Page 8

Captain Lawson W. Brigham

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
Strategic Planning Staff (G-CCS-3)
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20593

David A. Brooks

Texas A&M University
Department of Oceanography
College Station, TX 77843

Thomas Brosnan
5620 Sylvan Avenue
Riverdale, NY 10471

Carolyn Brown

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1335 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20904

Charles L. Brown

Naval Underwater Systems Center
Code 3112

New London, CT 06320

Stephen K. Brown
20529 Neerwinder Street
Germantown, MD 20874

Wendell S. Brown
21 Emerson Road
Durham, NH 03824

R.H. Burroughs

University of Rhode Island
Department of Marine Affairs
Washburn Hall

Kingston, RI 02881

Donna Busch

National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Daniel E. Campbell

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus

Narragansett, RI 02882

Judith Capuzzo

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Margarida Castro
Universidade Do Algarve
Campus De Gambelas
8000 Faro

PORTUGAL

Bradford C. Chase
92 Fort Avenue
Salem, MA 01970

Gilbert L. Chase

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Region 5

300 Westgate Center
Hadley, MA 01035

Ford Cross

National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort Laboratory

101 Pivers Island Road

Beaufort, NC 28516

Edward C. Cyr

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Herbert C. Hoover Building

14th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20230

Wayne R. Davis
53 Coronado Street
Jamestown, RI 02835

Thomas B. DeMoss
Environmental Protection Agency
Region III

839 Bestlane Road

Annapolis, MD 21401

Christopher Deacutis

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources

291 Promenade Street

Providence, RI 02908

Annette DeSilva

University National Oceanographic Laboratory System
P.O. Box 392

Saunderstown, RI 02874

Robert A. Duce

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus

Narragansett, RI 02882



Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem as part of any effective
ecosystem study. This doubtless implies the need for closely
coordinated modeling and field study of this system. Fortu-
nately, the marine planktonic ecosystems are probably well
characterized by food web interactions without addition of
the more complex and potentially indirect interactions in-
volving habitat modification that would be required in
marine benthic ecosystem models. Unfortunately, marine
planktonic food chains tend to be long compared to other
food chains (Schoener 1989), implying a need to measure
more populations to understand the behavior of any marine
planktonic ecosystem. For the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosys-
tem, these issues need immediate attention to allow the

Page 29

effective design of a study of the controls on the dynamics
of that vital ecosystem so that its important functions can be
sustained in the face of obvious human impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the National Science Foundation for support
Tequired to prepare this paper, and NOAA's National Ma-
tine Fisheries Service and the Environmental Protection
Agency for support to attend the Northeast U.S. Shelf
Ecosystem: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability Sympo-
sium to present the paper.

REFERENCES CITED

Clark, S.H.; Brown, B.E. 1977. Changes of biomass of
finfishes and squids from the Gulf of Maine to Cape
Hatteras, 1963-74, as determined from research vessel
survey data. Fish. Bull, U.S. 75: 1-21.

Committee on International Science’s Task Force on Global
Diversity. 1989. Loss of biological diversity: a global
crisis requiring international solutions. A report to the
National Science Board. Available from: National Sci-
ence Foundation, Washington, DC.

Fogarty, M.J.; Sissenwine, M.P.; Grosslein, M.D. 1987.
Fish population dynamics. Jn: Backus, R.H.,ed. Georges
Bank. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; p. 494-509.

Huntley, M.E.; Lopez, M.D.G.; Karl, D.M. 1991. Top
predators in the Southern Ocean: a major leak in the
biological carbon pump. Science 253: 64-66.

Joint Oceanographic Institutions. 1991a. GLOBEC initial
science plan; 93 p. Available from: Joint Oceanographic
Institutions, Washington, DC.

Joint Oceanographic Institutions. 1991b. GLOBEC North-
west Atlantic Program; 93 p. Available from: Joint
Oceanographic Institutions, Washington, DC,

Joint Oceanographic Institutions. 1991c. Theory and
modeling inGLOBEC; 9 p. Available from: Joint Oceano-
graphic Institutions, Washington, DC.

Lubchenco, J.; Olson, A.M.; Brubaker, L.B.; Carpenter,
S.R.; Holland, M.M:; Hubbell; S.P.; Levin, S.A.;
MacMahon, J.A.; Matson, P.A.; Melillo, J.M.; Mooney,
H.A.; Peterson, C.H.; Pulliam, H.R.; Real, L.A.; Regal,
P.J.; Risser, P.G. 1991. The sustainable biosphere
initiative: an‘ecological research agenda. «Ecology 72:
371-412.

May, R.M., editor. 1984; -Exploitation of marine commu-
nities: Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 319.p.

National Research Council. 1990: Decline of the sea turtles:
causes and prevention: ‘Washington, DC: National Acad+
emy: Press;-259:p.

Ricker; W:E. 1958. Handbook of computations for biologi-.
cal statistics of fish-populations: Bull. Fish: Res: Board:
Can.-119; 300.p.

Risser, P.G.; Lubchenco, J.; Levin, S.A. 1991. Biological
research priorities--a sustainable biosphere. Bioscience
41(9): 625-627.

Rothschild, B.J. 1986. Dynamics of marine fish popula-
tions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 277 p.

Schoener, T.W. 1989. Food webs from the small to the
large. Ecology 70: 1559-1589.

Sherman, K. 1991. The large marine ecosystem concept: a
research and management strategy for living marine re-
sources. Ecol. Appl. 1(4): 349-360.

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., editors. 1986. Variability
and management of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Sel.
Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 319 p.

Sherman, K.; Grosslein, .M.;.Mountain,-D.; Busch, .D.;
O'Reilly, J.E.; Theroux, R. 1988: The-continental shelf
ecosystem off the northeast coast of the United States. In?
Postma, H.; Zijlstra, J.J.,eds. Ecosystems of the world 27-
continental shelves. Amsterdam, ‘The Netherlands:~
Elsevier Press; p. 279-337.

Sissenwine, M.P. 1986: Perturbation of a predator-con-".
trolled continental shelf ecosystem.: In: Sherman, K
Alexander, L.M.; eds. Variability and:management’of =»
large marine ecosystems. AAAS Sel.:Symp. 99. Boulder;
CO: Westview Press; p. 55-85;

Sissenwine, M.P.; Cohen; E.B.-1991.- Resource:productiv- -
ity and fisheries. management: Northeast U.S. Shelf Eco-.~-
system. Jn: Sherman, K.;-Alexander;-L.M:; Gold; B.D.,
eds. - Food ‘chains; yields, models,:and-management ‘of «“
large marine ecosystems... Boulder;CO: Westview-Press;
p. 107-123.

Steele, J.H. 1988: Scale selection for biodynamic theories.
In: Rothschild, B.J., ed: Toward:a:theory-on biological=::
physical interactions in the world ocean: NATO Ady. Stud:
Inst; Ser. Ser: C Math: Phys.- Sci.'239:513+526.-

Stewart-Oaten; A.;.Murdoch,: W:W:} Parker; K.
Environmental impact assessment: “pseudoreplicationTM-"
in time? Ecology:67: 929-940.

Sugihara, G.;. Garcia,..S.; Guilland, ‘J.A.;. Lawton;
Maske, H.; Paine, R.T.; Platt, T.;:-Rachor; E.; Rothschild,’



single resources without incorporating adequately the entire
ecosystem context. Effective management must incorpo-
rate an appreciation for function of the ecosystem in which
the target resource is embedded. This task requires a large
multidisciplinary effort and a strong foundation built on
ecological principles to produce effective prediction-mak-
ing and to avoid costly ad hoc repetition of efforts on every
individual system. The development of this third priority of
the SBI is crucial to sustain human activities, lifestyles, and
societies.

GLOBAL OCEAN ECOSYSTEMS
DYNAMICS

GLOBEC is acomponent research initiative of the U.S.
Global Change Program. The core goal of this research
initiative is to develop the necessary understanding of how
physical processes affect, both directly and indirectly, ma-
rine ecosystems dynamics to be able to predict how global
change might be expected to alter the structure, dynamics,
and productivity of ocean ecosystems (Joint Oceanographic
Institutions 199 1a). The emphasis of the program falls most
heavily upon secondary production, especially including
fisheries resources. A scientific steering committee for
GLOBEC was named in the spring of 1989, after numerous
workshops in the preceding years on marine fish ecology,
zooplankton ecology, benthic ecology, physical-biological
coupling, and recruitment dynamics. In the spring of 1991,
the GLOBEC steering committee published its Initial Sci-
ence Plan (Joint Oceanographic Institutions 199 1a).

The U.S. GLOBEC Program is designed as a
multiagency research initiative with the NSF, NOAA, and
Office of Naval Research (ONR) providing most of the
Present support. Present projects funded under the GLOBEC
umbrella include modeling efforts supported jointly by
ONR and NSF Ocean Sciences, and retrospective analyses
of particular ecosystems, biotechnology development, re-
search on UV effects on larvae, and preparatory planning for
field programs in the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem by
NOAA’s Marine Ecosystem Response Program. An NSF
panel met in August 1991 to recommend decisions on
Proposed projects submitted in response to a call for propos-
als to develop biotechnological tools for assessing physi-
ological status of zooplankters and for mechanizing count-
ing of taxa of zooplankters. In addition to these specific
Projects, relevant laboratories of the National Marine Fish-
eries Service of NOAA are using ‘internal resources to
promote GLOBEC field projects within their purview.
Despite this present level of GLOBEC activity within the
United States, the GLOBEC-related projects abroad greatly
exceed it, with Canadian, Norwegian, and French programs
especially active.

The strategy adopted by the scientific steering commit-
tee for GLOBEC is to precede major field programs with
efforts: (1) to produce appropriate models of relevant

Page 25

physical dynamics, population dynamics, and ecosystem
Processes that can serve to guide later field experiments; and
(2)todevelopnew instrumentation that will allow biological
sampling in the sea to occur more rapidly and over larger
areas such that it can more closely match the scales of
physical data collection and contributions of physical pro-
cesses. With physical-biological models in hand to guide
the conceptual hypothesis formation, and with new, more
powerful biological sampling tools available, the GLOBEC
steering committee plans to mount major field efforts in a
small number of LMEs. These field programs will be
designed to understand how the physical processes, includ-
ing those sensitive to change at local, regional, and global
scales, contribute directly and indirectly to ecosystems
dynamics.

The initial field system identified for intensive study
and hypothesis testing by the GLOBEC steering committee
is the Northwest Atlantic ecosystem (Joint Oceanographic
Institutions 1991b), essentially equivalent to the Northeast
U.S. Shelf Ecosystem of Sherman et al. (1988). The intent
is for U.S. efforts to focus on the Georges Bank area, while
analogous Canadian efforts focus on other banks (e.g.,
Browns Bank and the Flemish Cap) and the more physically
open Scotian Shelf, and European efforts consider the shelf
ecosystems of the Northeast Atlantic, so that the contrast of
these physically different systems containing a similar biota
can yield important insights into processes controlling ma-
rine ecosystems dynamics and their generality. This par-
ticular LME was chosen for the initial intensive field pro-
gram for several reasons. Because the food chains in this
system are topped by gadoid fishes of commercial impor-
tance, Atlantic cod and haddock, there is both practical
importance to understanding this system and also availabil-
ity of historical time-series data on key system variables.
These data include not only fisheries catch statistics, but also
a large amount of information on physical circulation,
transport, and mixing processes. For the Georges Bank,
there is clear evidence of overfishing and a consequent shift
from a dominance of gadoid to relatively undesirable elas-
mobranch top predators (Clarkand Brown 1977; Sissenwine
1986), implying a need for an ecosystems-oriented manage-
ment approach. In addition, several lines of argument
suggest that this region may be highly sensitive to global
change, and therefore an appropriate choice for detection of
asignal and testing hypotheses on ecosystem response. For
example, general circulation models suggest that the North
Atlantic is a region expected to experience a strong set of
physical signals from global warming. Changing precipita-
tion patterns and ice melt during warming would be ex-
pected to alter the buoyancy-driven currents that strongly
affect the circulation patterns in this coastal, moderately
high-latitude system. And finally, biogeographic changes in
response to warming sea temperatures might be expected to
alter the Georges Bank ecosystem dramatically given the
narrow latitudinal range of this shallow coastal feature and
the present biogeographic boundaries.

The Initial Science Plan for GLOBEC (Joint Oceano-


Page 2

model predictions and assess ecosystem health.

6. Enhanced attention to inclusion of prey dynamics, such
as forage fish and zooplankton, is critical to fisheries
management.

7. Studies and models must evaluate the roles of biodiversity
and indirect interactions (those other than direct preda-
tor-prey relations) in ocean ecosystems dynamics to
allow for the simplification of a diverse system.

SCIENTIFIC ISSUES

The physical forces influencing productivity and
sustainability of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem were
reviewed on the first day of the symposium by several
investigators. Dr. R. Duce of the University of Rhode Island
described the wide extent and importance of air-sea ex-
change of pollutants. He was followed by speakers who
considered environmental forces influencing ecosystem
structure and function, including: weather and climate (O.
Hertzman), water-mass structure (D. Brooks), cross-shelf
carbon flux (P. Falkowski), and long-term oceanographic
trends (R. Armstrong; F. Godshall). On day two, following
the presentations of trends in coastal physics, a summary of
decadal trends in populations was given for phytoplankton
and zooplankton (J. Jossi; M. Berman), benthos (R. Theroux),
fish (M. Fogarty), and cetaceans (H. Winn and eight coau-
thors; R. Kenney). A review of the dynamics of zooplankton
was given by E. Durbin.

On the third day, a summary was given during the
morning session of the results of NOAA’s nearcoast con-
taminants monitoring program on: the relative magnitude
and content of toxic discharges into the Northeast U.S. Shelf
Ecosystem from drainage basins (D. Farrow), the distribu-
tion of contaminants in sediments and biological indicator
organisms (T. O'Connor), the bioeffects of contaminants
(A. Robertson), and biological indicators of contaminant
effects (J. Stein). In the afternoon session, discussions were
focused on nutrient enrichment of the estuarine and
nearcoastal areas of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem (T.
Malone), as well as in other LMEs around the globe.
Possible linkages between eutrophication and biotoxic ef-
fects of plankton blooms on living marine resources were
stressed by T. Smayda, A. White, and L. Fortier. The late
afternoon and evening sessions addressed stress and mitiga-
tion issues, including the influence of the extensive water-
shed drainage on the water quality of the nearcoastal zone in
relation to metal transport (e.g., copper, lead, nickel, cad-
mium, and zinc) and annual flux with regard to naturally
occurring metals, and metal contamination resulting from
human activities (H. Windom). Other papers focused on the
effects of perturbed habitats on reproductive success of
species selected as bioindicators of pollution stress (F.
Thurberg), the effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyl! (PCB)
contamination of a nearcoastal environment (J. Capuzzo),

and the characterization of the recovery of a former conti-
nental-shelf sludge dumpsite (M. Ingham). These papers
were followed by a panel discussion on mitigation of stress
thataddressed: marine mammal issues, including bycatch in
commercial fisheries in relation to recent legislation (R.
Hoffman); water quality improvement efforts addressed by
EPA (MLL. Scotia); and overexploitation and strategies for
tecovery of depleted fish stocks (S. Edwards). The topic of
mitigation of stress from a global LME perspective was
considered (T. Laughlin), as were policy implications of
mitigation (L. Juda), coastal zone mitigation actions relating
to energy development (W. Long), and public concer in
regard to growing problems of coastal pollution (K.
Spaulding).

During the fourth day, discussions were aimed at long-
term sustainability of habitats and living resources, includ-
ing: status of wetlands (J. Thomas), fisheries sustainability
(S. Murawski), habitat stress and fish productivity (F. Cross),
habitat restoration (T. Bigford), and legal aspects of habitat
restoration (M. Matera). The afternoon session was an open
forum, mediated by the three conveners with reviews on:
productivity, eutrophication, and biotoxic stress (T. Smayda);
living marine resources and ecosystem health (K. Sherman);
and habitat loss due to pollution and efforts under way to
improve water quality (N. Jaworski).

POLLUTION STRESS

Based on the information presented to the symposium,
river basin drainage is undergoing some degree of improve-
ment. However, a large number of the sewage treatment
plants discharging effluent into the Northeast U.S. Shelf
Ecosystem are antiquated and cannot deal adequately with
storm-induced overflows of combined sewage systems that
introduce raw sewage and toxics into LMEs. It was con-
cluded, however, based on NOAA’s Status & Trends Pro-
gram information, that large-scale biological consequences
from existing levels of toxics were unlikely. Levels of lead
and DDT have declined. Elevated levels of toxics are
limited to the vicinities of large urban outfalls with a few
telatively small areas that can be described as biological
“hot-spots.” Evidence of neoplasms in fish and shellfish has
been found. No linkage has, as yet, however, been made to
allow for extrapolation from individual specimens showing
relatively high levels of toxic substances and any significant
biofeedback at the population level, to increased levels of
contamination. Diagnostics are improving so as to make
more effective surveys of pollution effects on individual
organisms and populations than those presently in use.

PHYSICAL STRESS

The results of two investigations conducted indepen-
dently (P. Jeffries of the University of Rhode Island and



Page 12

Marguerite Matera

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
General Counsel's Office

1 Blackbur Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

Bruce McKay

2444 Notre Dame, W.
Montreal, PQ H3J 1N5
CANADA

Brian D. Melzian

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Don C. Miller

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

David Moran

Minerals Management Service
381 Elden Street, Suite 1109
Herndon, VA 20270

Steve Murawski

National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Brian Needham
27 Sleepy Hollow Road
East Greenwich, RI 02818

Barbara Nowicki

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus, Aquarium Annex
Narragansett, RI 02882

Thomas O’Connor

National Ocean Service

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 312
Rockville, MD 20852

Candace Oviatt

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus

Narragansett, RI 02882

John Paul

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

John Pearce

National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Jerry Pesch

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Bruce J. Peterson
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA 02543

Charles H. Peterson
University of North Carolina
Institute of Marine Sciences
Morehead City, NC 28557

Donald Phelps

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Richard Pierce

University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth
Biology Department

North Dartmouth, MA 02747

Robert Pikanowski

National Marine Fisheries Service

James J. Howard Marine Science Laboratory
Building 74, McGruder Road

Highlands, NJ 07732

Jan C. Prager

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Harold Pratt

National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882



Page 30

B.J.; Ursin, E.A.; Zeitzschel, B.F.K. 1984. Ecosystems U.S. Committee on Global Change Research. 1990. Re-

dynamics: group report. In: May, R.H., ed. Exploitation search strategies for the U.S. Global Change Research
of marine communities. : Berlin, Germany: Springer- Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Verlag; p. 130-153. Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable

tesources. New York: Macmillan. 374 p.

yy Us S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993--700-026--80002 (6166)


BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

PB94~ 193439

Report Nos: NOAA~TM-NMFS-F/NEC-94

Title: Summary of the Symposium on the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem: Stress,
Mitigation, and Sustainability. Held in Narragansett, Rhode Island on August 12-15,
1991.

Date: Oct 92

Authors: K. Sherman, N. Jaworski, and T. Smayda.

Performing Organization: National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Type of Report and Period Covered: Technical memo.

NTIS Field/Group Codes: 47D, 47C, 48B
Price: PC AQ3/MF Agl

Availability: Available from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA. 22161

Number of Pages: 37p

Keywords: “Continental shelf, *Ecosystems, “Meetings, Coastal zone management,
Marine biology, Water pollution effects, Marine environments, Environment
management, Environmental protection, Man environment interactions, Conservation,
‘atlantic Coast (United States), LME(Large marine ecosystems).

Abstract: A symposium on the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem, extending from the
Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, was held on the Bay Campus of the
University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography during 12-15 August
1991. The objective of the symposium was to bring pertinent science to aid in the
mitigation of severe stress imposed on the sustainability of the Northeast U.S.
Shelf Ecosystem and its wetlands, estuaries, coastal zone, fisheries, marine
mammals, and other resources.


Page 23
APPENDIX C

OPENING ADDRESS: ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
FOR A SUSTAINABLE BIOSPHERE

Charles H. Peterson
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Institute of Marine Sciences
Morehead City, NC 28557

ABSTRACT

In 1991, the Ecological Society of America published the society's recommendations for research priorities in the
1990s. The outcome of this two-year-long, grassroots planning process called for establishment of a Sustainable
Biosphere Initiative. This proposed research initiative contains three priority research foci: (1) global change, (2)
biological diversity, and (3) sustainable ecological systems.

For ocean ecosystems, the federal research program that is most responsive to this agenda is GLOBEC. GLOBEC
is part of the U.S. Global Change Program, supported by multiple agencies. It combines all three research priorities
identified within SBI to address how changing global climate might be expected to alter ecosystems dynamics and
especially secondary production in the sea.

The initial field system identified for study by the GLOBEC steering committee is the Northwest Atlantic,
essentially equivalent to the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem. This paper applies the principles extracted from the SBI
and GLOBEC planning processes to the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem. Specifically, the lessons include: (1) species
do not exist and cannot be managed in isolation; (2) process-based ecosystem models must be created, incorporating
trophic interactions and physical dynamics as an antidote to the lack of replication of a specific large marine ecosystem;
(3) ecosystem models must include key human interactions of exploitation, nutrient and pollutant inputs, and climate
change; (4) rigorous experimental and analytical methods of manipulative ecology need to be applied in “adaptive
management”; (5) modelers must be charged with, and agencies made responsive to, the need for identifying precisely
those state variables that require monitoring to test model predictions and assess ecosystem health; (6) enhanced attention
to inclusion of prey dynamics, such as forage fish and zooplankton, is critical to fisheries management; and (7) studies
and models must evaluate the roles of biodiversity and indirect interactions (those other than direct predator-prey
relations) in ocean ecosystems dynamics to allow tractable simplification of a diverse system.

propriate multiagency federal research initiative to respond
in the marine environment to the appeal of the Ecological
Society of America--is indeed responsive to the ESA’s
guidance. Finally, I go beyond the previously published

INTRODUCTION

The intent of this paper is to apply the general recom-
mendations of the Ecological Society of America’s (ESA)
recent review of research priorities for the 1990s (Lubchenco
et al. 1991) to the specific case of developing a research
agenda to understand and manage the Northeast U.S. Shelf
Ecosystem. The Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem is the
coastal ecosystem stretching from the Gulf of Maine to Cape
Hatteras (as defined by Sherman et al. 1988), a system
whose important biological resources would doubtless ben-
efit from ecologically informed management of the entire
ecosystem as an LME (Sherman and Alexander 1986). I
first describe briefly the major conclusions and research
priorities put forward by the Ecological Society of America.
Ithen demonstrate how the Initial Science Plan of GLOBEC
[Joint Oceanographic Institutions (1991a)}--the most ap-

general documents to apply their broad recommendations to
develop some important specific guidelines for research and
management of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem.

THE SUSTAINABLE BIOSPHERE
INITIATIVE

In response toa recognition that resources for scientific
research are necessarily limited and that not all excellent
research now proposed by scientists can be funded, the
Ecological Society of America established in 1989 a broad-
based committee of its members to review the discipline of
ecology and to identify the priority areas for research em-


Edward Durbin

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus

Narragansett, RI 02882

Ann Durbin

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus

Narragansett, RI 02882

Jacob Dykstra

Point Judith Fishermens Coop
85 Cherry Road

Kingston, RI 02881

Steve Edwards

National Marine Fisheries Service
‘Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Paul Falkowski

Associated Universities, Inc.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973

Daniel Farrow

National Ocean Service

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 220
Rockville, MD 20852

Joseph Faryniarz
90 Mohican Avenue
Waterbury, CT 06708

Paul Fofonoff

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bunker C, Bay Campus
Narragansett, RI 02882

Michael J. Fogarty

National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Sonja V. Fordham

Center for Marine Conservation, Inc.
1725 DeSales Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036

Louis Fortier

Les Jardins De Verre-Bourg
999 Beauregard, App. 302
Ste-Foy, PQ G1V 4T9
CANADA

Phyllis J. Friello

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
15 Loveton Circle

Sparks, MD 21152

Elizabeth Garlo

Normandeau Association, Inc.
2 Conant Drive

Concord, NH 03301

Michael H. Glantz

National Center for Atmospheric Research
Box 3000

Boulder, CO 80307

Fred Godshall

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Carolyn Griswold

National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Stephen Hale

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus

Narragansett, RI 02882

David Haroldson

Minerals Management Service
381 Elden Street, Suite 1109
Herndon, VA 22070

Kathy Harrica

University of Connecticut
National Undersea Resarch Center
Groton, CT 06340

D. Heinemann
Manomet Bird Observatory
Manomet, MA 02345

Ray Heller
61 E. Pattagansett Road
Niantic, CT 06357

Page 9


J. Klein
National Ocean Service

R. Duce
University of Rhode Island

J. Paul
Environmental Protection Agency

8:30 a.m.

O. Hertzman
Dalhousie University

David Brooks
Texas A&M University

P. Falkowski
Brookhaven National Laboratory

R. Armstrong
National Marine Fisheries Service

H. Walker and F. Godshall
Environmental Protection Agency

1:00 p.m.
J. Jossi ©

National Marine Fisheries Service

M. Berman
National Marine Fisheries Service

E. and A. Durbin
University of Rhode Island

R. Theroux
National Marine Fisheries Service

M. Fogarty
National Marine Fisheries Service

D. Heinemann
Manomet Bird Observatory

Page 15

Extent and Effects of Flux from Estuaries into the
Coastal Zone

Air/Sea Exchange of Pollutants

Estuarine/Coastal Monitoring

DAY 2 - TUESDAY, 13 AUGUST 1991
CHAIRMAN — NORBERT JAWORSKI

SHELF DYNAMICS

Weather and Climate
Patterns of Water Movement
Cross-Shelf Processes: Regulation and Fate of

Carbon within the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem

Long-term Oceanographic Trends
of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem

Climate Variations and Responses
of Coastal Ecosystems
DECADAL POPULATIONS:
ASSESSMENTS AND TRENDS
Phytoplankton Time Series
Zooplankton Time Series
Zooplankton Dynamics

Benthos

Fish

Birds


Forsyth P. Kineon

National Ocean Service

1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 607
Washington, DC 20235

Sari J. Kiraly

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Room 625
Washington, DC 20235

C. John Klein

National Ocean Service

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 220
Rockville, MD 20852

John Knauss

U.S Department of Commerce

Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 5128
14th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20230

Jonathan Kurland

National Marine Fisheries Service
1 Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

Jim Lake

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Richard L. Lambertsen

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Coastal Research Center

Woods Hole, MA 02543

William Lang

Minerals Management Service
Box 228

Point of Rocks, MD 21777

Lee M. Langstaff
National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration *

Office of the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 5128
14th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20230

Richard Latimer

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory. - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Thomas L. Laughlin

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 5215

14th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20230

Lawrence A. LeBlanc
68 Hurd Street
Lynn, MA 01905

Noelle F. Lewis

Save the Bay

434 Smith Street
Providence, RI 02908

Jessica Logan

University of Rhode Island
P.O. Box 231

Kingston, RI 02881

Suzanne Lussier

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Sharon MacLean

National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

William H. Maine
82 Seaview Avenue
North Kingstown, RI 02852

Thomas C. Malone

Horn Point Environmental Laboratory
P.O. Box 775

Cambridge, MD 21613

Bridget Mansfield
P.O. Box 983
Newport, RI 02840

Lucie Maranda

University of Rhode Island
Department of Pharmacognosy
Kingston, RI 02881

Eugenia Marks

Audubon Society of Rhode Island
12 Sanderson Road

Smithfield, RI 02917

Page 11


Page 24

phasis in the 1990s. The committee met frequently and
worked intensively for over a year to create a draft document
describing research priorities and a research agenda for
ecology in the coming decade. The draft document was then
subjected to the review and scrutiny of the entire society
through presentation at the ESA annual meeting in 1990 and
through solicitation of written reviews from many individu-
als in allied disciplines who were not members of ESA.
Throughout the process, community input and criticism
were also sought through workshops and publication of
announcements in the ESA Bulletin and ESA Newsletter.
The inputs from numerous ecologists were ultimately incor-
porated into the final document accepted by and published
by the Ecological Society of America (Lubchenco et al.
1991). This document presents the blueprints for a Sustain-
able Biosphere Initiative, the results cf asuccessful grassroots
process of research prioritization carried out by the practic-
ing scientists in the discipline to guide the allocation of
resources for research in the coming decade.

The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative reflects a recogni-
tion that the human population and its influence have grown
to a point where the sustainability of ecological systems
cannot be assumed: additional basic research must be
performed to enhance our understanding of the functioning
of ecological systems so that their important functions can
besustained through wise management. Public understand-
ing of the mechanisms by which ecological systems function
is critical to ensuring that ecological principles and knowl-
edge are used appropriately in managing the biosphere, so
the SBI calls for increased public education and ecological
information transfer. Most importantly, the SBI contends
that proper management of our natural resources demands
that sound ecological knowledge be incorporated into man-
agement and policy (Risser et al. 1991).

The SBI is composed of three research priorities: global
change, biological diversity, and sustainable ecological
systems.

GLOBAL CHANGE

The SBI strongly endorses the ongoing global change
research program (U.S. Committee on Global Change Re-
search 1990). Understanding the ecological causes and
consequences of global change is critical to furthering
ecological understanding of ecosystem processes at all
scales (local, regional, as well as global) and vital to wise
development of national policy and informed management
of ecosystems that deliver goods and services. Despite
support for the presently formulated U.S. Global Change
Program, the SBI also identifies one area of research that is
not adequately addressed by the current research initiatives,
the broad issue of how ecological conditions and processes
control global processes. Quite simply, the composition,
structure, and functioning of an ecosystem determine the
biogeochemical fluxes, transfers, transformations, and stor-
ages of materials that occur within it and thereby contribute

to global element cycles and global change. For example,
the degree of success in reducing atmospheric CO, through
stimulation of phytoplankton production by application of
the limiting micronutrient of iron to the Southern Ocean
depends upon the extent to which any enhanced primary
production is respired back into the atmosphere by pen-
guins, whales, and other consumers in the Antarctic food
webs (Huntley et al. 1991). The question of how geochemi-
cal cycling is altered by changes in ecological community
composition and function needs to be the target of explicit
research in the global change program.

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Like the first research priority identified in the SBI,
global change, the second priority, biological diversity, is
also the focus of a large ongoing research program (Com-
mittee on International Science’s Task Force on Global
Biodiversity 1989). The SBl endorses these efforts, directed
largely towards cataloging the species composition of vari-
ous habitats and protecting areas of high biological diver-
sity. However, this effort must be expanded in scope to
address two additional issues. First, basic research on
ecosystems is necessary to develop an understanding of how
different patterns of biodiversity influence the functioning
of ecological systems. For example, do more diverse
ecosystems with longer food chains, like pelagic water-
column ecosystems, respond differently from simple eco-
systems with shorter food chains, such as those in estuarine
benthic habitats, to various interventions, including the
stresses of pollution? Second, we need to develop greater
fundamental ecological appreciation for the processes by
which ecological processes influence biodiversity. Without
this improved understanding of the relationships between
ecosystem function and biodiversity, reliable strategies to
manage and maintain biological diversity required to sup-
port the biosphere cannot be developed.

SUSTAINABLE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

In contrast to the first two research priorities identified
by the Ecological Society of America’s SBI, this third
priority is new, not the focus of any direct integrated federal
research program. The thrust of this recommended research
effort is to develop the rigorous understanding of underlying
ecological processes that are required to develop successful
management and restoration of natural, exploited, and arti-
ficial (e.g., timberlands, agricultural systems, aquaculture
systems) ecosystems. There are, of course, numerous
research activities designed to develop information required
tomanage particular exploited resources, such as fish stocks,
crops, and timber. However, these efforts are fragrnented
rather than united through the basic ecological problems
held incommon, and often inappropriately directed towards







address the interrelated, multidisciplinary issues facing our
coastal oceans.

I believe the LME concept has much to offer in this
respect. LMEs are relatively large areas of 200,000 square
kilometers, or more, and are typically located in waters
adjacent to land masses, therefore encompassing the areas
under greatest stress from overexploitation, pollution, and
habitat alteration. Taking an ecosystem approach highlights
the interrelatedness of the different parameters of each
system and encourages cooperative dialogs across tradi-
tional disciplinary boundaries. I believe that this isnot only
a good idea, but it is essential if we are sincere in our desire
to address this increasingly complex suite of coastal ocean
issues--issues such as coastal zone management, pollution
reduction, fisheries productivity and sustainability, and habi-
tat protection.

I do not want to suggest there is no room for the
individual specialist any more than there is no room for the
individual agency requirement. An LME approach to un-
derstanding and managing the coastal ocean is no panacea,
but I do believe it can help. The problems here are seldom
single-issue, single-answer problems. In this respect par-
ticularly, the holistic approach inherent in the LME concept
encourages us in the right direction.

Inanaddress at MIT last fall, Imadea proposition. [had
tried it out previously in Monaco with representatives from
anumber of different European countries. Some of youmay
have heard it already, but let me reiterate it here again,
because I still like it.

If one set out to design a coastal ocean monitoring
system to monitor the health of the ocean, are LMEs an
appropriate geographical unit? If they are, would it be useful
to organize a set of regional programs, each designed for a
specific LME? Each nation, or set of nations, bordering on
an LME would be responsible for the design and implemen-
tation of the program. The goal of the programs would be to
monitor the system and understand how the system works,
what its normal parameters are, and how humans are per-
turbing the system.

Those responsible for the program of each LME could.
meet locally on a regular basis. Perhaps every few years
representatives from each region could come together inter-
nationally to compare notes and report on the health of all of
the LMEs. By doing this, they would, in effect, be reporting
on the health of the ocean.

I went on, in Monaco, to suggest that such a program
could be organized through one, or some combination of,
United Nations agencies and, further, that the development
of such a program could be considered at the U.N. Confer-
ence on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Brazil
in 1992. Iam pleased to say that the LME approach to coastal
ocean research, monitoring, and management is, in fact,
being incorporated into the U.S. delegation’s ocean issues
paper for the 1992 UNCED meeting.

The LME approach lends itself to international applica-
tion well. Focusing fisheries, pollution, and coastal zone
studies on some 49 LMEs in which pertinent studies are

Page 21

already underway, and financed by national interests, will
promote more coherent and effective national and U.N.
ocean research and monitoring programs.

Today there is clear interest on the part of developing
countries, as well as industrialized nations, to develop some
form of coastal zone management in order to improve the
prognosis for sustainable development of their coastal re-
sources.

LMEs provide an approach which is flexible enough to
account for the fact that the economic values of the coastal
zone within LMEs differ from nation to nation. In some
areas, such as in the deltas of Egypt and Bangladesh, coastal
agriculture is of primary importance. In Peru and Chile,
fishing is more important; and in other areas, such as in the
Mediterranean, the Pacific Islands, or the Caribbean Islands,
marine-related tourism is critically important. Regional
LME management plans can be tailored to meet the mul-
tiple-use needs of the bordering nation or nations.

Around the world, management efforts have been ini-

* tiated which embrace this ecosystem approach. These

include the Yellow Sea Ecosystem, where principal effort is
underway by China; the multispecies fisheries of the Benguela
Current Ecosystem under the management of the govern-
ment of South Africa; the Great Barrier Reef Ecosystem and
the Northwest Australian Continental Shelf Ecosystem un-
der management by the state and federal governments of
Australia; and the Antarctic Marine Ecosystem under the
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Ma-
rine Resources and its 21-nation membership.

By comparing results of research among the LMEs, it
should be possible to accelerate an understanding of how the
systems work and how they respond to, and recover from,
stress. Such comparisons will allow us tonarrow the context
of unresolved problems and to capitalize on research efforts
underway in different ecosystems.

But--the global perspective will be only as good as the
regional and local efforts that go into studying and under-
standing each of the large marine ecosystems.

This gathering represents an effort to bring together
those federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and
individuals who are contributing to, or simply interested in,
a better understanding of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosys-
tem.

I believe it is especially appropriate that this first
symposium on the health of a particular LME is focusing on
this particular LME. The reason I say this is because of a
great deal of work has been focused on the Northeast U.S.
Shelf Ecosystem in the past, which is well-suited tothe LME
approach, particularly with respect to efforts to obtain along
time series of monitoring data in terms of interdisciplinary
and intergovernmental collaboration.

The scientists here at the University of Rhode Island’s
Graduate School of Oceanography, or GSO, have some of
the longest time series for the coastal waters in the United
States. Professor Ted Smayda has concluded, from his
analysis of a 25-year time series of phytoplankton collec-
tions in Narragansett Bay, that major changes have occurred


Page 18

F. Cross
National Marine Fisheries Service

T. Bigford
National Marine Fisheries Service

M. Matera
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

1:00 p.m.

T. Smayda
University of Rhode Island

K, Sherman
National Marine Fisheries Service

N. Jaworski
Environmental Protection Agency

End of Day 4

Adjourn

Relating Habitat Stress to Fish Productivity --
Problems and Approaches

Habitat Restoration

Legal Aspects of Habitat Mitigation and Restoration

STATUS OF THE HEALTH OF THE
NORTHEAST U.S. SHELF
ECOSYSTEM: REVIEW, SUMMARY,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Productivity Issues and Eutrophication Stress
within the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem

Living Marine Resources Overfishing,
Stress, and Mitigation

Other Human Interactions:Pollution, Habitat Loss,
Water Quality, Recreation

RECOMMENDATIONS

Monitoring Programs: MARMAP, S&T, EMAP, States,
Sea Grant, “Mitchell Bill,” Marine Centers, and Others

Periodic Reviews of Ecosystem Health



aT Le

_PBO4- 103439 a ;

ATMOS
Se

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-94

This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results,
interim reports, or special purpose information, and has not undergone external scientific
review.

Summary of the Symposium
on the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem:
Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability

12-15 August 1991,
University of Rhode Island,

Narragansett, Rhode Island

Kenneth Sherman’, N. Jaworski’, and T. Smayda’, Editors

‘Narragansett Lab., National Marine Fisheries Serv., Narragansett, RI 02882-1199
?Environmental Research Lab., Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Ri 02882
3Graduate School of Oceanography, Univ, of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Barbara H. Franklin, Secretary
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John A. Knauss, Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
William W. Fox, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
Northeast Region
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

October 1992

PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE j

U.S, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE |





Page 7

APPENDIX A

LIST OF SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES AND PROGRAM

ATTENDEES
Tundi Acardy John F. Bash
World Wildlife Fund University National Oceanographic Laboratory System
1250 24th Street, N.W. P.O. Box 392
Washington, DC 20037 Saunderstown, RI 02874
Lewis M. Alexander Mark Berman
University of Rhode Island National Marine Fisheries Service
313 Washburn Hall Narragansett Laboratory
Kingston, RI 02881 28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Reed Armstrong .
National Marine Fisheries Service Thomas E. Bigford
Narragansett Laboratory National Marine Fisheries Service
28 Tarzwell Drive Northeast Habitat Conservation Branch

Narragansett, RI 02882

Chester L. Amold

University of Connecticut Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Program

43 Marne Street

Hamden, CT 06514

Fortunato A. Ascioti
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, MA 02543

Maria L. Bade
Boston University

Department of Biology
Chestnut Hill, MA 02167

Sima Bagheri

New Jersey Institute of Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
323 King Boulevard

Newark, NJ 07102

Mindy Bard

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02852

Jeff Bamett

Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Building (BES41)
Philadelphia, PA 19107

1 Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930

Dianne Black

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

David G. Borkman
University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth

Biology Department
North Dartmouth, MA 02747

John R. Botzum

Nautilus Press, Inc.

Ocean Science News

1201 National Press Building
Washington, DC 20045

A.E. Boyd

Stripers Unlimited Fund Raising, Inc.
P.O. Box 3045

S. Attleboro, MA 02703

Peg Brady

Massachusetts Audubon: North Shore
Endicott Regional Center

346 Grapevine Road

Wenham, MA 01984

Leigh Bridges

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
100 Cambridge Street

Boston, MA 02202


Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface
Background
Agency and Academic Perspectives of LMEs
Scientific Issues
Pollution Stress
Physical Stress
Eutrophication
Ecosystem Stress and Mitigat

Health Status of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem

ROWNNNEE ES

APPENDICES

Appendix A. List of Symposium Attendees and Program .....

Appendix B. Keynote Address: The Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem
Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability -
Dr. John A, Knauss

Appendix C. Opening Address: Ecological Research for a Sustainable Biosphere
Dr. Charles H. Peterson

a

Prece ‘Preceding page | bla

ank


Andrew Robertson

National Ocean Service

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 323
Rockville, MD 20852

Donald Scavia

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Room 522
Washington, DC 20235

Peter M. Scheifele

Analysis & Technology, Inc.
258 Bank Street

P.O. Box 1631

New London, CT 06320

Ron Schlitz

National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

M. Scotia

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Daniel J. Sheehy

ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Applied Ecology Department
Corporate Place 128

107 Audubon Road

Wakefield, MA 01880

Kenneth Sherman

National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Stephanie Shipley

University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Department Forest & Wildlife Management
20 Allen Street

Amherst, MA 01002

Theodore J. Smayda

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Box 26, Bunker C

Narragansett, RI 02882

Katherine Sosebee
49 Woods Hole Road
Falmouth, MA 02540

Mary Lou Soscia

Environmental Protection Agency (WH-5S56F)
401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20460

K. Spaulding

Save the Bay, Inc.
434 Smith Street
Providence, RI 02908

Ken Sprankle

University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Cooperative Marine Education and Research
227 Holdsworth Hall

Amherst, MA 01007

Margaret Spring

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, &
Transportation

425 Hart Building

Washington, DC 20510

John Stein

National Marine Fisheries Service
2725 Montlake Boulevard, E.
Seattle, WA 98112-2097

Lance Stewart

University of Connecticut

National Undersea Research Center
Groton, CT 06340

Roger B. Theroux

National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

James P. Thomas

National Marine Fisheries Service
1335 East-West Highway, Room 6326
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Fredrick P. Thurberg

National Marine Fisheries Service
Milford Laboratory

212 Rogers Avenue

Milford, CT 06460

Ray Valente
Signalement et Archivages des

Information Courantometriques
c/o Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882

Page 13


PB94-103439

* NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-94

Summary of the Symposium
on the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem:
Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability

12-15 August 1991,
University of Rhode Island,

Narragansett, Rhode Island

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration _
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Region
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

October 1992





Pagev

PREFACE

Asymposium on “The Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability” was held during
12-15 August 1991 at the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography in Narragansett, Rhode Island.
The symposium was convened by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. It was sponsored by the Environmental
Protection Agency; National Marine Fisheries Service; Marine Mammal Commission; American Fisheries Society; Marine
Affairs Program, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island; and Minerals Management Service.
The remainder of this document is a summary of the symposium’s proceedings,

‘Preceding page blank


Page 20

diagnose what problem, or array of problems, require imme-
diate attention. It is this knowledge that enables the physi-
cian to fulfill his or her role of furnishing remedial influence
and promoting health.

This is a role we would like to play with regard to
promoting the health of our coastal oceans, and exerting a
remedial influence where and whenever necessary. The
difficulty for us lies in the fact that we do not have some of
the critical information which we need to do this properly.

‘What the physician has that we do not have is a good
understanding of what is normal. Decades, even centuries,
of experience have provided the physician with a highly
reliable understanding of normal parameters, including the
parameters of normal variation. We simply do not have a
comparable knowledge base for ocean ecosystems. Many
times we do not know what is normal. As importantly, we
seldom know the range of normal variability. This makes it
extremely difficult for us to be the confident and accurate
diagnosticians we would like to be.

It was 15 or 20 years ago when we experienced a scare
about the mercury content in the flesh of swordfish. Our
initial assumption was that this was abnormal, and was the
result of human introduction of mercury into the oceans. As
it turned out, it was a question of our not knowing that
swordfish normally concentrate the mercury that occurs
naturally in the oceans. We made a false-positive diagnosis
due to a lack of sufficient understanding of the normal
parameters. If swordfish are dangerous to eat, then they
have probably always been dangerous toeat. Itissimply that
previously we had never gotten around to measuring the
mercury content of swordfish flesh.

Another example of our inability to distinguish between
natural and unnatural, or anthropogenic, processes in our
coastal oceans lies in the increased incidence of paralytic
shellfish poisoning which has intermittently shut down the
clam industry in the Georges Bankarea. Are the responsible
blooms of toxic dinoflagellates caused by natural ocean
variability such as changing current patterns, or are they the
result of nearshore to offshore movement of nutrients intro-
duced from anthropogenic sources? We simply do not
know.

We need to know these things. Until we can distinguish
between that which is natural, or normal--whatever that
means--and perturbations which are anthropogenic, we can
hardly fulfill the roles of diagnosticians, suppliers of
remediation, or stewards of ocean health.

am particularly concerned about two important ways
in which we differ from our counterparts in the field of
human medicine. The first relates to the question of time
scales. The physician appropriately thinks in terms of a
human lifetime. We know that human lives are finite, and
we have a very good idea of what a normal lifespan is likely
to be. Most individuals are monitored and assessed periodi-
cally during their lives, beginning when they are bom,
thereby providing their physicians with an excellent basis on
which to judge changes in health. This is to say that they
have a time series of data which is virtually complete.

But over what time-scale do we need to monitor our

coastal oceans? Decadal scales at a bare minimum. Our
efforts to determine whether changes we observe over afew
years are the result of pollution, overfishing, or natural
environmental changes require longer-term time-series
monitoring than we presently have accomplished; very
likely a good deal longer than the average lifespan of a
person.
A second critical difference lies in the fact that for
physicians, the choice of a convenient and appropriate unit
of study is such an obvious and widely accepted one--the
human body. Things are not so simple for those of us trying
to get a better grasp of ocean systems.

We have a long way to go before we have, in our black
bags, the wealth of background knowledge, the understand-
ing of the normal state, and of natural variability in our field
of study that physicians have in theirs. But, while we may
not have done a very good job of observing ocean variability
thus far, we are not completely ignorant. More importantly,
I believe we have a much better understanding of what we
need to know and are busily formulating strategies which
will gain us that knowledge.

Let me be very clear, however, about the limitations of
monitoring. Monitoring is no substitute for understanding
the physical and biochemical processes that occur in a
human body or an ecosystem. But monitoring does alert you
to possible problems. And long time series can often put
some bounds on what changes are likely to be within the
normal range of an ecosystem and which are beyond.

Which brings me to the subject of large marine ecosys-
tems. The growing interest in developing and applying the
concept of large marine ecosystems represents one such
strategy of monitoring and understanding the health of the
coastal ocean. And, a point I continue to make to those
concerned about the health of the world oceanis that we need
to concentrate on the ocean edges, the coastal oceans. The
effects of humankind on the ocean will first and most
intensively be seen along the coasts and in the near offshore.
To the extent that they are healthy, I believe we can be
relatively sanguine about the health of the vast central ocean
regions.

The concept of LMEs begins by defining coherent
systems characterized by distinctive physical, chemical, and
oceariographic features, productivity, and community
trophodynamics. It gives us a well-defined regional unit for
research, monitoring, and management, allowing us to focus
on the health of entire marine ecosystems. This is a critical
first step.

We in government, both state and federal, have much to
answer for. Traditionally, coastal zones and their resources
have been studied and managed by a wide range of single-
function agencies and institutions concerned with fisheries,
or transportation, or conservation, or water quality, or waste
disposal, or recreation, or minerals management and devel-
opment, and more. This practice of working independently,
within agency boundaries, can lead, and has led, to signifi-
cant progress, but it is often an inefficient approach to


Page 19

APPENDIX B

KEYNOTE ADDRESS: THE NORTHEAST U.S. SHELF ECOSYSTEM —
STRESS, MITIGATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY

John A. Knauss
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, DC 20230

Good morning. Iam always pleased to return hereto the
Narragansett Bay Campus where I spent so many wonderful
years trying to stir things up. Iam delighted tohavea chance
to be here today to stir up discussion about large marine
ecosystems, a subject that, as near as I can judge, had its
genesis here in Rhode Island with Ken Sherman and Lew
Alexander. It is an idea, a concept that I believe merits
further stirring, which is what this symposium is all about.
And it is an idea, a concept, that I believe may be ready for
more than discussion. Maybe the time has come to think
about implementation. My intention today is to help stir up
some discussion, and to get you thinking about implemen-
tation.

“The Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem: Stress, Mitiga-
tion, and Sustainability.” It is a big subject and a timely
subject. We know that our environment, at least our coastal
environment, is stressed, and that in spite of our best efforts,
that stress is likely to increase. Certainly mitigation is a
concept we are trying hard to apply in many areas, more
successfully in some applications than in others, in large part
depending on how well we understand the situation.

Sustainability is, well, I’m not convinced it’s actually
onthe horizon, more likely just over the horizon, just beyond
our view. Nevertheless, increasing numbers of us are
convinced that we must set our course now for sustainability,
as there are most assuredly other, far less palatable, options
lurking over the horizon as well.

Weare a population of an incredible five-billion people
and growing; almost all with boundless aspirations of in-
creasing our standard of living. We have been operating
under the paradigm that growth is good and necessary--the
faster the better. In doing so, we have tended to function with
a view limited to short-term gratification, while ducking the
growing pressure to consider long-term sustainability. I
would venture to presume that most of you here share with
me the uneasy sense that human-induced environmental
stresses have the potential to reduce the long-term carrying
capacities of the very systems which support us.

Weare here toexplore our role with respect tothe health
of the ecosystems. I am not so much concerned with the
distant open ocean, whose present health I believe is rela-
tively good, if only because of its enormous volume and
capacity for dilution. It is the systems on the edges of the

world’s oceans about which I am concerned, and about
which I suspect most of you are concemed, for they are
experiencing the lion’s share of our disruptive impacts--our
consumptive appetites, our wastes, and our penchant for
physically altering the land-sea interface in the name of
economic and social comfort.

Many of us wonder what is the most intelligent way to
approach the question of the health of our coastal oceans,
and the role we might play in helping to maintain it.
According to Webster’s dictionary, health is defined as that
“condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit.” That
sounds pretty good.

In the field of medicine, we have some experience
dealing with health which may provide some useful ideas.
Medicine is defined by Webster as “the science and art of
dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention,
alleviation, or cure of disease.” That sounds applicable. Let
me push that analogy a bit further. Perhaps we can equate
medicine for the oceans with good stewardship of the oceans
and its resources.

Imagine that an unconscious patient is wheeled into an
emergency room unable to communicate what is wrong.
The first actions taken by nurses, technicians, and physi-
cians involve hooking up a multitude of monitors, and taking
dozens of samples of every body fluid imaginable.

They measure heart rate, blood pressure, temperature,
blood oxygen levels, brain waves, a whole suite of bio-
chemical indicators related to the functioning of specific
organ systems. They test for bacteria, viruses, and toxic
substances. They also solicit anecdotal information regard-
ing the activities and functioning of the patient from those
familiar with the patient. They attempt to obtain a family
history as well, in an effort to apprise themselves of the
patient’s normal idiosyncrasies, or unique hereditary vul-
nerabilities.

Armed with information gleaned from this process, the
physician is able to respond, with what an ecologist must
view as an enviable degree of confidence. In most instances
in which a human body has received some sort of insult, the
physician can go about placing the patient on the path to
health.

It is the physician’s intensive monitoring which sup-
plies the information making it possible for him or her to




Page 10

Douglas Helton

National Ocean Service

Damage Asessment and Restoration Center
WSC-1 Building, Room 323

6001 Executive Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20852

Owen Hertzman

Dalhousie University
Department of Oceanography
Halifax NS B3H 4J1
CANADA

Lennox O'Riley Hinds

Canadian International Development Agency
200 Promenade du Portage

Hull, PQ K1A 0G4

CANADA

Ken Hinga

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus

Narragansett, RI 02882

Robert J. Hofman

Marine Mammal Commission

1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 512
Washington, DC 20009

Chuck Hopkinson
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA 02543

Jeff Howard
46 Highland Avenue
Coventry, RI 02816

Penelope T. Howell-Heller
61 E. Pattagansett Road
Niantic, CT 06357

Patricia E. Hughes

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
Saltonstall Building, Room 2006

100 Cambridge Street

Boston, MA 02202

Jim Hughes

National Marine Fisheries Service
212 Rogers Avenue

Milford Laboratory

Milford, CT 06460

Mark Imperial

University of Rhode Island
Department of Marine Affairs
P.O. Box 1952

Kingston, RI 02881

Mert Ingham

National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Norbert Jaworski

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

H. Perry Jeffries
P.O. Box 64
Kingston, RI 02881

Robin Jenness

National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

David Johnson

National Marine Fisheries Service
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Jack Jossi

National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Lawrence Juda

University of Rhode Island
Department of Marine Affairs
Washburn Hall

Kingston, RI 02881

Irene J. Kenenski
64 Round Top Road
Harrisville, RI 02830

Robert Kenney

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Bay Campus, Box 41
Narragansett, RI 02882



zooplankters, including larval and juvenile fishes, appar-
ently needs to be included in models of population dynamics
in this system. Nevertheless, the ecosystem models devel-
oped to predict dynamics in this ecosystem must achieve an
accurate balance of the potentially conflicting impacts of
physical mixing, which may alter feeding success of juve-
nile gadoids while simultaneously changing exposure and
tisk to their own consumers. Logic may suggest that the
significance of mortality through immediate predation would
dominate over effects on growth, but slower growth implies
a longer period of exposure to size-dependent predators in
this water-column environment. A proper ecosystem dy-
namics model is required to answer such critical questions.

3. Include anthropogenic influences explicitly into mod-
els of ecosystems dynamics.

Traditionally, academic models of ecosystem dynam-
ics have tended to address natural systems in the absence of
human influence, whereas models of the consequences of
human activities, especially exploitation of resources, have
tended to neglect the full range of important natural physical
and biological variables. Sustaining important ecosystems
demands that appropriate contributions of anthropogenic
influences, in addition to the effects of natural processes, be
explicitly included in our formalizations and studies of
ecosystems dynamics. In general, the human influences that
need consideration are harvest pressure (exploitation), nu-
trient and pollutant inputs, and signals of global change
(warming, UV increase, changes in ocean circulation pat-
terns, effects on upwelling intensity and turbulent mixing,
CO, increase, etc.).

For the Georges Bank region of the Northeast U.S.
Shelf Ecosystem, it is evident that the impacts of exploita-
tion must be included in ecosystem dynamics models,
whereas nutrient loading and pollution seem unimportant
except in the estuarine areas (Sherman 1991). Impacts of
global change on this system are probably also subtle at this
time, but require incorporation to ensure that the goods and
services provided by this important system be sustained
indefinitely into the future. At the southern margin of the
Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem, the consequences of nutri-
ent loading are evident where the discharge of the Chesa-
peake Bay enters the continental shelf north of Cape Hatteras,
so for that region, eutrophication effects should not be
ignored in the ecosystem modeling.

If these recommended analyses and models of the joint
impacts of anthropogenic influences and natural variables
ate successfully incorporated into an integrative under-
standing of ecosystem dynamics for this LME, one very
significant outcome could be derived: namely, the mecha-
nistic understanding of the consequences of bycatch from
relatively nonselective trawling gear. This wouldaddress an
urgent management need.

4. Apply rigorous approaches of experimental ecology
to “adaptive management” of exploited systems.

Page 27

Fishing is a heavily regulated process. Such regulation
can be treated as an ecosystem manipulation conceptually,
such that the methods and analytical techniques of experi-
mental ecology can be applied to test various impacts of
fishing practices. These manipulations of fishing pressure
rarely represent a controlled experiment because ecosys-
tems differ sufficiently over space that control sites are never
identical to the sites where exploitation is being manipu-
lated. Nevertheless, this use of regulation of exploitation of
natural ecosystems is a powerful technique and can be
cleverly used to enhance our understanding of how specific
exploited ecosystems function and thereby lead to improved
management (Sugihara et al. 1984).

The design and use of regulation as an experiment has
been termed “adaptive management” by Walters (1986).
This approach to management is an excellent example of the
application of the science of ecology to develop manage-
ment fora sustainable ecosystem, as urged by the Ecological
Society of America’s SBI (Lubchenco et al. 1991). The
National Research Council’s panel on sea turtle conserva-
tion demonstrated how effectively and convincingly the
consequences of manipulation of fishing regulations could
be employed to test an impact of fishing in showing how the
Strandings of dead sea turtles in several localities was
significantly associated with the precise period of shrimp
trawling (National Research Council 1990). New methods
for analysis of such environmental manipulations are con-
tinually being developed by ecologists and biostatisticians,
a very significant recent example being the before-after-
control-impact analysis of Stewart-Oaten et al. (1986),
which helps deal with the problem of nonidentity between
treatment and control sites, as well as the problem of a lack
of replication of many environmental “experiments.”

The application of this approach of adaptive manage-
ment to the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem represents one
important implication of the SBI for this exploited and
clearly impacted system. Such a recommendation is consis-
tent with the suggestion of Sissenwine and Cohen (1991)
who similarly advocated consideration of a cautious experi-
mental approach to regulation and management of the
Georges Bank system to test those species interactions so
critical to improving management and enhancing important
overfished gadoid stocks. The actual experiments that
should be employed must be carefully designed and are
constrained by economics and many other practical consid-
erations. Nevertheless, the SBI recommendations imply
strong advocacy for this approach.

5. Charge modelers to identify the key biological, chemi-
cal, and physical parameters to be monitored to
assess ecosystem status and health and to test the
predictions of the ecosystem dynamics models. In-
corporate these monitoring needs into agency moni-
toring programs.

One fundamental challenge faced by the academic
modelers of ecosystems is to develop a defensible set of


Page 28

criteria that define accurately the status and health of an
ecosystem. Despite substantial attention to this question, we
still lack rigorous indexes of ecosystem stress, status, and
health (Lubchenco etal, 1991). Furthermore, the ecosystem
models required to understand the functional effects of
anthropogenic influences on natural and exploited ecosys-
tems must be tested, modified, and refined through interac-
tive field-and-modeling programs. It is unrealistic to envi-
sion complete monitoring of all important biotic and abiotic
components of the ecosystem, so identification of that
minimal list of key parameters tomonitor isa critical task for
ecosystem modelers.

The modelers also need to communicate with the fed-
eral and state agencies charged with environmental monitor-
ing. Federal agencies with important monitoring responsi-
bilities and capabilities, such as NOAA, EPA, and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, should be encour-
aged toapproach the leaders of the necessarily large research
programs designed to develop ecological understanding and
management strategies for specific LMEs to initiate devel-
opment of a monitoring package that is feasible, yet appro-
priate and telling. The complexity of processes that jointly
control ecosystem dynamics necessarily implies a challenge
for monitoring. The task includes a need not only to identify
what to monitor, but also the spatial and temporal scales
(e.g., Steele 1988). Without this partnership between the
ecosystems modelers and the responsible agencies, inad-
equate testing of the ecosystems models will ensue and
monitoring responsibilities will not be discharged in a
fashion that yields the information required for sustainable
management. Although modification of the monitoring of
the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem may not be an immedi-
ate outcome of the application of this recommendation of the
SBI to this ecosystem, following this advice will require a
long lead time of interaction between the ecosystems mod-
elers and leaders of monitoring programs. Now is the time
to start.

6. Devote substantial effort to understanding controls
on prey population dynamics, especially zooplank-
ton and forage fish in LMEs.

The majority of past research effort in the field of
fisheries has been directed towards developing an under-
standing of the population dynamics of exploited species
(see Rothschild 1986). Recently fisheries research has
broadened in scope to the degree that the term “fisheries
oceanography” has evolved to describe this new focus.
Fisheries oceanographic studies are intended to incorporate
an integrative vision of exploited populations in a context of
the complete physical and biological environment. Under-
standing the dynamics of exploited stocks in the context of
the entire ecosystem is a key feature of the Ecological
Society of America’s SBI recommendations, as I have
already indicated. Nevertheless, one specific aspect of this
approach deserves special mention because of its impor-
tance and our lack of attention to it in past programs: the

understanding of the controls on population dynamics of
critical prey organisms, especially zooplankton and forage
fish.

The key prey organism that requires explicit attention in
the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem appears to be the
zooplankter Calanus finmarchicus (Joint Oceanographic
Institutions 1991b). This species of calanoid copepod is the
primary prey for Atlantic cod and haddock during a critical
early stage in their life history when food limitation could
well influence the recruitment success of both gadoid spe-
cies. Asa general rule, much more must be known about the
determinants of population fluctuations and variability in
production of copepods to be able to advance further our
understanding of how ecosystem dynamics help determine
the year-class strength of exploited fish populations (Joint
Oceanographic Institutions 1991a). The abundance of
Calanus can influence the rate of starvation of young
gadoids, their growth rate, and thus, indirectly, their
survivorship by altering the length of time required in the
small size class so vulnerable to predation, and the strength
of many possible indirect interactions operating to deter-
mine gadoid abundance through a multitude of food chain
interactions. Hypotheses involving prey species dynamics
lie at the cutting edge of fisheries oceanographic research,
and for the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem, demand a
focused study of zooplankton dynamics, especially Calanus
finmarchicus. In addition, key forage fishes, such as sand
lance and capelin, deserve similar directed effort to assess
the processes controlling their population dynamics and
their role in affecting the dynamics and yields of exploited
bottom fish.

7, Evaluate the significance of biological diversity to the
functioning of marine ecosystems so that we know
how much ecosystem models and studies can be
simplified yet still reproduce accurate dynamics.

Perhaps the most critical decision that must be made

prior to initiation of any ecosystem study is the decision of
which components of the ecosystem to measure. The
answer to this problem requires understanding of the role of
biotic diversity in ecosystem and community dynamics, a
question at the cutting edge of basic ecological research
(Lubchenco et al. 1991). For example, it seems clear that
any study of ecosystem dynamics should measure the popu-
lation sizes of the most abundant species, but to how many
trophic levels does that level of specific attention need be
carried? When understanding the dynamics of an exploited
fish species acting largely at a specific predatory trophic
level is the ultimate goal of the study of an LME, is it
sufficient merely to measure cell densities of major taxa of
phytoplankton? What level of information on decomposers
is needed? And how important are indirect species interac-
tions (those not represented by direct predation or direct
consumption) in ecosystem dynamics?

These questions are generic problems of ecosystems
ecology, but they must be addressed specifically for the


Page 16

H. Winn, A. Durbin, E. Durbin,
R. Kenney, and K. Wishner
(University of Rhode Island);

R. Beardsley (Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution); and

R. Limeburner and M. Macaulay
(University of Washington)

H. Winn (University of Rhode
Island); and

D. Heinemann (Manomet Bird
Observatory)

HP. Jeffries
University of Rhode Island

8:30 a.m.

D. Farrow
National Ocean Service

T. O'Connor
National Ocean Service

A. Robertson
National Ocean Service

J. Stein

National Marine Fisheries Service
1:00 p.m.

T. Malone

University of Maryland

T. Smayda

University of Rhode Island

A. White
National Marine Fisheries Service

L. Fortier
Laval University

SCOPEX and Ecosystem Analysis
in Relation to Right Whales

Recent Shifts in the Distribution of Cetaceans

Coastal Fishes Responding to a Warmer Habitat

DAY 3 -- WEDNESDAY, 14 AUGUST 1991
CHAIRMAN -- T. SMAYDA

STRESSES ON THE NORTHEAST U.S.
SHELF ECOSYSTEM: CONTAMINANTS

Inventorying Discharges

Distribution of Contaminants

Bioeffects of Contaminants

Biological Indicators of Contaminant Effects

NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT

Trends in Nutrient Loading and Eutrophication:
A Comparison of Chesapeake Bay

and the Hudson Estuarine Systems

Creeping Eutrophication: Global Perspective Relative
to the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem

Biotoxins and the Health of Living Marine Resources

Biotoxins in Early Life Stages of Fish Populations





Walker and Godshall of the EPA) suggested that northeast
coastal waters are ina warming trend. In recognition of the
need for augmenting funds available to academic institu-
tions for conducting retrospective and prospective long-
term studies in relation to global climate change, NSF will
be accepting proposals in support of GLOBEC. This
program is designed to assist scientists in academia to
support longer-term research and monitoring efforts than
are currently being supported. It is against this background
of an apparent warming trend that the effects of pollution and
overfishing at the population level should be addressed.

EUTROPHICATION

With regard to eutrophication, T. Malone indicated,
based on case history studies in the Hudson and Chesapeake
Bays, that in the former system there is no consistent pattern
of any surplus production attributable to measured in-
creased eutrophication. In the offing of the Hudson, insome
years, it has been possible to recognize the effects of
eutrophication in the discharge plume that contributed peri-
odically to anoxia, significant benthic mortalities, and eco-
nomic losses of shellfish in the 1970s and 1980s. Phyto-
plankton blooms in the Chesapeake seem to vary in extent
and intensity, but at the present time, no evidence is apparent
for encroachment out onto the relatively open waters of the
Mid-Atlantic Bight subarea of the Northeast U.S. Shelf
Ecosystem.

In contrast, T. Smayda provided evidence of increases
in the frequency and extent of unusual plankton blooms
within several LMEs, including the Baltic Sea, the Sea of
Japan, the North Sea, and the Adriatic Sea. Healso provided
evidence of increases in nutrient loadings within these
LMEs, suggesting a possible linkage between nutrient en-
hancement and the increased frequency of phytoplankton
blooms of toxic algae. Within the Northeast U.S. Shelf
Ecosystem, there is evidence of increasing frequency of
biotoxin-related mortalities in marine mammals, along with
recent closures of offshore shellfish beds because of in-
creased levels of paralytic shellfish poisoning. Two other
speakers underscored the growing incidence of toxins caus-
ing mortalities in larval fish (L. Fortier), and possibilities of
additional closures of shellfishing grounds (A. White).

ECOSYSTEM STRESS AND MITIGATION

A comprehensive assessment of increased burdens of
heavy metals resulting from riverine input to the Northeast
U.S. Shelf Ecosystem was presented by H. Windom who
indicated that the discharges of rivers carry loadings of
copper, nickel, cadmium, lead, and zinc into the nearshore
environments from the adjacent watersheds. The data base
is now improving and should allow for analyses aimed at
separating amounts of naturally occurring heavy metals

Page 3

relative to those heavy metals which result from manufac-
turing and other activities, to provide a basis for directing
mitigation actions,

Studies to measure effects of contaminated inshore
spawning sites of winter flounder on the reproductive suc-
cess of that species were described by F. Thurberg. Early
developmental stages of winter flounder were in poorer
physiological condition in the more heavily polluted coastal
waters of several sites sampled, including Boston Harbor
and several ports in Long Island Sound. As yet, however, no
quantitative information is available on the effects of pollu-
tion on populations of winter flounder. In another study, it
was argued by P. Jeffries that temperature and predators
have operated synergistically to shift the dominance from
winter flounder in Narragansett Bay to rock crab, based on
a 25-year time series of weekly trawl collections.

Coastal sites used to dump sludge from New York City
waste treatment plants are showing signs of repopulation
and recovery of water quality (M. Ingham), indicating that
mitigating actions that result in dump closures will result in
adegree of recovery of stressed benthic communities. Sites
contaminated with PCBs, however, do not show rapid
recovery following mitigation actions to eliminate the dis-
posal of PCBs. Residence times of PCBs in sediments of
New Bedford Harbor are quite long and adverse effects on
shellfish species continue to be detected several years after
banning the disposal of PCBs in coastal waters (J. Capuzzo).

Actions to mitigate and to protect marine mammals
from incidental mortalities associated with commercial fish-
ing operations have recently been enacted by the U.S.
Congress. Studies are funded and underway to evaluate
actions taken by Congress (R. Hofman). Scientific projects
have been funded for Fiscal Year 1992 (1 October 1991 - 30
September 1992) to determine the catch and mortality levels
of marine mammals entangled in nets, and the status of
humpback whale, right whale, and pilot whale populations.
With regard to fishery resources, recent model simulations
based on biological and economic data suggest that fishing
effort will need to be reduced by 50-70 percent if long-term
sustainability of preferred high-demand and high-priced
species is to be realized (S. Edwards). The effect on the
present fishing fleets of reaching this level of reduction was
the topic of considerable discussion, but little resolution.

The programs of the Minerals Management Service to
support scientific studies of areas and populations at risk
from gas and oil exploration and development on the North-
east U.S. Shelf Ecosystem were described by W. Lang.

With regard to policy implications of LME manage-
ment, it was argued that public involvement in the decision-
making process should be encouraged and that scientists
need to do a better job of informing the public of problems
requiring mitigating action (K. Spaulding). The utility of the
LME approach to the conservation and management of
living marine resources and their habitats around the globe
was described. Several case studies were examined, includ-
ing the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) which is presently


10. Pending legislation to provide funds for additional waste-
treatment facilities for municipalities, and best-manage-
ment practice for nonpoint sources of pollution along the
coast of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem, will aid in
reducing the loadings of nutrients which lead to eu-
trophication within the estuaries of the region.

Page 5

11.Dumping urban sludge within the EEZ has been legis-
lated as unlawful; illegal dumping is now subject to
Federal penalties.

12. A followup symposium will be scheduled to review the
status of the health of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosys-
tem in 1994,


GENERAL DISCLAIMER

This document may be affected by one or more of the following statements

This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by
the sponsoring agency. It is being released in the interest of making
available as much information as possible.

This document may contain data which exceeds the sheet
parameters. It was furnished in this condition by the sponsoring
agency and is the best copy available.

This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts
and/or pictures which have been reproduced in black and white.

This document is paginated as submitted by the original source.
Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical

nature of some of the material. However, it is the best reproduction
available from the original submission.


Page 26

graphic Institutions 199 1a) responds remarkably well to the
relevant appeals of the Ecological Society of America for an
SBI (Lubchenco et al. 1991). All three priority research
objectives of the SBI come together in the science plan for
GLOBEC. First, GLOBEC is part of the U.S. Global
Change Program with responsibility for assessing how
marine ecosystems are expected to be altered by various
processes of global change. As such, it responds, for ocean
ecosystems, to the SBI’s call for research on how ecosystem
dynamics will respond to global change. Unless in combi-
nation with the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study, GLOBEC
will probably not, however, have the resources to address
the other key issue of how different ecosystems contribute
differently to global materials budgets. Furthermore, al-
though the long-range plans for GLOBEC include an inten-
tion to assess a suite of different types of ocean ecosystems,
it is unclear what ultimate funding levels will permit. Sec-
ond, GLOBEC necessarily and explicitly is addressing
important aspects of the biodiversity problem. In particular,
the ecosystem models to be tested by GLOBEC must answer
the question of how important species diversity is to the
functioning and dynamics of marine ecosystems because, as
a practical matter, not all ecosystem variables can be con-
tinuously monitored. This one must address, in up-front
modeling, how important the rarer components of ecosys-
tems are in understanding and predicting systems behavior,
and, conversely, to what degree the ecosystem can be
conceptually simplified without loss of ability to predict its
dynamics (Joint Oceanographic Institutions 1991c). Fi-
nally, the SBI’s call for research on sustainable ecological
systems is served explicitly by the GLOBEC intent to focus
‘on exploited marine ecosystems. The need to further de-
velop an ecosystems approach to model and understand the
dynamics of important fisheries resources is a major moti-
vation of GLOBEC, The novelty of incorporating the roles
of physical dynamics, including variables responding to
global change, into ecosystems models, which themselves
include species under exploitative harvest, is a promising
approach and perhaps the most important justification for
support of GLOBEC. For ocean ecosystems, the science
plan of GLOBEC depicts a process to bring together fisher-
ies biologists, biological oceanographers, physical ocean-
ographers, technologists, and ecosystems modelers to ad-
dress explicitly the most serious void identified by the
Ecological Society of America in its call for an SBI, namely
the need to develop the fundamental scientific basis for
managing and sustaining ecological systems.

APPLICATION OF SBI:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
NORTHEAST U.S. SHELF ECOSYSTEM

1. Do not model or manage species in isolation from
their ecosystem context.
Although the classic quantitative modeling of exploita-

tion effects on individual species populations (e.g., Ricker,
1958) has lead to much insight into fisheries management
and the impact of harvest on fish stocks, the Ecological
Society of America’s SBI document would argue that mod-
eling and management that ignore the effects of the ecosys-
tem dynamics are grossly incomplete and unlikely to be
successful. This message came clearly from the Dahlem
Conference on Exploitation of Marine Communities (May
1984) and has been embraced well in the concept of manage-
mentat the level of the LME (Sherman and Alexander 1986;
Sherman 1991).

For the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem, this dictum
has several implications. Specifically, it implies that Atlan-
tic cod and haddock should not be managed outside the
context of the ecosystem in which they are found. More-
over, since the elasmobranch fishes that have come to
dominate the demersal predator trophic level in the wake of
overexploitation of gadoid stocks on the Georges Bank
share prey resources with, and even prey upon, the juvenile
life stages of the Atlantic cod and haddock (e.g., Fogarty et
al. 1987; Sherman etal. 1988), there are reasonable grounds
on which to postulate that the recovery of the gadoid stocks
may be strongly inhibited by the interactions with the
elasmobranchs through the ecosystem. Basic research on
the ecosystem dynamics of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosys-
tem is required to address this and other issues of how the
gadoid dynamics are tied to other components in the ecosys-
tem.

2. Develop ecosystems models based on understanding
of processes of population changes in component
species.

Although much insight can be gained by comparisons
of LMEs, each individual LME is essentially unique. Con-
sequently, the ability to employ replicated experiments and
truly independent observations as the means of making
rigorous inferences is limited. The only viable antidote to
this problem of lack of replication is to develop an excellent
understanding of the mechanisms by which the populations
change within the ecosystem. This mechanistic apprecia-
tion for process must encompass the complete range of
relevant scales across which population processes, as well as
controlling physical dynamics, operate (e.g., Steele 1988).

The implications of this recommendation for the North-
east U.S. Shelf Ecosystem are numerous. They include
notably a need to incorporate the roles of physical dynamics
directly and indirectly into models of ecosystem dynamics.
Description of the circulation patterns of the currents from
the Gulf of Maine through Georges Bank to the southern end
of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem, in combination with
measurements of population processes, is required to estab-
lish the proper scales that define component populations,
especially for the important zooplankton species such as
Calanus finmarchicus. The importance of the seasonal
stratification of the water column over Georges Bank, and
the timing of wind-driven mixing to the feeding success of


Page 14

Tracy Villareal

University of Massachusetts - Boston
Environmental Sciences Program
Boston, MA 02125-3393

Anthony P. Vitarelli

Department of Biological Sciences
Mattatuck Community College
Waterbury, CT 06708

Henry A. Walker
Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett

27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882

Tom Weaver

University of Rhode Island
Department of Resource Economics
Lippitt Hall

Kingston, RI 02881

Alan White

National Marine Fisheries Service
‘Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Herb Windom

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
P.O. Box 13687

Savannah, GA 31416

Howard Winn

University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
6 Marine Building

Narragansett, RI 02882

Grayson Wood

National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

PROGRAM

DAY 1 -- MONDAY, 12 AUGUST 1991
CHAIRMAN -- KENNETH SHERMAN

8:30 - 9:45 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

R.A. Duce, Dean
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island

J. Knauss, Under Secretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere
U.S. Department of Commerce

K. Sherman
National Marine Fisheries Service

N. Jaworski
Environmental Protection Agency

T. DeMoss
Environmental Protection Agency
2:00 p.m.

C. Peterson
University of North Carolina

ON-SITE REGISTRATION

Welcome

Keynote Address

LMEs: A Perspective

EPA and the Coastal Ocean

EPA Regional Ecosystem Perspectives

Ecological Research for a Sustainable Biosphere



Recent issues in this series

64. The Shell Disease Syndrome in Marine Crustaceans. By Carl J. Sindermann. February 1989. v + 43 p., 5 figs.,
2 tables. NTIS Access, No. PB89-162523/AS.

65. Stock Assessment Information for Pollock, Pollachius virens (L.), in the Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank, and Gulf
of Maine Regions, By Ralph K. Mayo, Stephen H. Clark, and M. Christina Annand. April 1989. vi + 14 p., 6 figs.,
14 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-120676/AS.

66. Guidelines for Estimating Lengths at Age for 18 Northwest Atlantic Finfish and Shellfish Species. By Judith
A. Pentilla, Gary A. Nelson, and John M. Burnett, III. May 1989. iii + 39 p., 18 figs., 19 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-
120675/AS.

67. Response of the Habitat and Biota of the Inner New York Bight to Abatement of Sewage Sludge Dumping.
Second Annual Progress Report -- 1988. By Environmental Processes Division, Northeast Fisheries Center. July
1989. vii + 47 p., 39 figs., 11 tables, 3 app. NTIS Access. No. PB90-125444/AS.

68. MARMAP Surveys of the Continental Shelf from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia
(1984-87). Atlas No. 3. Summary of Operations. By John D. Sibunka and Myron J. Silverman. July 1989. iv + 197
p., 36 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-160656/AS.

69. The 1988 Experimental Whiting Fishery: A NMFS/Industry Cooperative Program. By Frank P. Almeida,
Thurston S. Bums, and Sukwoo Chang. August 1989. v + 16 p., 9 figs., 11 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB90-
160664/AS.

70. Summer Distribution of Regulated Species on Georges Bank with Reference to the 1988 Experimental
Whiting Fishery. By Frank P. Almeida, Sukwoo Chang, and Thurston S. Burns. September 1989. v+ 25 p., 74 figs.,.
l table. NTIS Access. No. PB90-206525/AS.

71. Allocation of Statewide-Reported MRFSS Catch and Landings Statistics between Areas: Application to
Winter Flounder. By Frank P. Almeida. September 1989. v + 18 p., 5 figs., 6 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB90-
246745.

72. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1989. By Conservation and Utilization
Division, Northeast Fisheries Center. December 1989. iv + 110p., 50 figs., 93 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-170622/
AS.

73. Surface and Bottom Temperature Distribution for the Northeast Continental Shelf. By David G. Mountain
and Tamara J. Holzwarth. December 1989. iii + 32 p., 31 figs. NTIS Access. No. PB90-252172/AS.

74. Shell Disease of Crustaceans in the New York Bight. By C.J. Sindermann (chair.), F. Csulak (EPA coord.), T.K.
Sawyer (rapp.), R.A. Bullis, D.W. Engel, B.T. Estrella, E.J. Noga, J.B. Pearce, J.C. Rugg, R. Runyon, J.A. Tiedemann,
and R.R. Young. December 1989. vii + 47 p., 7 figs., 4 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB90-195058/AS.

75. An Indexed Bibliography of Northeast Fisheries Center Publications and Reports for 1988. By Jon A. Gibson.
December 1989. iii + 32 p. NTIS Access. No. PB91-112912.

76. Finfish Maturity Sampling and Classification Schemes Used during Northeast Fisheries Center Bottom
Trawl Surveys, 1963-89. By Jay Burnett, Loretta O’Brien, Ralph K. Mayo, Jeffrey A. Darde, and Margot L. Bohan.
December 1989. iii+14 p., 11 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB91-128389/AS.

77. Shell Disease among Red Crabs Inhabiting Submarine Canyons of the New York Bight. By Randall R. Young.
December 1989. iii+9 p., 18 figs., 5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-194762/AS.

78. Seasonal Distribution Patterns of Commercial Landings of 45 Species off the Northeastern United States
during 1977-88. By Sukwoo Chang. October 1990. v+130 p., 246 figs. NTIS Access. No. PB91-160846.

(continued on inside back cover)


Page 22

that may be implicated in the greater frequency and extent of
unusual plankton blooms. And Professor Perry Jeffries has
concluded, from his analysis of a 25-year time series of
bottom fish collections, that significant changes have taken
place. The once dominant flounder are being replaced by
rock crab and other large benthic invertebrates. These are
significant findings, and they underscore the importance of
time-series monitoring efforts. Continuing such efforts will
enable us to determine whether these changes are the result
of pollution, overfishing, or natural environmental variabil-
ity so that appropriate mitigating actions can be taken.

Other long time series are available for analysis in other
parts of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem as well, includ-
ing Long Island Sound, Massachusetts Bay, and, more
recently, the Gulf of Maine. The findings from these studies
will lead to mitigating actions designed to reduce the input
of pollutants into the shelf ecosystem.

One of the longest time series of all is NOAA’s National
Marine Fisheries Service trawling survey for the Georges
Bank. These are being used to develop strategies for aiding
in the recovery of depleted groundfish resources of the
Northeast shelf. And our NOAA National Marine Fisheries
Service will be reinstituting the 11-year Marine Resources
Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction Program, or
MARMAP, next year.

As I mentioned, this is also a region in which there is a
relatively long history of interdisciplinary and
intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration in dealing
with coastal-zone-related issues. The National Sea Grant
College Program was bor here in Rhode Island some 25
yearsago. The idea, initially suggested by Athelstan Spilhaus
at the University of Minnesota, was picked up by those of us
here at the University of Rhode Island. Congressional
support was championed by Rhode Island's Senator
Claiborne Pell, and the National Sea Grant College Act was
signed into law by President Johnson in 1966.

From the very beginning, the Sea Grant program has
combined the best of what a university-federal partnership
should be: research into problems, education about issues,
and outreach to those affected and concerned. Sea Grant has
contributed enormously to increasing our understanding of
ocean and coastal environments over the past 25 years. And
Ibelieve Sea Grant can take considerable credit for ensuring
that much of this understanding has not been left on dusty
library shelves, but has been used for public benefit through
Sea Grant’s education and outreach programs. Sea Grant,
and other groups such as Save the Bay, and programs like the
Volunteer Salt Pond Watchers provide models for other
regions, lending insight into the benefits of establishing a
wide circle of participation in addressing the issues facing
our coasts.

Further evidence of coordination and cooperation are
found in EPA's national estuary programs and NOAA’s
Coastal Zone Management Program where federal, state,
and local governments, as well as academic institutions,
industry, and environmental interest groups are brought
together on technical and nontechnical advisory committees

to help formulate regional and local management plans.

NOAA and EPA are also joining forces and combining
NOAA's Status and Trends and its MARMAP time-series
monitoring programs with the pollution monitoring efforts
of EPA's new EMAP program.

What all this means to the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosys-
tem is that here we needn't start from scratch in our efforts
to embrace the LME approach. Much is already in place in
terms of a leg up on long-term monitoring and the breaking
down of institutional boundaries in recognition of the ben-
efits of collaboration. Adjacent to what has historically
been, and continues to be, the most densely populated region
of the United States, studies of this LMEcan providea model
for other regions which may not have had the same head-
start.

Let me close with a few words about the urgency of this
effort. We are here because we have, over the past few years,
suspected that some of the unpleasant phenomena we have
witnessed, such as decreasing water quality, declining fish-
eries stocks, and alarming losses of wetlands, coral reefs, or
sea grasses, are indicative of systems under stress--stress
which we humans are imposing on our support systems.

The oceans are not constant. They have certainly
changed over geologic time, as has the life within them. We
believe that most of those changes have been very slow,
however, allowing for the necessary compliance by the
systems and life forms affected. But mankind’s changes
have been virtually instantaneous in terms of geologic time.
As NOAA's Chief Scientist, Sylvia Earle, is fond of saying
“We humans have hit the fast forward button, and risk the
fate of bacteria in a culture dish, or locusts, who consume
themselves out of business.”

Let me return briefly to the medical analogy. Remem-
ber that physicians have a good idea of to what extent a
system, such as the cardiopulmonary system, can compen-
sate for a chronic or acute insult before reaching its limit and
collapsing. Experience has taught them where the thresh-
olds lie. This experience has come as the result of crossing
such thresholds and of people dying.

An ecosystem analogy is an overfertilized pond or
estuary. Asmall amount of extra phosphate or nitrates cause
little harm. In many cases, itenhances the local productivity.
But too much, and the system “dies.” Or to be more explicit,
that system dies and another one takes its place. Our
knowledge of the tolerance level of marine ecosystems is
very limited.

The lessons to be learned from exceeding the analogous
ecosystem thresholds are not pleasant to contemplate. The
collapse of the systems which sustain us would have cata-
strophic consequences.

It is time now to take stock, to determine what we have,
how it works, how it doesn’t work, and how to manage it for
teal, long-term health and benefits. Considering the human
resources represented here in this room, I believe that the
prognosis can be a good one. I applaud you for being here,
and I applaud those of you whose dedication and hard work
have made it possible. Thank you.



Page 17

5:00 p.m. STRESS AND MITIGATION
H. Windom Contribution of Heavy Metals to Riverine Input
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography in the Northeast U.S. Shelf
F. Thurberg Effects of Perturbed Habitats on the Reproductive
National Marine Fisheries Service Success of Fishery Resources
M. Ingham Effects of Closure and Change of a Continental
National Marine Fisheries Service Shelf Dumpsite
J. Capuzzo Responses of Mollusks to Coastal Pollution Stress
Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution
End of Day 3 PANEL DISCUSSION ON MITIGATION
L. Alexander Panel Chairman
University of Rhode Island
R. Hoffman Marine Mammal Mitigation Actions

Marine Mammal Commission

M. Scotia Coastal Mitigation Actions
Environmental Protection Agency

S. Edwards Overexploitation and Recovery of Depleted Stocks
National Marine Fisheries Service

T. Laughlin Mitigation from an LME Perspective
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

L. Juda Policy Implications of Mitigation
University of Rhode Island

W. Lang Coastal Zone Mitigations
Minerals Management Service

K. Spaulding Ocean Stress & Public Awareness
Save The Bay

DAY 4 — THURSDAY, 15 AUGUST 1991
CHAIRMAN — TED SMAYDA

8:30 a.m. FISHERIES AND HABITAT SUSTAINABILITY

S. Murawski and S. Clark Fisheries Sustainability
National Marine Fisheries Service

J. Thomas Status, Trends, and Health of Wetlands
National Marine Fisheries Service


BACKGROUND

. _ Asymposium on the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem,
extending from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina, was held on the Bay Campus of the University of
Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography during
12-15 August 19914 The symposium was attended by 149
individuals from several state and national organizations. A
list of attendees and the symposium program are given in
Appendix ASThe objective of the symposium was to bring
pertinent science to aid in the mitigation of severe stress
imposed on the sustainability of the Northeast U.S. Shelf
Ecosystem and its wetlands, estuaries, coastal zone, fisher-
ies, marine mammals, and other resourcesS=—=<_)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA) has collaborated with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies in developing
the concept of large marine ecosystems (LME) in relation to
both marine research and management of marine resources.
Since 1984, NOAA has convened five symposia, published
three volumes, and obtained expert syntheses of the princi-
pal driving forces ‘controlling the biomass yields of 29
LMEs, including five within the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), i.e., Northeast U.S. Shelf, Southeast U.S.
Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, California Current, and Eastern
Bering Sea. On a global basis, 49 LMEs account for 95
percent of the annual yield of the global fisheries.

One of the positive findings from the LMEstudies is the
recognition by a growing number of experts in marine
science that the LME is a useful area of ocean space for
linking mitigating actions among the local, regional, and
global scales to reduce the cumulative impact of pollution,
habitat loss, and overexploitation. It is at the LME regional
scale that physics, chemistry, and biology interact to shape
the character of ocean productivity. This has placed the
focus on LMEsas an appropriate scale for regional manage-
ment.

This symposium provided a means for improving the
coordination and integration of pertinent marine programs
underway by NOAA, EPA, U.S. Geological Survey, Min-
erals Management Service, and other federal agencies as
well as the states and academic institutions.

The benefits from the symposium included: (1) the
introduction of adaptive management techniques to aid in
rebuilding depleted fish stocks; (2) introduction ofa NOAA-
EPA monitoring strategy; (3) review of mitigating actions
to restore damaged wetlands, stressed estuaries, and coastal
zone subsystems; (4) savings of state and federal govern-
ment expenditures through improved cooperation among
those groups pursuing complementary studies of marine
resources; and (5) clarification of ecologically oriented strat-
egies for protecting marine mammals and endangered spe-
cies.

The symposium provided a forum to examine the utility
of the LME approach to the mitigation of problems related
to resource sustainability within the U.S. EEZ and in other
LMEs where actions are being pursued to reduce stress on

Page 1

marine ecosystems from human interventions and naturally
imposed perturbations. The symposium participants reached
consensus on the desirability for reviewing the status of
resource sustainability of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosys-
tem at intervals of about three years.

AGENCY AND ACADEMIC
PERSPECTIVES OF LMEs

The opening speaker, Dr. John Knauss, Under Secre-
tary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Com-
merce, indicated that the holistic approach inherent in the
LME concept encourages agencies to address issues of
overfishing, habitat loss, pollution, and recreation needs
fromamultidisciplinary ecosystems perspective. He stressed
the importance of organizing a set of regional programs,
each designed for a specific LME, with the goal of monitor-
ing the system to determine how humans may be perturbing
the system, thereby providing a basis for appropriate miti-
gating action.

His presentation was followed by statements support-
ing the regional LME approach to marine resources research
and monitoring by Dr. Norbert Jaworski of the EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett, and
Mr. Thomas DeMoss representing EPA’s Region III head-
quarters in Philadelphia. The speaker opening the afternoon
session was Dr. Charles Peterson of the University of North
Carolina who reviewed the recent Sustainable Biosphere
Initiative (SBI) of the Ecological Society of America. Dr.
Peterson emphasized the positive relationships between SBI
and the application of the Global Ocean Ecosystems Dy-
namics Program (GLOBEC) of the National Science Foun-
dation (NSF) planned for the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosys-
tem. He described how the principles of SBI and GLOBEC
applied to the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem with empha-
sis on seven points being addressed by government and
academic scientists:

1. Species donotexist, and cannot be managed, in isolation.

2. Process-based ecosystem models must be created, incor-
porating trophic interactions and physical dynamics as a
substitute for the lack of capacity for the replication of a
specific LME.

3. Ecosystem models must include key human interactions
relating toexploitation, nutrient and pollutant inputs, and
climate change.

4. Rigorous experimental and analytical methods of ma-
nipulative ecology need to be applied in “adaptive man-
agement.”

5. Modelers must be charged with, and agencies made
responsive to, the need for identifying precisely those
state variables which will require monitoring to test


Page 4

managing Antarctic marine populations at risk from exploi-
tation. The CCAMLR has based recent management actions
on ecosystem considerations. The management of fishery
biomass yields is presently being practiced in two other
LMEs: the Yellow Sea and the Northwest Australia Shelf
(T. Laughlin). The legal mandate of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea as a basis for supporting
marine resources management from anecosystems perspec-
tive was described by L. Juda.

On the final day, presentations were focused on the
importance of wetlands as nursery areas for many of the fish
species of economic importance (J. Thomas). Efforts now
underway to use penalties and fines collected from polluters
tosupport ecosystem restoration projects were described (T.
Bigford), along with the legal implications of habitat mitiga-
tion (M. Matera). The loss of coastal habitat used by fish as
feeding and nursery grounds was emphasized by F. Cross.
For the offshore waters of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosys-
tem, a major shift among dominant species was reported by
S. Murawski, over the past two decades, dominant species
have shifted from predominately gadoids to a state where
elasmobranch and pelagic species dominate the fish com-
munity. This shift in ecosystem state serves to reduce the
tumover rates of fish, as elasmobranchs are longer lived than
gadoids, thereby imposing a long-term reduction in the
production levels of the fish community in relation to long-
term resource sustainability. The Northeast U.S. Shelf
Ecosystem continues to be highly productive at the lower
end of the food chain.

HEALTH STATUS OF THE NORTHEAST
U.S. SHELF ECOSYSTEM

Concluding remarks were presented in the final plenary
session by the three conveners, T. Smayda, N. Jaworski, and
K. Sherman. Based on reports presented at the symposium,
the conveners concluded that:

1. The Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem is stressed in the
nearshore areas from growing eutrophication and pollu-
tion. Relatively small areas considered toxicological
“hot spots” have been identified from the monitoring
efforts of NOAA and EPA. In these hotspots, contami-
nant loadings of the sediments are quite high. Toxico-
logical effects are expressed in pathological conditions
among fish and shellfish. However, no persistent popu-
lation mortalities are associated with present “toxic
pollution” levels.

2. Signs of increasing levels of nutrient overload or eu-
trophication, resulting in depletion of dissolved oxygen,
are evident in estuaries and coastal estuarine plumes.
The cumulative effects on the nearshore ecology of the
Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem are unknown.

7.

. It is not clear if the increasing incidence of biotoxins

causing mortalities among marine fish, shellfish, and
mammals is associated with an increased frequency and
extent of phytoplankton blooms.

. Loss of estuarine habitat for spawning and feeding areas

by several species continues to be of concer. It is a
problem that can be addressed by judicious application
of funds accrued from fines levied on polluters to support
restoration ecology projects. Restoration projects to
reclaim loss of habitat due to pollution have been initi-
ated.

. The more-open waters of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Eco-

system are “healthy.” The structure and function of the
lower end of the food chain is highly productive.

. Major shifts in the dominance of the finfish community

from gadoids (Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, hakes) in
the 1960s to a predominately elasmobranch (spiny dog-
fish and skates) and pelagic biomass in 1991 are attrib-
uted to perturbations due to excessive fishing mortality
on gadoids and flatfish. The loss of consistently high
recruitment of high- value gadoids and flounders con-
tributes to the depleted state of the economically desir-
able fish stocks.

Consideration is being given to “adaptive management”
strategies focused on the effects of directed removals of
low-economic-yield predators (e.g., spiny dogfish and
skates) to enhance recovery of the depleted gadoid and
flounder stocks.

. Marine mammal populations at risk'from fishery-caused

mortalities are being subjected to increasing research
and monitoring efforts by NOAA/National Marine Fish-
eries Service and other scientific groups and institutions
in an effort to ensure recovery of depleted populations
and to eliminate bycatches in the fisheries that could be
detrimental to reproductive and recruitment success, as
well as to the rebuilding of depleted populations.

. Coordinated programs of principal federal agencies are

under way as a result of the symposium to improve
monitoring strategies aimed at supporting efforts to
mitigate detrimental effects of habitat loss, coastal pol-
lution, eutrophication, and overexploitation of marine
resources. These programs include NOAA’s Status &
Trends Program and Marine Resources Monitoring,
Assessment, & Prediction Program, and the EPA's En-
vironmental Monitoring & Prediction Program. In addi-
tion, the NSF’s GLOBEC, which is designed tostudy the
effects of physical variability on biological populations,
has a Northwest Atlantic component and will be funding
studies on Georges Bank.