Ecosystem Science Capabilities Required to 

Support NOAA’s Mission in the Year 2020 

S. A. Murawski and G. C. Matlock (editors) 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service – National Ocean Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-74 

July 2006 
Ecosystem Science Capabilities Required to 

Support NOAA’s Mission in the Year 2020 

S. A. Murawski and G. C. Matlock (editors) 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-74 

July 2006 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.) 

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

National Ocean Service 

John H. Dunnigan – Assistant Administrator for Ocean Service 
 

Suggested Citations: 

Murawski, S.A., and G.C. Matlock (editors). 2006. Ecosystem Science Capabilities 

Required to Support NOAA’s Mission in the Year 2020. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-74, 97 p. 

Individual sections: 

Carter, G., P. Restrepo, J. Hameedi, P. Ortner, C. Sellinger, J. Stein, and T. Beechie, 

2006. Freshwater Issues. pp. 29-39. In: S.A. Murawski and G.C. Matlock (editors).

Ecosystem Science Capabilities Required to Support NOAA’s Mission in the Year 2020. 

U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-74, 97 p. 

A copy of the report may be obtained from: 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Science and Technology 

1315 East-West Highway, 12th Floor 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

or 

National Ocean Service 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

1305 East West Highway, Room 8110 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

Or Online at: 

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

Ecosystem Science Capabilities 

Required to Support NOAA’s 

Mission in the Year 2020 

The mission of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is 

to understand and predict changes in the 

Earth’s environment and conserve and 

manage coastal and marine resources to 

meet our nation’s economic, social and 

environmental needs (NOAA, 2004). In 

meeting its marine stewardship 

responsibilities, NOAA seeks to ensure 

the sustainable use of resources and 

balance competing uses of coastal and 

marine ecosystems, recognizing both 

their human and natural components 

(NOAA, 2004). Authorities for 

executing these responsibilities come 

from over 90 separate pieces of Federal 

legislation, each with unique 

requirements and responsibilities. Few 

of these laws explicitly mandate an 

ecosystem approach to management 

(EAM) or supporting science. However, 

resource managers, the science 

community, and increasingly, the public, 

are recognizing that significantly greater 

connectedness among the scientific 

disciplines is needed to support 

management and stewardship 

responsibilities (Browman and Stergiou, 

2004; 2005). Neither NOAA nor any 

other science agency can meet the 

increasing demand for ecosystem 

science products addressing each of its 

mandates individually. Even if it was 

possible, doing so would not provide the 

integration necessary to solve the 

increasingly complex array of 

management issues. This focus on the 

integration of science and management 

responsibilities into an ecosystem view 

is one of the centerpieces of the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy’s report 

(USCOP, 2004), and the 

Administration’s response to that report 

in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (CEQ, 

2004). 

Acting through its Ecosystem Goal 

Team (http://.ecosystems.noaa.gov), 

NOAA has begun to better integrate the 

ecological research, observing, and 

forecasting components undertaken by 

its “line offices” (i.e., NOAA Fisheries, 

NOAA National Ocean Service, NOAA 

Research, NOAA Satellites and 

Information Service, and NOAA 

National Weather Service). NOAA’s 

five-year research plan (NOAA, 2005b) 

emphasizes how the agency will better 

integrate its current activities, using the 

Goal Team structure as a framework. In 

contrast, its 20-year vision for science 

and research encompasses broad themes 

for the agency in meeting its ecosystem 

stewardship responsibilities, as “NOAA 

will provide the scientific underpinnings 

for an ecosystem approach to 

management of coastal and ocean 

resources, so that complex societal 

choices are informed by comprehensive 

and reliable scientific information” 

(NOAA, 2005c, p. 6). 

The agency needs to know what types of 

science, skills, and products will be 

necessary to inform emerging ecosystem 

management challenges if it is to move 

from simply better integrating its current 

activities to meeting its strategic 20-year 

research vision. This document was 

developed to identify a strategic 

portfolio of research, monitoring, data 

integration, and decision support 

capabilities underpinning more holistic 

approaches to NOAA’s stewardship and 

management of coastal and ocean 

resources. 
2

For purposes of this discussion 

concerning the scientific support 

necessary for an EAM, NOAA defines 

an EAM as: 

An ecosystem1

 approach to management 

(EAM) is one that provides a 

comprehensive framework for living 

resource decision making. In contrast to 

individual species or single issue 

management, EAM considers a wider 

range of relevant ecological, 

environmental, and human factors 

bearing on societal choices regarding 

resource use. 

EAM is differentiated from more 

narrowly focused management by a 

number of defining characteristics. 

EAM is: (1) geographically specified, (2) 

adaptive in its development over time as 

new information becomes available or 

as circumstances change, (3) takes into 

account ecosystem knowledge and 

uncertainties, (4) considers the fact that 

multiple simultaneous factors may 

influence the outcomes of management 

(particularly those external to the 

ecosystem), and (5) strives to balance 

diverse societal objectives that result 

from resource decision making and 

allocation. Additionally, because of its 

complexity and emphasis on stakeholder 

involvement, the process of 

implementing EAM needs to be (6) 

incremental and (7) collaborative 

(Murawski, 2006, pp. 1-2). 

 

1

 An ecosystem is a geographically specified 

system of organisms (including humans), the 

environment2

, and the processes that control its 

dynamics. 

2

 The environment is the biological, chemical, 

physical, and social conditions that surround 

organisms. When appropriate, the term 

environment should be qualified as biological, 

chemical, and/or social. 

Ecosystem science supporting these 

characteristics must therefore be 

integrated on appropriate geographic 

scales relevant to the particular problem 

or issue being addressed. Some of these 

management foci will be local (e.g., a 

bay or estuary), while many others will 

scale upwards, including a global scale. 

All will require greater integration of 

ecosystem knowledge across traditional 

disciplines that can be easily 

reassembled at problem-relevant time 

and space scales. Given the wider 

diversity of stakeholder groups that will 

participate in ecosystem-level problem 

solving, new information products - 

including those that integrate and 

simultaneously interpret biological, 

social, and physical trends - must 

emerge. Finally, new management 

(governance) institutions will also likely 

evolve from those currently in existence 

or yet to be formed, and will require the 

use of natural and social science 

information to inform difficult, but 

necessary, coastal and ocean ecosystem 

management decisions. One of the 

vexing issues these institutions will face 

is the divergent value systems held by 

stakeholder groups (e.g., utilitarian 

versus preservation views of marine 

ecosystems). U.S. institutions and 

science support systems must be 

prepared to evaluate management from 

these diverse perspectives. 

This set of “white papers” is not 

intended to be comprehensive with 

respect to all of the existing and 

emerging issues, but rather, focuses on a 

few priority topics that researchers and 

coastal managers have identified as 

multidisciplinary themes of EAM 

requiring NOAA’s attention. These 

themes were assigned to NOAA senior 

scientists and research managers who are 
3

at the forefront of these issues, and who 

represent a cross-section of the various 

line offices within the agency 

collaborating on them. This examination 

of pivotal issues will help NOAA, its 

partners, and its stakeholders more fully 

implement an EAM. It will contribute to 

how NOAA organizes itself and 

manages its activities, and how it will 

interact with other Federal, state, and 

local management organizations. Most 

importantly, these papers will inform 

long-term research planning activities of 

the agency. 

The six white papers consider the 

following ecosystem-related themes: 

 

 Page 

1. Ecosystem Responses to 

Climate Variability..................... 6 

2. Management of Living Marine 

Resources in an Ecosystem 

Context................................... 15 

3. Freshwater Issues................... 29 

4. Marine Zoning and Coastal Zone 

Management............................. 40

5. Ecological Forecasting............. 52

6. Science Requirements to Identify 

and Balance Societal Objectives...... 64 

Of course, better science capabilities 

alone will not be sufficient to meet the 

increasing challenges in managing the 

Nation’s coastal and ocean ecosystems. 

However, ocean governance systems 

have not been static. Even within 

traditional use sectors (e.g., fisheries, 

energy exploration and recovery), there 

is an evolution towards broadening 

mandates to consider their interactions 

with other sectors and issues. In fact, 

there is a growing demand from these 

current institutions for ecosystem-level 

information and advice for which 

science is not yet fully equipped to 

provide (Rice, 2005). Thus, there is an 

urgent need to address these issues and 

priorities. 

Finally, this exercise in futurism is not 

the first, and will not be the last, to 

consider emerging marine science and 

policy “mega-trends.” In 1984, the 

Intergovernmental Oceanographic 

Commission posited a vision of 

emerging themes by the year 2000 (IOC, 

1984). Chief among their predictions 

were the increased importance of 

interdisciplinary approaches to climate 

research and ecosystem studies (Field et 

al., 2005). More recently, in visioning 

ocean science for 2020, Field et al. 

(2005) provide a number of tantalizing 

predictions for science and management 

challenges for which science must 

prepare, including: (1) the increased 

reliance on more capable remote 

sensing, (2) the importance of the 

information revolution to ocean science, 

(3) the “globalization” of modeling 

capacity, (4) discovering functional 

biodiversity (molecular ecology), (5) 

increased emphasis on global climate 

change, (6) waste disposal in the oceans, 

(6) understanding of the deep sea floor 

biosphere, (8) the emerging importance 

of the land-sea interface and the coasts, 

(9) the growth of interdisciplinary 

sciences, (10) greater involvement of 

society in managing the ocean’s limited 

resources, (11) transitioning to 

sustainable fisheries, and (12) capacity 

building in marine science in both the 

developing and developed world. This 

volume provides a NOAA-centric view 

of important challenges for ecosystem 
4

management and the role that its science 

can play in informing and helping to 

create a sustainable future for our 

Nation’s ocean and coastal ecosystems. 

The authors acknowledge and appreciate 

the efforts of the numerous individuals 

who reviewed these white papers, and 

particularly those of Ms. Lynn Dancy. 
5

Acronyms 

ABC acceptable biological catch 

AIS aquatic invasive species 

ARO NOAA Fisheries’ Alaska 

Regional Office 

Bmsy stock biomass necessary to 

support MSY 

CCSP U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program 

CFM coastal flooding model 

CHPS Community Hydrologic 

Prediction System 

CZM coastal zone management 

EAM ecosystem approach to 

management 

ECOHAB NOAA’s Ecology and 

Oceanography of Harmful Algal 

Blooms Program 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFH essential fish habitat 

ENSO El Niño-Southern Oscillation 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU evolutionary significant unit 

FAO Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United 

Nations 

Flim threshold maximum fishing 

mortality limit 

Fmsy fishing mortality rate associated 

with MSY 

FMP fishery management plan 

FY fiscal year 

GEOSS Global Earth Observing System 

of Systems 

GIS geographical information system 

GLOBEC U.S. Global Ocean 

Ecosystems Dynamics 

HAB harmful algal bloom 

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing 

System 

LMR living marine resource 

MERHAB NOAA’s Monitoring and 

Event Response for Harmful 

Algal Blooms Program 

MPA marine protected area 

MSE management strategy evaluation 

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and 

Management Act 

MSY maximum sustainable yield 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

NEXRAD Next Generation Radar 

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

NGO non-governmental organization 

NMSP NOAA’s National Marine 

Sanctuary Program 

NPCREP North Pacific Climate 

Regimes and Ecosystem 

Productivity 

NPFMC North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council 

OFL overfishing level 

PBA NOAA program baseline 

assessment 

PPBES NOAA’s Program Planning 

Budgeting and Execution 

System 

SAFE Stock Assessment and Fishery 

Evaluation 

SIMOR Subcommittee on Integrated 

Management of Ocean 

Resources 

TAC total allowable catch 
6

White Paper #1 

Ecosystem Responses 

to Climate Variability 

Authors: 

Kenric Osgood, NOAA Fisheries, 

Office of Science and Technology 

Ned Cyr, NOAA Fisheries, Office of 

Science and Technology 

Tom O’Connor, NOAA National 

Ocean Service, National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science 

Jeff Polovina, NOAA Fisheries, Pacific 

Islands Science Center 

David Schwab, NOAA Research, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research 

Laboratory 

Phyllis Stabeno, NOAA Research, 

Pacific Marine Environmental 

Laboratory 

I. Description of the Issue 

Background 

Variations in the world’s climate have 

significant implications for the 

productivity and structure of marine and 

coastal (including Great Lakes) 

ecosystems ranging from the tropics to 

the poles. Climate-driven variability of 

environmental conditions is manifest on 

many time and space scales, including 

year-to-year variation, multi-year (e.g., 

El Niño-Southern Oscillation [ENSO]), 

and decadal scales (e.g., Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, 

and Arctic Oscillation). In addition to 

this shorter-term variability, the Earth’s 

climate system has demonstrably 

warmed on both global and regional 

scales since the pre-industrial era, 

impacting ice extent (IPCC, 2001). As a 

consequence of global warming and 

subsidence, sea levels continue to rise 

and the rate of rise is projected to 

accelerate. Precipitation and resulting 

rates of runoff are predicted to change 

significantly over the next century. 

These variations and changes in 

environmental conditions have profound 

implications for ecosystems and the 

human activities that are dependent on 

them by changing the distributions and 

productivity of living resources. 

Climate changes potentially have large 

impacts on living marine resource 

(LMR) populations including the Great 

Lakes (McGinn, 2002). Along the U.S. 

west coast, El Niño events cause shifts in 

population distributions of many marine 

species and greatly impact ocean 

productivity (Pearcy and Schoener, 

1987), while decadal scale climate shifts 

impact the structure and productivity of 

North Pacific and Bering Sea 

ecosystems (Hollowed and Wooster, 

1992; Hare and Mantua, 2000; Peterson 

and Schwing, 2003). Shifts such as the 

change from shrimp to groundfish 

dominance in the Gulf of Alaska in the 

late 1970s reflect decadal changes in 

ocean climate (Anderson and Piatt, 

1999), as do large shifts in Pacific 

salmon production (Mantua et al., 1997). 

The Bering Sea is undergoing a 

northward biogeographical shift in 

response to changing temperature and 

atmospheric forcing (Overland and 

Stabeno, 2004; Grebmeier et al., 2006), 

and in the North Atlantic many marine 

fish species have been observed to shift 

their distributions poleward in response 

to increases in water temperature 

(Murawski, 1993; Parker and Dixon, 

1998; Perry et al., 2005). Long-term 

declines in krill stocks have been 

observed in the Southern Ocean and 
7

links between annual krill density and 

sea-ice cover have been established 

(Atkinson et al., 2004). Similarly, in the 

Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean, reductions 

in sea ice coverage have negative 

implications for ice dependent species, 

but positive implications for other 

species that may be able to take 

advantage of the changing conditions, 

thus having consequences that cascade 

through the food webs (ACIA, 2004). 

Changed climate forcing affects 

important physical features in the ocean, 

thereby impacting marine species that 

take advantage of these features. For 

example, the Transition Zone 

Chlorophyll Front is a sharp boundary in 

the waters north of the Hawaiian Islands 

between the stratified, low surface 

chlorophyll water and the cooler, 

vertically mixed, high surface 

chlorophyll water. This productive 

feature is used as a migration pathway 

by sea turtles and tunas (Polovina et al., 

2001), and its winter location appears 

important to the survival of monk seal 

pups. Climate change will also 

influence the thermal regime in the Great 

Lakes, impacting the growth rate 

potential of important fish species 

(Brandt et al., 2002). 

Rising sea level directly impacts coastal 

ecosystems (Boesch et al., 2000), 

inundating wetlands and shallow water 

habitats and increasing, salinity, wave 

action, and storm surges. In regions 

where coastal development interferes 

with the landward migration of coastal 

ecosystems as sea level rises, the 

ecosystems may disappear. Shifts in 

precipitation change the amount, timing, 

and contents of freshwater runoff, 

thereby impacting coastal and estuarine 

areas (Boesch et al., 2000). For 

example, the large hypoxic zone that 

occurs each summer over the northern 

Gulf of Mexico shelf may increase in 

size and intensity if runoff from the 

central U.S. increases (Justic et al., 

2003). Rising temperatures have 

implications for the productivity and 

viability of coral reef ecosystems as 

mass coral bleaching has occurred in 

association with episodes of elevated sea 

temperatures (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). 

Coral reefs, and other calcifying marine 

organisms including important plankton 

components, are also susceptible to 

anthropogenic ocean acidification due to 

increasing carbon dioxide (CO2), 

decreasing their ability to build their 

calcium carbonate (CaCO3) structures 

(Feely et al., 2004; Orr et al., 2005; 

Kleypas et al., 2006). 

There exists the need for science to 

identify how climate variability impacts 

ecosystems and how different 

ecosystems respond to climate forcing, 

to differentiate the impacts of short-term 

variability (year-to-year, multi-year) 

from longer term variability (decadal 

and longer), and to identify the most 

cost-effective ways to adapt to the 

changes or reduce the risk of negative 

impacts. Without this information, 

society cannot rationally assess the costs 

and benefits of policy options to mitigate 

the impacts of climate variability or 

adapt human uses to account for the 

magnitude and timing of climateinduced changes. 

NOAA’s Role in Framing ClimateEcosystem Issues 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) has 

responsibilities to monitor, understand, 

and predict the impacts of global climate 
8

change on marine and coastal 

ecosystems. Specifically, NOAA has 

responsibilities to: 

• monitor and model changes in 

coastal production as a consequence 

of predicted climate changes in the 

rate and amount of runoff and in the 

timing of spring phytoplankton 

blooms; 

• evaluate and predict climate impacts, 

including increases in CO2, on coral 

ecosystems; 

• adapt how it manages marine 

fisheries, marine mammals, and 

protected marine species by 

accounting for the impacts of climate 

variability and change on marine 

ecosystems; and 

• utilize predictions of climate status 

to forecast the impact of such change 

on coastal ecosystems. 

As an agency, NOAA has the 

capabilities and legislative mandates to 

exert leadership in conducting this work. 

Without NOAA investment, society’s 

ability to adapt to changes in coastal and 

marine ecosystems will be severely 

limited. 

To address these needs, NOAA has 

identified the following high-priority 

topic areas: 

Climate regimes and ecosystem 

productivity: 

Profound shifts in biological 

productivity, species distributions, and 

ecosystem structure are often ecological 

responses to climate variability, and are 

of great consequence to fisherydependent communities and the 

commercial fishing industry. Projects 

within this topic aim to predict the 

probable consequences of climate 

change on coastal and marine systems 

and the living resources contained 

therein, and to provide the knowledge 

and tools needed to incorporate climate 

variability into the management of living 

marine and coastal resources. This topic 

area entails a wide variety of projects to 

investigate and provide a predictive 

capability of the impacts of changing 

climate on coastal and marine 

ecosystems. In addition to projects 

focused on what have become known as 

climate regime shifts (e.g., ecosystems 

alternating between anomalous warm 

and cool states (Hollowed and Wooster, 

1992)), this topic also includes studies to 

investigate: coastal and marine 

ecosystem impacts from any change in 

the physical environment due to 

changing climate; the impact of 

diminishing ice cover (e.g., impacts 

diminishing sea ice on marine mammals 

and fisheries within the Bering Sea 

ecosystem); and how climate variability 

and change impact the productivity of 

Pacific salmon within their oceanic and 

freshwater habitats. 

Coastal response to sea-level rise: 

To plan development that will protect 

coastal property and ecosystems, state 

and local governments need accurate and 

precise elevation maps showing the 

extent of coastal inundation due to 

projected sea level rise. Projects within 

this topic will collect topographic and 

bathymetric data to create detailed 

elevation maps which, along with 

hydrographic modeling, comprise 

precise coastal flooding models (CFMs). 

While CFMs are required to protect 

human-made infrastructure, projects 

under this topic also provide for 

protecting ecosystems by modeling the 

responses of the various types of 

wetlands and shallow water habitats to 
9

increases in water depth, salinity, waves, 

and storm surges. 

Nutrient-climate interactions: 

Climate change models predict major 

shifts in the amount of precipitation 

experienced by various regions of the 

United States. In addition, the coastal 

glaciers of Alaska are melting. Such 

changes may lead to increased runoff of 

freshwater and its nutrients into coastal 

and estuarine areas, making them more 

susceptible to eutrophication. For 

marine systems, this will also enhance 

stratification, further increasing the 

susceptibility to eutrophication. These 

projects will monitor and model changes 

in coastal eutrophication as a 

consequence of predicted climate 

changes in the rate and amount of runoff. 

Coral bleaching: 

Bleaching occurs when corals are 

stressed by a synergistic combination of 

stressors, including increases in sea 

surface temperature. These projects will 

improve the current network of 

observational sensors and provide an 

integrated approach capable of 

forecasting the time, place, and potential 

severity of coral bleaching events. 

Successful forecasting of coral bleaching 

events will allow managers and 

stakeholders to prepare for, forestall, 

and/or minimize the devastating effects 

of bleaching on coastal ecosystems and 

resource loss resulting from bleaching 

events. 

Decalcification: 

The carbonate equilibrium of the oceans 

is shifting in response to increasing 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. There 

is also mounting evidence that 

calcification rates of several major 

groups of marine calcifiers, including 

shallow and deep water corals and 

calcifying plankton, will decrease as 

CO2 concentrations continue to rise. 

Many of these organisms are of direct 

economic importance to human 

populations, while the others are 

important in the marine food web. 

Projects within this topic will gain a 

better understanding of how ocean 

biology and chemistry will respond to 

higher CO2 and concomitant lower pH 

conditions so that predictive models of 

these processes and their impacts on 

marine ecosystems can be developed. 

Influences External to NOAA that will 

Drive Future Needs 

It is increasingly apparent that coastal 

and marine ecosystems are not in a 

steady state and that resource managers 

must be prepared to adapt to changing 

conditions. In addition to the 

importance of annual to decadal scale 

climate variability to ecosystems, global 

climate change is predicted to have 

increasingly significant effects over the 

next fifteen years. Such change will 

impact both the mean state of the 

environment and its variability. By not 

accounting for climate variability and 

change in its information exchange with 

resource managers, NOAA risks 

providing management advice that does 

not match evolving environmental 

conditions and thereby risks 

mismanagement of coastal and marine 

ecosystems. As any large-scale climatic 

change will result in both winners (i.e., 

species who do better in a new climate 

regime) and losers (i.e., species who do 

not thrive under such change), failure to 

consider climate in management 

decisions can and will result in over- or 

under-harvesting of living resources and 
10

poor management of non-harvested 

species. This will clearly impact not 

only the ecosystems, but also the 

individuals and communities that are 

dependent upon coastal and marine 

resources. Long-range planning will be 

improved if a predictive capability for 

climate impacts on ecosystems is 

developed. Accounting for climate 

variability and change is an important 

component of implementing an 

ecosystem approach to marine resource 

management as called for in the U.S. 

Ocean Action Plan (CEQ, 2004). In the 

coming decades, as anthropogenic 

stressors continue to impact coastal and 

marine ecosystems through coastal 

development and resource exploitation, 

climate impacts are likely to become 

increasingly important. Through studies 

to monitor, understand, and predict the 

impacts of global climate change on 

marine and coastal ecosystems, NOAA 

will address needs identified in the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program 

(CCSP) Strategic Plan (U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program, 2003). 

II. Science Capabilities Necessary to 

Support Future Decision-Making 

Present capabilities 

NOAA has made large investments 

towards understanding the physical 

climate system and describing the 

mechanisms that govern climate 

variability and change. However, very 

little work has been done to understand 

the impacts of climate variability or the 

implications of future climate change on 

coastal and marine ecosystems. For this 

reason, NOAA initiated a Climate and 

Ecosystems Program with the objective 

of understanding and predicting the 

consequences of climate variability and 

change on marine ecosystems. Its 

strategy is to develop the ability to 

predict the consequences of climate 

change on ecosystems by monitoring 

changes in coastal and marine 

ecosystems, conducting research on 

climate-ecosystem linkages, and 

incorporating climate information into 

predictive physical-biological indicators 

and models. 

NOAA’s Climate and Ecosystems 

Program was initiated in fiscal year (FY) 

2004 with one project. The North 

Pacific Climate Regimes and Ecosystem 

Productivity (NPCREP) project is 

developing an understanding of how 

climate fluctuations and change affect 

the eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of 

Alaska ecosystems. NPCREP is 

utilizing a combination of retrospective, 

monitoring, process, and modeling 

studies to advance the understanding of 

climate impacts on the fisheries in the 

region, thereby generating the necessary 

foundation for understanding climateecosystem relationships. Through the 

increased understanding being obtained, 

NPCREP is developing indicators of 

climate impacts and models to predict 

the probable consequences of climate 

change on the eastern Bering Sea and 

Gulf of Alaska ecosystems. These 

products are given to fisheries managers 

at the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (NPFMC) so that 

climate variability and change can be 

incorporated into management decisions 

affecting the LMRs in these regions. 

In addition to its Climate and 

Ecosystems Program, NOAA is involved 

in a number of projects related to the 

impacts of climate on marine 

ecosystems: 
11

• NOAA has helped support projects 

in the Georges Bank/Northwest 

Atlantic Region and the Northeast 

Pacific (with components in the 

California Current and the Coastal 

Gulf of Alaska) that are coordinated 

by the U.S. Global Ocean 

Ecosystems Dynamics (GLOBEC), a 

research program addressing how 

global climate change may affect the 

abundance and production of marine 

animals. 

• Since 2004, NOAA has been 

creating CFMs with a precision of 20 

cm in order to map coastal 

inundation under the existing and 

projected rate of sea level rise. 

Included is an ecological component 

to model changes in coastal habitats 

as a function of rates of sea level rise 

and landscape characteristics. These 

models are designed for local 

managers to accommodate sea level 

rise and its ecological consequences 

into coastal development plans. 

• NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch Program 

has developed a variety of satelliteand in situ-based products that 

monitor the environmental 

conditions of coral reef ecosystems, 

and is linking ecosystem models 

with current and past climate data to 

enable understanding of the 

relationship between climate 

parameters and coral ecosystem 

response. 

• NOAA scientists are incorporating 

indices of environmental variation 

into assessments of the status of 

living resource populations. Some of 

these investigations are providing 

useful information to managers; 

however, these efforts should be 

better connected and coordinated to 

ensure information exchange and use 

of the most appropriate products and 

models. 

• There is no ongoing NOAA project 

addressing the effect of climate 

change on coastal eutrophication or 

modeling activity directly predicting 

the locations and intensity of 

climate-driven coastal 

eutrophication. However, existing 

monitoring programs making in situor satellite-based measurements of 

water quality and chlorophyll 

concentrations are beginning to 

create the long-term database 

required to document such responses 

to climate change. 

New or Enhanced Capabilities that will 

be Required 

Enabling the incorporation of climate 

impacts into management plans, by 

predicting the probable consequences of 

climate variability and change on coastal 

and marine ecosystems and delivering 

the knowledge and predictive tools to 

managers, is essential. To support this 

goal, NOAA needs to: 1) expand its 

capability to develop biophysical 

indicators and models so coastal and 

marine resource management can adapt 

to predicted climate-induced changes in 

fishery, coastal, and coral reef resources; 

2) expand its capability to monitor 

changes in coastal and marine 

ecosystems through a network of in situ

and remote observing systems; and 3) 

gain an understanding of the 

mechanisms and rates that control 

ecosystem response to climate variability 

and change. Predictive biophysical 

indicators and models will allow for the 

proactive management of living 

resources, the most efficient manner in 

which to manage resources. Monitoring 
12

changes in ecosystems will allow for 

reactive management and provide data 

essential for the development of 

indicators and models. Understanding 

the mechanisms and rates that control 

ecosystem productivity and energy flux 

is critical for the development of 

predictive indicators and models. 

NOAA requires an integrated climateecosystem observing system to provide 

climate variability data as well as 

synoptic ecosystem structure and 

productivity information. Such input 

parameters would be used to document 

ecosystem responses to climate changes, 

to develop a better understanding of 

climate effects on ecosystems, and to 

develop more timely biophysical 

indicators and models that support 

management and policy actions. 

Additional days-at-sea aboard nextgeneration oceanographic and fisheries 

survey vessels are required to make the 

critically needed observations (via 

deployment of moorings and satellitetracked drifters, as well as surveys of 

hydrography, fish stocks, protected 

resources, and plankton) and to conduct 

at-sea research to understand the 

processes and mechanisms of climate 

impacts on ecosystems. 

Ocean models will be important tools to 

investigate and describe physical and 

biological responses resulting from 

climate variability. Currently both 

watershed-scale and regional ocean 

models are being used as research tools 

to describe ocean responses resulting 

from recent climate variability. Some of 

these ocean-atmosphere coupled models 

also include a lower trophic level 

component to describe spatial and 

temporal aspects of plankton dynamics. 

A priority of future research will be to 

ground truth the output from these 

models and develop approaches to 

directly or indirectly extend them to 

address higher trophic level dynamics. 

The development of spatially resolved 

models to predict and assess the 

implications of climate variability and 

change on ecosystems is crucial for 

planning adaptation strategies. These 

predictive models will provide a 

framework within which mitigation or 

adaptation strategies and policy options 

can be explored. 

Science and Research needed to 

Support these Capabilities 

There is sufficient technology to achieve 

a better understanding and more accurate 

and precise predictive capability of 

ecosystem responses to climate 

variability and change. While new 

observation technologies and advances 

in modeling techniques would accelerate 

the rate of achievement, the fundamental 

need for a predictive ability to be 

achieved is advancement in the 

conceptual understanding of the 

mechanisms through which climate 

impacts ecosystems. This requires 

process-based research focused on 

improving the understanding of the 

linkages between climate forcing and 

ecosystem responses at various time and 

space scales. This understanding is 

essential to enable the development and 

testing of indicators of climate impacts 

on ecosystems as well as models to 

predict the probable consequences of 

climate variability and change on 

particular regions. Without the 

knowledge of the mechanisms linking 

ecosystem responses to climate, 

scientists and managers will be forced to 

rely on correlations between climate 

forcing and ecosystem responses. Often, 
13

these correlations break down over time 

because there is no mechanistic link 

among the parameters. They will almost 

certainly break down under changed 

climate forcing, since the linkages 

between the critical mechanisms that 

impact productivity will likely change. 

III. Partnerships Necessary to 

Effectively Address the Emerging 

Issues 

To effectively address the impacts of 

climate on marine ecosystems, NOAA 

must partner with other Federal 

agencies, as well as state and local 

agencies, to leverage their expertise and 

resources. Coordination of programs at 

the Federal level is conducted through 

the Ecosystem Interagency Working 

Group of the U.S. CCSP. NOAA 

utilizes knowledge gained on ecosystem 

responses to climate variability within 

the U.S. and from around the world by 

academia, government agencies and 

programs, and other entities. NOAA 

scientists, along with their partners from 

academia and private industry who are 

supported by research grants, are 

conducting the single existing project 

within NOAA’s Climate and Ecosystems 

Program. A significant portion of the 

funding for all proposed Climate and 

Ecosystems projects would support 

academic researchers through grants in 

order to enhance collaborations and 

provide necessary scientific expertise. 

In addition, due to the scope of the 

information needed to address the 

questions of the program, a wide range 

of linkages and partnerships with other 

programs are necessary. For example, 

NPCREP, the Climate and Ecosystems 

Program project, is linked with other 

NOAA projects, the Integrated Ocean 

Observing System (IOOS) through the 

Alaska Ocean Observing System and the 

Northwest Association of Networked 

Ocean Observing Systems, and 

programs supported by other agencies 

and non-governmental organizations 

(NGOs) (e.g., programs supported by the 

National Science Foundation, the North 

Pacific Research Board, and the Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council). 

NOAA’s work on developing CFMs for 

a portion of the North Carolina coast - 

work that could evolve into a national 

effort - requires the active participation 

of scientists with local knowledge and 

state support in obtaining precise 

topography. NOAA’s monitoring of 

coastal eutrophication within the 

National Estuarine Research Reserves is 

done in partnership with states. 

IV. Benefits to NOAA, Constituents, 

and Society from this Effort 

There are significant benefits to be 

derived from better understanding and 

forecasting of ecosystem responses to 

climate variability. Projects within this 

topic have a high potential to positively 

impact management of these ecosystems 

and have a wide range of additional 

benefits. For instance, they would 

enable NOAA to address the urgent and 

continuing needs of living resource 

managers and move NOAA toward its 

stated goal of ecosystem-based 

management. NOAA would be able to 

observe, understand, and predict 

ecological effects of climate variability 

and change on major coastal and marine 

ecosystems of the United States. Users 

would be provided the information 

needed for decisions about responses of 

LMRs and coastal zones to climateinduced perturbations. Consideration of 
14

the potential impacts of climate 

variability on ecosystems and coastal 

zones would become an explicit 

component of LMR and coastal zone 

management (CZM) plans. 

Fisheries managers would be able to 

more accurately predict the optimum 

yield for fishery stocks, thereby 

minimizing the amount of unrealized 

harvest or overharvesting of species. 

They could use the predictive 

information to modify fishing effort, 

timing, or location for particular species; 

change the gear type used; or change 

which species are targeted for a region. 

The knowledge and predictive tools 

generated by these investigations would 

be of great value to the management of 

marine mammals and other protected 

species, ensuring that potential direct 

and indirect climate impacts on their 

populations are considered. This 

information would also help fishers with 

their fishing strategies and their 

equipment investment planning, thus 

benefiting fishery-dependent human 

communities. 

Coastal managers would benefit from 

the development of precise maps of 

predicted coastal inundation due to 

climate-induced sea level rise, models of 

ecosystem responses to increased water 

depth and salinity, and models of 

changes in coastal eutrophication as a 

consequence of climate variability. With 

these models, coastal managers can plan 

development that will have minimal 

impact on coastal ecosystems, taking 

into account climate impacts. 

Managers of coral reef resources would 

benefit from predictions of climate 

impacts on coral reefs by allowing them 

to quantify the risk of different reefs to 

climate impacts, identify regions to 

maximize conservation, and reduce other 

stressors on reefs during predicted times 

of increased climate induced stress. 

These predictions will also help 

scientists better understand the cold 

water corals that are found within U.S. 

waters. 

Climate variability and change have 

significant implications for the 

distribution and abundance of species 

and for the productivity and functioning 

of ecosystems as climate sets the 

boundaries within which species are 

adapted. As species are excluded from 

presently inhabited geographic regions 

due to changed climate, some may 

disappear completely while others may 

shift their geographic distributions if 

there is sufficient time and habitat. In 

regions where major species shifts occur, 

the newly structured ecosystems may be 

more or less productive than the present 

ones, but management policies adapted 

for the present ecosystem will not apply 

in the changed ecosystem. Changes in 

these ecosystems and their management 

will have a great impact on human 

communities and sectors dependent upon 

susceptible LMRs.
15

White Paper #2 

Management of 

Living Marine Resources 

in an Ecosystem Context 

Authors: 

Doug DeMaster, NOAA Fisheries, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Mike Fogarty, NOAA Fisheries, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Doran Mason, NOAA Research, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research 

Laboratory 

Gary Matlock, NOAA National Ocean 

Service, National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science 

Anne Hollowed, NOAA Fisheries, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

I. Description of the Issue 

One of the four goals articulated in 

NOAA’s Strategic Plan is to “protect, 

restore and manage coastal and ocean 

resources through an ecosystem 

approach” (NOAA, 2004). This goal 

flows from the mandates and direction of 

such Federal laws, executive orders, 

courts, and international treaties as the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and 

Conservation Management Act 

(MSFCMA), Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, Coral Reef Conservation 

Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission. These directives reflect 

society’s desire for policies and 

institutions to manage the environment. 

When combined, they reflect the 

recognition that fishing is but one 

competing use of ecosystems that 

produces a broad set of ecological and 

societal benefits. But the benefits are 

not achieved without costs; thus, there is 

a need to manage LMRs in an ecosystem 

context. The critical need for a more 

holistic approach to managing the use of 

LMRs has been well articulated in a 

number of recent publications, including 

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

report (USCOP, 2004), U.S. Ocean 

Action Plan (CEQ, 2004), Pew Oceans 

Commission report (2003), Rappoport 

(1998), report to Congress by the 

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel 

(1999), report by the United Nations’ 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO, 2003), a series of essays 

published by the Marine Ecology 

Progress Series (Browman and Stergiou, 

2004), and a series of National Research 

Council (NRC) publications (1994, 

1999b, 1999c, 2001, 2002), as well as 

numerous references contained therein. 

The NOAA Perspective on 

Management of LMRs

 

There are more than 90 Congressional 

laws, treaty obligations, executive 

orders, regional agreements, NOAAspecific policies, memoranda of 

understanding with other Federal 

agencies, and court orders that drive the 

requirements of NOAA’s Ecosystem 

Mission Goal (NOAA, 2005c). Over the 

last 20 years, NOAA has worked to 

establish the scientific underpinning for 

an ecosystem approach to management 

(EAM) of coastal and ocean LMRs, so 

that complex societal choices are 

informed by comprehensive and reliable 

scientific information (DeMaster and 

Sandifer, 2004; NOAA, 2005b). The 
16

types of products and services NOAA 

intends to provide to constituents and 

agency managers include: (1) forecasts 

and mitigation strategies related to 

harmful algal blooms (HABs), invasive 

species, and air and water quality; (2) 

ecological assessments and predictions 

of impacts from climate change on ocean 

productivity (e.g., coral bleaching and 

loss of sea ice in the Bering Sea; see 

White Paper #1); (3) decision support 

tools for adaptive, ecosystem-based 

management of fisheries, other marine 

resources, and coastal development; (4) 

improved assessments of sea level 

change on coastal resources and 

ecosystems; (5) better integration of 

observing system data for use by 

managers responsible for the health of 

coastal ecosystems; and (6) fishery 

productivity forecasts incorporating the 

effects of climate change. 

For each of these products (e.g., 

forecasts, assessments, decision support 

tools), it will be necessary to take 

account or otherwise incorporate 

uncertainty associated with parameter 

estimation and process error (e.g., 

uncertainty of how a change in one 

component of an ecosystem influences 

the others). This is typically done by 

evaluating the performance of competing 

approaches using output from computer 

simulations that are run under a wide 

range of scenarios (FAO, 2003). Field 

data collected in support of these models 

are often not collected from a wide 

variety of system states, so there must be 

inference regarding underlying processes 

dictating changes (e.g., prey switching 

by predators). The evaluation of 

performance must be closely coordinated 

with resource managers and policy 

makers. Such an approach has become 

one of the basic tenets of an EAM by 

many national and international 

organizations. By necessity, it requires 

discourse between researchers and 

managers, and in the future, NOAA will 

need to increasingly incorporate 

constituent input into this discourse. 

The key assumption under this approach 

is that management tools that do not 

perform well in computer simulations 

are very likely to fail in the real world. 

That doesn’t mean that management 

tools that perform well will necessarily 

produce satisfactory results in the real 

world, but they are certainly more likely 

to be successful than non-tested 

management approaches. One form of 

decision support tools used to evaluate 

the impacts of harvest policy is a 

management strategy evaluation (MSE). 

NEPA requires that agencies conduct 

this type of review to provide public 

disclosure of potential impacts of 

management actions. The MSE is an 

attempt to provide quantitative, rather 

than qualitative, information for 

decision-makers. Thus, NOAA 

scientists play a crucial role in the 

process by providing the analysis tools 

and forecasts that will facilitate 

collaborations among managers, 

researchers, and constituents to 

encourage the development of policies 

with full knowledge of the necessary 

tradeoffs between the likelihood of 

sustainable use of a LMR, its 

community, or its ecosystem and the 

likelihood of acceptable social or 

economic performance. 

A Common Lexicon for Ecosystem 

Concepts 

As discussed in the overview, NOAA 

has adopted a common lexicon to 

promote a shared understanding and 
17

usage of ecosystem concepts (NOAA, 

2004; FAO, 2003): 

An ecosystem is a geographically 

specified system of organisms 

(including humans), the 

environment, and the processes that 

control its dynamics. 

The environment is the biological, 

chemical, physical, and social 

conditions that surround organisms. 

When appropriate, the term 

environment should be qualified as 

biological, chemical, physical, and/or 

social. 

An EAM is management that is 

adaptive, geographically specified, 

takes account of ecosystem 

knowledge and uncertainties, 

considers multiple external 

influences, and strives to balance 

diverse social objectives. 

A fishery can refer to the sum of all 

fishing activities on a given resource. 

It may also refer to the activities of a 

single type or style of fishing on a 

particular resource. The term is used 

in both senses. 

The phrase “ecosystem approach to 

management” (instead of “ecosystem 

management”) is used throughout the 

document in deference to the preferred 

international convention. An EAM is 

incremental, as neither the scientific nor 

fiscal underpinnings are usually 

available to quickly and fully implement 

ecosystem approaches in every location. 

LMR management changes ecosystems 

and their components. Specifying goals 

for the condition of LMRs, the 

ecosystem of which they are a part, and 

the human enterprise of fishing is a 

prerequisite to the success of this 

management approach. An a priori

assessment of possible ecosystem states 

must become the foundation for the 

selection of preferred management 

actions. 

Progress towards implementing an EAM 

for LMRs can occur in stages along a 

continuum. For example, management 

under an ecosystem approach can be 

categorized into at least three levels. The 

first level is single species management 

of targeted resources, with issues of 

protected species, non-target species, 

habitat, and species interactions 

incorporated as important 

considerations. The second level is a 

multi-species aggregate and system level 

approach. This management level 

incorporates important ecological and 

environmental factors, such as trophic 

structure, carrying capacity, climate 

anomalies or regime shift influences, on 

the condition of the ecosystem. The third 

level is a comprehensive, multiple sector 

approach that captures activities and 

values associated with all external 

influences (i.e., fishing and non-fishing 

sectors) impacting the condition and 

sustainability of ecosystems. The focus 

is not only on LMR conservation or 

extraction, but also on uses of and 

impacts on marine ecosystems by 

transportation, military, oil and gas 

sectors, etc. 

Background 

A number of recent publications provide 

perspectives and approaches on how 

LMRs will be managed in an ecosystem 

context over the next fifteen years: 

1. Report to Congress by the Ecosystem 

Principles Advisory Panel (1999, p. 3): 
18

“The benefits of adopting ecosystembased fishery management and research 

are more sustainable fisheries and 

marine ecosystems, as well as more 

economically-healthy coastal 

communities. We have identified actions 

required to realize these benefits. We 

urge the Secretary and Congress to 

make those resources available.” (Note: 

the eight ecosystem principals 

recommended by the Panel are presented 

in Appendix A). 

 

2. Murawski (2000, p. 649): 

“Ecosystem considerations may be 

incorporated into fisheries management 

by modifying existing overfishing 

paradigms or by developing new 

approaches to account for ecosystem 

structure and function in relation to 

harvesting. Although existing concepts 

of overfishing have a strong theoretical 

basis for evaluating policy choices and 

much practical use, they do not provide 

direct guidance on issues such as 

biodiversity, serial depletion, habitat 

degradation, and changes in the food 

web caused by fishing.” and “Ecosystem 

considerations do not need to substitute 

for existing overfishing concepts. 

Instead, they should be used to evaluate 

and modify primary management 

guidance for important fisheries and 

species.” 

3. Clark et al. (2001, p. 657): 

“Planning and decision-making can be 

improved by access to reliable forecasts 

of ecosystem state, ecosystem services, 

and natural capital. Availability of new 

data sets, together with progress in 

computation and statistics, will increase 

our ability to forecast ecosystem change. 

An agenda that would lead toward a 

capacity to produce, evaluate, and 

communicate forecasts of critical 

ecosystem services requires a process 

that engages scientists and decisionmakers. Interdisciplinary linkages are 

necessary because of the climate and 

societal controls on ecosystems, the 

feedbacks involving social change, and 

the decision –making relevance of 

forecasts.” 

4. Hilborn (in Browman and Stergiou 

[2004, pp. 275-276]): 

“No one questions that the majority of 

the world’s fisheries are heavily used, 

many are overfished, some have 

collapsed, and good biological and 

economic management suggests 

substantial reductions in fishing 

pressure are needed for sustainable 

management.”; “I, and others (Garcia et 

al. 2003, Sissenwine & Mace 2003), 

believe that we need a form of ecosystem 

management that emphasizes the 

interaction between fish, fishermen and 

government regulators and concentrates 

on incentives and participation with user 

groups. This difference can be 

considered as a choice between a 

participatory approach with incentives 

as a ‘carrot’, and a centralized 

government using regulations as a 

‘stick’.”; and “To argue that we need 

more data intensive management and 

more regulation by central governments 

in the fisheries of the world that have 

little data and little regulation is 

untenable.” 

5. Pew Oceans Commission (2003): 

The Pew Oceans Commission identified 

governance structure as one key issue in 

developing more robust U.S. fisheries 

management.

6. Jennings (in Browman and Stergiou 

[2004, p. 279]): 

“EAF [Ecosystem Approaches to 
19

Fisheries] is part of the ecosystem 

approach. The broad purpose of the 

EAF is to plan, develop and manage 

fisheries in a manner that addresses the 

multiple needs and desires of societies, 

without jeopardizing the options for 

future generations to benefit from the 

full range of goods and services 

(including, of course, non fisheries 

benefits) provided by marine 

ecosystems.” 

7. Mace (in Browman and Stergiou 

[2004, p. 291]): 

“The lack of adequate monitoring of 

marine species, habitats and 

oceanographic factors is perhaps the 

most difficult problem of all to address, 

primarily because of the prohibitive 

costs associated with conducting surveys 

of marine resources and the high costs 

of simply monitoring catches in many 

countries. Realistic cost-benefit analyses 

may well indicate that the costs of 

comprehensive scientific research far 

exceed both short- and long-term 

potential economic benefits to the fishing 

industry. As a result, while a few 

countries may be improving their 

monitoring capabilities (e.g. the United 

States), others are losing funds for 

research and monitoring. Recent 

progress includes several ambitious 

programs under the auspices of the 

Global Ocean Observing System 

(GOOS), Global Ocean Ecosystem 

Dynamic Programs (GLOBEC), and the 

Census of Marine Life (CML).” 

8. Sissenwine and Murawski (in 

Browman and Stergiou [2004, pp. 292-

295]): 

“Incorporation of ecosystem-based 

approaches into fisheries management 

involves accounting for a number of 

important classes of interactions that are 

not routinely evaluated in current 

species-by-species or fishery-based 

management programs.”; “Controlling 

fishing mortality, and manipulating its 

application on particular size or age 

classes, are the keys to achieving the 

typical objectives of sustainability, high 

yield, and efficiency. Often, this is done 

by setting a Total Allowable Catch 

(TAC) based on the relationship between 

catch and fishing mortality. Another 

approach is to limit fishing effort (days 

at sea or some other effort metric) since 

fishing mortality is proportional to 

effort. Controlling fishing mortality 

through either a TAC or limit on fishing 

effort requires considerable scientific 

information about the fishery and 

resource species.”; and “Moving from 

’intelligent tinkering’ to a more direct 

focus on ecosystem properties and 

outcomes will necessarily involve closer 

ties between science and management.” 

9. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

(2004, p. 411): 

“The many potentially beneficial uses of 

ocean and coastal resources should be 

acknowledged and managed in a way 

that balances competing uses while 

preserving and protecting the overall 

integrity of the ocean and coastal 

environments.”; and “Downward trends 

in marine biodiversity should be 

reversed where they exist, with a desired 

end of maintaining or recovering natural 

levels of biological diversity and 

ecosystem services.” 

10. Pikitch et al. (2004, p. 347): 

“Protecting essential habitat for fish and 

other important ecosystem components 

from destructive fishing practices 

increases fish diversity and abundance. 

Thus, ocean zoning, in which type and 

level of allowable human activity are 
20

specified spatially and temporally, will 

be a critical element of EBFM. ... We 

believe EBFM can be implemented in 

systems that differ in levels of 

information and uncertainty through the 

judicious use of a precautionary 

approach. This means erring on the side 

of caution in setting management targets 

and limits when information is sparse or 

uncertain. Greater uncertainty would be 

associated with more stringent 

management measures. Because 

ecosystem management involves a wide 

range of objectives, great ecosystem 

complexity, and a high level of 

uncertainty in predicting impacts, EBFM 

inevitably requires that some level of 

precaution be exercised. Ideally, EBFM 

would shift the burden of proof so that 

fishing would not take place unless it 

could be shown not to harm key 

components of the ecosystem. 

Progression from data-poor to data-rich 

EBFM will be facilitated by adaptive 

management and greater understanding 

of how ecosystems respond to alternative 

fishing strategies.” 

 

11. Hall and Mainprize (2004, pp. 18-

19): 

“In a fisheries context, perhaps the most 

important discussion of all must be 

about what constitutes a desirable or an 

undesirable state for an ecosystem and 

how one weighs the importance of the 

various attributes... Identifying 

stakeholders, distinguishing between 

fishing and environmental impacts, 

initiating comprehensive consultations, 

finding alternative incentives and 

choosing ideal measures for 

management are all critical 

considerations. Only once this is 

achieved will we be on the road to 

producing healthy fisheries that are 

ecologically and economically 

successful for present and future 

generations.” 

Overview of Managing LMRs in an 

Ecosystem Context 

There is increasing recognition of the 

need for management of LMRs in an 

ecosystem context. Globally, declines in 

fishery resources, alteration of critical 

habitats, incidental capture of non-target 

species, and the effects of climate 

variability all point to the need for a 

more holistic approach to understanding 

human impacts on marine ecosystems 

and the interplay of natural and 

anthropogenic agents of change. 

Nonetheless, as noted in the U.S. Ocean 

Action Plan (2004, p. 18), progress 

toward restoring and maintaining healthy 

recreational and commercial fishing has 

been made in recent years. For example, 

since 2000, “17 major stocks have been 

rebuilt and/or removed from the list of 

overfished stocks (dropping from 56 to 

39); almost all (over 93 percent) of the 

remaining overfished stocks have 

rebuilding plans in place, the number of 

species subject to overfishing has 

decreased by 37 (48 percent); and the 

number of stocks with an “unknown” 

status level has decreased by 48 (25 

percent).” 

The U.S. Ocean Action Plan strongly 

endorsed the concept of EAM following 

the report of The U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy. The Commission noted 

that (2004, p. 411) 

“U.S. ocean and coastal resources 

should be managed to reflect the 

relationships among all ecosystem 

components, including human and 

nonhuman species and the environments 

in which they live. Applying this 
21

principle will require defining relevant 

geographic management areas based on 

ecosystem, rather than political, 

boundaries.” 

The Commission highlighted the need to 

consider the interaction among system 

components and emphasized that 

ecosystem approaches to management 

are inherently place-based. Because the 

properties of an ecosystem are different 

from those of its parts (see text box), an 

EAM of LMRs will necessarily differ 

from traditional single species 

approaches while maintaining some 

elements of these approaches. 

Harvesting has both direct and indirect 

effects on marine ecosystems. Direct 

effects include removal of biomass and 

potential impacts on habitat and nontarget species. Indirect effects include 

alteration in trophic structure through 

species-selective harvesting patterns that 

change the relative balance of predators 

and their prey. Multi-species 

considerations in fishery management 

account for these interactions for 

harvested species and the need to 

consider factors such as the food and 

energetic requirements of non-harvested 

species such as marine mammals, 

seabirds, and turtles. Further 

consideration of the role of habitat in 

resource and system productivity and the 

effect of environmental forcing on 

system dynamics provides a more 

inclusive and necessary ecosystem 

perspective. Collectively, these factors 

can result in shifts in productivity states 

that must be accounted for in 

management. Further, it requires that 

tradeoffs are explicitly considered in 

management decisions (e.g., between 

predators and their prey). The 

development of a full EAM will require 

consideration of not only these 

harvesting impacts, but also the effects 

of factors on the integrity of marine 

ecosystems and resource productivity 

such as coastal development, pollution, 

shipping, and oil and gas extraction. A 

summary of objectives for regionallybased EAM developed by NOAA 

Fisheries staff is provided in Appendix B 

(NOAA Fisheries, 2004). 

Spatial Restrictions on Fishing to 

Manage LMRs 

Spatial restrictions on fishing to manage 

LMRs have long been recognized and 

used as tools to reduce or redistribute 

fishing mortality. However, these 

restrictions are usually directed at a 

subset of species, specific fishing gear, 

and over limited time frames. Seldom 

has the use of complete and permanent 

spatial prohibitions on all fishing activity 

(e.g., marine protected areas or MPAs) 

been used to manage LMRs (although 

their use is increasing in recent years). 

However, in many areas MPAs have 

been touted as a new way to achieve 

species conservation. For overfished 

stocks, reducing fishing mortality will 

theoretically increase them, but the 

tradeoffs regarding ecosystem health and 

social and cultural benefits between 

reduced fishing mortality over the entire 

fishing grounds and no fishing mortality 

within a prescribed area have yet to be 

fully evaluated, or demonstrated widely 

in practice. Further, the benefits and 

costs of imposing the restrictions to 

implement MPAs and achieve society’s 

other non-fishing objectives have 

received little attention. For example, if 

one were to create a MPA in which the 

taking of fish and entry of vessels were 

prohibited, what would be the result on 

ships or non-fishing recreational vessels 
22

wanting to transit the area? Would catch 

and release fishing be allowed? Would 

the removal of a submerged shipwreck 

be allowed? These questions should be 

addressed within the context of 

accomplishing multiple, possibly 

simultaneously competing objectives. In 

short, using spatial restrictions to 

manage LMRs should be examined 

within an ecosystem context and with 

the aforementioned MSE tool. One way 

to frame the general discussion for each 

potential spatial restriction could be: 

How does the spatial restriction on 

fishing contribute to optimizing (or at 

least reconciling) the competitive 

objectives of preserving biodiversity, 

sustaining fisheries and other uses, and 

preserving cultural artifacts within a 

large marine ecosystem? 

Performance-Based Management of 

LMRs

As noted earlier, NOAA’s goal to 

“protect, restore and manage coastal and 

ocean resources through an ecosystem 

approach” (NOAA, 2004) will only be 

achieved through incremental 

improvements to existing practices. 

Initially, risk adverse management will 

be based on appropriately conservative 

harvest management strategies that are 

consistent with the above stated NOAA 

goal for managing living marine 

resources in an ecosystem context. 

Figure 1 (from NOAA’s Strategic Plan 

[NOAA, 2004]) connects performance 

objectives with outcomes of NOAA’s 

Ecosystems Mission Goal. 

ECOSYSTEMS MISSION GOAL 

OUTCOMES PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

 

• Healthy and productive coastal 

and marine ecosystems that 

benefit society 

• A well informed public that acts 

as a steward of coastal and 

marine ecosystems 

Increase number of fish stocks managed at sustainable levels 

Increase number of protected species that reach stable or increasing 

population levels 

Increase number of regional coastal and marine ecosystems 

delineated with approved indicators of ecological health and socioeconomic benefits that are monitored and understood 

Increase number of invasive species populations eradicated, 

contained, or mitigated 

Increase number of habitat acres conserved or restored 

Increase portion of population that is knowledgeable of and acting 

as stewards for coastal and marine ecosystem issues 

Increase number of coastal communities incorporating ecosystem 

and sustainable development principles into planning and 

management
23

Strategies to accomplish the Ecosystems 

Mission Goal (from NOAA’s Strategic 

Plan [NOAA, 2004, pp. 4-5]) include: 

• Engage and collaborate with our 

partners to achieve regional 

objectives by delineating regional 

ecosystems, forming regional 

ecosystem councils, and 

implementing cooperative strategies 

to improve regional ecosystem 

health. 

• Manage uses of ecosystems by 

applying scientifically sound 

observations, assessments, and 

research findings to ensure the 

sustainable use of resources and to 

balance competing uses of coastal 

and marine ecosystems. 

• Improve resource management by 

advancing our understanding of 

ecosystems through better simulation 

and predictive models. Build and 

advance the capabilities of an 

ecological component of the NOAA 

global environmental observing 

system to monitor, assess, and 

predict national and regional 

ecosystem health, as well as to 

gather information consistent with 

established social and economic 

indicators. 

• Develop coordinated regional and 

national outreach and education 

efforts to improve public 

understanding and involvement in 

stewardship of coastal and marine 

ecosystems. 

• Engage in technological and 

scientific exchange with our 

domestic and international partners 

to protect, restore, and manage 

marine resources within and beyond 

the Nation’s borders. 

 

I. Science Capabilities Necessary to 

Support Future Decision-Making 

NOAA’s ecosystem research portfolio 

addresses specific management issues, 

including aquaculture, coastal resource 

management, corals, fisheries 

management, habitat restoration, 

invasive species, protected areas, and 

protected species. In its most recent 

five-year plan (NOAA, 2005b), NOAA 

identified thirteen key research actions 

for the foci of the Ecosystems Mission 

Goal: (1) study ocean phenomena, (2) 

study coral ecosystems, (3) promote 

research on inter-disciplinary and 

biophysical integration of observation 

systems, (4) promote technological 

development, (5) investigate sources, 

fates, and effects of anthropogenic 

influences, (6) explore submerged 

landscapes and the effects of physical 

changes on coastal and marine 

ecosystems, (7) map and characterize 

previously uncharted habitats, (8) 

develop and demonstrate 

environmentally compatible culture 

systems for commercial, overexploited, 

threatened, and endangered species, (9) 

forecast and asses temporal scales of 

ecosystem variability, (10) create 

biophysical coupled models of water 

mass movements and their effects on 

biological productivity (including 

fisheries recruitment and population 

distribution), (11) study aquatic 

biodiversity, (12) understand the 

dynamics of social and economic 

systems and their relation to ecosystem 

management, and (13) conduct 

interdisciplinary research to better 

understand marine biological, chemical, 

and physical processes and their 

implications for human health. 
24

One way to organize the science 

capabilities necessary to manage LMRs 

in an ecosystem context is to consider 

the framework recommendations of the 

Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations, or FAO (FAO, 

2003) regarding research needed to 

implement an EAM for fisheries. These 

include research organized around the 

following five areas: (1) ecosystems and 

fishery impact assessments, (2) socioeconomic considerations, (3) assessment 

of management measures, (4) 

assessment and improvements of the 

management process, and (5) monitoring 

and assessment. The FAO perspective 

on an EAM is fully consistent with 

NOAA’s definition of EAM (i.e., “Most 

importantly, the approach aims to ensure 

that future generations will benefit from 

the full range of goods and services that 

ecosystems can provide by dealing with 

issues in a much more holistic way” 

(FAO, 2003, p. v). The primary aim of 

the agency is to transition from the 

traditional single species management 

approach to management in an 

ecosystem context. Below is a 

realignment of the thirteen areas of key 

research identified by NOAA in 2005 

categorized by the five areas identified 

by FAO. In addition and as appropriate, 

NOAA has added science capabilities 

identified by the FAO that were 

considered important in managing LMRs 

in an ecosystem context: 

I. Ecosystems and fishery 

impact assessments 

a. study ocean phenomena 

b. study coral ecosystems 

c. promote research on 

inter-disciplinary and 

biophysical integration of 

observation systems 

d. promote technological 

development 

e. investigate sources, fates, 

and effects of 

anthropogenic influences 

f. explore submerged 

landscapes and the effects 

of physical changes on 

coastal and marine 

ecosystems 

g. map and characterize 

previously uncharted 

habitats 

h. forecast and asses 

temporal scales of 

ecosystem variability 

i. create biophysical 

coupled models of water 

mass movements and 

their effects on biological 

productivity (including 

fisheries recruitment and 

population distribution) 

j. study aquatic biodiversity 

k. expand knowledge of 

how fishing impacts 

target and non-target 

species and their 

associated ecosystems 

II. Socio-economic 

considerations 

a. understand the dynamics 

of social and economic 

systems and their relation 

to ecosystem 

management 

b. conduct interdisciplinary 

research to better 

understand marine 

biological, chemical, and 

physical processes and 

their implications for 

human health 

c. develop appropriate 

multispecies bioeconomic models 
25

d. conduct research into the 

factors that influence the 

day-to-day behavior of 

vessel operators 

e. Apply an integrated 

environmental and 

economic accounting 

framework to the 

assessment and analysis 

of interactions between 

fisheries and other sectors 

of the economy 

III. Assessment of management 

measures 

a. develop and demonstrate 

environmentally 

compatible culture 

systems for commercial, 

overexploited, threatened, 

and endangered species 

b. develop technology in the 

area of fishing gear and 

practices to improve gear 

selectivity and reduce the 

impact of gear on 

ecosystems 

c. develop procedures to 

integrate traditional 

ecosystem knowledge 

into management 

d. identify the species and 

ecosystems that are 

suitable for stock 

enhancements programs 

e. assess the potential role 

of MPAs as a 

management tool and 

evaluate their 

effectiveness where 

already implemented 

IV. Assessment and improvement 

of the management process 

a. implement research on 

how to evaluate 

management 

performance, how to 

include uncertainty and 

risk assessment in 

management, etc. 

b. develop procedures to 

improve the participatory 

processes by stakeholders 

in the management 

process 

c. develop ways to better 

communicate the 

implications of different 

management strategies 

V. Monitoring and assessment 

a. promote technological 

development 

b. develop simple and 

efficient appraisal 

methods 

c. develop adaptive 

management approaches 

to assist with data-poor 

situations 

d. develop multiple 

analytical techniques to 

underpin the decisionmaking process 

e. develop, as possible, a set 

of generic indicators that 

can be widely applied to 

different ecosystems and 

different fisheries 

In addition, in its strategic plan (NOAA, 

2005b), NOAA identified four key 

technology sectors on which it depends 

to describe, understand, and predict 

changes in the status of LMRs. These 

are: (1) sensors capable of gathering 

information on biological, chemical, and 

physical components of the 

environment, (2) platforms (e.g., 

research and survey vessel fleets, 

unmanned aerial vehicles and 

autonomous undersea vehicles, and 

aircraft), (3) information technology, and 

(4) telecommunications. Over the next 
26

fifteen years, NOAA scientists will 

exploit these technologies in developing 

an integrated Global Earth Observing 

System of Systems (GEOSS), and to 

maintain existing capabilities for 

monitoring the status of LMRs and the 

quality of the ecosystems they inhabit. 

The research needed to provide NOAA 

managers with the necessary information 

to achieve the agency’s stated goals in 

managing LMRs is taxon specific. That 

is, commercial fisheries in Federal 

waters are currently managed under the 

primary mandates of the MSFMCA. 

Managers require specific information to 

meet these mandates. Similarly, marine 

mammal management is codified in the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, while 

sea turtles are primarily managed under 

the ESA. Again, the information needs 

of managers are dictated by a 

combination of mandates found in 

Federal law, regulations, and agency 

agreements. In addition, other statutes 

also direct or otherwise influence the 

way NOAA manages LMRs. 

Appendix C provides an overview of 

how LMRs are managed in an ecosystem 

context in the Bering Sea, which 

provides an example of the integration of 

research and management, as well as 

many potentially beneficial uses of 

ocean and coastal resources. 

II. Partnerships Necessary to 

Effectively Address the 

Emerging Issues 

The intersection of jurisdictions and the 

overlap of expertise will identify 

necessary points of coordination among 

resource agencies, councils, 

commissions, and institutions for 

effective ecosystem research and 

management. These include: 

• Federal authorities such as NOAA, 

regional fishery management 

councils, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Corps of 

Engineers, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of 

Defense, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of TransportationMaritime Administration, U.S. Coast 

Guard, and Minerals Management 

Service. 

• State authorities such as state 

universities and colleges, interstate 

commissions, CZM agencies, 

fisheries management agencies, and 

other natural resource/wildlife 

agencies. 

• Local authorities and institutions 

such as independent research 

institutions, planning commissions, 

and zoning boards. 

• Tribes/tribal jurisdictions. 

• International commissions and 

institutions implementing 

international science and 

management agreements governing 

multiple countries, and resource 

management departments of other 

countries and their associated 

research infrastructure. 

• Management areas such as marine 

managed areas/ MPAs; National 

Wildlife Refuges; National Marine 

Sanctuaries; National Estuarine 

Research Reserves; fishery 

management areas; habitat 
27

restoration and special habitat 

conservation areas; marine mammal 

management areas; threatened or 

endangered species management 

areas; marine parks or historic wreck 

areas; military exclusion or 

operations areas; 

transportation/navigation routes; oil 

and gas lease areas; and relevant 

terrestrial and upland protected areas 

such as parks and coastal reserves. 

Note: Management authorities or areas 

are considered relevant if they contribute 

directly or indirectly to the management 

or control of at least one of the factors 

having an impact on the ecosystem 

management area (see Appendix B for 

details).

IV. Benefits to NOAA, 

Constituents, and Society 

from this Effort 

Coastal areas are among the most 

developed in the Nation. More than half 

of the population lives on less than onefifth of the land in the contiguous United 

States. Coastal counties, including those 

along the Great Lakes, are growing three 

times faster than counties elsewhere, 

adding more than 3,600 people a day to 

their populations. Coastal and marine 

waters support over 28 million jobs and 

provide a tourism destination for 89 

million Americans each year (see 

Leeworthy and Wiley, 2001). The 

annual value of the ocean economy to 

the U.S. is over $115 billion. The 

amount added annually to the national 

economy by the commercial and 

recreational fishing industry alone is 

over $48 billion, with an additional $6 

billion in direct and indirect economic 

impacts from aquaculture. With its 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 3.4 

million square miles, the U.S. manages 

the largest marine territory of any nation 

in the world. 

NOAA has a unique mandate from 

Congress to be a lead Federal agency in 

protecting, managing, and restoring 

marine resources. To meet this mandate, 

NOAA scientists and their external 

partners contribute world-class expertise 

in oceanography, marine ecology, 

marine archeology, fisheries 

management, conservation biology, 

natural resource management, and risk 

assessment. To achieve balance among 

ecological, environmental, and social 

influences, NOAA has adopted an EAM 

as previously described. 

NOAA’s mission to conserve, protect, 

manage, and restore LMRs and coastal 

and ocean resources is critical to the 

health of the U.S. economy. Research 

producing the best available scientific 

information is critical to the success of 

this mission. In addition, NOAA has 

made a commitment to improve its 

ability over the next 20 years in 

predicting the impact of climate change 

and variability on the productivity and 

survivability of species important to 

commercial fisheries and subsistence 

fishers. Absent this ability, calamitous 

changes in the abundance or distribution 

of LMRs would only be identifiable after 

the fact, if at all, and most likely not able 

to be mitigated. It is critical that NOAA 

develop and implement the research 

programs necessary to provide reliable 

predictions regarding LMR availability 

to provide adequate lead times to 

regional managers and constituents. 

Finally, developed countries such as the 

U.S. have a responsibility for 
28

stewardship of marine ecosystems and 

for setting standards to protect and 

manage the shared resources and 

harvests of the oceans. Believing that it 

is possible to balance sustainable 

economic development and healthy, 

functioning marine ecosystems, NOAA 

seeks to provide an example for the rest 

of the world in comprehensively 

managing resources of the world’s 

oceans and coasts. 

 
29

White Paper #3 

Freshwater Issues 

Authors: 

Gary Carter, NOAA National Weather 

Service, Office of Hydrologic 

Development 

Pedro Restrepo, NOAA National 

Weather Service, Office of Hydrologic 

Development 

Jawed Hameedi, NOAA National 

Ocean Service, National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science 

Peter Ortner, NOAA Research, 

Atlantic Oceanographic and 

Meteorological Laboratory 

Cynthia Sellinger, NOAA Research, 

Great Lakes Environmental Research 

Laboratory 

John Stein, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center 

Tim Beechie, NOAA Fisheries, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

I. Description of the Issue 

Freshwater is our most precious and 

finite natural resource -- the total amount 

of freshwater in lakes, streams, rivers, 

and groundwater accounts for less than 

one percent of water on the Earth. As 

human populations increase, so does 

competition for water to meet societal 

needs versus to maintain the needs of the 

earth’s biological systems. Additionally, 

there are increasing demands for 

recreational use of water in streams, 

river, and lakes, and increasing 

awareness of interacting hydrological, 

ecological, and social systems required 

for a healthy environment, dynamic 

economy, and equitable allocation and 

use of freshwater. 

By the year 2020, the human population 

in the United States will exceed 335 

million, with the majority living in 

coastal counties that account for only 17 

percent of the U.S. land area (excluding 

Alaska). Increasing population density, 

coupled with faster-growing economies 

in coastal areas, will require resource 

management policies that are built upon 

a holistic approach to managing 

ecological goods and services, while at 

the same time accounting for human 

demands on water resources (Palmer et 

al., 2004). This will, for example, 

increase the effects of drought on 

economic, social, and ecological 

systems, including delivery of 

freshwater to estuaries and the coastal 

ocean (WGA, 2004). A consequence 

will be the need for an improved drought 

forecasting capability developed at the 

appropriate spatial scale. Increasing 

populations also bring increased 

biological threats and the need to better 

forecast and mitigate their effects. For 

example, aquatic invasive species (AIS) 

are a global problem threatening sectors 

of the U.S. economy by changing and 

reducing the beneficial societal uses of 

its coastal ecosystems. The pathways by 

which invasive species reach U.S. 

coastal ecosystems all involve human 

activities, especially those related to 

commerce and trade. Aquatic invasive 

species can have dramatic effects on 

ecosystems, including altered trophic 

structures, reduced productivity, and an 

increased risk of extinction of native 

species. Annual costs to the U.S. 

economy have reached hundreds of 

millions of dollars per year and are 

increasing. While the impact of invasive 

species is not unique to freshwater 

ecosystems and affects all coastal 

ecosystems, the Great Lakes is a “hot 

spot” for invasive species introductions 
30

to major interior sections of the U.S. and 

Canada, having 162 documented 

introductions representing fishes, 

invertebrates, aquatic plants, algae, and 

pathogens. 

According to the Council of State 

Government’s report entitled “Water 

Wars” (CSG, 2003, p. 1): 

“Water, which used to be considered a 

ubiquitous resource, is now scarce in 

some parts of the country and not just in 

the West as one might assume. The water 

wars have spread to the Midwest, East 

and South as well. . . . Recent water 

shortages are putting water rights 

conflicts in the spotlight. These conflicts 

are occurring within states, among 

states, between states and the federal 

government and among 

environmentalists and state and federal 

agencies.” 

The report of the National Science and 

Technology Council’s Subcommittee on 

Water Availability and Quality (NSTC, 

2004, p. 17) explains that: 

“Without quantifiable and scientifically 

defensible estimates of environmental 

water requirements, water gridlock–

intense competition among irrigation, 

navigation, municipal supply, energy, 

and the environment–is unlikely to be 

resolved.” 

In 2000, the total amount of withdrawals 

(not necessarily consumption), including 

saline water, in the United States 

approached 400 billion gallons per day 

(Hutson et al., 2004). Nearly 40% of 

this amount was used in thermo-electric 

power generation and about one-third for 

irrigation and agriculture use (Figure 1). 

Domestic use accounted for only one 

percent; the remaining amount was to 

meet industrial and public water supply 

needs. It is anticipated that future 

increases in consumptive use, energy 

production, and irrigation will 

accentuate the challenge of achieving an 

equitable balance between ecosystem 

conservation and the economic vitality 

of watersheds and estuaries. 

These environmental and societal drivers 

shape the fundamental challenges for 

NOAA in the next fifteen years. The 

primary challenges for NOAA are: 

1. Framing the tradeoffs that 

decision-makers will face in 

balancing the conservation of 

freshwater and coastal 

ecosystems with demands for 

safe drinking water, crop 

irrigation, recreation, and flood 

control; 

2. Forecasting climate change and 

climate variability effects upon 

the freshwater-coastal ecosystem 

and availability of water for 

human uses; 

Figure 1. Freshwater use in the U.S. in 2000 as a 

percentage of total freshwater (surface and 

groundwater) withdrawl (345.6 billion gallons per

day; Hutson et al., 2004). 
31

3. Breaking down the persistent 

view that there are two separate 

ecosystems (freshwater and 

coastal), and advancing a new 

understanding of the critical 

coupling of resource pathways 

and food webs between the two 

environments; 

4. Understanding the linkage 

between water quality and 

quantity and public health and 

developing models and forecasts 

to aid in reducing human health 

risks in freshwater and coastal 

ecosystems; and 

5. Delivering relevant science and 

information for effective 

decision-making. 

NOAA and its partners must rise to these 

challenges on both national and 

international scales if the nation is to 

maintain functioning freshwater, 

estuarine, and coastal ecosystems that 

support biodiversity and sustainable 

resource use, promote prosperous coastal 

communities, and pose minimal human 

health risks. 

II. Science Capabilities Necessary to 

Support Future Decision-Making 

The recommendations of the National 

Council for Science and the 

Environment (Schiffries and Brewster, 

2004) on water sustainability and 

security underlined fundamentally new 

approaches for balancing societal water 

needs with those of the Earth's 

ecosystems while assuring sustainability. 

Specific recommendations that NOAA’s 

mission supports through its science 

include: 

• Managing water resources based 

on hydrological and ecological 

linkages (rather than political 

boundaries) and equitable 

allocation for people and 

ecosystems; 

• Developing a robust set of 

indicators for sustainable water 

management; 

• Advancing inter-disciplinary 

scientific research; 

• Closing the gaps between water 

science and water policy; 

• Developing a broad spectrum of 

capabilities to assure water 

quality, sanitation, and security; 

and 

• Improving education and 

outreach.

In addition, the General Accounting 

Office has noted that the U.S. lacks a 

national system to assemble key 

information on economic, 

environmental, social, and cultural issues 

(GAO, 2004). Support for effective 

decision-making on freshwater issues 

will require an integration of economic, 

environmental, and social/cultural issues 

around each of the recommendations 

made by the National Council for 

Science and the Environment (Schiffries 

and Brewster, 2004). The need for 

integration highlights the critical need to 

meld physical and biological sciences 

with social and economic sciences if 

NOAA’s data and information products 

are to effectively support regional 

decision-making. 

Future water resource conflicts will be 

intense in freshwater systems. It is 

therefore critical that NOAA’s scientific 

products help decision-makers 

understand fundamental tradeoffs 

between human needs for water and 
32

environmental services provided by 

freshwater in rivers and estuaries. 

Resolving these fundamental tensions 

will require that NOAA develop a sound 

scientific understanding of watersheds 

and coastal regions as a single 

ecosystem, and deliver science products 

that inform decisions regarding 

allocations of a diminishing resource. 

Developing valuation systems (e.g., the 

cost effectiveness of water recovery 

systems versus the ecological 

consequences of extracting larger 

amounts of freshwater for agriculture, 

power generation, and industrial 

purposes) to assist in evaluating 

tradeoffs is equally important. NOAA 

must also deliver timely scientific 

information in support of major 

decisions regarding climate variability 

and change, and protection of 

freshwater-dependent ecosystems from 

the harmful effects of pollution and 

habitat alteration arising from coastal 

development. Prototypes of such 

approaches already exist (Kimmerer, 

2002; Powell et al., 2002). The 

development of multi-scale socioecological models will be essential for 

informing policy and management 

decisions by providing a wider range of 

alternatives for achieving resource 

sustainability and accounting for 

variability at different temporal scales 

(Costanza et al., 2002). 

Understanding and reducing human 

health risks from degradation of 

freshwater and marine ecosystems is a 

major challenge facing our Nation. 

NOAA’s Oceans and Human Health 

Initiative has recently begun to 

investigate how ecosystem conditions in 

the oceans and Great Lakes affect human 

health and well being, and strengthening 

these capabilities will improve our 

ability to respond to this challenge. 

Research, monitoring, modeling, 

forecasting, and education are all key 

elements used by NOAA in such 

integrated science programs. NOAA’s 

strong capabilities in ecosystem 

modeling and integrated sustained 

observation programs for coastal 

ecosystems will enable stronger support 

of a wide range of activities and improve 

ecological forecasts. These integrated 

scientific capabilities allow NOAA to 

help guide a wide range of ecosystem 

restoration and species recovery efforts 

that explicitly include humans as part of 

the ecosystem (e.g., South Florida, 

Pacific salmon), and also to develop the 

NOAA National Center for Research on 

Aquatic Invasive Species. This new 

center provides communication and 

coordination for the agency’s research 

investments in support of understanding, 

preventing, responding to, and managing 

AIS invasions in the U.S. coastal 

ecosystems. 

Meeting the Challenge: 

NOAA Science Priorities 

To help meet the Nation’s future 

freshwater ecosystem challenges, NOAA 

will need to collect and deliver accurate 

ecosystem-level information to 

managers. This will require a shift from 

traditional small-scale research and 

piecemeal management schemes to 

large-scale, holistic frameworks for both 

science and policy. The task must be to 

predict the consequences to ecosystems 

and society of alternative management 

strategies, and provide these predictions 

to decision-makers in a timely and 

transparent fashion. Thus, NOAA must 

be prepared to play a key scientific role 

in evaluating ecosystem responses to 
33

alternative ecosystem management 

plans, many of which will be locallydeveloped “bottom up” initiatives 

encompassing diverse economic and 

environmental interests. 

NOAA’s research priority in meeting 

one of the Nation’s biggest challenges – 

the looming conflict between ecosystem 

conservation and increasing human use 

of water resources – will be to develop 

advanced models that accurately forecast 

water supplies, as well as a new suite of 

hydrologic models that describe how 

freshwater environmental attributes will 

shift with climate change and land uses. 

The use of high-resolution (i.e., 1 km 

spatial resolution) distributed hydrologic 

models has not been practical in 

operational forecasting until fairly 

recently. It is now feasible to develop 

and implement high-resolution rainfallrunoff models due to the advent of highquality spatial data, the ability to process 

that data using geographical information 

systems (GIS), and the improvement in 

the spatial estimation of precipitation as 

a result of the Next Generation Radar 

(NEXRAD) network. As part of the 

calculations necessary to produce 

streamflow forecasts, these models have 

the capability to obtain estimates of 

information, such as soil moisture, snow 

water equivalent, soil temperature, and 

other ecosystem habitat parameters, at 

the same high resolution. These new 

forecasts will inform the decisionmaking process for agriculture, water, 

and ecosystem managers alike. 

NOAA is leading the way in 

implementation of these greatly 

enhanced services by placing the 

proposed Community Hydrologic 

Prediction System (CHPS) at the core of 

its Water Resources Initiative. CHPS 

will allow scientists to couple different 

models, improve forecasts, and expedite 

the research-to-operations timeline. 

These goals will be achieved by 

developing models directly in the same 

environment used in NOAA’s National 

Weather Service river forecast 

operations. CHPS will include the 

ability to couple models operating at 

disparate temporal and spatial 

resolutions, such as groundwater models 

and surface hydrology models. CHPS 

will also build on standard sets of tools 

and protocols, and utilize open data 

modeling standards. It will support data 

assimilation, high-resolution distributed 

forecasts, including uncertainty 

estimates, data assimilation, and the 

operational implementation of advanced 

water quantity and quality forecast 

models not currently available. This 

open architecture of CHPS will 

encourage partnerships with other 

Federal and non-Federal organizations. 

Understanding and predicting how 

shifting climate regimes will affect water 

supplies and freshwater-coastal 

ecosystems are NOAA’s second major 

science priority. Climate cycles have 

strong influences on annual streamflows, 

freshwater ecosystem structure and 

function, and abundance of important 

aquatic species (Kiffney et al., 2002; 

Greene et al., 2005). Long-term climate 

change is likely to alter flow regimes in 

ways that will adversely affect water 

availability for both human consumption 

and the recovery of important species 

(Mote et al., 2003; Beechie et al., 2006). 

NOAA will need increased capabilities 

to be able to forecast how such climate 

changes will affect flood and drought 

intensities, productivity of freshwater 

and coastal ecosystems, drinking water, 

and recreational and shellfish beaches. 
34

NOAA must also be able to predict 

where the ecological effects of decadal 

scale wet or dry regimes will be most 

dramatic, and provide scientific 

information on the ecological 

consequences of different freshwater 

management approaches to meet the 

human demands for freshwater. 

Just as important as the development of 

new models is the procurement of data 

required to drive those models, and 

identification of new uses for those 

observations. In collaboration with the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), NOAA will be 

exploring the use of space-based 

observations to improve potential 

evapotranspiration estimates, and to 

assimilate snow water equivalent and 

soil moisture observations into the new 

high-resolution hydrologic models. It is 

estimated that the use of new 

observations, in coordination with better 

estimates from dual-polarization radars 

and enhanced automated surface 

observation stations, will greatly 

improve the skill in short- and long-term 

forecasts of streamflows, in ranges from 

droughts to floods. NOAA is gaining 

the resources that will also increase the 

amount, type, and accuracy of water 

resource information available to NOAA 

and its external customers. The 

integration efforts of NOAA’s Water 

Resources Initiative will make use of the 

efforts of the National Integrated 

Drought Information System, NOAA’s 

Environmental Real-time Observation 

Network, the National Water Quality 

Monitoring Network, and the emerging 

IOOS. 

NOAA’s third science priority is the 

development of new ecosystem response 

models to help predict how resource 

decisions will impact the delivery of 

ecosystem goods and services, including 

the abundance of commercial and 

recreational aquatic species. Breaking 

down the persistent view that freshwater 

and coastal ecosystems are separate and 

developing a new understanding of 

integrated ecosystems will be needed to 

better characterize the consequences of 

water management decisions. 

Freshwater and marine environments are 

tightly coupled by the delivery of 

sediments, contaminants, and nutrients 

from watersheds to estuaries and 

coastlines, as well as migrations of 

anadromous and catadromous species 

between marine and freshwater habitats. 

NOAA will require a greater capacity to 

predict the ecosystem consequences of 

human actions such as reduced sediment 

supply by reservoir 

construction/operation and its effect on 

coastal erosion, increased delivery of 

pollutants to the freshwater-coastal 

ecosystems, and altered nutrient fluxes 

between freshwater and coastal 

environments. In turn, this will require 

much improved scientific understanding 

of the complex linkages between 

freshwater and coastal food webs at 

different spatial scales and temporal 

resolutions. Biomass fluxes between 

freshwater and coastal environments - 

mainly anadromous fishes such as 

striped bass, American shad, sturgeon, 

and Pacific and Atlantic salmon - are 

critical pathways by which food 

resources and nutrients are transferred 

between freshwater and saltwater food 

webs, and models that help predict how 

changes in abundance of these species 

impact freshwater-coastal ecosystems 

are sorely needed. Likewise, for species 

that make transitions between freshwater 

and marine systems, models that 

accurately represent the drivers of these 
35

populations will require integration of 

freshwater and marine processes (Greene 

et al., 2005). NOAA must also improve 

its capabilities in understanding and 

modeling critical drivers on species and 

food webs, including water quantity and 

quality changes, non-native species 

introductions, fishing, altering physical 

processes, and other human impacts. 

NOAA’s fourth science priority is to 

provide managers with a better 

understanding of the human health 

consequences of freshwater and coastal 

ecosystem degradation. A variety of 

contaminants can adversely impact 

drinking water, recreational waters, and 

fish and shellfish leading to illness (e.g., 

see Health Canada, 1995). Chemical 

contaminants come from both point and 

non-point sources of pollution, with 

urban/suburban runoff and atmospheric 

deposition increasingly becoming major 

sources. Microbial contaminants such as 

viruses and bacteria can come from 

sewage treatment plants, septic systems, 

agricultural livestock operations and 

wildlife, and combined sewer overflows 

after storm events (Whitman and Nevers, 

2003). Another threat is HABs. For 

example, bloom-forming, toxic 

cyanobacteria occur worldwide in 

nutrient-enriched freshwaters and have 

caused human and animal 

illness/mortality. HABs can have 

disastrous short- and long-term 

consequences for water quality and 

resource utilization (e.g., see Paerl and 

Millie, 1996). While drinking water 

contamination is a major concern, 

chemical contaminants, microbial 

contamination, and HABs also pose 

public health concerns through contact 

with contaminated water during 

recreation (Health Canada, 1998; WHO, 

1998) and indigestion of contaminated 

fish and shellfish. 

NOAA has a significant role in 

identifying and reducing human health 

risks through its research and application 

of its research findings at the intersection 

of meteorology, biological 

oceanography, hydrology, microbiology, 

toxicology, and watershed and coastal 

processes. This will require NOAA to 

increase its multidisciplinary approach to 

understand and forecast coastal-related 

human health impacts to improve public 

health and natural resource policy and 

decision-making. Predictive models and 

monitoring networks will need to be 

reconfigured to provide data and 

information products relevant to water 

quality impacts on human health. The 

NOAA Center of Excellence for Great 

Lakes and Human Health (Brandt et al., 

2004) is a multidisciplinary research 

effort to understand the interrelationships between the Great Lakes 

ecosystem, water quality, and human 

health. There are other NOAA Centers 

of Excellence with a scientific focus on 

ecosystem forecasting to minimize risks 

to human health at the watershed–coastal 

marine intersection, including the 

proposed Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Cooperative Institute. 

NOAA will also need to expand its 

science-based ecosystem approach to 

restoring habitat structure and function 

in order to ensure that drinking water 

flowing through watersheds and into the 

Great Lakes and marine coastal areas do 

not present a risk to human health. This 

need is exemplified in the Great Lakes 

because its coastal waters are potable. 

There are 121 watersheds feeding into 

the Great Lakes, with approximately 44 

million people living in the Great Lakes 
36

basin (20 million reside in the U.S.) and 

depending on the Great Lakes for 

drinking water. Once in place, the 

NOAA Great Lakes Habitat Restoration 

Program will address habitat loss and 

degradation, two issues that span the 

entire Great Lakes basin as well as other 

coastal areas nationwide. Strong 

partnerships and sharing of expertise, 

knowledge, and resources are the key to 

effective restoration and protection. 

Finally, NOAA’s science must be 

translated in transparent ways for use by 

managers and decision-makers in order 

to yield its full benefit to society. 

NOAA will need to develop more 

efficient mechanisms for the delivery of 

scientific information to managers and 

policy makers. Regional ecosystem 

management plans will likely be large 

and complex, describing strategies and 

actions aimed at improving the 

functioning of an ecosystem. 

Implementation of these plans, however, 

will occur through multiple institutions 

that govern or influence only a particular 

geographic sub-region of the ecosystem 

or subset of the ecosystem’s functions, 

or both. To the extent that the 

ecosystem components are 

interconnected, so too must the laws and 

regulations that institutions enact and 

implement; the stronger the connections 

among the ecosystem’s components, the 

stronger must be the connections among 

the institutions. Moreover, 

socioeconomic factors such as 

population growth, economic 

development, and land use can be 

influenced by laws and regulation, but 

not fully determined by these formal 

governance mechanisms. Instead, these 

factors are the aggregation of many 

small, individual decisions. NOAA 

must improve its understanding of the 

dynamics of these economic and social 

spheres in order to develop more 

efficient methods of delivering relevant 

scientific information. This drives the 

need to interweave social and economic 

models with physical, biological, and 

ecosystem models. 

Better monitoring is at the core of an 

effective EAM, and better synthesis of 

data will be essential to effective 

decision-making regarding freshwater 

management. The stakes are high in 

meeting the human needs for freshwater 

while sustaining ecosystem goods and 

services. The need for regional coastal 

observing systems has been highlighted 

recently in a number of studies as well as 

by the NOAA in its strategic plan, the 

National Oceanographic Partnership 

Program, and the IOOS Development 

Plan. Continual assessment of the status 

and trends in watershed and coastal 

environments permits identification of 

perturbations that may signal changes in 

the ecosystem, puts current trends into 

an historical framework, allows 

scientists to differentiate true 

environmental change from variance, 

and provides a context in which to assess 

the impact of predicted changes. The 

development of a coastal component of 

IOOS is a fundamental need in coastal, 

marine, and Great Lakes regions. 

III. Partnerships Necessary to 

Effectively Address the Emerging 

Issues 

Largely due to jurisdictional boundaries, 

agency mandates, and nascent scientific 

strategies to support integrated 

management, the overall goal to balance 

the multiple demands of the limited 

freshwater resources of the Nation (or 
37

specific coastal watersheds) has 

remained elusive. 

First and foremost, NOAA must provide 

leadership for developing a holistic 

response to freshwater issues for the year 

2020 and beyond. Meeting these 

enormous challenges will require 

partnerships with academia, the private 

sector, other Federal agencies, and 

international institutions to bring to the 

forefront: 1) technology necessary for 

more environmentally sound use, 

allocation and conservation of 

freshwater; 2) ecological indicators and 

forecasts at multiple scales; and 3) an 

improved understanding of the 

interactions among the atmosphere, 

biosphere, and hydrosphere as they 

affect the coupled marine/Great Lakes 

and watershed ecosystems. 

This will also require fostering stronger 

partnerships with institutions that have 

inland, coastal, and atmospheric 

mandates, including the U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and 

Defense; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA); USGS, and NASA. 

NOAA should also strengthen scientific 

cooperation and information exchange 

with the international community in 

order to cut across political and 

jurisdictional boundaries. The 

importance of such linkages is 

exemplified in the Great Lakes where 

joint management of water resources 

with Canada is essential. The 

International Joint Commission (a 

commission jointly appointed by the 

President of the United States and the 

Governor in Council of Canada) brings 

together international, Federal, state, 

local, private, and tribal entities to focus 

on specific water management issues. In 

addition, NOAA will need to establish 

closer and more effective partnerships 

with the Shared Strategy in Puget Sound, 

CalFed Bay-Delta Program, county and 

local emergency managers, and river 

basin entities such as the Delaware River 

Basin Commission, the Susquehanna 

River Basin Commission, and the 

Florida River Management Districts. 

This will further facilitate participation 

by local stakeholders to address specific 

issues and reach mutually acceptable 

management options. 

IV. Benefits to NOAA, Constituents, 

and Society from this Effort 

There is no resource more precious or 

finite than freshwater. Science-based 

ecological frameworks using “next 

generation” hydrologic and ecosystem 

models and forecasts are needed to 

inform local, state, and Federal decisionmakers as they set goals and targets for 

adequate and reliable supplies of 

freshwater while meeting goals for 

ecosystem goods and services. The need 

and urgency for such a course of action 

have been articulated for many years, 

most recently by the National Science 

and Technology Council (NSTC, 2004), 

the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO, 2004), the NRC (NRC, 

2004), and the National Council of 

Science and the Environment (Schiffries 

and Brewster, 2004). The societal 

benefits accrued from NOAA’s 

ecosystem science in this area are: 

a. Providing scientific data and 

expert counsel prior to any 

changes in the water budgets that 

may pose adverse environmental 

or social consequences; 

b. Forecasting the amounts and 

timeliness of streamflow for 
38

human activities and sustaining 

the production of ecosystem 

goods and services; and 

c. Providing scientific information 

and management support on the 

supply and quality of water to 

protect, restore, and enhance 

aquatic ecosystems and human 

health. 

NOAA’s water resources information 

should support the full range of 

stakeholders (e.g., farmers, utilities, 

water managers, land managers, wildlife 

managers, business owners, and 

decision-makers) with the science 

needed to make informed decisions on 

their operations, and allow them to plan 

for, rather than react to, the inevitable 

changes from shifting climate regimes 

(e.g., decadal scale changes from “wet” 

to “dry” periods). The freshwater 

allocation issue allows NOAA, working 

with partners, to help illustrate that 

protecting functioning ecosystems and 

conserving aquatic species will provide 

the natural services that benefits, rather 

then competes with, robust human 

societies. 

The following are priorities for science 

to support an ecosystem approach to 

freshwater management: 

• Develop next-generation models 

to forecast ecosystem-scale 

changes in water budgets in 

response to human demand and 

climate and land use change at 

annual and decadal scales. These 

models also need to inform the 

selection of alternative 

management strategies. 

• Establish and facilitate integrated 

monitoring programs that 

provide a continuum of 

observations from the headwaters 

of watersheds to the coastal 

ocean to provide a holistic 

understanding of hydrologic 

cycles and biological status, 

trends, and interactions. 

• Improve the knowledge base, 

technologies, and forecasts to 

minimize public health risks 

from consumptive use and 

contact recreation in coastal 

systems. 

• Increase environmental literacy 

of the relation of climate and 

land use to freshwater supply and 

quality, as well as the tight 

biologic and hydrologic coupling 

between watersheds, estuarine 

drainage areas, and adjacent 

coastal waters. 

These priority efforts can only be 

accomplished through partnerships 

based on an ecosystem approach to both 

science and management. A regionally 

based, nested ecosystem framework with 

a shared strategy to management will be 

needed. This shared strategy must 

acknowledge jurisdictions and 

management mandates, and provide a 

forum for collective decision-making. 

This will require that observations and 

research are also done with a greater 

degree of collaboration and are guided 

by and responsive to shared management 

needs, while still providing the science 

to meet the management needs. 

Ecosystem-based agreements assuring 

transparent data sharing and 

management will be essential to 

facilitate the necessary collaboration, as 

well as to provide information on the 
39

scale needed to inform shared decisionmaking. This is not just a theoretical 

construct, but has been initiated and put 

into action (e.g., with regard to South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration under the 

aegis of Federal-state-tribal task force 

established in Federal law, and the 

Shared Strategy in Puget Sound, a 

voluntary, collaborative effort to recover 

ESA-listed Chinook salmon). 
40

White Paper #4 

Marine Zoning and Coastal 

Zone Management 

Authors: 

Joseph A. Uravitch, NOAA National 

Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and 

Coastal Resource Management 

Tracy Collier, NOAA Fisheries, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Elizabeth Moore, NOAA National 

Ocean Service, National Marine 

Sanctuaries Program 

Thomas Noji, NOAA Fisheries, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Lauren Wenzel, NOAA National Ocean 

Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management 

Susan White, NOAA National Ocean 

Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management 

Roger Zimmerman, NOAA Fisheries, 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

I. Description of the Issue 

Background 

Coastal areas and nearshore waters are 

subject to an array of human activities 

with steadily growing impacts on the 

natural ecosystems. While coastal 

watershed counties comprise less than 

25 percent of the land area in the United 

States, they are home to more than 52 

percent of the total U.S. population 

(USCOP, 2004). With increasing 

population and development pressure, 

coastal managers are faced with a need 

to manage competing demands for 

coastal and marine resources, minimize 

the impacts of development and other 

uses on the coastal and marine 

environment, and conserve coastal and 

marine ecosystems. In addition, a 

growing number of activities are taking 

place or are proposed in Federal waters 

from three to 200 miles offshore and in 

international waters beyond the EEZ. 

Over the coming decades, the use of 

coastal and marine ecosystems will 

increase. Coastal land will continue to 

be in high demand for development, 

ports, and recreation. In addition, in 

marine ecosystems on the continental 

shelf, activities such as fishing, energy 

generation, mineral extraction, 

aquaculture, waste disposal, 

transportation, tourism, recreation, and 

other uses will compete for space. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

envisions a desirable future for the 

oceans and Great Lakes, a worthy goal 

for NOAA to help achieve (USCOP, 

2004, p. 4): 

“In this future, the oceans, coasts and 

Great Lakes are clean, safe, prospering, 

and sustainably managed. They 

contribute significantly to the economy, 

supporting multiple beneficial uses such 

as food production, development of 

energy and mineral resources, 

recreation and tourism, transportation 

of goods and people, and the discovery 

of novel medicines, while preserving a 

high level of biodiversity and a wide 

range of critical natural habitats. 

In this future, the coasts are attractive 

places to live, work and play, with clean 

water and beaches, easy public access, 

sustainable and strong economies, safe 

bustling harbors and ports, adequate 

roads and services, and special 

protection for sensitive habitats and 

threatened species. Beach closings, 

toxic algal blooms, proliferation of 
41

invasive species, and vanishing native 

species are rare. Better land-use 

planning and improved predictions of 

severe weather and other natural 

hazards save lives and money.” 

To achieve this vision, the busy seas and 

coasts will demand governance solutions 

to manage an intensifying and 

increasingly conflicting set of activities. 

With few exceptions, such as Oregon’s 

ocean policy or state interests on 

offshore impacts on coastal zone 

resources, the past 30 years of CZM 

generally have seen the vast majority of 

states and territories focusing on the “dry 

side” rather than the “wet side” of the 

land and water margin. This is no longer 

the case. Already, states such as 

Massachusetts and California are 

exploring the potential of marine zoning 

as a tool to separate conflicting uses, 

achieve conservation and economic 

objectives, and enhance safety. The Pew 

Oceans Commission also advocates 

marine zoning to improve marine 

resource conservation, actively plan 

ocean use, and reduce user conflicts 

(Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). 

Similar to zoning on land, marine zoning 

designates geographic areas for specific 

uses, such as transportation, 

conservation, non-consumptive uses, 

energy development, or fishing. Zoning 

is a way of reducing user conflicts by 

separating incompatible activities and 

allocating or distributing uses based on a 

determination of an area’s suitability for 

those uses in relation to specific 

planning goals (Courtney and Wiggen, 

2003). Ideally, zoning has numerous 

components including a map that depicts 

the zones and a set of regulations or 

standards applicable to each type of zone 

created (Courtney and Wiggen, 2003), as 

well as plans for implementation, 

monitoring, and enforcement. Zoning is 

also a tool for resource management, 

conservation, and restoration. 

In their discussion on ocean zoning in 

the Gulf of Maine, Courtney and 

Wiggen (2003, p. 7) note that: 

“ocean zoning is... complex in that it 

needs to address and manage activities 

on the ocean surface, in the airspace 

above, throughout the water column, 

and on and beneath the seabed. It is 

conceivable that one area of the ocean 

could support multiple uses (by different 

sectors) or several management 

objectives simultaneously and it is also 

possible that one use or management 

objective would preclude all others. 

Ocean zoning may also have a temporal 

dimension.” 

Like other ocean management tools, 

ocean zoning often involves tradeoffs 

between competing uses. These 

conflicts may be more explicit within a 

zoning scheme as uses and use 

prohibitions are spatially delineated. 

However, zoning also offers an 

opportunity to better assess the tradeoffs 

associated with different management 

actions. Assessing the social and 

economic costs and benefits of different 

management options within a zoning 

framework allows managers to look at 

not only who gains and loses, but also 

where those gains and losses are likely 

to occur, and to better predict unintended 

consequences and their impacts. 

For example, many commercial and 

recreational fishers are concerned about 

potential restrictions to fishing from 

marine reserves or “no take” MPAs. 

Fisheries are a historically important and 
42

socioeconomic relevant use of the 

coastal zone with a well established 

constituent base. Because of the many 

types and widespread nature of fisheries, 

establishing marine reserves almost 

anywhere in U.S. waters is invariably 

contentious to at least some fishers. The 

socioeconomic and cultural impacts on 

historic uses of a specific area should be 

balanced with the sustainability and 

biodiversity protection that marine 

reserves have been shown to provide. 

While the Federal government retains 

the power to regulate commerce, 

navigation, power generation, national 

defense, and international affairs 

throughout state waters, states have the 

authority to implement zoning based on 

their right to manage, develop, and lease 

resources throughout the water column 

as well as on and under the seafloor 

(USCOP, 2004). From a Federal 

perspective, state ocean zoning plans 

should integrate state CZM programs 

with offshore activities. 

Marine zoning in Federal waters may be 

modeled after use restrictions on Federal 

public lands. As Courtney and Wiggen 

(2003) note (p. 8), “federal lands share 

with the ocean several important 

characteristics: public ownership, high 

natural resource and economic value 

including recreation; policy debate over 

resource conservation versus economic 

utilization, multiplicity of agencies and 

laws; and a significance to local, 

regional, and national interests.” 

However, marine ecosystems feature 

highly mobile resources and there is 

often great difficulty in controlling 

access to marine systems; thus, zoning in 

these areas might require a somewhat 

different approach to zoning currently in 

place on land. 

Marine zoning can be an effective tool to 

minimize the risk of damage to habitats 

and resources. Risk assessments require 

three types of information: 1) the 

classification of ecosystem components 

as delineated by their vulnerability to 

environmental stressors, such as food 

supply, mechanical disturbance, or 

contamination; 2) the distribution and 

degree of effort of human activities in 

the areas of concern; and 3) the impact 

of these activities on specific ecosystem 

components. The last requires 

knowledge of the sensitivity and 

recoverability of damaged habitats and 

biota. Informed with these assessments, 

zoning can be established to conserve or 

minimize loss of ecosystem diversity, 

including rare or endangered species and 

fragile habitat structures. Furthermore, 

establishing zones restricting specific 

human activities establishes baseline 

conditions for evaluating the impacts of 

the same types of activities in similar but 

unmanaged areas. Notably, although the 

suite of human-activity stressors can be 

broad, risk assessments for these rely 

largely on a common set of data for 

habitats, biota, and ecosystems 

processes. 

MPAs are a component of a 

comprehensive marine zoning plan. 

Applied widely throughout the world, 

MPAs are a management tool that 

governments use to protect and restore 

resources in estuarine, nearshore, and 

offshore areas. The U.S. currently has 

an estimated 2,000 marine managed 

areas established by approximately 200 

state and Federal programs (see 

http://www.mpa.gov). NOAA is now 

working with Federal and state agencies 

and other stakeholders to develop a 

national system of MPAs - including 

Federal, state, and perhaps tribal and 
43

local sites - to protect representative 

habitats as well as natural and cultural 

resources of national and regional 

importance. Beyond the EEZ, increased 

economic activity and global 

conservation agreements will require a 

higher level of cooperation, and have 

already led to calls for the creation of 

high seas MPAs. 

While MPAs are an integral part of a 

larger ocean zoning scheme, zoning is 

also used as a tool within MPAs, most 

notably domestically within national 

marine sanctuaries and internationally by 

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 

Australia. NOAA’s National Marine 

Sanctuary Program (NMSP) has the 

authority to establish zones to help 

protect sanctuary resources and qualities 

from the impacts of human uses. As 

national marine sanctuaries have used 

zoning for over 20 years to protect 

resources and manage conflicting uses, 

the NMSP’s experiences and techniques 

will be a valuable component of 

considering broader ocean use zoning. 

In the coastal zone, land use planning, 

habitat restoration, land conservation, 

and the development of new 

technologies to mitigate environmental 

impacts will continue to be the primary 

approaches to reduce the impacts of 

human activities. Current patterns of 

growth that encourage low density 

sprawl and consume agricultural and 

forest land are a major threat to water 

quality and habitat. A few states are 

now working to promote “smart growth” 

which advocates compact, transitoriented development and conservation 

of resource lands. 

Local governments are responsible for 

most land use decisions in the coastal 

zone, and these decision-makers need 

information, data, tools, and 

technologies, as well as a directed 

education program to assist them in 

minimizing the impacts of new 

development, protecting sensitive areas, 

and planning for the potential impacts of 

climate change, sea level rise, and 

coastal hazards. States also play an 

important role through the 

implementation of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. In 2004, the Coastal 

States Organization sponsored a survey 

of state coastal resource managers to 

better understand their science and 

technology needs. Managers identified 

land use and habitat change as their top 

two management concerns at both the 

national and regional level (CSO, 2004). 

Over the past half century, there has 

been tremendous losses in tidal and 

nontidal wetlands, seagrass beds, and 

other vital habitats. The joint 

EPA/NOAA/USFWS/USGS National 

Coastal Condition Report II (EPA, 2005, 

p. ES-3), states that the “indicators that 

show the poorest conditions throughout 

the United States are coastal habitat 

condition, sediment quality, and benthic 

condition.” While many inputs of 

nutrients and chemical contaminants 

have been reduced through source 

reduction and point source controls, nonpoint sources of these pollutants 

continue to be significant threats to 

coastal and marine habitats. 

These habitats must be protected from 

further degradation and restored to 

ensure healthy, functioning ecosystems 

as well as provide for the sustainable 

production for the Nation’s fisheries 

among other ecosystem services. 

Protecting and restoring coastal habitats 

requires a watershed approach to 
44

comprehensively address threats from 

physical alterations, pollution, and other 

impacts. These efforts require not only 

long-term ecosystem monitoring efforts, 

but directed research as well. Once 

thought to be the sole responsibility of 

government, land conservation and 

restoration have increasingly been 

undertaken by private conservation 

organizations at the national, state, and 

local level. 

The development of new technologies 

based on research and monitoring data to 

mitigate environmental impacts will 

become an increasingly important tool to 

restore and maintain healthy watersheds, 

coasts, and oceans. These range from 

new techniques for stormwater 

management, to oil spill cleanup 

technologies, to vessel monitoring 

systems that help enforce fisheries 

regulations, to accurate and timely 

forecasts and coastal modeling efforts. 

As new technologies become available, 

they will serve as valuable tools to help 

resource managers protect and restore 

coastal and marine ecosystems. 

NOAA’s Role 

NOAA’s mission – to understand and 

predict changes in the Earth’s 

environment and conserve and manage 

coastal and marine resources to meet our 

Nation’s economic, social and 

environmental needs - outlines a major 

role for the agency in preparing to meet 

these challenges (NOAA, 2005a). As 

the NOAA Strategic Plan notes (p. 4), 

“NOAA has a specific mandate from 

Congress to be a lead Federal agency in 

protecting, managing, and restoring 

coastal and marine resources.” 

Specific authorities for NOAA’s 

responsibilities that relate to CZM and 

marine zoning include: 

• Coastal Zone Management Act 

(1972) 

• Coastal Zone Act 

Reauthorization Amendments of 

1990 (CZARA) – Section 6217 

• MSFCMA (1976) 

• Oil Pollution Act (1990) 

• Coral Reef Conservation Act 

(2000) 

• ESA (1973) 

• National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(1972) and site-specific statutes 

• National Offshore Aquaculture 

Act (2005) 

• Executive Order 12906 

(Coordinating Geographic Data 

Acquisition and Access) 

• Executive Order 13158 (Marine 

Protected Areas) 

• Executive Orders 13178 and 

13196 (Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Reserve) 

A key challenge to integrated 

management of the coastal and marine 

environment is the fragmented nature of 

existing authorities, plans, and programs. 

Current ocean plans and zones are 

typically based on the requirements of a 

particular sector and/or geographic 

location, with little recognition of its 

relationship to other uses, or to the 

complexity of the underlying ecological 

system. This was noted by the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy and the 

Pew Oceans Commission, both of which 

recommended significant organizational 

changes to address the problem. In the 

absence of these major changes, NOAA 

will need to take a leadership role in 

working with other Federal, state, and 

tribal authorities responsible for coastal 
45

and marine decision-making. New 

structures and processes will need to be 

established to provide a framework for 

integrated decision-making, and 

additional scientific understanding will 

be needed to inform these processes. 

Some efforts already have begun 

through the U.S. Ocean Action Plan and 

Executive Order 13158 (Marine 

Protected Areas). 

II. Science Capabilities Necessary to 

Support Future Decision-Making 

To address the complexity of coastal and 

marine management issues, research and 

the synthesis of existing research for use 

by managers and decision-makers is 

needed in a wide range of areas as noted 

below. A unified concept of habitat 

types and communities, and thus an 

ecological classification, is of 

fundamental importance to a suite of 

marine issues such as the assessments of 

CZM areas, MPAs, environmental 

quality reports, and fisheries 

management. It will be increasingly 

important to be cognizant of the 

structural, compositional, and functional 

properties of ecosystems and habitats as 

they relate to specific issues in the 

coastal zone, and to integrate these 

attributes together to form a more 

coherent, ecosystem-based approach to 

coastal management efforts. 

Natural Science (NOAA National 

Marine Protected Areas Center, 2003): 

• Resource characterization – to 

improve the understanding of the 

extent, location, life stages, and 

quality of natural and cultural 

resources in the coastal and 

marine environment. 

• Seafloor Mapping – to improve 

bathymetric data collection and 

information about the 

composition of the seafloor. 

• Effectiveness of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) – 

to provide data on the 

effectiveness of recommended 

practices to mitigate the impacts 

of human activities in the coastal 

zone and marine environment 

(e.g., pollution control, aggregate 

extraction, coastal engineering). 

• Monitoring – to continue to 

collect baseline biological, 

physical, and chemical data in 

order to assess changes over 

time. Monitoring is an essential 

component of adaptive 

management, and is needed to 

understand resource status and 

trends, oceanic and 

anthropogenic factors influencing 

resource health, and responses to 

management actions, and to 

predict recovery trajectories. 

• Species – to continue to collect 

life history and habitat 

requirements in order to 

determine the appropriate types 

of management tools to employ, 

including spatial and temporal 

closures, spawning closures, 

habitat protection and restoration, 

and take restrictions. 

• Habitat – to improve mapping 

and trends analysis, and to 

enhance the understanding of the 

functional linkages between 

habitat types (including 

watershed impacts) and habitat 

sensitivity and recoverability. 
46

• Connectivity – to understand the 

linkages between species, their 

life stages, and priority habitat 

areas for conservation. 

• Restoration science – to establish 

the scientific foundation for 

restoring coastal and marine 

habitats and their functionality, 

including efforts to restore “dead 

zones.” 

• Chemical contaminants – to 

continue to identify chemical 

impacts and true effects levels, 

including sub-lethal effects 

which lead to reduced viability in 

combination with other 

environmental stressors (Peterson 

et al., 2003), effects on egg and 

larval stages, links to HABs, and 

identification of sources and 

sinks in coastal and ocean 

systems. 

• Mariculture – to improve the 

understanding of the impacts of 

coastal and shelf aquaculture on 

ecosystems. 

• Nonindigenous species – to 

improve the early detection, 

treatment, and prevention 

techniques associated with 

invasive species. 

• Cumulative effects – to 

understand the cumulative and 

secondary impacts of multiple 

stressors on coastal and marine 

ecosystems. 

Social Science (NOAA National Marine 

Protected Areas Center, 2003): 

• Patterns and types of human uses 

of coastal and marine 

environments – to identify how 

and where coastal and marine 

areas and their resources are 

being used, both for extractive 

and non-consumptive purposes. 

• User conflicts – to understand 

how different uses conflict, how 

these conflicts can be minimized 

and how uses can be prioritized 

in ways that provide maximum 

protection. 

• Attitudes, perceptions, and 

beliefs – to identify the 

underlying motivations that may 

influence human preferences, 

choices and actions (see White 

Paper #6). 

• Economics – to describe 

economic conditions and trends 

associated with the allocation and 

use of coastal and marine 

resources, including market and 

non-market values, costs and 

benefits, and positive and 

negative impacts associated with 

activities, including impacts on 

coastal communities and 

industry. 

• Cultural heritage and resources – 

to characterize historical and 

traditional artifacts in and from 

coastal and marine areas. 

• Governance, institutions, and 

processes – to understand the 

formal and informal institutions 

responsible for managing coastal 

and marine resources, and 

elements of successful processes 
47

to integrate coastal decisionmaking. 

Technology and Tools (CSO, 2004; Pew 

Oceans Commission, 2003; USCOP, 

2004):

• Predictive models – to enable 

researchers and decision-makers 

to understand the potential 

consequences of sea level rise, 

other coastal hazards, watershed 

management BMPs, fisheries 

management options, HABs, 

designation of EFH, etc. 

• Technology – to provide new 

tools needed for a wide range of 

coastal science and management 

activities, including pollution 

control, navigation, monitoring 

equipment, and lower cost 

remote sensing. 

• Decision support tools – to 

enhance planning and public 

engagement (e.g., web-based GIS 

applications), improve 

emergency response (e.g., spills, 

collisions), and engage coastal 

decision-makers with the 

information needed for sound 

management. 

. 

Research and technology development in 

these areas could significantly improve 

managers’ ability to address the 

challenges they face in conserving 

coastal and marine resources. In 

addition, approaches are needed to 

meaningfully integrate natural and social 

science information in a spatial 

framework. This integration is a critical 

component of an EAM. As NOAA 

moves toward this integration, a 

common approach is the use of map 

overlays to illustrate different data sets 

for a geographic area, allowing 

managers to identify linkages between 

uses, conditions, and resources. 

However, not all data can or should be 

presented spatially, and methods must be 

adopted to integrate this critical 

contextual information. Another 

challenge is the effort required to 

identity, obtain, and format data for a 

common geographic boundary. 

Such mapping tools have been used by 

MPAs in the U.S. and other countries to 

identify various zoning options for 

public review. These experiences 

highlight the risks and rewards of such a 

spatially integrated approach, as zoning 

maps can be problematic if introduced 

too early in the process, fail to include 

key data, or are based on data distrusted 

by stakeholders. However, they can be 

powerful consensus-building tools when 

stakeholders are involved in the data 

collection and when data analysis and 

decision rules are transparent. 

To facilitate decision-making, scientists 

and managers will need to engage in a 

continuous dialogue that guides research 

priorities and delivers scientific results 

in a form managers can use. This type 

of dialogue will likely need to be 

mediated through targeted education and 

outreach programs that provide the link 

between the separate research science 

and coastal management audiences. 
48

III. Partnerships Necessary to 

Effectively Address the Emerging 

Issues 

The complex suite of resourcedependent commerce, land- and waterbased resource users, and conservation 

interests and goals requires an equally 

complex, participatory mix of public and 

private sector partners to support science 

to management action. Participants 

should include Federal, state, and tribal 

agencies; universities and institutes; 

industry; and NGOs. Lessons also can 

be learned from other countries and 

international organizations. Key 

partners include: 

• Researchers, data/information 

collectors, and analysts are needed to 

research, collect, store, and analyze 

the data; test the technology; and 

develop the information necessary to 

support sustainable management. 

• Trainers and educators are needed to 

develop the applications, tools, 

coursework, and information 

documents necessary to train, 

educate, and transfer information to 

on-site staff and managers who then 

apply what is learned. 

• Resource managers are the front line 

people making the daily decisions 

affecting the health of the nation’s 

resources. They apply the 

information and techniques to 

management problems; develop and 

adapt resource management plans in 

cooperation with the public; evaluate 

the effectiveness of management 

actions; and identify research 

necessary to conserve and restore 

resources. In addition to traditional 

resource managers (e.g., state, 

territorial, Federal, tribal, regional, 

local, and international) and the 

already robust management of 

coastal lands by the private sector 

(e.g., private forests and land with 

conservation easements), the 

nearshore marine environment is 

likely to see increased management 

by NGOs in partnership with 

government (e.g., The Nature 

Conservancy and other local and 

regional land trusts). 

• Opinion makers, opinion influencers, 

and information sources (e.g., the 

media) play a significant role in 

enhancing public and decision-maker 

understanding of coastal and marine 

ecosystem issues, problems, and 

solutions; encouraging participation 

in decision-making; and influencing 

behaviors that affect coastal and 

marine resources. The ability to 

synthesize and transfer information 

to the public is critical to 

management success in this 

increasing complex management 

environment. Resource management 

initiatives cannot be optimized, and 

indeed are likely doomed to failure, 

without public “buy-in” and active 

support. 

• Resource users and other 

stakeholders are critical partners in 

developing coastal management 

initiatives, including marine zoning 

efforts. Resource users often have 

significant impacts on natural and 

cultural marine resources, and 

resource management decisions may 

have substantial economic and social 

impacts on users. Activities of 

concern can be extractive (e.g., 

fisheries, oil and gas, sand and 

gravel, seabed mining, 
49

biopharmaceuticals, desalinization), 

non-extractive (e.g., tourism, 

recreation), constructive (e.g., 

development), agricultural, 

silvacultural, aquacultural, or 

conservation-focused. To be 

successful, coastal management 

efforts must provide opportunities 

for stakeholders to participate 

throughout the process. 

Stakeholders can also bring a wealth 

of knowledge about marine 

resources, uses, and impacts to 

inform decision-making. 

• Government decision-makers, both 

elected and non-elected government 

officials, must be involved since they 

ultimately make the policy decisions; 

determine program direction; 

approve program cooperation and 

coordination, both domestic and 

foreign; and provide the funding and 

staff resources necessary for 

ecosystem-based management. 

Competition for limited fiscal 

resources will likely continue and 

even increase, as will the 

competition for use of coastal and 

marine resources, including those at 

the trans-boundary and deep-ocean 

levels. 

NOAA can address the vast majority of 

ecosystem management questions and 

issues, and partner with the broad 

spectrum of agencies, organizations, 

industry, and the public identified above. 

Successful implementation will require 

not only unified action by the program 

components of the Ecosystem Goal 

Team, but also linkage with NOAA’s 

Commerce and Transportation, Weather 

and Water, and Climate Goal Teams to 

address overlapping issues such as 

conflicts between marine transportation 

and other resource uses, and land use 

planning to mitigate coastal hazards and 

climate change. 

IV. Benefits to NOAA, Constituents, 

and Society from this Effort 

While the challenges of 

comprehensively addressing an 

integrated approach toward coastal 

management and ocean zoning are 

considerable, the consequences of failing 

to act are even more dramatic. The 

Ocean Conservancy, in partnership with 

many other NGOs, already has 

documented the phenomenon of 

“shifting baselines,” or failing to see the 

cumulative changes in our environment 

because these changes occur over 

several generations (see 

http://www.shiftingbaselines.org). 

Coastal ecosystems around the Nation 

are bearing the impacts of excess 

nutrients, habitat loss, invasive species, 

and depletion of keystone species, all of 

which have led to significant 

degradation. This degradation is already 

leading to economic as well as 

environmental losses and must be 

reversed. NOAA clearly has the 

capability to conduct research, deliver 

information, and help society identify 

and set appropriate targets for long-term 

conservation and sustainability. 

In addition, rationalizing the use of 

space within the coastal zone and the 

marine environment will provide a stable 

environment for economic growth in 

relatively new sectors, such as 

aquaculture and bio-prospecting. With 

sound zoning to minimize conflicts, as 

well as environmental safeguards, these 

activities could become part of a 
50

thriving, sustainably managed coastal 

and marine economy. 

NOAA is well positioned to play a 

leadership role in helping local, state, 

and Federal decision-makers work with 

stakeholders to develop a comprehensive 

approach to coastal and ocean 

management. NOAA can provide this 

leadership, expertise, and tools by: 

• Improving and expanding its 

ability to produce ecological 

forecasts and warnings in coastal 

and offshore regions, such as 

those associated with recent 

HABs and with telemetry efforts 

associated with the IOOS to 

improve near real-time coastal 

data delivery to managers; 

• Providing the scientific support 

to build a truly integrated CZM 

capability for the U.S. that 

focuses on the land-water 

interface, as well as the EEZ and 

beyond; 

• Providing the scientific 

knowledge and management 

support technology (including 

data management and 

visualization) necessary to 

objectively address the 

increasing impacts of land-based 

stressors and increasing use of 

the ocean and its resources; 

• Developing strategies based on 

the best available natural science, 

social science, and economic 

data to manage fisheries and 

other competing uses of the 

Nation's marine resources in 

concert with the development of 

a national system of MPAs; and 

• Transferring NOAA science, 

technology, and tools to Federal, 

state, and tribal partners 

responsible for managing the 

Nation’s diverse coastal and 

marine resources. 

NOAA’s mission includes a 

responsibility to “conserve and manage 

coastal and marine resources to meet our 

Nation’s economic, social and 

environmental needs.” The laws that 

drive NOAA’s programs and 

requirements also make clear that this 

mission must be undertaken not just for 

the current generation, but for the sake 

of future generations. NOAA’s science 

programs and partnerships are the 

foundation of this effort, and must be 

more firmly linked to the management 

outcomes so critically needed in the 

coastal and ocean environment. 

To this end, there are a number of 

specific management actions that NOAA 

can take: 

• Complete and release the zoning 

policy paper for the NMSP, which 

outlines how the NMSP considers 

and creates zones within sanctuaries. 

This policy paper can serve as an 

example for other organizations on 

how to develop and implement zones 

within MPAs; 

• Support the development of a 

national system of MPAs as a key 

element of a future marine zoning 

plan. The national system of MPAs 

is now being developed by NOAA 

and the U.S. Department of Interior 

in cooperation with other Federal, 

state, and tribal agencies as well as 

stakeholder groups. It will enhance 

the management of and linkages 
51

among existing MPA sites and 

programs, as well as facilitate 

regional planning processes to 

identify conservation priorities in 

need of additional protection; 

• Work through the Subcommittee on 

Integrated Management of Ocean 

Resources (SIMOR), formed as part 

of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan to 

guide Federal agency coordination of 

ocean management. Through 

SIMOR, NOAA can help develop 

coordinated approaches to ocean 

zoning. Federal agencies can take a 

leadership role in moving toward 

zoning in Federal waters to 

accommodate the increasing number 

and types of uses; and 

• Along with other Federal agencies, 

continue to work in partnership with 

coastal states and tribes as they begin 

to develop regional governance 

structures and management 

strategies. NOAA should bring 

together technical, scientific, and 

management staff responsible for 

key resources and uses within the 

same regions to form crossdisciplinary, cross-NOAA working 

groups. Through these regionallyfocused groups, NOAA can enhance 

its capacity to integrate data within a 

spatial framework that will be 

fundamental to future zoning efforts. 
52

White Paper #5 

Ecological Forecasting 

Authors: 

Stephen Brandt, NOAA Research, 

Great Lakes Ecological Research 

Laboratory 

Jim Hendee, NOAA Research, Atlantic 

Oceanographic and Meteorological 

Laboratory 

Phil Levin, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center 

Jonathan Phinney, NOAA Research, 

Headquarters 

David Scheurer, NOAA National 

Ocean Service, National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science 

Frank Schwing, NOAA Fisheries, 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

I. Description of the Issue 

The health of the U.S. economy is 

inextricably linked to the health of our 

Nation’s ecosystems and the goods and 

services they deliver to our economy. 

Each year, U.S. ecosystems provide over 

$227 billion in added value to the U.S. 

economy (CENR, 2001) as well as other 

harder-to-quantify services and benefits 

such as waste detoxification and 

decomposition, air and water 

purification, maintenance of biological 

diversity, and recreational and spiritual 

renewal (Daily et al., 1997). Coastal 

ecosystems, in particular, provide a 

wealth of fisheries resources and 

recreational benefits, and are a potential 

source of life saving pharmaceuticals. 

These important ecosystems can also 

directly impact human health from 

exposure to contaminated water (e.g., 

from urban and agricultural runoff, 

pollutants, coliform, and other 

pathogens, and toxic algae) or 

contaminated food (e.g., fish and 

shellfish).

Sustaining productive ecosystems, and 

restoring damaged ones, depends on the 

ability to understand and predict the 

impacts of human activities and natural 

processes on those systems and to 

forecast ecological change. Policy 

makers, natural resource managers, 

regulators, and the public often call on 

scientists to estimate the potential 

ecological changes caused by these 

natural and human-induced stressors and 

to determine how those changes will 

impact people and the environment. 

During the last decade, using 

technological and scientific innovations, 

scientists have developed and tested 

forecasts in ways that were previously 

not feasible (Clark et al., 2001), 

signaling the emergence of a new and 

challenging science called “ecological 

forecasting.” 

What is Ecological Forecasting? 

Ecological forecasts predict the impacts 

of physical, chemical, biological, and 

human-induced change on ecosystems 

and their components (CENR, 2001). 

Extreme natural events, climate change, 

land and resource use, pollution, and 

invasive species are five key drivers of 

ecosystem change (CENR, 2001) that 

interact across wide time and space 

scales (i.e., hours to decades and local to 

global; Figure 1). Ecological forecasts 

aim to understand, predict, and provide 

information to mitigate the impacts of 

these stressors on ecosystems. In much 

the same way that a weather or 

economic forecast can help society plan 

for future contingencies, an ecological 
53

Figure 1. Time/Space Scale of Ecosystem Response.

The five key ecosystem stressors – pollution, land and

resource use, invasive species, extreme natural events,

and climate change – can challenge the integrity of

ecosystems and impede the delivery of their goods and

services. These stressors can act alone or together,

and their cumulative effects are poorly understood.

Ecosystem responses are as varied as the inputs that

strain them, playing out in scales from hours to

decades and from local to global. Figure is

reproduced from NOAA Technical Memorandum

NOS NCCOS 1, p. 2.

forecast helps managers make informed 

decisions regarding alternative 

management scenarios and take 

appropriate actions to affect those 

conditions and better manage the 

Nation’s coastal resources. Ecological 

forecasts give managers the tools to 

answer “what if” questions about the 

ocean and coastal environments and 

provide a bridge between science and 

policy. Ecological forecasts also have 

the potential to provide widespread 

societal and economic value to the 

country. These values include improved 

decision-making for coastal stewardship; 

mitigation of natural events and human 

activities (e.g., land-use practices, 

fishing); reduced risks to human health; 

reduced impacts of natural hazards; 

enhanced communication among 

scientists, managers, and the public; and 

overall, more effective prioritization of 

science. 

Types of Ecological Forecasts 

There are many types of potential 

ecological forecasts. Some will be 

predictions of what is likely to happen in 

a particular location in the short-term 

like weather forecasts (e.g., sea nettle 

swarms in the Chesapeake Bay, the 

landfall of harmful algal blooms 

(HABs), beach closings, drinking water 

quality, the movement of oil spills, and 

coral reef bleaching events). Others will 

focus on much longer-term and largerscale phenomena (e.g., year-to-year 

variation in fish stocks, extinction risk of 

endangered species, new invasive 

species encroachments, rates of habitat 

restoration, effects of climate change on 

biota, and water quality and quantity).

Specific issues within each of these 

categories of stressors are listed below: 

Extreme natural events – Such events 

may include extreme changes in water 

resources, severe spring storms and 

hurricanes, extreme climate variation 

(e.g., an exceptionally cold or warm year 

compared to the average), shifts in 

marine populations, hypoxic/anoxic 

events, and toxic algal blooms. The 

ability to predict the occurrence of these 

events and their ecosystem effects, as 

well as their interactions with other 

causes of change, is important for 
54

planning management and response 

activities. 

Climate change – Climate change may 

include changes in sea level, large-scale 

ecosystem drivers (e.g., current patterns, 

storm tracks and frequency), nutrient 

flow regimes and the extent of “dead 

zones”, the amount of precipitation, and 

river flow. Climate change may be 

reflected as a change in the mean or 

trend of a parameter, shifts in seasonal 

cycles, or extreme natural events (e.g., 

coral bleaching, ENSO). To plan for 

and minimize impacts of these events, 

resource managers need forecasts of the 

interaction of climate change and 

variability (e.g., in sea surface 

temperatures, freshwater input, coastal 

nutrients) with other stressors on 

ecological integrity; goods and services 

(e.g., fisheries, water quality and 

quantity), particularly the distribution 

and abundance of species; production of 

ecologically/economically important 

species; and the availability of clean 

water. 

Land and resource use – Human use of 

land and resources can dramatically 

change the structure and function of an 

ecosystem. Fishing, for instance, can 

remove predators or prey in the food 

web, which may then cause changes in 

the abundance of less desirable species, 

some of which can cause a degradation 

of the overall quality of the system. The 

ability to predict the ecosystem 

consequences of various levels of fishing 

effort is critical for the management of 

ecosystem resources. Additionally, 

changes in coastal ecosystems may be 

linked to changes in land and resource 

use which are often associated with 

agriculture or local urbanization as well 

as the resultant nutrient loadings and 

deterioration of coastal habitat. Current 

needs include forecasts of changes in the 

health and productivity of ecosystems 

that are critical in providing food and 

recreation. 

 

Pollution - Concerns about the presence 

of potentially harmful chemicals and 

excess nutrients in the environment 

remain a top concern. Current needs 

include forecasts of the effects of air 

pollution and land-based activities (e.g., 

agricultural production, forest harvest, 

urban growth and residential 

development, waste disposal, toxins) on 

aquatic ecosystems. The damage to the 

ecosystem may be direct (e.g., 

hypoxia/anoxia, HABs), or may impact 

its goods and services (e.g., 

contaminated fish and shellfish). 

 

Invasive species - Invasive species are 

species that are introduced intentionally 

or accidentally from other geographic 

areas, and are capable of spreading 

rapidly and replacing native species. 

These invaders exist in nearly all U.S. 

ecosystems, pose potential threats to the 

integrity of biodiversity and ecosystems, 

and cost billions of dollars annually to 

mitigate. Current needs include 

forecasts of the conditions favorable to 

the introduction, spread, and ecological 

impacts of potential and alreadyintroduced species. 

Interactive and cumulative effects – 

Large aquatic ecosystems are subject to 

multiple causes of ecological change. 

For example, an extreme natural event 

may provide opportunities for new 

species invasions, and the success of that 

invader may be enhanced by altered 

climate (new precipitation and 

temperature patterns), use of land and 

related resources, and the level of 
55

pollution in the environment being 

invaded. The cumulative impact of 

threats may be greater than the sum of 

individual impacts. Building the ability 

to forecast the cumulative effects of 

these multiple stressors is one of the 

most significant challenges for applied 

ecology. 

Thus, ecological forecasts can span a 

wide range of issues and space/time 

scales, reflect a diverse user community, 

and involve a multitude of biological 

factors (e.g., life history traits, behavior, 

species, population and ecosystem 

interactions) as well as physical and 

chemical factors. Ecological forecasts 

can also involve predictions that are 

independent of time and involve 

“scenario testing” or examination of 

alternative management scenarios (e.g., 

impacts of nutrient reductions, the 

setting of harvest levels, and ecological 

effects of sea level rise). Models are 

often used to conduct forecasts, but these 

are just one of many tools (e.g., 

satellites, sensors, test kits) that can be 

used and integrated to provide valuable 

ecological forecasts for management 

applications. 

NOAA’s Role in Ecological 

Forecasting 

Ecosystem forecasts have been gaining 

momentum for the past few years, 

particularly among academics (Clark et 

al., 2001) and Federal agencies (NOAA, 

2001). The National Science and 

Technology Council’s Committee on 

Environment and Natural Resources 

report on ecological forecasting (CENR, 

2001) stressed the Nation’s need for 

developing forecasts of ecological 

change. Since 2001, NOAA has 

formalized the development of an 

ecological forecasting capability for 

resource managers through a partnership 

across all NOAA line offices and with 

universities and other Federal agencies 

across the country. The report of the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

(USCOP, 2004) also highlights the 

importance of ecosystem-based 

management and its reliance on the 

development of predictive capabilities 

for ocean ecosystems, providing further 

justification for NOAA to undertake 

ecological forecasting to support its 

ecosystem-based management 

responsibilities.

NOAA has recognized the importance of 

ecological forecasting by including the 

development of prediction and 

forecasting tools as high priority areas it 

in its recently published five-year and 

20-year research plans. In the NOAA 

five-year plan, the development of 

routine forecasting products for issues 

such as fish stock assessments, HAB 

forecasts, beach closings and water 

quality are listed as part of an “end-toend” ecological observing system 

capable of providing these forecasts for 

resource managers and the public 

(NOAA, 2005b). In the NOAA 20-year 

plan, ecological forecasting related 

products are highlighted prominently in 

the list of example NOAA products and 

services for 2025 (NOAA, 2005c). 

These include: forecasts and mitigation 

strategies related to: anoxia/hypoxia, 

harmful algal blooms, beach closings, 

invasive species, waves, air/water 

quality and quantity; ecological 

assessments and predictions of impacts 

from climate change (e.g., coral 

bleaching); decision support tools for 

adaptive, ecosystem-based management 

of fisheries, coastal development, and 

marine resources; improved assessments 
56

of sea level change on coastal resources 

and ecosystems; fishery productivity 

forecasts that incorporate the effects of 

climate change. 

A dedicated ecological forecasting 

capability is critical for the agency to 

achieve the mission and goals set out in 

the NOAA Strategic Plan (NOAA, 2004) 

to “understand and predict changes in 

the Earth’s environment and conserve 

and manage coastal and marine 

resource” (Mission Statement); “protect, 

restore, and manage the use of coastal 

and ocean resources through ecosystem–

based management” (Goal 1); and 

“increase its investments in short-and 

long-term research in development of 

advanced technology to understand, 

describe, and predict changes in the 

natural environment” (cross-cutting 

priority). In the NOAA FY 2007 Annual 

Guidance Memorandum (NOAA 

Program Planning and Integration, 

2005), language supportive of ecological 

forecasting is included in the sections on 

integrating global observations; 

advancing NOAA’s modeling capability; 

providing leadership for the oceans; 

increase climate information, services, 

and products; and providing critical 

information for water resources. 

II. Science Capabilities Necessary to 

Support Future Decision-Making 

NOAA is well poised and has the 

legislative mandates to take a leadership 

role in developing ecological forecasts 

for coastal and marine environments that 

will yield significant economic and 

societal benefits to the Nation. 

Ecosystem-based management, a critical 

mission for NOAA, will not be possible 

without ecological forecasts. Through 

its comprehensive research investments, 

NOAA is developing the knowledge 

about ecosystem structure and function 

(i.e., physical, chemical, biological, and 

human interactions) necessary to 

develop ecological forecasts. These 

knowledge-based products include 

everything from applied research efforts 

to long-term observations. NOAA is 

also developing the infrastructure 

necessary to support ecological forecasts 

through the development of regional 

observing systems, coupled physicalbiological models, sensors, and 

computational and data 

visualization/presentation capabilities. 

Together, these research and 

infrastructure capabilities have led to a 

suite of successful ecological forecasts 

with many more currently in 

development (see Appendix E). 

The complexity of an ecosystem 

approach to management (EAM) 

demands a suite of complex, often 

linked, models, tools, and technology to 

provide a scientific basis for decisionmaking (e.g., linkage of airshed, 

watershed, water quality, and fisheries 

models). To achieve this full capability 

for ecosystem-based management, 

NOAA will need to develop integrated 

ecological forecasting systems over the 

next decade. As one approach, NOAA 

has proposed to establish or enhance 

existing regional centers for ecological 

forecasting that will be responsible for 

developing and transferring to the 

management community a suite of 

regionally-specific, integrated ecosystem 

modeling and ecological forecast tools to 

provide a scientific basis for the 

proactive and complex decisions that 

must be made at all levels of 

government. Having the regional 

centers and other NOAA ecological 
57

forecasting research programs associated 

or collaborating with the integrated 

ocean observing system (IOOS) will 

allow for regionally-coordinated 

planning for observations and models, 

and bring in regional user groups. Realtime integrated observing systems can 

also provide critically needed information to assess natural scales of 

variability, provide drivers for forecasting models, and provide data to test 

the accuracy and precision of forecasts. 

The establishment of regional ecological 

forecasting centers will allow NOAA, in 

conjunction with other Federal, state, 

and local partners, to: 1) bring together 

research, monitoring, and modeling 

efforts to understand ecosystem 

composition, structure, and function, and 

to monitor ecosystem status and trends; 

2) identify the requirements of the 

regional management community 

through workshops, focused studies, and 

continuous engagement; 3) track, 

coordinate, and integrate, where 

possible, ecosystem and socioeconomic 

modeling efforts within and external to 

NOAA; 4) identify critical gaps in 

knowledge for each region; 5) ensure 

those gaps are filled through the use of 

internal and external funding; 6) 

transition models, tools, and forecasts to 

operational status; and 7) provide 

predictions for management decisions at 

all ecosystem scales. 

To build and reinforce NOAA’s 

capability in ecosystem forecasting, a 

number of research, procedural, and tool 

needs have been identified along with a 

diverse set of challenges: 

Research Needs 

Research into anthropogenic stressors to 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 

ecosystems has centered primarily on the 

effects from overfishing, habitat 

degradation, and declining water quality 

as well as natural physical hazards. Less 

is known about the linkages among 

climate change, food webs, physicalbiological coupling, and ecosystem 

production dynamics. Understanding 

the fundamental knowledge base of 

ecosystem structure and function will 

allow NOAA to develop a suite of robust 

ecosystem forecasts addressing such 

issues as HABs, anoxia, fish distribution 

and abundance, beach closings, coral 

bleaching, and water quality and 

quantity. This research, by its very 

nature, is long-term. Specific types of 

research needs include: 

• Definition of the time and space 

scales needed to capture the 

fundamental physical and 

biological drivers required for 

ecosystem forecasts. 

• Measurements of the natural 

scales of variability regarding 

physical-biological coupling, 

food web dynamics, and 

ecosystem production. 

• Definition of the observational 

needs to drive ecological 

forecasting models, assess the 

accuracy of model forecasts, and 

assess the impact of management 

decisions on resources and 

habitat quality. 

• Development and testing of new 

sensors for physical and 

biological observing systems. 

• Increased understanding of 

ecosystem composition, 

structure, functioning, and 

variability, and the connection 

between the abiotic and biotic 

components of coastal 

ecosystems. This includes an 
58

understanding of large-scale 

ecosystem drivers and an 

understanding of ecological 

communities, including 

interactions among species 

(including poorly-understood 

“hidden players” such as viruses, 

microbes, and invertebrates), the 

physical environment, 

evolutionary history, and the 

“assembly rules,” if any, by 

which ecosystems are formed. 

• Increased understanding of 

ecosystem indicators and 

establishment of thresholds and 

breakpoints within ecosystems 

beyond which there are concerns 

or needs. 

• Comprehensive process studies 

to understand the ecological 

mechanisms producing 

ecosystem patterns, and 

definition of ranges for key 

physical and biological 

parameters within ecosystem 

models. 

• Integrated ecosystem studies 

involving observations, research, 

model development, and process 

studies. This will allow for 

increased understanding of 

connections among ecosystem 

drivers and functions as well as 

the ability to quantify key 

biological parameters and species 

dynamics necessary for 

biological models. 

Procedural and Decision Support Tool 

Needs: 

• True interdisciplinary integration 

among scientists and agencies 

involved with the physical, 

geochemical, and biological 

aspects of ecosystem process and 

function. 

• Strong connections, to integrate 

multiple technologies (e.g., 

satellites, observation platforms, 

ship surveys, biological sensors) 

associated with the development 

of IOOS and regional 

associations. 

• Fully integrated, spatially 

explicit, coupled hydrodynamic 

and biological models with 

appropriate links to watershed 

and higher tropic level models on 

key ecological scales to support 

place-based ecosystem 

management. 

• Robust physical modeling 

platforms to provide the 

foundation on which to embed 

biological models. As most of 

NOAA’s ecological forecasts 

involve the movement of water 

(e.g., larval transport, HABs), an 

accurate physical hydrodynamic 

model (i.e., four-dimensional) is 

a necessity. Within this 

framework, various biological 

components could be added 

depending on the issue and 

forecast. 

• Robust biological models 

capable of predicting 

distributions, behaviors, and 

interactions among biota (e.g., 

movement, predator/prey 

dynamics, growth, death, 

reproduction processes). 

• Responses to data issues such as 

the integration of disparate data 

sources, establishing and 

enforcing data integrity, 

formatting output for appropriate 

decision support software, 

satellite data calibration and 

validation, archiving forecasts, as 
59

well as the data upon which they 

are based. 

Challenges to Fulfilling these Needs: 

• Ecosystem science is highly 

complex. 

• A series of predictions tailored 

to the local or regional needs 

are necessary due to a diversity 

of issues and users, as a single, 

one-size-fits-all forecast is not 

possible. 

• Physical and biological 

components of ecosystems are 

grossly under sampled with 

current technologies and effort 

levels. 

• Decisions regarding the types 

of forecasts for specific 

regions; locations where these 

forecasts will be operated; and 

who will run, maintain, issue, 

and fund the forecasts must be 

made. 

• Disseminating the forecasts 

and informing the public must 

be balanced against scientific 

uncertainties. 

• Science-based assessments and 

information must be developed 

and disseminated to decisionmakers in understandable and 

utilizable formats. 

NOAA, as the primary Federal agency 

for ocean science supporting a variety of 

societal needs, is both an initiator and 

user of ecological forecasts. As an 

enabler, NOAA provides resources and 

personnel to collect the data, develop the 

forecasting products, summarize 

scientific results for decision-makers, 

produce assessments, and disseminate 

the synthesized results and information. 

The agency expects to use many of the 

forecasts to support its stewardship role. 

NOAA’s ecological forecasting 

capability will be improved by the 

ability to simulate ecosystem complexity 

with coupled physical/biological models 

and data assimilation, and develop new 

models to predict ecological outcomes 

from alternative scenarios and facilitate 

the evaluation of management plans. 

These integrated forecasting systems 

will also foster the 

transition/operationalization of forecasts 

by assessing forecast accuracy, 

sensitivity, and error; defining 

acceptable levels of accuracy for 

proposed forecasts; enhancing risk 

assessment tools for management 

scenarios; linking socioeconomic costbenefit analysis to ecological forecasts; 

developing testing and comparison 

metrics for forecasts; and developing 

methods to share, visualize, and 

communicate forecasts and uncertainty 

to user groups. 

III. Partnerships Necessary to 

Effectively Address the Emerging 

Issues 

The success of ecological forecasting 

depends on partnerships at all levels, 

from universities and local/state 

governments to other Federal agencies. 

The scale and complexity of ecological 

forecasts will require that NOAA 

improve its partnerships with external 

users and stakeholders and increase 

interactions among the NOAA programs 

and goal teams. NOAA must take 

advantage of its existing partnerships 

with other Federal agencies (e.g., IOOS, 

U.S. CCSP), international organizations 

(e.g., GEOSS, International GeosphereBiosphere Programme), coastal states, 

and users of coastal ecosystems and their 
60

resources (e.g., commercial and 

recreational fishers). Strong 

partnerships will help decision-makers 

within and outside the government to 

identify the most critically needed 

forecasts and support efforts to build, 

test, and issue them. Some key elements 

of those partnerships are emerging but 

must be made stronger: 

University partnerships (extramural 

research community): NOAA 

partnerships with the extramural 

research community are necessary to 

provide the research understanding and 

prototype ecological forecasts which will 

become the foundation for the 

development of “operational forecasts” 

within or outside of NOAA. There are 

several successful examples with 

NOAA’s joint institutes and other major 

extramural research programs (e.g., 

GLOBEC, Ecology and Oceanography 

of Harmful Algal Blooms Program 

(ECOHAB), Monitoring and Event 

Response for Harmful Algal Blooms 

Program (MERHAB), Oceans and 

Human Health Initiative) where 

integration has occurred. NOAA also 

has an ongoing program dedicated to the 

development of ecological forecasts 

which encourages collaboration among 

university and NOAA scientists as well 

as coastal managers. 

Local/state government partnerships and 

user community: The scale and 

complexity of ecological forecasts will 

also require that NOAA continue and 

improve partnerships with resource users 

and stakeholders. NOAA partnerships 

with decision-makers within local and 

state governments (e.g., managers of 

beaches, fisheries, shellfish, and water 

resources) are necessary for many 

reasons. State and local governments 

are one of the principal coastal 

management decision-makers and 

therefore the true users of the ecological 

forecasts. Information needs identified 

by managers will help define the types 

of forecasts produced, the level of 

accuracy required, and the most 

appropriate vehicles to disseminate the 

information. Other users include 

boaters, coastal landowners, recreational 

fishers, divers, surfers, the beach-using 

public, and commercial enterprises. 

Once forecasts are developed, these 

users can provide feedback to help 

identify needed improvements in 

forecast capabilities and to provide 

direction for future research. Local and 

state governments may also be involved 

in the actual transition, operation, and 

maintenance of developed forecasts. 

Establishing connections with the user 

community is critical during the 

development and transition of forecasts, 

and NOAA engages this community 

through a variety of mechanisms 

including workshops, surveys, networks, 

and participation in research (e.g., 

NOAA, 2002; Sturdevant, 2004; Hendee 

et al., 2006). 

Federal partnerships (e.g., NASA, EPA, 

USGS, U.S. Corps of Engineers, 

National Science Foundation, USFWS): 

NOAA fosters partnerships with other 

Federal agencies to leverage expertise 

and funding and to collaborate on 

activities related to development of an 

ecological forecasting capability to 

support ecosystem management at a 

scale that is often larger than the 

purview of individual agencies. Some of 

these regional issues, including climate 

change, watershed-estuary-ocean 

interactions, coral reef health, habitat 

restoration, hypoxia, and HABs, can 

only be addressed through large-scale 
61

ecosystem based programs, the 

integration of multiple technologies, and 

large-scale coordination efforts such as 

IOOS and regional taskforce, alliance, 

and other collaborative endeavors (e.g., 

the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance, Mississippi 

River Watershed Nutrient Taskforce). 

NOAA is currently working with other 

agencies on the development of climate 

change forecasting centers and 

integrated earth systems frameworks for 

ecosystem management. The recently 

released U.S. Ocean Action Plan (CEQ, 

2004) has also established a new ocean 

governance structure (i.e., the National 

Science and Technology Council’s Joint 

Subcommittee on Ocean Science and 

Technology) aimed at integrating the 

activities of Executive Branch agencies 

regarding ocean-related matters and 

provides another avenue of coordination 

toward the development of ecological 

forecasts. 

NOAA partnerships: NOAA is applying 

its extensive intramural and extramural 

research capacities and modeling 

expertise to assure successful 

development, validation, and 

demonstration of a wide variety of 

ecological forecasts. Ecological 

forecasts result from the integration of 

data, information, and models produced 

by multiple scientific disciplines, and 

thus reflect a multidisciplinary 

“Corporate NOAA.” For example, a 

typical forecast may require 

collaboration among many NOAA 

programs, including NOAA Satellites 

and Information Service (for satellite 

information), NOAA National Weather 

Service (for hydrology, wind fields, and 

rainfall data), and NOAA Research, 

NOAA National Ocean Service, and 

NOAA Fisheries (for interdisciplinary 

research, hydrodynamics, and food web 

information). In turn, one part of a 

forecast may be best operationalized 

within the NOAA National Weather 

Service, whereas another part may be 

best operationalized within NOAA 

National Ocean Service (e.g., Great 

Lakes forecasting system). This crossline office and cross-goal aspect of 

research applications is central to the 

success of NOAA’s ability to conduct 

ecological forecasts. 

Within the agency, there are, however, 

several organizational and procedural 

challenges: 

Organizational challenges include: 

• Management of ecological 

forecast development through 

NOAA’s Program Planning 

Budgeting and Execution System 

(PPBES) structure, which 

contains at least five programs 

working on components of 

ecological forecasting. 

• Development of an ‘end-to-end’ 

approach for ecological forecasts 

that includes user identification, 

needs prioritization, funding of 

research and development, 

forecast product testing, planning 

for and funding of the transfer to 

application, and, when necessary, 

routine operation of the forecasts. 

• Capacity-building to handle the 

accelerating increase in forecast 

products, if NOAA is the 

ultimate operational entity, or 

development of a robust 

procedure to assure the most 

appropriate transfer to all parties 

involved, if the operational entity 

is outside of NOAA. 
62

Figure 2. Proposed NOAA Transition Process outlining the 

steps involved with transitioning any research result, 

information, or tool into application. 

Procedural challenges include: 

• Prioritization of research, given 

the need for high risk, but 

potentially high payoff, research. 

• Establishment of effective 

connections with the user 

community during the 

development and transition of 

forecasts. 

• Definition of roles and 

responsibilities for ecological 

forecasting from a corporate 

level (e.g., who develops the 

forecasts, who receives and 

routinely runs the forecasts, what 

the users do with the forecasts, 

how resources are allocated, 

what is not done if there are no 

additional funds, the role of 

government versus the role of the 

private sector). 

One of most challenging near-term 

issues for the agency is how to prioritize 

the development and transition to 

operations of the wide range and 

diversity of ecological forecasts 

currently in development. As evidenced 

in Appendix F, the ecological 

forecasting capability of NOAA is 

rapidly advancing on all fronts and the 

transition to operations of these forecasts 

will probably not be possible or 

warranted given funding constraints and 

other agency priorities. Prioritization 

among potential ecological forecasts will 

allow NOAA to invest resources and 

personnel in the most promising 

products. Potential prioritization criteria 

and questions include: 

• Is the forecast a mandate for 

NOAA’s coastal responsibilities? 

• Is the forecast within NOAA’s 

mission and goals? 

• Should NOAA be the lead? 

• What benefits will the forecast 

have after investment? 

• Does investment in the forecast 

offer collaboration/leverage with 

other offices/agencies? 

• Does investment in the forecast 

benefit multiple user groups? 

• What is the time frame for 

development of the forecast? 

• What is the overall level of 

investment needed? 

NOAA has begun a path toward 

addressing some of these issues with the 

recent development of a research to 

application transition policy. The policy 

describes the process by which any 

research result, information, or tool 

should be transitioned into application. 

The policy calls for the creation of a 

Transition Board and of Transition 

Teams. Figure 2 outlines the proposed 

formalized process linking together 

program offices with various NOAA 

planning processes, which would help to 

prioritize the development and transition 

of new and ongoing ecological forecasts. 
63

IV. Benefits to NOAA, Constituents, 

and Society from this Effort 

Maintaining ecosystem function and 

health will benefit U.S. society which 

demands coastal resources, such as 

uncontaminated fish and shellfish, and 

access to clean coastal waters. NOAA is 

charged by Congress and the 

Administration with specific mandates 

prescribed by law. Ecological 

forecasting will aid the agency in its 

stewardship responsibilities by providing 

information on future ecosystem-related 

problems, including feedbacks that 

affect human health, for which NOAA 

can respond and plan. NOAA has 

numerous ecosystem-related mandates, 

policies, treaties, and international 

agreement and at least 24 of these can be 

addressed or facilitated through 

ecological forecasts (see Appendix D). 

A key mission for NOAA is to develop 

scientifically sound ecological forecasts 

relevant to NOAA’s mission, practical to 

its customers, and providing a necessary 

underpinning of ecosystem-based 

management. NOAA is developing 

ecological forecasts for coastal managers 

in an effort to help merge wide-ranging 

research and observation programs 

around this new and challenging science, 

which ultimately enriches the sciencepolicy interface. Focusing on 

developing, testing, and applying 

ecological forecasts provides the coastal 

research and management communities 

with three benefits. First, ecological 

forecasts will help decision-makers 

better manage the Nation’s coastal 

resources because they provide valuable 

information for better assessments that 

predict future conditions of proposed 

actions and the potential impacts of their 

decisions. Second, focusing on defining 

ecological forecasts needs will 

strengthen the link between research and 

management by tying management 

needs to a scientifically challenging 

agenda. Finally, the desire to build and 

improve ecological forecasts will help 

focus NOAA’s coastal science agenda 

by assuring that NOAA’s monitoring, 

research, and model development efforts 

are geared towards the needs of coastal 

managers who benefit from ecological 

forecasts. 

This chapter has been an initial look at 

NOAA’s current capability for 

ecological forecasts from near-real time 

to periodic forecasts and the needs, 

issues, and challenges that the agency 

will face in the next twenty years. 

Ecological forecasting is a very young 

and interdisciplinary field that 

capitalizes on NOAA’s existing physical 

and biological expertise. NOAA must 

strive to integrate its research and 

provide the best forecasts as efficiently 

and effectively as possible. The authors 

hope this chapter will serve as a 

framework for facilitating the 

development of a robust ecological 

forecasting capability within NOAA and 

among its external partners as this field 

of science matures. 
64

White Paper #6 

Science Requirements to Identify 

and Balance Societal Objectives 

Authors: 

Marybeth Bauer, NOAA National 

Ocean Service, National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science 

Steve Edwards, NOAA Fisheries, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Additional comments from: 

Lee Anderson, NOAA Fisheries; 

University of Delaware 

Brian Eadie, NOAA Research, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research 

Laboratory 

Grant Thompson, NOAA Fisheries, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

“Once we accept the concept of 

multispecies management, we are faced 

with the question, what (and how) do we 

optimize? We cannot answer this 

entirely in ecological terms but must 

introduce social and economic values 

...” (National Research Council, 1980) 

I. Description of the Issue 

The question addressed by this paper 

navigates the murky waters where 

science intermingles with governance 

and all of its sociocultural, 

psychological, economic, ethical, 

institutional, and other human 

dimensions. The question is: What are 

we managing ecosystems for? In other 

words, what should be the end(s) of 

coastal and ocean management? NOAA 

provides an answer in the context of its 

strategic Ecosystem Mission Goal. This 

goal prescribes the protection, 

restoration, and management of coastal 

and ocean resources following an EAM 

that, among other criteria, balances 

diverse societal objectives (NOAA, 

2005a). In the context of an EAM, the 

proper aim of coastal and ocean management is not any particular set of societal 

objectives, but “balance” among them. 

Societal objectives encompass the 

plurality of conditions, experiences, and 

opportunities valued by stakeholders. 

The natural capital and functions integral 

to environmental systems provide 

services – referred to as ecosystem 

services – that contribute to human wellbeing. Such services can be categorized 

as supporting (e.g., nutrient cycling and 

soil formation), provisioning (e.g., 

timber and food), regulating (e.g., water 

purification and flood control), and 

cultural (e.g., recreation and social 

relations). These services contribute to 

human well-being by directly and 

indirectly providing for values essential 

to personal and social security, basic 

material needs, physical and 

psychological health, good social 

relations, and freedom of choice and 

action to achieve personal values and 

foster personal identity (Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). 

In the United States, at least four types 

of institutions affect the spatio-temporal 

pattern of and relationships among ocean 

and coastal resource uses. Following a 

definition provided by Ostrom (2005, p. 

1), institutions are “the prescriptions that 

humans use to organize all forms of 

repetitive and structured interactions, 

including those within families, 

neighborhoods, markets, firms, sports 

leagues, churches, private associations, 

and governments at all scales.” A 

democratic political institution is 
65

comprised of governmental agencies and 

management bodies (such as regional 

fishery management councils). A legal 

institution, with rules defining resource 

use entitlements and responsibilities, is 

comprised of the body of laws and 

distribution of property rights among the 

government and citizenry. An economic 

institution, which is closely tied to the 

legal institution (e.g., enforcement and 

security of title), regulates the economic 

value of coastal and ocean assets in situ

or their commodity and service flows in 

market and, increasingly, non-market 

situations. Finally, other social 

institutions such as cultural practices 

shape patterns of resource use such as 

subsistence harvesting and recreational 

activity. 

Whether political, legal, economic, 

cultural, or (most likely) an interaction 

of institutions balances societal 

objectives, NOAA’s vision of an EAM 

leaves the following questions 

unanswered: (1) Which societal 

objectives? (Lackey, 2001) (2) What is 

meant by “balance” among societal 

objectives? (3) How will balance be 

achieved? In particular, how must 

decision making processes and 

institutions change to accommodate the 

concept of EAM and fulfill NOAA’s 

mission “to understand and predict 

changes in the Earth’s environment and 

conserve and manage coastal and marine 

resources to meet our Nation’s 

economic, social, and environmental 

needs”? These questions are considered 

below, focusing on their implications for 

the ecosystem science conducted and 

sponsored by NOAA to achieve its 

Ecosystem Mission Goal, with particular 

emphasis on economic and democratic 

mechanisms. 

II. Science Capabilities Necessary 

to Support Decision-Making

The identification, articulation, and 

prioritization of values as drivers of 

coastal and ocean science, policy, and 

resource management has profound 

social, cultural, and economic 

implications for NOAA’s constituents. 

If policy makers, coastal and ocean 

resource managers, stakeholders, and 

other key decision makers are to balance 

societal objectives, as NOAA’s vision of 

an EAM requires, then resource 

management systems must critically 

engage stakeholders, and the plurality of 

values they advocate, to identify 

resource use conflicts, establish 

priorities, and evaluate alternative 

scenarios. 

An emphasis on the role of decision 

processes in balancing diverse societal 

objectives is enhanced by a focus on the 

development of decision institutions 

with the proper incentives and 

restrictions influencing human behavior. 

In particular, Hanna (1998) recommends 

that EAM institutions promote multiple 

objectives, cost-effectiveness, 

legitimacy, flexibility, and long time 

horizons. These criteria require a 

suitable set of well-defined property 

rights evolving from an open, 

deliberative process that people believe 

to be legitimate. The property rights 

need to be indefinite, transferable, and 

enforceable in order for the other 

elements to be voluntarily internalized. 

For example, secure, indefinite title 

promotes stewardship, as opposed to 

aquaculturalists and fishers making a 

living in an open access or regulated 

open access property rights regime in 

which the rule-of-capture prevails. 

Exchange promotes multiple uses and 
66

flexibility as well as value. Ownership 

results in cost-effective behavior because 

one is accountable for his or her own 

costs. 

Incorporating Societal Objectives into 

Decision-Making 

A purpose of the political-policy process 

in a democratic society is to adjudicate 

personal preferences to elucidate and 

express collective ends – a debate that is, 

ideally, informed by scientific 

information (including local and 

traditional knowledge) and reason-based 

discussion about values and value 

priorities. The output of this debate is a 

set of Federal laws, executive orders, 

and judicial decisions that, to some 

extent, represent the vast plurality of 

societal objectives that stand to be 

influenced (in terms of their 

achievability and sustainability) by 

resource management. The objectives 

specified in such authorities (herein 

referred to as “policy ends”) are directed 

by Congress, the President, and the 

courts to be implemented by the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

NOAA’s component organizations, and 

other governmental agencies with 

resource management responsibilities. 

Accordingly, policy ends expressed by 

NOAA’s authorities are an important 

source of societal objectives to serve as 

the ends of coastal and ocean resource 

management. 

However, it would be democratically 

and practically disadvantageous to 

derive resource management goals solely 

from policy ends. From a democratic 

standpoint, policy ends may not 

represent the full ensemble of values that 

influence, and are influenced by, 

resource management decisions. Social 

groups and, consequently, their values 

can be marginalized from politicalpolicy processes, risking the 

undemocratic outcome of failing to 

consider a subset of societal values in 

coastal and ocean management 

decisions. From a practical perspective, 

engaging participatory decision 

processes as a way of recognizing the 

values of a diverse constituency can 

improve the substance, perceived 

legitimacy, and effectiveness of 

decisions (Mascia, 2003; Sutinen and 

Kuperan, 1999). In addition, statutory 

authorities often leave societal objectives 

undefined or articulate them at a high 

level of generality that requires 

quantitative and/or qualitative 

specification to be operational for 

decision-making. 

For these reasons, a participatory 

approach to elucidating societal 

objectives is widely advocated as 

essential to democratic and effective 

coastal and ocean management (e.g., 

Mascia, 2003). There is “widespread 

consensus that forging partnerships with 

people and creating more meaningful 

opportunities for public participation 

should be part of the ecosystem 

management paradigm” (Endter-Wada et 

al., 1998, p. 894). Such a consensus is 

demonstrated by the many 

environmental regulations that require 

some form of public participation in 

environmental decision-making, 

including the Administrative Procedures 

Act, NEPA, National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act, MSFCMA, and Coastal Zone 

Management Act at the Federal level. 

In addition, social science research is 

essential to design critical, democratic 

and effective decision approaches such 
67

as collaborative learning and comanagement. An NRC publication, 

Decision Making for the Environment, 

lays out research priorities for the social 

and behavioral sciences to improve 

decision processes affecting 

environmental quality (NRC, 2005). 

Endter-Wada et al. (1998) provide a 

valuable discussion of social research 

contributions to public involvement in 

planning and policy making, 

summarized as follows (p. 894): 

“Some social scientists focus their 

research and analysis on broader 

processes of group and societal 

decision-making; i.e., the objects of their 

science are these processes. Their work 

generally analyzes the structure and 

dynamics of various public involvement 

processes, the conditions under which 

these processes work best, their 

suitability for addressing different types 

of problems, their effectiveness in 

facilitating public involvement, and their 

success in improving situations or 

attaining different outcomes. ... Other 

social scientists have borrowed heavily 

from conflict negotiation and mediation 

experiences outside natural resources 

(e.g., labor disputes, divorce settlements) 

and applied these techniques to 

understanding and managing those 

conflicts ...” 

In addition to social science research 

focusing on decision processes, 

sociocultural assessment and monitoring 

are crucial to characterize stakeholders 

and their objectives. Multidimensional 

characterization of stakeholders – e.g., 

values, priorities, perceptions (e.g., of 

user conflict), and attitudes and 

knowledge – is required to inform 

decision making and governance in the 

context of an EAM. Social scientific 

methods provide breadth and specificity 

in characterizing stakeholders and 

stakeholder objectives, enabling 

representation of a diverse constituency 

in ecosystem science, policy, and 

decision processes. Among many useful 

guidance documents, the Socioeconomic 

Manual for Coral Reef Management 

(Bunce et al., 2000) is widely used as a 

tool for managers to establish 

socioeconomic monitoring programs. In 

addition, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA, 2002) provides 

a guide to community assessment that 

focuses on identifying community 

attitudes and values. 

Economics Perspectives on DecisionMaking and Resource Use 

In the MIT Dictionary of Modern 

Economics (Pearce, 1992, p. 121), 

economists define economics as “the 

study of the way in which mankind 

organizes itself to tackle the basic 

problem of scarcity. ... All societies 

have more wants than resources ..., so a 

system must be devised to allocate these 

resources between competing ends.” 

This definition reflects the importance of 

economics to EAM for more than 

measuring the economic notion of value 

and impacts of regulations. The ways 

that “mankind organizes itself” are also 

germane to questions about resource use, 

including in an EAM. 

The political-policy process described 

earlier is an important mechanism for 

identifying and adjudicating societal 

objectives. However, in some cases, the 

scientific uncertainty characteristic of an 

EAM could hamstring a deliberative 

process due to the transaction costs of 

information and other requirements of 
68

negotiation (Libecap, 1989). This seems 

to be most likely to occur when EAM is 

being used to manage increasingly more 

resource attributes. Attributes such as 

predator-prey relationships, habitat 

requirements, sex ratios, and genetic 

diversity are significantly more 

expensive and difficult to research, 

manage, and enforce than only biomass 

and, perhaps, the age-structure of a 

stock. Furthermore, this greater 

attention to heterogeneous attributes will 

most often be complicated by spatial 

distributions, all of which are 

characteristic of EAM. 

NOAA should consider the option of 

partnering with stakeholders to design 

institutions with entitlements, rules, and 

attenuations necessary to create the 

expectation that people will behave 

consistent with an EAM as new 

scientific (and other) information 

becomes known, technologies change, 

and preferences of the American public 

change (see Hanna, 1998). Rather than 

expand regulations or renegotiate comanagement agreements to 

accommodate new information, shifts in 

state variables, or changes in external 

factors (e.g., water movements and 

trade), the government could transfer 

(through sale, lease, or auction) part of 

its legal “bundle of sticks” – i.e., 

property rights – to interested parties and 

grant them responsibility for decisions. 

The objective here is to design decision 

institutions run by stakeholders whose 

behavioral incentives match NOAA’s 

ideals for EAM but can respond to 

information and uncertainty more 

effectively than a political institution or 

process. 

Concepts of Economic Value and 

Measurement for EAM 

It is helpful, where possible, to measure 

gains and losses when speaking of 

balances, even where the natural 

environment is concerned, partly 

because losses almost always 

accompany a choice. In these cases, the 

components of the ecosystem are 

considered assets (e.g., fish stocks, heat 

capacity of ocean waters, potential 

energy of currents) and flows (e.g., 

primary preproduction and oxygen 

production). In addition, human use can 

alter the levels, or rates, of assets and 

flows while at the same time generating 

human values. Finally, non-extractive 

uses of the ocean (e.g., whale watching, 

snorkeling on reefs) and even “nonuses” are valued. 

A variety of economic methods has been 

developed since the 1960s to measure 

economic benefits or values as well as 

costs (i.e., opportunity costs or lost 

economic values) of environmental and 

natural resources (including quality 

dimensions, not discussed here; see 

Freeman, 1993). In addition to market 

values such as commercial fishing, 

shipping, and oil and gas production 

which are analyzed by traditional 

methods, the so-called non-market 

values are classified and handled 

somewhat differently. Use values 

involve an in situ experience with 

extraction (e.g., sport fishing) or without 

(e.g., sunbathing and swimming) 

extraction. Non-use values, which do 

not involve personal use, are divided 

into preservation or existence values and 

bequest values for future generations. 

Other value categories relate to 

uncertainty, including option value (e.g., 

an insurance coverage) and quasi-option 
69

value for specific circumstances when 

irreversible development would most 

likely preclude learning about the 

suspected high value of a resource. 

The NRC (1999a) recently reviewed a 

variety of methods used by economists 

to estimate the market and non-market 

values of environmental and natural 

resource assets and the flows of products 

and services derived from their use and 

existence. NOAA staff have estimated, 

for example, random utility models 

(RUM) of the value of recreational 

fishing, the public’s valuation of 

protected species and marine reserves 

using stated-preference research, and 

asset accounts of the value of fishery 

resources in situ and the resource rent 

component of harvests. Current 

practices of measuring only the value of 

market activity associated with 

commercial (e.g., harvests) or 

recreational (e.g., economic impacts and 

multiplier effects) fishing give a biased 

picture of the total economic value of the 

resources and uses of the ocean under 

NOAA’s authority. This will be a fertile 

and rewarding area of EAM research and 

policy for NOAA in the future. 

Recommendation #1 

To support the Ecosystem Mission Goal, 

NOAA requires greater investment and 

intra- and interagency coordination in 

human dimensions research to 

comprehensively identify and describe 

the plurality of objectives advocated by 

constituents. Such research should focus 

on social scientific and humanistic 

approaches to: (1) improving and 

facilitating participatory decision 

processes, (2) assessing and monitoring 

sociocultural and economic causes and 

consequences of ecosystem stress and 

management responses, (3) designing 

and influencing governance 

arrangements effective for an EAM, and 

(4) describing and, where possible, 

quantifying the values of natural 

resource assets and flows. 

Balancing Societal Objectives 

Conflict is fundamental to resource 

management (Hanna, 1998; Larkin, 

1996; Link, 2002). Juda (1999, p. 96) 

captures this point by explaining that 

“All societies are faced with mutually 

exclusive choices regarding the use of 

resources. In line with the opportunity 

of opportunity costs, the use of a 

limited resource obviates its 

alternative uses. Accordingly, some 

values must be given a higher, and 

others a lower, priority.” 

Importantly, “tradeoff” does not mean 

“trade-in.” That is, the de-prioritized 

value does not necessarily get discarded. 

In economics, tradeoffs imply 

comparing differences in small, or 

marginal, changes of two or more 

activities to see if they are ever equal at 

some point. That point identifies where 

the combination of values is greatest. 

NOAA’s authorities offer little guidance 

regarding how to prioritize conflicting 

objectives across sectors, social groups, 

or generations. For example, National 

Standard 8 of the Sustainable Fisheries 

Act of 1996 redefines the goal of MSY 

as articulated in the MSFCMA, requiring 

management plans to include measures 

minimizing adverse economic impacts to 

fishing communities. The standard does 

not state whether the conservation and 

restoration of stocks are to receive 
70

priority over shorter-term community 

objectives or vice versa. As Cicin-Sain 

and Knecht (2000, p. 149) recognize, “if 

a stock is in grave danger of being 

depleted, fishing effort must be either 

greatly reduced, which is detrimental to 

dependent fishing communities, or 

allowed to continue, which is 

detrimental to fish stocks.” In such 

instances, fisheries managers face a 

tradeoff between the cultural and shortrun economic vitality of fishing 

communities and the preservation of 

stocks for future generations. 

In more general terms, current and 

emerging management issues involve 

tradeoffs among the various benefits of 

agricultural production and water quality 

in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas; 

off-shore energy development and 

resulting habitat damage, emissions, and 

oil spill risk; ship ballasting benefits and 

the introduction of invasive species; 

cultural, recreational, and other uses of 

coral reefs and their protection for future 

generations; the protection of marine 

mammals and human activities such as 

fishing and ship traffic; and aquaculture 

and the potential spreading of disease 

among fish populations and risks of nonnative species introductions (USCOP, 

2004). 

In view of the centrality of such 

tradeoffs to coastal and ocean 

management, balancing societal 

objectives means reducing or eliminating 

resource conflict to make objectives 

mutually achievable in so far as possible 

across social groups, places, and 

generations. This requires prioritizing 

societal objectives when conflict is 

irresolvable. More specifically, an EAM 

is an enterprise in: 

1. Identifying tradeoffs among 

societal objectives that enter into 

policy making and 

implementation, and 

management decisions; 

2. Establishing priorities that are 

ethically defensible through 

means that are democratic or 

revealed by self-governance 

arrangements designed to create 

behavior that complies with the 

EAM principle; and 

3. Envisioning, implementing, and 

evaluating regulatory, 

participatory, technological, 

educational, institutional, and 

other strategies to achieve an 

acceptable integration of 

priorities. 

To support an EAM, the ecosystem 

science prioritized, conducted, and 

supported by NOAA must inform and 

enable these steps. In the most general 

terms, an ecosystem-based research 

approach and institutional structure is 

vital. This may seem obvious, yet most 

research supported and conducted by 

NOAA has an environmental science 

focus (i.e., on observation and 

forecasting of biological, physical, and 

chemical systems in isolation of human 

dimensions). A truly ecosystem-based 

focus would integrate human dimensions 

research themes such as human causes 

and consequences of ecosystem stress 

(see Stern et al., 1992), decision 

approaches (see NRC, 2005), 

documentation of local and traditional 

knowledge, risk communication, 

assessment of community vulnerability 

to hazards, and governance 

arrangements (especially for LMEs) 

(e.g., Juda, 1999). 
71

In terms of NOAA "business strategy" or 

organizational structure, such a 

commitment requires cross-disciplinary 

integration in addition to intra- and interNOAA Goal Team coordination and 

social science representation at senior 

levels. The need for a truly ecosystembased focus – in terms of research 

content, institutional organization, and 

staffing and senior representation – is 

supported and elaborated by a Social 

Science Review Panel report to the 

NOAA Science Advisory Board, Social 

Science Research Within NOAA: Review 

and Recommendations (NOAA, 2003b). 

An EAM will complicate NOAA’s 

missions in scientific research and 

management for several reasons. First, 

by its nature, EAM will expand the 

number and type of resources and 

resource attributes being researched and 

managed, from the unit-stock biomass 

and age-structure of target species to 

interactions (e.g., predation) and the 

spatial heterogeneities and topologies 

(i.e., relationships, such as connectivity) 

of resources, other species (including 

humans), and habitat. This places a 

heavy demand on information which 

connects environmental variability and 

resource dynamics, fishing behavior, 

regulatory actions, and the political and 

legislative responses to stakeholder 

demands and competitions. Second, 

EAM will force NOAA to find legal, 

ethical, and cost-effective ways to 

inform and facilitate the identification 

and evaluation of tradeoffs among 

resource uses and among resource users. 

Third, EAM should make it self-evident 

that management is inherently a 

normative endeavor (Lackey 2004). That 

is, humans manipulate the environment 

in order to satisfy objectives which 

locate value in the human experience 

(anthropocentric), ecological systems 

(ecocentric), and/or living entities such 

as species (biocentric). Even policies 

that preserve a species or set up a 

network of marine reserves are 

normative (i.e., they aim to restore 

nature to a desired previous state). 

More specifically, identifying tradeoffs 

requires a picture of the viability of 

societal objectives, individually and in 

relation to one another, as they are likely 

to be influenced by interactions within 

and between human and environmental 

systems. The challenge of evaluating 

tradeoffs can be illustrated by applying 

the portfolio theory to fisheries. Assume 

that the overall objective for an LME or 

sub-region is to balance expected 

aggregate returns (i.e., aggregate income 

from all species plus changes in asset 

values) against the return risks 

associated with recruitment, various 

interactions (e.g., predation, multispecies harvest technology, product 

substitution in markets), and other 

uncertainties (Edwards et al., 2004). 

Internalizing interactions into multispecies management requires deliberate 

tradeoffs among yields of different 

species. Since yields support a plurality 

of economic, cultural, spiritual, and 

recreational values, tradeoffs among 

yields give rise to tradeoffs among such 

values. For example, increasing the 

yields of highly valued piscivorous 

species might require fisheries for their 

prey to be substantially cut back. As 

Gulland (1982) recommended for the 

North Sea, one could fish down the top 

piscivores, such as cod, and then fish the 

herbivores only moderately in order to 

encourage the growth of flounders and 

other valuable benthivores. 
72

Although this example is confined to 

multi-species management, the portfolio 

framework is a considerable step in the 

direction of EAM because it deals 

directly with interactions and uncertainty 

in a search for what an ecosystem can 

produce of economic value. 

Furthermore, it can be applied to more 

difficult resource scenarios, such as 

tradeoffs among fisheries and other 

human endeavors such as marine 

reserves, aquaculture parks, and oil and 

natural gas leases. However, like the 

single-species approach which is 

described primarily in terms of the 

natural sciences, the portfolio framework 

is two-pronged and needs to be 

implemented with a management 

approach that involves people and 

behavior, both in government and at sea. 

Thus, once again, the type of institution 

that will properly define the objectives 

of a technical framework, such as the 

portfolio framework, must be identified: 

(1) one that increases the number of 

regulations to a large extent; (2) one that 

negotiates solutions to the many 

interactions democratically; or (3) one 

that entrusts the design of EAM 

institutions to have the correct incentive 

structures to influence sociallyappropriate behavior. This is a question 

of governance and resource allocation 

under uncertainty. 

The power of the EAM concept as an 

instrument to envision and sustain a 

better world derives from its broad 

applicability to decision-making across 

sectors, incorporating non-market 

values, and utilizing alternatives to 

command-and-control regulation, such 

as democratic and economic alternatives, 

to elucidate values and adjudicate 

conflict among them. The social 

sciences (economic and non-economic) 

and humanities offer diverse approaches 

to establishing priorities in this broader 

context, including cost-benefit analysis; 

tradeoff analysis, which can be utilized 

in a participatory decision process (e.g., 

Brown et al., 2001), conflict mediation 

(e.g., McCreary et al., 2001); discursive 

ethics (e.g., O’Hara, 1995); and contracting (Townsend and Pooley, 1995). 

More broadly, Sutinen et al. (2000, p. 3) 

identify the following socioeconomic 

research needs in a “Framework for 

Monitoring and Assessing 

Socioeconomics and Governance of 

Large Marine Ecosystems”: 

1. Identify principle uses of 

LME resources; 

2. Identify LME resource users 

and their activities; 

3. Identify governance 

mechanisms influencing 

LME use; 

4. Assess the level of LMErelated activities; 

5. Assess interactions between 

LME-related activities and 

LME resources; 

6. Assess impacts of LME 

activities on other users; 

7. Assess the interactions 

between governance 

mechanisms and resource 

use; 

8. Assess the socioeconomic 

importance of LME-related 

activities and economic and 

sociocultural value of key 

uses and LME resources; 

9. Identify the public’s 

priorities and 

willingness to make 

tradeoffs to protect 

and restore key 

natural resources; 
73

10. Assess the cost of 

options to protect or 

restore key resources; 

11. Compare the benefits 

with the costs of 

protection and 

restoration options; 

and 

12. Identify financing 

alternatives for the 

preferred options for 

protecting/restoring 

key LME resources. 

One research need omitted by this 

framework is an analysis of social 

factors driving human activities that 

significantly contribute to ecosystem 

stress (e.g., demographic change; 

attitudes, values, and beliefs; 

technological innovation; political 

forces; and regulatory instruments). 

Knowledge of social drivers is essential 

to focus environmental protection, 

restoration, and management strategies 

on underlying causes of ecosystem 

stress. 

Finally, research is necessary to identify 

and facilitate governance patterns 

conducive to priority setting and strategy 

development in the context of LME 

policy and management. Governance 

refers to the “formal and informal 

arrangements, institutions, and mores 

which determine how resources or an 

environment are utilized; how problems 

and opportunities are evaluated and 

analyzed; what behavior is deemed 

acceptable or forbidden; and what rules 

and sanctions are applied to affect the 

pattern of resource and environmental 

use” (Juda, 1999, pp. 90-91). Juda 

(1999) lays out considerations for 

developing and implementing a 

governance approach. Townsend and 

Pooley (1995) provide a broad taxonomy 

of “distributed governance” (i.e., how 

rights and responsibilities are distributed 

across government, the fishing industry, 

and fishing communities) and contrast 

the current regulatory approach with 

external institutional relationships (comanagement, harvest rights, and 

contracting) and internal relationships 

(self-organizing groups, cooperative 

management, communal management, 

corporate management). Notice that the 

Federal government is party to each 

form of external governance. Further, 

different combinations of external and 

internal governance arrangements will 

result in a different balance of societal 

objectives and set of outcomes for the 

environment and interested parties. For 

example, objectives from a regulatory 

arrangement will differ from those 

associated with the combination of comanagement/corporate management and 

from contracting/self-organizing groups. 

Recommendation #2 

NOAA requires greater investment and 

intra- and interagency coordination in 

human dimensions research on topics 

that support NOAA’s aim of striving to 

balance diverse societal objectives such 

as those discussed earlier. Balancing 

societal objectives is an enterprise in 

identifying tradeoffs; establishing 

priorities that are ethically defensible to 

stakeholders and fair to the American 

public through means such as 

democratic decision making and/or other 

combinations of distributed governance 

that match EAM principles and provide 

self-governance incentives; and 

developing and implementing strategies 

informed by ecosystem science 

incorporating human dimensions. 
74

III. Partnerships Necessary to 

Effectively Address the Emerging 

Issues 

Partnerships among biophysical and 

human dimensions scientists - across 

NOAA’s line offices and with external 

partners – are critical to meeting 

scientific, organizational, and individual 

challenges presented by NOAA’s 

commitment to a comprehensive 

ecosystem science enterprise supporting 

an EAM. From a scientific standpoint, 

ecosystem science requires innovative 

approaches to linking the concepts, 

methods and results of biophysical and 

human dimensions research to inform 

decision making. From an organizational standpoint, critical needs include 

greater internal capacity in human 

dimensions disciplines; leadership with 

interdisciplinary understanding and 

team-building skills across disciplines; 

management practices that encourage, 

require and reward interdisciplinary 

research; integrated research prioritization and planning; adequate funding 

for human dimensions and interdisciplinary research; and leadership and 

workforce training to facilitate 

awareness and appreciation of the value 

of human dimensions research for 

NOAA’s Ecosystem Mission. 

Fundamentally, envisioning and implementing such scientific and organizational transformations requires 

fostering a workforce with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to engage 

in and be transformed by learning, 

communication, and collaboration across 

disciplinary cultures and approaches. 

IV. Benefits to NOAA, Constituents, 

and Society from this Effort 

This section is intentionally left blank 

since this paper is devoted to the topic of 

science requirements critical to achieve 

NOAA’s Ecosystem Mission Goal (i.e., 

benefits to NOAA) by identifying and 

balancing societal objectives (i.e., 

benefits to society). 

Figure 1. Diverse disciplines are integral to 

understanding the human dimensions of 

ecosystems. 
75

Appendix A: Ecosystem Principles 

(Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel, 

1999) 

• The ability to predict ecosystem 

behavior is limited. 

• Ecosystems have real thresholds 

and limits which, when 

exceeded, can effect major 

ecosystem restructuring. 

• Once thresholds and limits have 

been exceeded, changes can be 

irreversible. 

• Diversity is important to 

ecosystem functioning. 

• Multiple scales interact within 

and among ecosystems. 

• Components of ecosystems are 

linked. 

• Ecosystem boundaries are open. 

• Ecosystems change over time. 
76

Appendix B: Summary of 

Recommendations for a 

Regional Ecosystem Approach to 

Management (NOAA Fisheries, 2004)

(1) Derive the maximum value to 

society (on a sustainable basis) 

available from the living marine 

resources under our stewardship, 

subject to sub-goals 2-9 

described below. In 

implementing this overall goal, 

NOAA Fisheries must: 

• Account for other 

ecosystem goods and 

services as they affect, 

are affected by, and are in 

addition to fisheries. 

• Promote participation, 

fairness, and equity in 

policy and management 

development. 

• Allocate resource use and 

non-use among sectors in 

a transparent, safe and 

feasible manner. 

(2) Prevent Overfishing 

• Develop and implement 

conservation and 

management measures 

that prevent overfishing 

of species or species 

complexes in each region. 

The objective is to 

prevent overfishing while 

achieving, on a 

continuing basis, the 

optimum yield from each 

U.S. fishery. 

• Monitor the status of 

species or species 

complexes relative to 

overfishing and 

overfished limit reference 

points. 

• Develop rebuilding plans 

for those species deemed 

to be overfished. 

(3) Protect Sensitive Species

• Reduce mortality of 

marine mammals, sea 

turtles, sea birds and 

similar protected apex 

species to a level that is 

sustainable. 

• Develop and implement 

conservation measures to 

maintain marine 

mammals at optimum 

sustainable population 

levels. This includes 

ensuring that incidental 

takes do not exceed a 

stock’s potential 

biological removal level. 

• Develop conservation and 

recovery plans that 

contain site-specific 

management measures 

with objective, 

measurable criteria to 

recover ESA-listed 

species and depleted 

marine mammal stocks. 

• Monitor population 

status. 

• Create measures to 

recover threatened or 

endangered species. 

(4) Conserve Biodiversity 

• Develop and implement 

measures to conserve 

non-target species. 

• Ensure that no native 

species shall go extinct 

due to anthropogenic 

factors. 
77

• Monitor and evaluate 

impacts of invasive 

species on native species. 

• Establish conservation 

and management 

measures to reduce 

fishing mortality of nontarget species (e.g., 

minimize bycatch and 

discarding), and establish 

bycatch thresholds that 

will sustain non-target 

species. 

• Monitor the status of nontarget species that are 

significantly impacted by 

anthropogenic activities. 

• Establish measures to 

conserve species diversity 

where an observed and 

sustained decline in 

species diversity (e.g., 

mean species richness 

from fisheries 

independent surveys) is 

below the range of 

observed natural 

variability. 

(5) Conserve Genetic Diversity and 

Structure 

• Define evolutionary 

significant units (ESUs) 

for threatened, 

endangered or overfished 

species. 

• Develop and implement 

harvest policies that 

protect genetic diversity 

of species or stocks by 

protecting ESUs from 

excessive mortality. 

• Monitor ESU status for 

local spawning 

aggregations. 

• Establish measures for 

those species or stocks at 

risk of losing genetic 

diversity to protect the 

ESU. 

(6) Conserve Living Marine 

Resource Habitat

• Develop and implement 

measures to conserve 

essential fish habitat 

(EFH) and critical habitat 

for all targeted and 

protected species with 

respect to their ability to 

spawn, breed, feed and/or 

grow to maturity. 

• Evaluate habitat 

designations. 

• Evaluate potential 

adverse effects of fishing 

on habitat and minimize 

adverse effects of fishing 

on habitat. 

• Minimize adverse 

perturbations (from both 

fishing and other user 

sectors) to be less than 

the range of natural 

disturbances for the 

appropriate physical and 

geological processes that 

operate in ecosystems. 

• Establish measures to 

conserve those habitats 

that are negatively 

impacted. 

(7) Maintain Trophic Structure

• Develop and implement 

measures to minimize 

anthropogenic impacts on 

trophic structure and 

functioning. Ecological 

relationships between 

harvested, dependent and 
78

related species shall be 

maintained within the 

range of observed natural 

variability. 

• Develop and implement 

measures to take the 

trophic role of species 

into account when 

establishing harvest 

levels, including the 

effects of the combined 

removal of all targeted 

species on the ecosystem. 

• Monitor trophic 

relationships among 

targeted species, their 

predators, and their prey. 

• Establish measures to 

restore the fundamental 

ecological relationships in 

those food webs that have 

human-induced 

deterioration of trophic 

structure. 

• Develop and implement 

harvest policies that 

sustain adequate forage 

base, in situations where 

fisheries potentially 

compete with top trophic 

level consumers (e.g., 

marine mammals, turtles, 

sea birds, or similar 

protected species) for 

shared resources (e.g., 

forage fish such as small 

pelagics), to ensure that 

sufficient quantities of the 

shared resource are 

available to sustain the 

top trophic level 

consumers at their 

population thresholds. 

(8) Prevent Systemic 

Overexploitation

• Prevent systemic overexploitation of an 

ecosystem at relevant 

spatial and temporal 

scales, cognizant of items 

1-7 above as appropriate. 

This may require 

development and 

implementation of a limit 

for the total combined 

removal of all targeted 

species or some 

equivalent means. It 

provides a buffer for 

uncertainty such that the 

total removal cap is 

established as less than 

the combined total of all 

targeted and non-target 

removals. 

• Allocate tradeoffs in 

harvestable biomass 

among all targeted 

species subject to the 

constraint of the total 

removal cap, up to but not 

exceeding the total cap. 

• Establish measures and 

policies to avoid 

exceeding the systemic 

cap and to reduce total 

system-wide exploitation 

if it is exceeded. 

(9) Improve knowledge of natural 

and anthropogenic processes 

controlling ecosystem structure 

and function to enable more 

accurate forecasts of living 

marine resources

• Monitor the status of nontarget species that are 

significantly impacted by 

anthropogenic activities. 
79

• Monitor trophic 

relationships among 

targeted species, their 

predators, and their prey. 

• Monitor population status 

of protected species and 

marine mammals at 

specific levels of 

assessment quality every 

X years. 

• Monitor the status of 

species or species complexes relative to overfishing and overfished 

reference point at specific 

levels of assessment 

quality every X years. 

• Improve our understanding of the importance of bottom-up 

forcing in determining 

episodic recruitment 

events in target species 

and the prey of target 

species. 
80

Appendix C: Basic Approach 

to Fisheries Management 

in Federal Waters 

(with an emphasis on groundfish 

management in the Bering Sea 

and Gulf of Alaska) 

 

Several elements of the fisheries 

management system adopted by NOAA 

conform to the goals of EAM. Several 

regional councils and their associated 

regional offices have adopted harvest 

strategies designed to prevent 

overfishing, rebuild protected species, 

preserve biodiversity, protect habitat, 

and encourage public participation in 

decision-making. This system evolved 

over time in an effort to comply with the 

requirements of the various laws 

governing fisheries management, 

including NEPA, MSFCMA, and ESA. 

The groundfish management system 

recommended by the North Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council 

(NPFMC) and implemented by NOAA 

Fisheries is a good example of a fishery 

management plan (FMP) that has 

successfully integrated the goals of 

EAM into its management strategy. 

Overview of National Guidelines for 

Fisheries Management 

NOAA Fisheries established guidelines 

for FMPs to ensure that the catch of 

Federally managed species is consistent 

with the goals of building sustainable 

fisheries. Overfishing is defined as any 

amount of fishing in excess of the limit 

fishing mortality level (Flim). The 

fishing mortality rate (Fmsy) that would 

produce the maximum long-term 

average catch (maximum sustainable 

yield, or MSY) is the upper bound for 

Flim. The long-term expected level of 

biomass (i.e., stock abundance) that 

would result from fishing at Fmsy is 

defined as the MSY stock size (Bmsy), 

recognizing that natural fluctuations 

above and below the MSY stock size are 

normal. 

NOAA Fisheries guidelines pertaining to 

the first of the ten national standards 

(herein “National Standard 1”) required 

of FMPs pursuant to the MSFCMA 

instruct managers to implement harvest 

strategies that maintain stock sizes at or 

above their MSY stock size on average. 

When stock sizes decline to a level 

where there is significantly increased 

concern regarding potential impairment 

of stock productivity, delayed rebuilding 

to Bmsy, or potential ecosystem harm, 

the stock is considered to be depleted 

(Figure 1). When a stock reaches this 

level, rebuilding plans must be 

developed and implemented to improve 

stock condition. 

Figure 1. Summary of thresholds used 

in managing commercial fisheries in 

Federal waters. 

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

B/BMSY

F

F/ MSY

DEFAULT LIMIT & TARGET 

CONTROL RULES

M

Limit

Target

overfishing

overfished

Restrepo et al 1998

Each council and associated regional 

office of NOAA Fisheries is responsible 

for defining MSY control rules. These 
81

rules generally guide managers to set 

target fishing mortality levels below the 

limits to avoid exceeding the Flim and, 

to the extent possible, to account for 

social, economic, and ecological factors. 

NOAA Fisheries is also responsible for 

enforcing its harvest policies. Ideally, 

catch and bycatch should be directly 

monitored with an in-season catch 

reporting system that provides accurate 

estimates of catch of both target and 

non-target species. In many regions, 

NOAA Fisheries supports fishery 

monitoring programs that consist of atsea and/or shoreside observers. These 

monitoring programs allow managers to 

assess the amount of catch of target 

species and incidental species in real 

time. Fisheries can be closed to protect 

a species from reaching the overfishing 

level (OFL). In regions where time-area 

or gear restrictions are utilized to control 

catch, scientists conduct research to 

verify that these management tools 

provide sufficient control to keep fishing 

mortality at or below Flim. 

NOAA Fisheries is also responsible for 

conducting stock assessment surveys, 

which provide relative biomass estimates 

of many target species, non-target 

species, and indicator species. LMRs 

are typically monitored through periodic 

surveys. These surveys represent a 

major contribution to the goal of 

conserving biodiversity because they 

provide a historical record of distribution 

and abundance. 

Overview of Alaskan Groundfish 

Management 

The management system used in the 

Alaska groundfish fisheries serves as an 

illustration of how the MSFCMA, ESA, 

and NEPA guide managers toward an 

EAM. In an effort to prevent 

overfishing and to comply with the 

provisions of the MSFCMA, the 

NPFMC working in association with 

NOAA Fisheries’ Alaska Regional 

Office (ARO), has developed a system 

of in-season constraints on target 

groundfish species, non-target 

groundfish species (primarily groundfish 

incidentally captured), forage species, 

and prohibited species (important nongroundfish species incidentally 

captured). The catch constraints are 

built around a tier system for estimating 

acceptable biological catch (ABC) and 

OFL for stocks or stock complexes. The 

tier system provides guidance on the 

maximum permissible levels of catch 

given the quality of information 

available (see Goodman et al., 2002 for a 

review of harvest strategy employed in 

the North Pacific groundfish fishery). In 

addition to the constraints on catch at the 

species or species group level, the 

NPFMC also imposes an overall cap on 

the total amount of groundfish that can 

be removed (Witherell, 2005). In the 

Bering Sea Aleutian Islands region, this 

overall constraint results in considerable 

reductions in catch for several target 

species. 

The establishment of total allowable 

catches (TACs) is fundamental to the 

management of Alaskan groundfish 

fisheries in Federal waters. It involves 

annual evaluation of the best available 

scientific information at public meetings 

and through the review of applicable 

documents. The first step begins with 

the preparation of Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports. 

These reports contain analyses 

summarizing the information about the 
82

individual stocks and groups, and 

include ABC and OFL recommendations 

for future years. The authors of these 

reports (generally NOAA Fisheries 

scientists) present their findings to 

NPFMC and its Groundfish Plan Teams 

and Scientific and Statistical Committee 

for further review. After scientific 

review and public discussion, the 

NPFMC recommends TAC levels for the 

upcoming year, which have to be 

approved and subsequently implemented 

by NOAA Fisheries. Alaska groundfish 

managers always set TAC at less than or 

equal to ABC, and ABC at less than 

OFL. Catch is usually less than TAC, 

almost always less than ABC, and is 

always less than OFL. Agency scientists 

are currently working on the 

development of objective rules for 

incorporating uncertainty in estimated 

stock biomass, catch rates, stock 

structure, and productivity. These rules, 

as noted earlier in this paper, must 

balance the risk of populations becoming 

depleted against the benefit to society of 

resource utilization. 

The NPFMC’s groundfish management 

strategy is designed to preserve 

biodiversity by protecting target species 

along with non-target species that are 

impacted by the fisheries. The FMPs 

identify four groups of species: 

prohibited species, target species, other 

species, and forage fish. The NPFMC is 

currently reviewing these categories in 

an effort to comply with proposed 

revisions to the guidelines for National 

Standard 1. Anticipated changes 

include a split of the “other species” 

complex into species assemblages that 

share common life history 

characteristics. Scientists from NOAA 

Fisheries’ Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center produce annual or biennial SAFE 

reports that document the status and 

trends of target and non-target species 

(e.g., other rockfish, other flatfish and 

other species) and provide ABC 

recommendations for both target and 

non-target species. 

The NPFMC’s groundfish FMPs also 

include constraints stemming from the 

ESA. Managers imposed time, area, and 

gear restrictions on the groundfish 

fishery to reduce direct and indirect 

mortality of Pacific salmon, short-tailed 

albatross, and Steller sea lions. These 

constraints, coupled with deterrents to 

the development of directed fisheries for 

forage species, act to mitigate adverse 

impacts of fishing on endangered 

species. A biomass control rule was 

established for pollock, Pacific cod, and 

Atka mackerel to preserve the forage 

base for Steller sea lions. 

The NPFMC groundfish FMPs have 

recently been reviewed with respect to 

protection of EFH. In Alaska, large 

areas are protected from the effects of 

fishing through seasonal or year-round 

closures (Witherell, 2005). The review 

of EFH found that current levels of 

harvest are not producing a measurable 

impact on the reproduction, growth, or 

distribution of managed species in 

Alaska. Despite this finding, the 

NPFMC recommended preemptive 

measures to protect habitats of particular 

concern and deep water corals. 

The practices of the NPFMC and ARO 

also comply with the goals of seeking 

public input on management decisions. 

The NPFMC and ARO recently 

completed a programmatic 

environmental impact statement on 

groundfish fisheries management in 

Alaska. Alternatives reviewed in this 
83

document were identified at public 

meetings. The document provided a 

clear assessment of the tradeoffs 

between management alternatives and 

the expected environmental impacts 

associated with each alternative. This 

process illustrates that compliance with 

the NEPA provisions contributes 

towards the goal of seeking and 

incorporating public input into decisionmaking. 

In conclusion, this brief review of 

Alaskan groundfish management 

illustrates that managers are taking 

incremental steps towards implementing 

EAM. The review also illustrates that, 

when these steps are taken, fisheries can 

be managed in a sustainable manner 

while providing economic benefits to the 

Nation. 
84

Appendix D: Legal Mandates

• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1268) 

• Coastal Zone Management Act (16 

U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.) 

• Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 

§§ 1531-1543) 

• Establishment of Great Lakes 

Research Office (33 U.S.C. § 1268(d)) 

• Establishment of the National 

Estuarine Research Reserve System (16 

U.S.C. § 1461) 

• Estuary (Estuarine) Protection Act 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 1221-1226) 

• Estuary Restoration Act (33 U.S.C. 

§§ 2901-2909) 

• Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 

(18 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2911) 

• Global Change Research Act (15 

U.S.C. §§ 2921-2961) 

• Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Research and Control Act (16 U.S.C. § 

1451) 

• Marine Migratory Gamefish Act (16 

U.S.C. § 760(e)) 

• National Aquaculture Act (16 U.S.C. 

§§ 2801-2810) 

• National Climate Program Act (15 

U.S.C. §§ 2901-2908) 

• National Coastal Monitoring Act (33 

U.S.C. §§ 2801-2805) 

• National Contaminated Sediment 

Assessment and Management Act 

(33 U.S.C. § 1271) 

• National Environmental Policy Act 

(42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347) 

• National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 

U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq.) 

• Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act, and 

National Invasive Species Act (16 

U.S.C. §§ 1431-1445) 

• Oceans and Human Health Act (33 

U.S.C. §§ 3101-3104) 

• Regional Marine Research Programs 

(16 U.S.C. § 1447(b)) 

• Water Resources Development Act: 

Great Lakes habitat remediation (33 

U.S.C. § 2326(b)) 

• Water Resources Development Act 

(33 U.S.C. § 2572) 
Appendix E: Examples of NOAA Ecological Forecasts 

(Operational and in Development) 

Ecological Forecast 

Categories/ 

Type 

Driver - Need Frequency 

of Forecast 

Spatial 

Extent of 

Forecast 

Products - 

Outputs 

User Community 

Predicting movement of hazardous spills 

-Disaster Planning -Living Resource Impact -Human Health Impact 

-Near-real time 

-Event Specific -Local -Regional 

-Trajectory of movement -Risk to living resources and humans 

-State managers -Federal managers -Emergency response personnel 

-I-I-I

Forecasting the distributions, abundance, and health of living resources 

-Stock Assessments -Living Resource Impact 

-Seasonal -Scenario 

-Regional -Species Distribution Range 

-Species distribution maps -Species abundance -Probability of rebuilding overfished species -Projects distribution and abundance 

-Fishery managers -Fishery management councils -State managers -Resource managers 

-I-I-I

Forecasting the effectiveness and optimal placement of MPA’s 

-Stock Assessments -Living Resource Impact 

-Scenario -Regional 

-Local 

-Species abundance, distribution, size structure and habitat maps -Optimal location of MPA’s 

-MPA managers -Resource managers 

-I

Predicting coral reef health and recovery after disturbance 

-Living Resource Impact 

-Scenario -Regional -Species survival 

probability -Habitat maps 

-Marine Sanctuary managers -Resource manager 

-I
86

Ecological Forecast 

Categories/ 

Type 

Driver - Need Frequency 

of Forecast 

Spatial 

Extent of 

Forecast 

Products - 

Outputs 

User Community 

Predicting larval transport and survival 

-Stock Assessments -Living Resource Impact 

-Daily to weekly 

-Regional -Trajectory of 

movement -Probability of survival at a given location 

-Marine Sanctuary managers -MPA managers -Fishery managers 

-I-I-I

Predicting organism distributions based on habitat mapping 

-Stock Assessments -Essential Fish Habitat -Living Resource Impact -Human health impacts 

-Scenario -Local 

-Regional 

-Species distribution maps -Habitat maps 

-Local and state managers -Resource managers 

-I-I-I

Development, persistence, movement and landfall of harmful algal blooms 

-Living Resource Impact -Human health impacts 

-Near real time -Daily -Scenario 

-Local -Regional 

-Trajectory of movement -Bloom identification -Probability of bloom initiation 

-Local and state managers -Resource managers 

-I-I-I

Coral bleaching forecasts -Living Resource 

Impact 

-Seasonal -Scenario 

-Regional -Global 

-Species survival probability 

-Marine Sanctuary managers -Resource manager 

-I

Effectiveness of habitat restoration 

-Living Resource Impact - Essential Fish Habitat 

-Seasonal -Yearly -Scenario 

-Local -Regional 

-Metric measuring restoration effectiveness 

-Resource managers -State managers -Federal managers 

-I-I

Effectiveness of hydropower system modifications for survival of migrating fish 

-Living Resource Impact -Endangered Species Act 

-Scenario -Yearly 

-Local - Probability of 

individual fish survival -Probability of species recovery 

-Local managers -State managers 

-IIn 
87

Ecological Forecast 

Categories/ 

Type 

Driver - Need Frequency 

of Forecast 

Spatial 

Extent of 

Forecast 

Products - 

Outputs 

User Community 

Projections of extinction risk for protected species 

-Living Resource Impact -Endangered Species Act 

-Scenario -Yearly 

-Local -Regional 

-Probability of species recovery 

-Resource managers 

-I-I

Forecasts of the coastal ecosystem effects associated with upstream water management alternatives 

-Living Resource Impact 

-Daily -Seasonal -Yearly -Scenario 

-Regional -Metrics for 

impacts to the ecosystem under study 

-City planners -Local managers -State managers -Federal managers 

-I

Beach closure forecasting -Human health 

impacts 

-Near real time -Daily 

-Local -Regional 

-Probability of exceeding health standards 

-Local managers -State managers 

-I

Impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems 

-Human health impacts -Living resource impact 

-Months -Decades -Scenario 

-Local -Regional 

-Habitat inundation maps -Metrics for impacts to the ecosystem under study 

-City and state planners -Local, state, Federal managers 

-I

Forecasts of physical dynamics and their impacts on the ecosystem 

-Living Resource Impact -Human health impact 

-Near real time -Daily -Seasonal -Scenario 

-Regional -Forecast maps and 

time-series of key physical parameters -Metrics of impacts to ecosystem under study 

-Resource managers -Federal managers -State managers 

-I-I-I

New non-native species introductions 

-Living Resource Impact 

-Scenario -Local 

-Regional 

-probability of species invasion 

-State managers -Federal managers 

-I

Drinking water quality and quantity 

-Human health impact 

-Scenario -Local 

-Regional 

-Probability of exceeding health standards 

-Local managers -State managers 

-I

Onset, extent and impact to living resources of hypoxia in coastal areas 

-Living Resource Impact 

-Near real time -Seasonal -Scenario 

-Local -Regional 

-spatial / temporal maps of hypoxia -metrics for living resources 

-State managers -Federal managers 

-I
88

Ecological Forecast 

Categories/ 

Type 

Driver - Need Frequency 

of Forecast 

Spatial 

Extent of 

Forecast 

Products - 

Outputs 

User Community 

Water quality forecasts -Living Resource 

Impact -Human health impact 

-Near real time -Daily -Seasonal -Scenario 

-Local -Regional 

-spatial and temporal maps of key water quality variables 

-State managers -Federal managers 

-I-I-I

Ice thickness/extent and ecological impacts 

-Living Resource Impact 

-Scenario -Local 

-Regional 

-Metrics for impacts to the ecosystem under study 

-Resource managers 

-I

Water quantity impact on living resources 

-Living Resource Impact 

-Daily -Seasonal -Scenario 

-Local -Regional 

-Metrics for impacts to the ecosystem under study 

-State managers -Federal managers -Resource managers 

-I

Forecast of shellfish toxicity -Living Resource 

Impact -Human health impact 

-Near real time -Daily 

-Local -toxin 

accumulation in shellfish 

-State managers -Resource managers 

-I
References 

Anderson, P. J. and J. F. Piatt. 1999. 

Community reorganization in the Gulf of 

Alaska following ocean climate regime 

shift. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 189: 117-

123. 

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 

[ACIA]. 2004. Impacts of a Warming 

Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact 

Assessment. Cambridge University 

Press. 

Atkinson, A., V. Siegel, E. Pakhomov, 

and P. Rothery. 2004. Long-term decline 

in krill stock and increase in salps within 

the Southern Ocean, Nature 432: 100-

103. 

Beechie, T. J., M. H. Ruckelshaus, E. 

Buhle, A. H. Fullerton, and L. Holsinger. 

2006. Hydrologic regime and the 

conservation of salmon life history 

diversity. Biological Conservation 130 

(4): 360-372. 

Boesch, D. F., J. C. Field, and D. Scavia 

(eds.). 2000. The potential consequences 

of climate variability and change on 

coastal areas and marine resources: 

report of the coastal areas and marine 

resources sector team, NOAA Coastal 

Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series 

No. 21, Silver Spring, MD., 163 pp. 

Brandt, S. B., D. M. Mason, M. J. 

McCormick, B. M. Lofgren, T. S. 

Hunter, and J. A. Tyler. 2002. Climate 

change: implications for fish growth 

performance in the Great Lakes, Am. 

Fish. Soc. Symp. 32: 61-76. 

Brandt, S. B., T. E. Croley, B. Eadie, G. 

Fahnenstiel, P. L. Landrum, G. 

Leshkevich, M. McCormick, and D. 

Schwab. 2004. NOAA’s Center of 

Excellence for Great Lakes and Human 

Health. Great Lakes Environmental 

Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI. 

Browman, H. I. and K. I. Stergiou. 2004. 

Perspectives on ecosystem-based 

approaches to the management of marine 

resources. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 274: 

269-303. 

Browman, H. I. and K. I. Stergiou. 2005. 

Politics and socio-economics of 

ecosystem-based approaches to the 

management of marine resources. Mar. 

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 275: 241-296. 

Brown, K., W. N. Adger, E. Tompkins, 

P. Bacon, D. Shim, and K. Young. 2001. 

Trade-off Analysis for Marine Protected 

Area Management. Ecological 

Economics 37: 417-434. 

Bunce, L., P. Townsley, R. Pomeroy, 

and R. Pollnac. 2000. Socioeconomic 

Manual for Coral Reef Management. 

Australian Institute of Marine Science. 

Cicin-Sain, B. and R. W. Knecht. 2000. 

The Future of U.S. Ocean Policy: 

Choices for the New Century. Island 

Press. 

Clark, J. S., S. R. Carpenter, M. Barber, 

S. Collins, A. Dobson, J. A. Foley, D. 

M. Lodge, M. Pascual, R. Pielke Jr., W. 

Pizer, C. Pringle, W. R. Reid, K. A. 

Rose, O. Sala, W. H. Schlesinger, D. H. 

Wall, and D. Wear. 2001. Ecological 

Forecasts: An Emerging Imperative. 

Science 293: 657- 660. 

Coastal States Organization [CSO]. 

2004. Improving Links between Science 

and Coastal Management: Results of a 

Survey to Assess State Coastal 
90

Management Science and Technology 

Needs. 

Committee on Environmental and 

Natural Resources [CENR]. 2001. 

Ecological Forecasting. Washington, 

D.C., 12 pp. 

Costanza, R., A. Voinov, R. Boumans, 

T. Maxwell, F. Villa, L. Wainger, and H. 

Voinov. 2002. Integrating ecological 

economic modeling of the Patuxent 

River watershed, Maryland. Ecological 

Monographs 72: 203-231. 

The Council of State Governments 

[CSG]. 2003. Water Wars. The Council 

of State Governments, Lexington, KY., 

22 pp. 

Courtney, F. and J. Wiggen. 2003. 

Ocean Zoning for the Gulf of Maine: A 

Background Paper (prepared for the Gulf 

of Maine Council for the Marine 

Environment). 

Daily, G. C., S. Alexander, P. R. Ehrlich, 

L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, 

H. A. Mooney, S. Postel, S. H. 

Schneider, D. Tilman, and G. M. 

Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem services: 

Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by 

Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology 

No. 2. Ecological Society of America, 

Washington, D.C., pp 275-293. 

DeMaster, D. P. and P. Sandifer. 2004. 

Final Summary Report: NOAA 

Workshop on Delineation of Regional 

Ecosystems. Charleston, South Carolina, 

31 August – 1 September 2004. 

http://ecosystems.noaa.gov/noaa_worksh

op_delineation_final.htm 

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. 

1999. Ecosystem-Based Fishery 

Management: A Report to Congress by 

the Ecosystem Principles Advisory 

Panel. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD., 

54 pp. 

Edwards, S. F., J. S. Link, and B. P. 

Rountree. 2004. Portfolio management 

of wild fish stocks. Ecological 

Economics 49: 317-329. 

Endter-Wada J., D. Blahna, R. Krannich, 

and M. Brunson. 1998. A Framework for 

Understanding Social Science 

Contributions to Ecosystem 

Management, Ecological Applications 8 

(3): 891-904. 

Executive Office of the President, 

Council on Environmental Quality 

[CEQ]. 2004. U.S. Ocean Action Plan: 

The Bush Administration’s Response to 

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 

39 pp. 

http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf 

Feely, R. A., C. L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. 

Berrelson, J. Kleypas, V. J. Fabry, and F. 

J. Millero. 2004. Impact of 

anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3

system in the oceans. Science 305 

(5682): 362-366. 

Field, J. G., G. Hempel, and C. P. 

Summerhayes. 2002. Oceans 2020: 

Science, Trends, and the Challenge of 

Sustainability. Island Press, Washington, 

D.C., 365 pp. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations, Fisheries 

Department [FAO]. 2003. The 

ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO 

Technical Guidelines for Responsible 
91

Fisheries. No. 4, Suppl. 2. Rome, FAO. 

112 pp. 

Freeman, A. M. III. 1993. The 

Measurement of Environmental and 

Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 

Resources for the Future, Washington, 

D.C. 

Goodman, D., M. Mangel, G. Parkes, T. 

Quinn, V. Restrepo, T. Smith, and K. 

Stokes. 2002. Scientific review of the 

harvest strategy currently used in the 

BSAI and GOA groundfish fishery 

Management Plans. Prepared for the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. 140 pp. 

Grebmeier, J. M., J. E. Overland, S. E. 

Moore, E. V. Farley, E. C. Carmack, L. 

W. Cooper, K. E. Frey, J. H. Helle, F. A. 

McLaughlin, and S. L. McNutt. 2006. A 

major ecosystem shift in the northern 

Bering Sea. Science 311: 1461-1464. 

Greene, C. M., D. Jensen, G. R. Pess, E. 

M. Beamer, and E. A. Steel. 2005. 

Effects of environmental conditions 

during stream, estuary, and ocean 

residency on Chinook salmon return 

rates in the Skagit River, WA. Trans. 

Amer. Fish. Soc. 134:1562-1581. 

Gulland, J. A. 1982. Long-term potential 

effects from management of the fish 

resources of the North Atlantic. J. Cons. 

Int. Expl. Mer. 40:6-16. 

Hall, S. J. and B. Mainprize. 2004. 

Towards ecosystem-based fisheries 

management. Fish and Fisheries 5:1-20. 

Hanna, S. S. 1998. Institutions for 

marine ecosystems: economic incentives 

and fishery management. Ecological 

Applications 8 (Supplement): S170-

S174. 

Hare, S. R. and N. J. Mantua. 2000. 

Empirical evidence for North Pacific 

regimes shifts in 1977 and 1989, Prog. 

Oceanogr. 47: 103-145. 

Health Canada. 1995. Great Lakes Water 

and your Health: A Summary of a Great 

Lakes Basin Cancer Risk Assessment: A 

Case-control Study of Cancers of the 

Bladder, Colon and Rectum. Great 

Lakes Health Effects Program, Ottawa, 

Canada. 

Health Canada. 1998. Health Canada 

Drinking Water Guidelines. It’s your 

Health. Fact Sheet Series, May 27, 1998. 

Hendee, J. C., E. Stabenau, L. Florit, D. 

Manzello, and C. Jeffris. 2006. 

Infrastructure and capabilities of a near 

real-time meteorological and 

oceanographic in situ instrumented 

array, and its role in marine 

environmental decision support. In:

Remote Sensing of Aquatic Coastal 

Ecosystem Processes, Laurie L. 

Richardson & Ellsworth Frank leDrew, 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 135-

156. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1999. Climate 

change, coral bleaching and the future of 

the world’s coral reefs, Marine and 

Freshwater Research 50: 839-866. 

Hollowed, A. B., and W. S. Wooster. 

1992. Variability of winter ocean 

conditions and strong year classes of 

Northeast Pacific groundfish, ICES Mar. 

Sci. Symp. 195: 433-444. 

Hutson, S. S., N. L. Barber, J. F. Kenny, 

K. S. Linsey, D. S. Lumia, and M. A. 

Maupin. 2004. Estimated Use of Water 

in the United States in 2000. USGS 

Circular 1268, United States Geological 

Survey, Reston, VA., 46 pp. 
92

Intergovernmental Oceanographic 

Commission [IOC]. 1984. Ocean 

Science for the Year 2000. Paris: 

Intergovernmental Oceanographic 

Commission, UNESCO. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change [IPCC]. 2001. Climate Change 

2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution 

of Working Groups I, II, and III to the 

Third Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core 

Writing Team (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom, and New York, N.Y., 398 pp. 

Juda, L. 1999. Considerations in 

Developing a Functional Approach to 

the Governance of Large Marine 

Ecosystems. Ocean Development and 

International Law 30: 89-125. 

Justic, D., R. E. Turner, and N. N. 

Rabalais. 2003. Climate influences on 

riverine nitrate flux: Implications for 

coastal marine eutrophication and 

hypoxia, Estuaries 26(1): 1-11. 

Kiffney, P. M., J. P. Bull, and M. C. 

Feller. 2002. Climatic and hydrologic 

variability in a coastal watershed of 

southwestern British Columbia. Journal 

of the American Water Resources 

Association 38:1437-1451. 

Kimmerer, W. J. 2002. Physical, 

biological, and management responses to 

variable freshwater flow into the San 

Francisco Estuary. Estuaries 25:1275-

1290. 

Kleypas, J. A., R. A. Feely, V. J. Fabry, 

C. Langdon, C. L. Sabine, and L. L. 

Robbins. 2006. Impacts of Ocean 

Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other 

Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future 

Research, report of a workshop held 18-

20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL, 

sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and U.S. 

Geological Survey, 88 pp. 

Lackey, R. T. 2001. Values, Policy, and 

Ecosystem Health. Bioscience 51 (6): 

437-443. 

Lackey, R. T. 2004. Normative science. 

Fisheries 29: 38-39. 

Larkin, P. A. 1996. Concepts and issues 

in marine ecosystem management.

Reviews Fish Biology and Fisheries

6:139-164. 

Leeworthy, V.R. and P. Wiley. 2001. 

Current Participation Patterns in Marine 

Recreation: National Survey on 

Recreation and the Environment 2000. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Special 

Projects, Silver Spring, MD. 47 p. 

Libecap, G. D. 1989. Contracting for 

property rights. Cambridge University 

Press, New York, NY. 

Link, J. S. 2002. Ecological 

considerations in fisheries management: 

When does it matter? Fisheries 27 (4): 

10-17. 

Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. 

M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A 

Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation 

with impacts on salmon production, 

Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 78: 1069-1079. 

Mascia, M. B. 2003. The Human 

Dimension of Coral Reef Marine 

Protected Ares: Recent Social Science 

Research and its Policy Implications. 

Conservation Biology 17 (2): 630-632. 
93

McCreary, S., J. Gamman, B. Brokks, L. 

Whitman, R. Bryson, B. Fuller, A. 

McInerny, and R. Glazer. 2001. 

Applying a Mediated Negotiation 

framework to Integrated Coastal Zone 

Management. Coastal Management 29: 

183-216. 

McGinn, N. A. (ed.). 2002. Fisheries in a 

changing climate, American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, MD., 319 pp. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 

2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, 

W. S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. 

Mantua, E. L. Miles, D. W. Peterson, D. 

L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A. K. 

Snover. 2003. Preparing for climatic 

change: the water, salmon, and forests of 

the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change

61, 45-88. 

Murawski, S. A. 1993. Climate change 

and marine fish distributions: 

Forecasting from historical analogy. 

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 122: 647-658. 

Murawski, S. A. 2000. Definitions of 

overfishing from an ecosystem 

perspective. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science 57: 649-658. 

Murawski, S. A. 2006. Top 10 Myths 

Concerning Ecosystem Approaches to 

Ocean Resource Management. 7th

Meeting, United Nations Open-Ended 

Informal Consultative Process on 

Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Panel 

Discussion: “Demystifying Ecosystem 

Approaches and Oceans” June 12-16, 

2006, NY. 5 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2001. A New 

Outlook from NOAA. Ecological 

Forecasting: Expanding NOAA’s 

Assessment and Prediction Capabilities 

to Support Proactive Ecosystem 

Management. 8 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2002. 

Proceedings of the ECOHAB/GLOBEC 

Gulf of Maine Modeling Workshop. 

Management and scientific 

informational needs for harmful algal 

bloom and fisheries forecasting in the 

Gulf of Maine: A framework for moving 

toward an operational capability, 52 pp. 

http://www.cop.noaa.gov/ecoforecasting

/workshops/GulfofMaine_wksp_report.p

df. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2003a. 

Ecological Forecasting: New Tools for 

Coastal and Marine Ecosystem 

Management, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 1, 118 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2003b. Social 

Science Research Within NOAA: 

Review and Recommendations. Final 

Report to the NOAA Science Advisory 

Board by the Social Science Review 

Panel. 96 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2004. New 

Priorities for the 21st Century- NOAA’s 

Strategic Plan: Updated for FY 2005- 

FY 2010, 28 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2005a. New 

Priorities for the 21st Century- NOAA’s 

Strategic Plan: Updated for FY 2006- 
94

FY 2011, 24 pp. 

http://www.spo.noaa.gov/pdfs/STRATE

GIC%20PLANS/Strategic_Plan_2006_F

INAL_04282005.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2005b. 

Research in NOAA: Toward 

Understanding and Predicting Earth’s 

Environment – A Five-Year Plan: Fiscal 

Years 2005-2009, 60 pp. 

http://nrc.noaa.gov/Docs/NOAA_5-

Year_Research_Plan_010605.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2005c. 

Understanding Global Ecosystems to 

Support Informed Decision-Making: A 

20-Year Research Vision. Washington, 

D.C., 16 pp. 

http://nrc.noaa.gov/Docs/Final_20-

Year_Research_Vision.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA] Fisheries. 2004. 

Developing Guidelines for Regional 

Marine Ecosystem Approaches to 

Management. (NOAA Fisheries Service 

Discussion Draft). U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

MD., 41 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA] National 

Marine Protected Areas Center. 2003. 

Social Science Research Strategy for 

Marine Protected Areas, 36 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA] National 

Marine Protected Areas Center. 2004. 

Stakeholder Participation: A Synthesis 

of Current Literature, 26 pp. 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mpa/Stakehold

er_Synthesis.pdf 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA] Program 

Planning and Integration. 2005. FY 2008 

- 2012 Annual Guidance Memorandum. 

National Research Council [NRC]. 1994. 

Priorities for Coastal Ecosystem 

Science. National Academy Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council [NRC]. 

1999a. Nature’s Numbers: Expanding 

the National Economic Accounts to 

Include the Environment. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council [NRC]. 

1999b. Sharing the fish: toward a 

national policy on individual fishing 

quotas. National Academy Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council [NRC]. 

1999c. Sustaining marine fisheries. 

National Academy Press, Washington, 

D.C. 

National Research Council [NRC]. 2001. 

Marine protected areas: tools for 

sustaining ocean ecosystems. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council [NRC]. 2002. 

Effects of trawling and dredging on 

seafloor habitat. National Academy 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council, Committee 

on Assessment of Water Resources 

Research [NRC]. 2004. Confronting the 

Nation’s Water Problems. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 310 

pp. 
95

National Research Council [NRC]. 2005. 

Decision Making for the Environment: 

Social and Behavioral Science Research 

Priorities. National Academies Press, 

Washington, D.C., 291 pp. 

National Science and Technology 

Council [NSTC]. 2004. Science and 

Technology to Support Fresh Water 

Availability in the United States. 

National Science and Technology 

Council, Committee on Environment 

and Natural Resoruces, Subcommittee 

on Water Availability and Quality, 

Washington, D.C., 19 pp. 

Orr, J. C., V. J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. 

Bopp, S. C. Doney, R. A. Feely, A. 

Gnanadesikan, N. Fruber, A. Ishida, F. 

Joos, R. M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. MaierReimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. 

Mouchet. R. G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, 

K. B. Rodgers, C. L. Sabine, J. L. 

Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R. D. Slater, I. 

J. Totterdel, M.-F. Weirig, Y. 

Yamanaka, and A. Yool. 2005. 

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over 

the twenty-first century and its impact on 

calcifying organisms. Nature 437: 681-

686. 

O’Hara, S. 1995. Discursive Ethics in 

Ecosystems Valuation and 

Environmental Policy. Ecological 

Economics 16: 95-107. 

Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding 

Institutional Diversity. Princeton 

University Press, Princeton, N.J., 376 

pp. 

Overland, J. E. and P. J. Stabeno. 2004. 

Is the climate of the Bering Sea warming 

and affecting the ecosystem? Eos Trans. 

Am. Geophys. Union 85(33): 309-316. 

Paerl, H. and D. F. Millie. 1996. 

Physiological Ecology of Toxic Aquatic 

Cyanobacteria. Phycologia Special 

Issue: Toxicology of Cyanobacteria 35 

(6 Supplement): 160-167. 

Palmer, M., E. Bernhardt, E. Chornesky, 

S. Collins, A. Dobson, C. Duke, B. 

Gold, R. Jacobson, S. Kingsland, R. 

Kranz, M. Mappin, M. L. Martinez, F. 

Micheli, J. Morse, M. Pace, M. Pascual, 

S. Palumbi, O. J. Reichman, A. Simons, 

A. Townsend, and M. Turner. 2004. 

Ecology for a crowded planet. Science

304: 1251-1252.

Parker, R. O., Jr. and R. L. Dixon. 1998. 

Changes in a North Carolina reef fish 

community after 15 years of intense 

fishing – global warming implications. 

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127: 908-920. 

Pearce, D. W. (ed.). 1992. MIT 

Dictionary of Modern Economics. MIT 

Press, Cambridge, MA. 486 pp. 

Pearcy, W. G. and A. Schoener. 1987. 

Changes in the marine biota coincident 

with the El Niño in the northeastern 

subarctic Pacific. J. Geophys. Res. 92: 

14, 417-14, 428. 

Perry, A. L., P. J. Low, J. R. Ellis, and J. 

D. Reynolds. 2005. Climate change and 

distribution shifts in marine fishes. 

Science 308: 1912-1915. 

Peterson, C. H., S. D. Rice, J. W. Short, 

D. Esler, J. L. Bodkin, B. E. Ballachey, 

and D. B. Irons. 2003. Long-term 

ecosystem response to the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill. Science 302: 2082-

2086. 

Peterson, W. T. and F. B. Schwing. 

2003. A new climate regime in northeast 
96

pacific ecosystems. Geophys. Res. Lett.

30(17): 1896. 

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. 

America’s Living Oceans: Charting a 

Course for Sea Change. 166 pp. 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_

oceans_final_report.pdf 

Pikitch, E. K., C. Santora, E. A. 

Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D. O. 

Conover, 

P. Dayton, P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. 

Heneman, E. D. Houde, J. Link, 

P. A. Livingston, M. Mangel, M. K. 

McAllister, J. Pope, and K. J. Sainsbury. 

2004. Ecosystem-Based Fishery 

Management. Science 305: 346-347. 

Polovina, J. J., E. Howell, D. R. 

Kobayashi, and M. P. Seki. 2001. The 

transition zone chlorophyll front, a 

dynamic global feature defining 

migration and forage habitat for marine 

resources. Prog. Oceanogr. 49 (1-4): 

469-483. 

Powell, G. L., J. Matsumoto, and D. A. 

Brock. 2002. Methods for determining 

minimum freshwater inflow needs of 

Texas bays and estuaries. Estuaries 25: 

1262-1274. 

Rappoport, D. 1998. Chapter 2. Defining 

Ecosystem Health. pp. 18-34. In:

Ecosystem Health. Balckwell Science, 

Inc., Malden, Massachusetts, 372 pp. 

Restrepo, V. R., G. G. Thompson, P. M. 

Mace, W. L. Gabriel, L. L. Low, A. D. 

MacCall, R. D. Methot, J. E. Powers, B. 

L. Taylor, P. R. Wade, and J. F. 

Witzig.1998. Technical guidance on the 

use of precautionary approaches to 

implementing National Standard 1 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-31, 54 pp. 

Rice, J. C. 2005. Implementation of the 

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries 

Management – Asynchronous coevolution at the Interface Between 

Science and Policy. In: Browman, H. I. 

and K. I. Stergiou (eds.). Politics and 

socio-economics of ecosystem-based 

approaches to the management of marine 

resources. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 275: 

265-270. 

Sainsbury, K. J., A. E. Punt, and A. D. 

M. Smith. 2000. Design of operational 

management strategies for achieving 

fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES J. 

Mar. Sci. 57 (3): 731-741. 

Schiffries, C. M. and A. Brewster (eds.). 

2004. Water for a Sustainable and 

Secure Future: A Report of the Fourth 

National Conference on Science, Policy 

and the Environment. National Council 

for Science and the Environment, 

Washington, D.C., 83 pp. 

Sissenwine, M. P. and P. M. Mace. 

2003. Governance for responsible 

fisheries: an ecosystem approach. In:

Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson (eds.), 

Responsible fisheries in the marine 

ecosystem. FAO, Rome, & CABI 

Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 

Stern, P. C., O. R. Young, and D. 

Druckman (eds.). 1992. Global 

Environmental Change: Understanding 

the Human Dimensions. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Sturdevant, R. 2004. Great Lakes 

Ecological Forecasting Needs 

Assessment. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum GLERL 131, 60 pp. 
97

Sutinen, J. G. and K. Kuperan. 1999. A 

Socioeconomic Theory of Regulatory 

Compliance. International Journal of 

Social Economics 26(11): 174-193. 

Sutinen, J. G., P. Clay, C. Dyer, S. 

Edwards, J. Gates, T. Grigalunas, T. 

Hennessey, L. Juda, A. Kitts, P. Logan, 

J. Poggie, B. Rountree, S. Steinback, E. 

Thunberg, H. Upton, and J. Walden. 

2005. A Framework for Monitoring and 

Assessing Socioeconomics and 

Governance of Large Marine 

Ecosystems. In T. A. Hennessey and J. 

G. Sutinen, Sustaining Large Marine 

Ecosystems: The Human Dimension. 

380 pp. 

Townsend, R.E. and S.G. Pooley. 1995. 

Distributed governance in fisheries., pp. 

47-58, In S. Hanna and M. Munasinghe 

(eds.). Property rights and the 

environment: social and ecological 

issues. Beijer International Institute of 

Ecological Economics and the World 

Bank, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 

2003. Strategic Plan for the Climate 

Change Science Program Final Report. 

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/s

tratplan2003/final/default.htm

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

[USCOP]. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for 

the 21st Century, 676 pp. 

http://oceancommission.gov/documents/

full_color_rpt/welcome.html#full

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

[EPA]. 2002. Community Culture and 

the Environment: Guide to 

Understanding Sense of Place. EPA 842-

B-01-003, Office of Water. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

[EPA]. 2005. National Coastal Condition 

Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. 

U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO]. 

2004. Watershed Management: Better 

Coordination of Data Collection Efforts 

Needed to Support Key Decisions. 

GAO-04-382, Washington, D.C., 145 

pp. 

Western Governors’ Association 

[WGA]. 2004. Creating a Drought Early 

Warning System for the 21st Century. 

Western Governors’ Association, 

Denver, CO., 13 pp. 

Whitman, R. L. and M. B. Nevers. 2003. 

Foreshore sand as a source of 

Escherichia coli in nearshore water of a 

Lake Michigan beach. Applied and 

Environmental Microbiology 69 (9): 

5555-5562. 

Witherell, D. (ed.). 2005. Managing our 

Nation’s Fisheries II: Focus on the 

future. Proceedings of a conference on 

fisheries management in the United 

States held in Washington, D.C., March 

24-26, 2005, pp. 34-39. 

World Health Organization [WHO]. 

1998. Expert meeting on beach public 

health issues, Annapolis, MD., Nov. 

1998 (Reported in: Bartram, J. and G. 

Reese. 2000. Monitoring Bathing 

Waters: A Practical Guide to the Design 

and Implementation of Assessments and 

Monitoring Programmes. E & FN Spon, 

London).