plan’s appendix.

3.3 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 

The Western Pacific Fishery Ecosystem Plans (WPFEPs), as published in 2009, reorganized the 

Western Pacific FMPs geographically. Each of the five FEPs from the Western Pacific contain 

fishery conservation and management measures according to the required provisions of FMPs as 

stipulated in 303(a) of the MSA. These FEPs are unique from those created by other Councils 

because they are also full FMPs. Each of the five WPFEPs include a goal statement to establish a 

framework under which the Council will manage fishery resources, improve its abilities to 

realize the goals of the MSA through incorporating ecosystem science and principles, and begin 

the integration and implementation of ecosystem approaches to management. The plans also 

identify topics under ecosystem approaches to management and outline 10 objectives to help the 

Council implement ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. These objectives are: to 

maintain biologically diverse and productive marine ecosystems that foster the long-term 

sustainable use of marine resources; provide flexible and adaptive management systems; 

improve public and government awareness and understanding of the marine environment; 

encourage and provide for the sustained and substantive participation of local communities; 

minimize bycatch; manage and co-manage protected species, protected habitats and protected 

areas; promote the safety of human life at sea; encourage and support compliance and 

enforcement with all local and federal fishery regulations; increase collaborating with domestic 

and foreign fishery management organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) to 

successfully manage marine ecosystems; and improve the quantity and quality of available 

information to support marine ecosystem management. The Council recently conducted an 

external review of their plans and is working on reviewing and updating their plans. 
10

3.3.1 Delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s)

Each of the WPFEPs delineates the geographic extent of the ecosystems. While each of the 

plans is different in terms of extent and area each covers, descriptions of the physical and 

biological environments are included. The plans also indicated where the geographic extent of 

one FEP overlaps with another. None of the plans zone the areas for alternative uses. 

3.3.2 Develop a conceptual model of the food web 

The WPFEPs mention food webs and describes why food webs are important for understanding 

ecological relationships. All five plans contain the same example of a Central Pacific pelagic 

food web to illustrate these ecological principles, but food web models for each of the five 

ecosystems are not presented. 

3.3.3 Describe the habitat needs for all plants and animals included in the significant food web 

The WPFEPs comply with the requirement to identify and describe essential fish habitat 

according to the Section 303(a)7 requirements in the MSA and include some specific essential 

fish habitat information for some life stages of animals that are considered part of the ‘significant 

food web’. Some of the plans describe various habitat types but do not include discussions about 

different life stages and habitat needs of important species. Some of the plans identify which 

species found in the ecosystems are commercially important. None of the plans include 

discussion about how those plants and animals that are part of the ‘significant food web’ are 

considered in conservation and management for the fishery. There is some discussion about 

protected species (turtles, whales, birds) that are found in each of the defined ecosystems. 

Habitat has been identified as an important item for the Council moving forward, and they plan 

to address this with the review and update of the FEPs currently underway. 

3.3.4 Calculate total removals 

The WPFEPs include historical commercial landings for some fisheries, but total removals 

including any incidental mortality is not calculated in any of the plans. Discussion of how 

removals relate to standing biomass production, optimum yield, or trophic structure is also not 

included. Information on total removals for each fishery is found in SAFE or other Council 

reports. 

3.3.5 Assess how uncertainty is characterized 

The WPFEPs mention uncertainty and how uncertainty relates to some life history 

characteristics, stock assessments, and bycatch estimates. However none of the plans include 

descriptions of how uncertainty is characterized. There is not a discussion of the types of buffers 

against uncertainty that might be included in the conservation and management of the ecosystem 

or individual fisheries. 
11

3.3.6 Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management. 

The WPFEPs include discussion of the need for developing indicators to answer questions about 

the status and trends in the ecosystem. Some of the plans identify the development of indicators 

as a future research need which would benefit from collaboration among scientists, fishery 

managers and communities in some of the Pacific Island regions. Some of the FEPs suggest that 

identifying and using indicator species for rapid assessment of ecosystem health would further 

their ongoing ecosystem approach. The Council is currently developing more specific and 

measurable management objectives related to ecosystem status than are in current FEPs to

collect, synthesize, and report on data necessary to evaluate progress in meeting those objectives. 

3.3.7 Describe available long-term monitoring data and how they are used. 

The WPFEPs contain descriptions of types of ecosystem monitoring but does not describe the 

kind of programs that are already in place and/or how that data may be used. Descriptions of 

monitoring and monitoring-like programs will be updated in the revised FEPs, and data from 

those programs will be found in Council reports. 

3.3.8 Assess the ecological, human, and institutional elements of the ecosystem. 

The WPFEPs include the identification and description of essential fish habitat and conservation 

and management measures to minimize the impacts of fishing according to Section 303(a)7 of 

the MSA. This includes discussion of activities that affect essential fish habitat such as habitat 

loss and degradation, pollution and contamination, dredging, marine mining, water intake 

structures, aquaculture and introduction of exotic species. Each plan also addresses some 

possible mitigating effects for non-fishing activities on essential fish habitat, and some possible 

conservation measures. The Council is working on developing specific and measurable 

ecosystem management objectives that speak to various ecosystem status elements. 

3.3.9 Summary 

Overall, the WPFEPs incorporated parts of some of the eight EPAP recommendations. The 

plans have been updated and amended since their original publication in 2009, and contain 

relevant and useful information about the ecosystems in the Western Pacific. These FEPs are 

considerably different from those created by other Councils as they are documents that contain 

all of the required conservation and management measures required by Section 303(a) of the 

MSA, and serve as the region’s FMPs. 

3.4 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

For the South Atlantic, we reviewed the South Atlantic FEP as well as Comprehensive 

Ecosystem Amendments 1 and 2. The South Atlantic FEP is a large compilation of information 

(6 volumes), and was designed as a source document. The Council adopted broad goals for 

ecosystem-based management that include: maintaining or improving ecosystem structure and 
12

function, maintain or improving economic, social and cultural benefits from resources, and 

maintaining or improving biological, economic and cultural diversity. The FEP serves as a 

source document and presents more complete and detailed information describing the South 

Atlantic ecosystem and the impact of the fisheries on the environment. The South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council has also published two comprehensive ecosystem-based FMP 

amendments (CEBA1 in 2009 and CEBA2 in 2011), which implement specific conservation and 

management measures. The FEP is referenced throughout those amendments. A third CEBA, 

related to bycatch, is under development. Management actions in CEBA1 included establishment 

of deepwater Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) and prohibiting the use of 

bottom damaging fishing gear to protect a large contiguous distribution of deepwater coral 

ecosystems in the South Atlantic. CEBA1 also allows for the creation of fishing zones within 

HAPCs in historical fishing grounds for golden crab and deepwater shrimp fisheries. CEBA2 

amended the FMPs to respond to ecosystem issues that go across multiple fisheries as opposed to 

single species management for those issues. Actions under CEBA2 included modifying 

management of octocorals in the South Atlantic through the establishment of an annual catch 

limit, modifying how special management zones off South Carolina are managed, revising sea 

turtle release and smalltooth sawfish gear requirements for the snapper grouper fishery, and 

designating EFH and EFH-HAPCs in the South Atlantic. The actions in CEBA2 were needed to 

remain in compliance with the MSA and address concerns from fishermen. 

3.4.1 Delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s)

The SAFEP describes the extent of the ecosystem as the region under the jurisdiction of the 

Council inland through the region’s coastal watersheds. The South Atlantic ecosystem area 

intersects two Large Marine Ecosystems and interacts with the Gulf of Mexico and Mid-Atlantic 

Regions and the Bahamas and Sargasso Sea. The plan includes descriptions of some of the many 

types of ecosystems found in the area under Council control including freshwater, estuarine, 

marine and offshore systems. Habitat is discussed in great detail throughout the plan. Each of the 

CEBA amendments also describes the particular attributes of the ecosystems affected by the 

management actions in the amendment. Appendix B Volume of the SAFEP presents area 

associated with all Council managed areas including, Special Management Zones, Deepwater 

Coral HAPCs, and gear and species year round closures. The biological, chemical and physical 

dynamics of the ecosystem are discussed in Volumes 1-3 and the oceanographic characterization 

or monthly climate variability is presented in Appendix A Volume 1. The FEP does not identify 

zones within the South Atlantic Ecosystem for alternative uses. 

3.4.2 Develop a conceptual model of the food web 

The SAFEP includes descriptions of species and habitats that make up the food web in chapter 2 

of the FEP. The FEP highlights that the Council worked cooperatively with the University of 

British Columbia and the Sea Around Us project to develop a straw-man and preliminary food 
13

web models (Ecopath with Ecosim) to characterize the ecological relationships of South Atlantic 

species, including those managed by the Council. 

3.4.3 Describe the habitat needs for all plants and animals included in the significant food web 

The SAFEP provides details on all managed species (SAFMC, South Atlantic States, ASMFC, 

and NOAA Fisheries Highly Migratory Species and Protected Species), including their biology, 

ecology, and food web dynamics. Volume 2 of the plan contains detailed information on various 

habitats within the ecosystem. Also included are descriptions of species under Council 

management including information on reproduction, growth and movement, ecological 

relationships, distribution, habitat, abundance and stock status. The habitat information provided 

in the plan and CEBA amendments (1 and 2) is extensive, and includes available information 

about habitat needs for different life stages for Council managed species but not for all plants and 

animals that are considered part of the ‘significant food web’. The focus of CEBA1 is to protect 

a large deepwater coral ecosystem. Regulatory actions under CEBA1 establish deepwater coral 

HAPCs, and prohibit the use of bottom fishing gear, and allow for fishing zones within coral 

HAPCs in historical fishing grounds for golden crab and deepwater shrimp. CEBA1 also 

updates EFH descriptions. CEBA2 also addresses endangered species. Species of concern are 

identified and descriptions provided, but neither amendment describes how habitat needs should 

be considered in conservation and management measures. 

3.4.4 Calculate total removals 

The FEP presents information on all managed fisheries their status and removals. In addition, 

Appendix B Volume III includes spatial presentations of all commercial catch from the Atlantic 

Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) averaged 1990-2006. CEBA1 and CEBA2 

include some historical information on the number of vessels landing, and total landings for 

related fisheries. Managed species and associated bycatch are addressed in both amendments 

and the issue of total removals is investigated. The broader discussion of how total removals 

relate to biomass, production, optimum yield, natural mortality, or trophic structure is limited. 

3.4.5 Assess how uncertainty is characterized 

The SAFEP, CEBA1 and CEBA2 include discussions of applying buffers for stock conservation 

and management. They also highlight the Council’s approach for protecting sensitive essential 

habitat from fishing impacts to mitigate some uncertainty in stock conservation and 

management. 

3.4.6 Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management. 

The SAFEP includes a chapter on threats to the South Atlantic ecosystem and recommendations 

but specific indices of ecosystem health, as targets for management are not included. CEBA1 
14

and CEBA2 do not include any discussion surrounding development of indices of ecosystem 

health as targets for management. 

3.4.7 Describe available long-term monitoring data and how they are used. 

The FEP summarizes existing research programs and identifies biological, social, and economic 

research needed to fully address EBFM in the region. The SAFEP also includes a description of 

the South Atlantic’s monitoring priorities since 2008. Actions for 2008-2012 included collecting 

basic data elements by fishery, collecting biological and survey information to support stock 

assessments, and collection of information to support evaluation and refinement of management 

programs and actions. Outlined in the plan are also long-term research needs. CEBA1 does not 

describe available monitoring data but there is some discussion about the Council’s intent to 

investigate monitoring and enforcement tools for future use in some fisheries. CEBA2 discusses 

coral, coral reefs and coral community habitat status as it relates to monitoring efforts that 

originated as impact and mitigation studies from adverse environmental impacts to specific sites. 

CEBA2 does mention that modifying the annual catch limit for octocorals would require 

monitoring and documentation to track the annual catch limit, and that this would result in 

additional cost and personnel resources unless this monitoring mechanism is already in place. 

3.4.8 Assess the ecological, human, and institutional elements of the ecosystem. 

The SAFEP discussed the ecological elements of the ecosystem in volumes 1-5 of the document. 

The plan discusses the ecological, human, and institution elements of the ecosystem through a 

discussion of the threats to the South Atlantic ecosystem from sources that are generally 

landward of the shoreline (e.g., agriculture, aquaculture, urban development) or those that occur 

oceanward of the shoreline (e.g., navigation, dumping, marine debris). Most threats to the South 

Atlantic ecosystem are discussed in relation to how EFH may be affected. CEBA1 and CEBA2 

focus on impacts of the proposed actions within the amendments on the ecosystem, and less on 

anticipating how ecosystem drivers outside Council authority may affect fisheries. CEBA1 

includes a discussion of actions affecting the resources in the ecosystem, including human 

impacts and the activities that may have negative effects. However, those topics discussed are 

not necessarily outside Council authority and there is not a strategy to address those influences. 

CEBA2 discusses biological, social, economic and administrative effects of each of the 

alternative amendments for the proposed actions but does not go into detail or assess the 

ecological, human and institutional elements of the system that are outside Council/Department 

of Commerce authority. The plan does not include a strategy for how to address influences 

included in the plan. 

3.4.9 Summary 

Overall the South Atlantic Council’s FEP and CEBA1 and CEBA2 incorporated parts of the 

eight EPAP recommendations. The overarching FEP document is largely centered on habitat, 

and the amendments are slightly different from FEPs and initiatives created by other Councils as 
15

they direct specific management actions within regions of the South Atlantic. The documents 

discussed here contain relevant and useful information about the South Atlantic ecosystem and 

the fisheries in the region. 

4.0 Discussion 

4.1 Discussion of the EPAP recommendations

The purpose of the eight EPAP recommendations was to advance EBFM through the 

development of FEPs that guide the incorporation of ecosystem-based conservation and 

management measures in FMPs. This benchmarking review of the EPAP recommendations with

existing FEPs revealed the relative importance of some EPAP recommendations over others in 

developing FEPs that advance ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management. This 

benchmarking review also provides a snapshot of the varying approaches Councils have used to 

develop FEPs and the different goals they have for using FEPs. 

Overall, ten different FEPs were prepared by four different Councils. All covered similar ideas 

and principles, with each FEP varying depending on the needs of a specific Council and the 

fisheries and ecosystems under their jurisdiction. For example, the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council has set up their FEP to create a framework for setting policies and priorities to be 

implemented through FMP amendments and for tracking progress through a set of indicators. In 

some cases, the FEPs developed were compilations of ecosystem information with a strong focus 

on habitat that supported implementation of MSA essential fish habitat. Others, such as the 

Aleutian Island FEP, were primarily reference documents of ecosystem information to facilitate 

efficient implementation through FMPs. The Western Pacific FEPs contain conservation and 

management measures and meet the requirements of FMPs, but reflect groupings of managed 

stocks around geographically defined island/archipelago areas and are called FEPs. 

Each FEP reflected some, but not all of the EPAP recommendations, and some recommendations 

were used more extensively than others. We have summarized the percent of FEPs that 

incorporated recommendations in 3 categories: incorporated in detail; partially incorporated; or 

minimally incorporated (Table 1). Some of the FEPs did not fully incorporate recommendations 

because they were addressed in other documents (such as ecosystem chapters of SAFE reports, 

stock assessments, and FMP amendments). Using alternative documents has made it easier for 

some of the Councils to update crucial ecosystem related information without having to update 

an entire FEP. For example, the North Pacific supplements information in their FEP with 

ecosystem chapters of SAFE reports that are regularly updated. Additionally, to meet the 

requirements for essential fish habitat under section 303(a)7 of the Magnuson Stevens Act, 

Council FMPs already identify, and describe EFH, which was helpful in meeting aspects of the 

third EPAP recommendation. 
16

Table 1: % of FEPs reviewed that incorporated in detail, partially incorporated, or minimally/did not incorporate each EPAP recommendation

EPAP Recommendations

Incorporated 

in detail

Partially 

Incorporated

Minimally/not 

Incorporated Notes about recommendation 

1. Delineate the geographic extent of 

the ecosystem(s) that occur(s) within 

Council authority, including 

characterization of the biological, 

chemical and physical dynamics of 

those ecosystems, and "zone" the area 

for alternative uses. 70% 20% 10%

While most FEPs did define the area the 

FEP covered, they did not zone their area 

for alternative uses. 

2. Develop a conceptual model of the 

food web 20% 0% 80%

Councils found this recommendation not 

as useful for informing conservation and 

management measures in FMPs. 

3. Describe the habitat needs of 

different life history stages for all 

plants and animals that represent the 

"significant food web" and how they 

are considered in conservation and 

management measures. 0% 100% 0%

Councils found this recommendation to 

not be as useful as others for informing 

conservation and management measures 

because Councils already must meet 

requirements for EFH.

4. A. Calculate total removalsincluding incidental mortality 0% 20% 80%

Because most of this information could 

be found in other Council documents this 

recommendation was not typically 

incorporated. 

4. B. show how total removals relate to 

standing biomass, production, 

optimum yields, natural mortality and 

trophic structure. 0% 0% 100%

Because most of this information could 

be found in other Council documents this 

part of the fourth EPAP recommendation 

was not incorporated

5. A. Assess how uncertainty is 

characterized 0% 20% 80%

Councils generally address uncertainty 

during the process of establishing annual 

catch limits, which is a management 

approach that was developed after the 

EPAP recommendations were released. 

5. B. What kind of buffers against 

uncertainty are included in 

conservation and management 0% 0% 100%

The EPAP report does not elaborate on 

additional elements of uncertainty that 

should be addressed in responding to this 

recommendation.

6. Develop indices of ecosystem health 

as targets for management. 0% 80% 20%

There are several steps between 

developing ecosystem indicators and 

using them in the context of management 

targets that are not clearly articulated in 

the EPAP report, which contributed to the 

lack of information on this topic in all the 

FEPs

7. Describe available long-term 

monitoring data and how they are 

used. 20% 20% 60%

Use of this recommendation was mixed, 

and in many cases information was 

available in other documents or at least 

mentioned within the FEP. 

8.A. Assess the ecological, human, 

and institutional elements of the 

ecosystem which most significantly 

affect fisheries, and are outside 

Council/Department of Commerce 

(DOC) authority. 0% 40% 60%

Absent more specific direction about how 

to do such an assessment to inform 

actionable FEPs, this recommendation 

was largely viewed as too substantial an 

undertaking by Councils.

8. B. Included should be a strategy to 

address those influences in order to 

achieve both FMP and FEP objectives 0% 20% 80%

Absent more specific direction about how 

to do such an assessment to inform 

actionable FEPs, this recommendation 

was largely viewed as too substantial an 

undertaking by Councils.
17

Other FEPs did not contain material related to one or more EPAP recommendations, because the 

recommendation was seen as unclear or required analysis of information that didn’t exist. For 

example, the recommendation to delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem was largely 

addressed in all FEPs (recommendation #1). However, the second part of that recommendation 

to zone areas for alternate uses was not addressed in any of the FEPs. Many Councils viewed 

that part of the recommendation as beyond the scope of their authority. Similarly, the 

recommendation (#2) to develop a conceptual model of the food web and describe all life stages 

of animals considered part of the significant food web (recommendation #3) were not as useful 

for informing conservation and management measures in FMPs, and only a few Councils fully 

addressed those EPAP recommendations in their FEPs. An estimate of total removals 

(recommendation #4) helps fishery managers understand harvest impacts and manage across 

multiple fisheries. While many FEPs did not include these estimates, several Councils did use 

supporting information about total removals such as SAFE reports, or FMP amendments. For 

example, in order to meet the requirements of EFH, councils updated FMPs to identify and 

describe essential fish habitat for fisheries. And some Councils, including the North Pacific and 

Western Pacific, use SAFE reports to present information on total removals, stock assessments, 

and regularly updated ecosystem information. Finally, while the AIFEP doesn’t include 

estimates of total removals, discussion of total catch allocated is included. 

Most of the FEPs did not include assessments of uncertainty as called for in recommendation #5. 

Councils generally address uncertainty during the process of establishing annual catch limits, 

which is a management approach that was developed after the EPAP recommendations were 

released. The EPAP report does not elaborate on additional elements of uncertainty that should 

be addressed in responding to recommendation #5. This lack of clarity on approaches and 

options for addressing uncertainty with existing and available information was an impediment to 

address this recommendation more fully. Many FEPs included varying degrees of discussion 

about ecosystem indicators (recommendation # 6), but the second part of the recommendation to 

link the use of those indicators as targets for management was largely unaddressed. There are 

several steps between developing ecosystem indicators and using them in the context of 

management targets that are not clearly articulated in the EPAP report, which contributed to the 

lack of information on this topic in all the FEPs. Most FEPs did address in part 

recommendation #8 to fully assess ecological, human, and institutional elements of the system 

that affect fisheries. However, absent more specific direction about how to do such an 

assessment to inform actionable FEPs, this recommendation was largely viewed as too 

substantial an undertaking. This lack of clarity explains why most FEPs also didn’t include 

specific strategies to address the influence of those elements on FEP and FMP goals and 

objectives. Another challenge with this recommendation is that it assumes that the FEP contains 

goals and objectives which the EPAP recommendations don’t explicitly call for. 
18

4.2 Discussion of key elements of FEPs not contained in the EPAP 

recommendations

Through our review, we also identified three key concepts central to the development of FEPs 

that are not addressed directly in the EPAP recommendation, but that would further strengthen 

FEPs. These include the establishment of ecosystem goals and objectives, using ecosystem 

indicators to monitor progress or conservation and management needs, and the role of trade-off 

analysis in optimizing yield across an ecosystem. The EPAP recommendations that address the 

concepts of total removals and monitoring progress, presume that goals and objectives have been 

established, that indices for monitoring progress in achieving those goals have been developed 

and that approaches are in place for evaluating tradeoffs to maximize progress towards achieving 

those goals. However the EPAP does not explicitly address these three concepts. We suggest 

that further clarifying these three concepts would enhance the ability of Councils to respond to 

the original EPAP recommendations and further strengthen FEPs. 

4.2.1 Goals and objectives 

Defining clear, attainable management goals for an ecosystem is one of the most challenging 

aspects of EBFM (Link, 2005). Each of the FEPs examined in this review included statements

about why the document was created and how it was to be used. However, missing from each of 

the FEPs were clear goals and objectives for the ecosystem itself from a fisheries perspective. 

There are many different approaches identified in the literature for framing and developing 

ecosystem goals and objectives that could inform future FEP development (Rosenberg and 

McLeod 2005, Levin and Lubchenco 2008, Palumbi et al. 2008, Hilborn 2007). 

Defining goals and objectives was not an explicit recommendation in the EPAP report; however 

it was implied in the recommendations to monitor, develop indicators, and assessing uncertainty. 

Ecosystem goals and objectives are important for operationalizing the FEP through FMPs as 

called for in EPAP, because they will establish the ecosystem priorities for the Councils and can 

serve as the basis for assessing tradeoffs in selecting conserving and management measures 

through FMPs. Achieving agreement on the goals of an FEP will ultimately aid in achieving 

those goals (Ruckelshaus 2008). 

4.2.2 Tradeoffs 

Trade-off analyses play a critical role in optimizing yield across fisheries within an ecosystem

and transitioning to EBFM. It is the process by which different management options are 

evaluated to help understand and balance impacts across competing goals and objectives (Patrick 

and Link, 2015). Goals and objectives should be presented in a way that allows for fisheries 

managers to prioritize among a range of tradeoffs. 

While the EPAP recommendations call for FEPs to address issues such as total removals and 

uncertainty which implies doing a trade-off analysis, the EPAP recommendations do not 
19

explicitly call for a trade-off analysis or how to do that analysis. Since the publication of the 

EPAP recommendation, several articles that address the importance of and approaches for 

conducting trade-off analysis have been published (Sainsbury et al., 2000; Levin et al., 2009; 

Link, 2010). For example, one way to approach trade-off analysis could be through the 

management strategy evaluation (MSE) process (Link, 2010) across a range of objectives (Smith,

1994), for both target species and the larger ecosystem (Sainsbury et al., 2000). Such an 

approach depends on well-defined fisheries ecosystem objectives, performance measures for 

each objective, alternative management strategies, and an evaluation process for each strategy 

(Link, 2010, Sainsbury et al., 2000, Punt et al. In press). 

4.2.3 Indicators 

The use of indicators or decision criteria is needed to evaluate and assess what steps are needed 

to achieve one’s goals (Link, 2005). While the 6th EPAP recommendation speaks to using 

indicators in management and some of the FEP documents we reviewed did include ecosystem 

indicators, there was no clear indication of how, or if, those indicators were incorporated into 

management decisions or related to the stated goals of the FEP or fisheries in general. Having an 

effective FEP will require indicators to follow and identify any changes in status to any or all 

parts of the ecosystem (Samhouri et al. 2010). 

Ecosystem indicators are necessary in order for Councils to be able to address how all activities 

and ecosystem components may be affecting a fishery (Link, 2010). To be most effective, 

indicators need to identify major processes within the ecosystem, and lead to stated objectives. 

And, if indicators are accepted or vetted by the larger stakeholder community, they’re more 

likely to be accepted in the management context (Smith et al., 2008, Link, 2010). Indicators may 

be biological in nature, but will also need to incorporate topics beyond achieving optimum 

biological yield and include other ecosystem goals like conservation, and social and economic 

considerations (Kellner et al. 2011). Indicators that facilitate EBFM fall into 3 broad groups: 

biological (size, production etc.), physical (habitat) and socioeconomic (Rice and Rochert 2005, 

Link 2010). 

5.0 Conclusions

We found a range of variability in how FEP documents were created, used, and structured. The

1999 EPAP recommendations provide a starting point for many of the Councils that developed 

FEPs. However, it is also clear that some of those recommendations would be more effective 

with additional guidance on how to implement them and some recommendations were not 

relevant given available information or other ongoing processes and analyses in FMP-related 

documents. As we continue to develop and refine FEPs, it will be important to consider goals 

and objectives, tradeoffs, and indicators. Due to the wide range of approaches and use of the 

FEPs, it is clear that each Council has different needs and priorities and no single template would 

work for all. Future recommendations for FEPs should maintain the need for flexibility in 
20

fisheries management, while also promoting consistency in creation, implementation and use of 

FEPs between regions. 

6.0 Acknowledgements

Erin B. Wilkinson is contracted through ERT, Inc., 14401 Sweitzer Lane, Suite 300, Laurel, MD 

20707, USA, in support of the Domestic Fisheries Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

NMFS/NOAA.

We are grateful to Galen Tromble, Jason Link, Melanie Brown, Mike Burner, Kit Dahl, Diana 

Evans, Bob Harman, Stephen MacLean, Jack McGovern, Chris Oliver, Wes Patrick, Roger 

Pugliese, Yvonne deRenier, and Marlowe Sabater, for providing comments and insight on this 

paper. 

7.0 References

16 U.S.C. §1882. 

16 U.S.C. §1853(a) 

Cicin-Sain, B., and R. Knecht. 1993. Ocean management and the large marine ecosystem 

concept: taking the next step. Pages 237–241 in K. Sherman, L. M. Alexander, and B. 

Gold, editors. Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation and variability. American 

Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. 

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (EPAP). 1999. Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management: A

 report to Congress. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 62 p. 

General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994. Ecosystem Management, Additional actions needed to 

adequately test a promising approach: A report to Congress. General Accounting Office, 

Washington D.C. 92 p. 

Griffis, R. B., and K. W. Kimball. 1996. Ecosystem approaches to coastal and ocean 

stewardship. Ecological Applications 6(3):708–712 

Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27–38. 

Hilborn R. 2007. Moving to sustainability by learning from successful fisheries. AMBIO: A

 Journal of the Human Environment. 36(4): 296-303. 

Kellner, J.B., J.N. Sanchirico, A. Hastings, and P.J. Mumby. 2011. Optimizing for multiple 

species and multiple values: tradeoffs inherent in ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Conservation Letters 4: 21–30. 

Levin, S.A., and J. Lubchenco. 2008. Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based

 management. Bioscience 5: 27–32.Palumbi et al. 2008 
21

Levin, P. S., Fogarty, M. J., Murawski, S. A., and Fluharty, D. 2009. Integrated ecosystem

assessments: developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based management of the 

ocean. PLoS Biology 7(1):0023-0028 

Link, J.S. 2005. Translating ecosystem indicators into decision criteria. ICES Journal of Marine 

 Science 62:569–576. 

Link, J.S. 2010. Ecosystem-based fisheries management: confronting tradeoffs. Cambridge 

University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. September 9, 2015. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Policy. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/index.html (accessed October 5, 

2015). 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2007. Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan. 

 Anchorage, AK. 198p. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2013. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. 

 Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Portland, OR. 195p. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2013. Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix to the Pacific Coast 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine 

Ecosystem. Portland, OR. 26p. 

Patrick, W.S. and J.S. Link. 2015. Myths that continue to impede progress in ecosystem-based 

fisheries management. Fisheries. 40 (4): 155-160. 

Punt, A.E., D.S. Butterworth, C.L. de Morr, J.A.A. De Oliveira, and M. Haddon. In

Press. Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish and Fisheries. Online 

ISSN: 1467-2979. 

Rice, J.C. and M.-J. Rochet. 2005. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries

 management. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 53:1214-1225. 

Rosenberg, A.A. and K.L. McLeod. 2005. Implementing ecosystem-based approaches to

management for the conservation of ecosystem services. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

300:270-274. 

Sainsbury, K. J., Punt, A. E., and Smith, A. D. M. 2000. Design of operational management 

strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 

57: 731–741. 

Samhouri, J.F., P.S. Levin, and C.H. Ainsworth. 2010. Identifying thresholds for ecosystem- 

 based management. PLoS One. 5(1): e8907 
22

Smith, A. D. M. 1994. Management strategy evaluation – the light on the hill. In Population 

dynamics for fisheries management, pp. 249–253. Ed. by D. A. Hancock. Australian 

Society for Fish Biology, Perth, Australia. 

Smith, A.D.M., D.C. Smith, G.N. Tuck, et al. 2008. Experience in implementing harvest

strategies in Australia’s south-eastern fisheries. Fisheries Research. 94: 33-379. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2009a. Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the South 

 Atlantic Region. Charleston, South Carolina. 286p. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2009b. Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based

 Amendment 1 for the South Atlantic Region. Charleston, South Carolina. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2011. Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based

 Amendment 2 for the South Atlantic Region. Charleston, South Carolina. 178p. 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report. 

 Washington D.C., 2004. ISBN #0-9759462-0-X 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2009a. Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the American

 Samoa Archipelago. Honolulu, Hawaii. 220p. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2009b. Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii

 Archipelago. Honolulu, Hawaii. 286p. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2009c. Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Mariana

 Archipelago. Honolulu, Hawaii. 251p. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2009d. Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific

 Remote Island Area. Honolulu, Hawaii. 211p. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2009e. Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic

 Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Honolulu, Hawaii. 251p.