Developing Regional Marine Ecosystem 

Approaches to Management 

M.C. Holliday and A.B. Gautam, Editors 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-77 

February 2005

Developing Regional Marine Ecosystem 

Approaches to Management 

M.C. Holliday and A.B. Gautam, Editors 

NOAA Fisheries Service – Office of Policy 

From technical contributions by the editors and: 

Frank Almeida, Edmundo Casillas, Kevin Chu, Ned Cyr, David Detlor, Gerard DiNardo, Tanya 

Dobrzynski, Otha Easley, Alan Everson, Peter Fricke, John Hansel, Anne Hollowed, Jennifer 

Ise, Alvin Katekaru, Mike Laurs, Jason Link, Pat Livingston, Andy LoSchiavo, Michael Seki, 

Andy Smoker, Susan-Marie Stedman, John Stein, Dan Viele, James Weaver and Roger 

Zimmerman 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-77 

February 2005

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutiérrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

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

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

iii

Foreword 

In August 2003, NOAA Fisheries created a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan Working Group (FEPWG), 

comprised of representatives from NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) regional offices, science centers, 

and headquarters offices to produce guidelines for the creation of Fisheries Ecosystem Plans 

(FEPs). The FEP guidelines were intended to serve as the agency’s primary mechanism for 

adopting an ecosystem approach to living marine resource management. By April 2004, FEP 

guidelines were produced based on a review of existing ecosystem-based management plans; 

analyses of the literature on ecosystem management approaches; and a series of discussions and 

briefings among the science and management experts on the FEPWG and NMFS experts in 

fisheries, protected resources, habitat, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and senior 

leadership. 

However, review of these guidelines by senior NMFS leadership and the release of the 

preliminary report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy suggested a significant broadening 

of the scope was needed. The guidelines needed to go beyond fisheries to more encompassing 

regional marine ecosystem strategies across many sectors. This would enable other agencies and 

stakeholders besides NOAA, with interests and regulatory authority for transportation, energy, 

water and air quality, permitting, etc., to participate in a common venue and use a collaborative 

process to develop integrated approaches to management for consumptive and non-consumptive 

uses of the ecosystem, not just those under NOAA’s authority. A revised draft encompassing 

multi-sector approaches was prepared by August 2004. 

By the close of the year an alternative leadership strategy was adopted: to prepare new 

guidelines for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in direct collaboration with 

Regional Fishery Management Councils, overtaking the need for this document. Nonetheless, 

this research by the FEPWG represents a cogent set of ideas and recommendations of NOAA 

Fisheries Service experts from many disciplines that can be used to stimulate future discussion 

of how an ecosystem approach to management could move forward. 
iv
v

Table of Contents 

Foreword........................................................................................................................................iii 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................... vii 

List of Acronyms .........................................................................................................................viii 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ x 

Section 1: Background and Context .............................................................................................. 1 

1.1 An ecosystem approach to management.............................................................................. 1 

1.2 National and international advances in EAM ...................................................................... 3 

1.3 Scale and scope of the RMES and RMEIPs ........................................................................ 5 

Section 2: A Collaborative Planning Process ................................................................................ 5 

2.1 Institutional structure for developing the RMES and RMEIPs ........................................... 5 

2.2 Process for developing the RMES and RMEIPs.................................................................. 7 

2.3 Timeframe for developing and revising the RMES and RMEIPs ..................................... 11 

2.4 Contents of the RMES ....................................................................................................... 11 

2.4.1 Statement of current management issue ..................................................................... 12 

2.4.2 Definition of the regional ecosystem management area............................................. 13 

2.4.3 Strategic goals ............................................................................................................ 13 

2.4.4 Operational goals and objectives ............................................................................... 14 

2.4.4.1 Incorporating uncertainty and the precautionary approach into objectives....... 17

2.4.5 Assessment of drivers and uses................................................................................... 18 

2.4.6 Performance measures................................................................................................ 21 

2.4.7 Iterative management process.................................................................................... 22 

Section 3: Regional Marine Ecosystem Implementation Plans ................................................... 23 

3.1 Description of management authorities ............................................................................. 23 

3.1.1 Management authorities and responsibilities.............................................................. 24 

3.2 List of actions..................................................................................................................... 26 

3.3 Performance measures ....................................................................................................... 27 

3.4 Monitoring, evaluating and revising the RMEIP............................................................... 27 

3.4.1 Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 27 

3.4.2 Evaluating and revising the RMEIP ........................................................................... 28 

Section 4: Summary and Conclusion........................................................................................... 29

References..................................................................................................................................... 31 

Appendix A................................................................................................................................... 33 
vi

List of Tables 

Table 1 Roles and responsibilities for development and implementation of the 

RMES/RMEIPs ............................................................................12 

Table 2 Analysis of the effect of factors on operational objectives .......................... 19 

Table 3 Example of responsible agencies and mandates for factors in the regional 

ecosystem management area ............................................................ 25 
vii

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Continuum from single species to multi-sector ecosystem approach 

to fisheries management................................................................... 2 

Figure 2 Proposed coordination process........................................................... 6 

Figure 3 Multi-sector EAM, each line represents a stakeholder interaction or 

sector impact................................................................................ 7 

Figure 4 Process for developing a management plan ........................................... 8 

Figure 5 Development process for a Regional Marine Ecosystem Strategy, and creating 

Regional Marine Ecosystem Implementation Plans................................... 10 

Figure 6 Relationship between indicators, reference points and performance measures... 21 

Figure 7 The integration of a top-down and bottom-up ecosystem approach 

to management............................................................................. 30
viii

List of Acronyms 

APA Administrative Procedures Act 

COE Corps of Engineers 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOS Department of State 

EAF Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries 

EAM Ecosystem Approach to Management 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement, NEPA 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit 

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

FEP Fisheries Ecosystem Plan 

FEPWG Fisheries Ecosystem Plan Working Group, NOAA Fisheries 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

FOCI Fisheries Oceanography Coordinated Investigations 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI 

GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

GLOBEC Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics 

IFA Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 

LME Large Marine Ecosystem 

LMR Living Marine Resources 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

LO Line office (NOAA) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

MAFAC Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee 

MARAD Maritime Administration 
ix

MBTA Migratory Birds Treaty Act 

MMA Marine Managed Area 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

NGO Non-governmental organization 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NMS National Marine Sanctuaries 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOS National Ocean Service 

NPS National Park Service 

NRC National Research Council 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA 

PPI Program, Planning and Integration Office (NOAA) 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis (E.O. 12866) 

RIR Regulatory Impact Review 

RFMC Regional Fishery Management Council 

RMEIP Regional Marine Ecosystem Implementation Plan 

RMES Regional Marine Ecosystem Strategy 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development 
x

Executive Summary 

One of the four cornerstone goals of NOAA’s Strategic Plan is to “protect, restore and manage 

coastal and ocean resources through an ecosystem approach” (NOAA, 2003b). However, no 

single federal, state or local entity has full authority over all sectors impacting coastal and ocean 

resources or marine ecosystems. No one entity can succeed in protecting and conserving marine 

ecosystems by itself. Therefore, guidance would be helpful on how to promote cross-sector 

discussion and actions beyond NOAA that are necessary to implement an ecosystem approach to 

management (EAM) of the entire ecosystem. At the same time, guidance for advancing an EAM 

within NOAA Fisheries or any other entity’s individual management authority would also be 

useful. This paper outlines two parallel EAM options to assist in the management of coastal and 

ocean resources. 

The first EAM process is a top-down approach. The paper describes how multiple sectors with 

different interests, objectives and management authorities for components of a marine ecosystem 

can work together. The goal is to create a common strategy that results in the optimal 

sustainable value to society from the regional marine ecosystems of the nation. The paper 

describes a process that integrates the management authorities and interests in an ecosystem 

across traditionally separate management and use sectors. The result of this voluntary top-down 

process is called a Regional Marine Ecosystem Strategy (RMES). The targeted participants for 

this process include federal and state agencies, tribes, industry and resource users, community 

and NGO interest groups, academia and the general public. For example, Regional Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA would represent the fisheries sector during generation of the 

RMES since they have the regulatory and governance authority over this sector in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone. This RMES would be a collaboratively-derived statement that defines strategic 

goals and objectives for a given ecosystem management area. 

The second EAM process is bottom-up. For example, NOAA has an ongoing requirement to 

carry out its statutory responsibilities for stewardship of specific components of the ecosystem, 

(e.g., the fisheries sector) while cross-sector management evolves. Within the fisheries sector, 

work has already been initiated on developing fisheries ecosystem plans (FEPs) or their 

equivalent in partnerships with state, regional and international fisheries agencies, especially 

with the Regional Fishery Management Councils created by the Magnuson Stevens Act. 

Progress must continue in advancing this bottom-up approach to fisheries management in an 

ecosystem context. The fisheries sector (and other sectors) must continue to resolve issues under 

their own sector-specific authority since that is where the regulatory and governance authority 

exists. However, FEPs and other sector-specific plans must be coordinated and fit into the larger 

top-down cross-sector EAM for the entire ecosystem. 

The paper identifies a possible mechanism of how this might occur: the RMES could be carried 

out via subordinate Regional Marine Ecosystem Implementation Plans (RMEIPs) created by 

management agencies using their existing authorities within each sector. For example, based on 

the goals and objectives in the RMES, subsequent implementation of FEPs and regulations 

would be the responsibility of Regional Fishery Management Councils and NOAA. The 

implementation plans would contain prescriptive actions to achieve the objectives, align with the 
xi

RMES, and include quantifiable measures to monitor performance. The process is scaleable for 

different levels of governance, from RMESs for the nation’s large marine ecosystems (LMEs) 

(Sherman, 1994) to any of the smaller nested ecosystem units that comprise them. The proposed 

process draws on international and national ecosystem principles and mandates, and experience 

in the science and stewardship of coastal and marine resources. 

The paper is organized into three sections. The first section describes the national and regional 

context for an ecosystem approach to management (EAM) in the U.S. Neither the concept nor 

the practice is new, but the proposed integration of management efforts across multiple sectors 

and various levels of government and the affected public is new territory. The recent history of 

progress in ecosystem science and management principles domestically and internationally is 

briefly described as background for the proposed process. The second section of the document 

outlines a voluntary collaborative planning process that aims to reconcile and manage the 

diverse interests and uses of marine ecosystems, describing the participants in the process and 

their respective roles and responsibilities. This section suggests a cycle of planning and 

consensus building around a core set of ecosystem principles. The output is a RMES. The third 

and final section describes an example of the implementation process for management within a 

sector. An FEP process is used as a case study to describe what stimulates modification or 

creation of new regulations, and in some cases new forms of governance, to achieve the 

objectives derived in the planning process. 

Consideration of this process by other sectors than fisheries will enable agencies and 

stakeholders to participate in a common venue and use a collaborative process to develop 

integrated management approaches for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of the 

ecosystem. The intent is to include multiple interests and regulatory authorities for sectors that 

impact the ecosystem such as transportation, energy, water and air quality, etc., not just those 

uses under one sector’s authority. The paper suggests the key to success is collaboration with 

other federal, international, state, local, tribal and non-governmental organization (NGO) 

partners, as well as the public. A successful ecosystem approach to management is a 

combination of top down discussions on ecosystem goals and objectives, complemented by 

bottom up implementation of actions and regulations. 
1

Section 1: Background and Context 

1.1 An ecosystem approach to management 

NOAA has adopted a common lexicon across its various line offices to promote a shared 

understanding and usage of ecosystem concepts (NOAA, 2003a). For the purpose of this 

document: 

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 ecosystem approach to management (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. 

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 in hand to fully 

implement ecosystem approaches overnight in every region. 

For example, progress towards an ecosystem approach can occur in stages along a continuum 

(see Figure 1). Management stages within the living marine resource (LMR) sector under an 

ecosystem approach can be categorized into at least three levels. The first level is single species 

management of targeted resources, with issues such as protected species, non-target species, and 

habitat factors incorporated into management decisions as important considerations. The second 

level is a multi-species aggregate and system level approach. This brings in important ecological 

and environmental factors, such as trophic structure, carrying capacity, climate anomalies or 

regime shifts as they influence the condition of the ecosystem. It is the interactions of the 

multiple species across these natural and anthropogenic factors that differentiates this level from 

single species management. The third level is a comprehensive, multiple sector approach that 

captures the human activities and values associated with all external influences (fishing and nonfishing sectors) that impact the condition and sustainability of ecosystems (not just focusing on 

living marine resource conservation or extraction, but including alternative uses of and impacts 

on marine ecosystems by transportation, military, and oil and gas sectors, for example). 

Moving forward incrementally is suggested. While agencies should strive to achieve multisector regional ecosystem approaches in the long term, intermediate outcomes at both the first 

and second levels should be sought in the near term. For example, NOAA has already made 

progress in incorporating environmental indicators into stock assessments and subsequent 

management policies in several regions (see FOCI and GLOBEC references below for example). 

Resources, data and the management questions in a specific region will dictate where single 

species, multi-species and multi-sector management of fisheries can take place. What is most 

important is to adopt the overall context of an ecosystem approach in the science and policy 

making. Then, as the available science, resources and priorities dictate, incremental components 
2

of an ecosystem approach can be worked on at whatever level of effort is chosen. This is 

preferred to forgoing any attempt at an ecosystem approach because a full multi-sector approach 

is unattainable. Specific examples of how NOAA has been contributing to the development of 

ecosystem management practices at all three levels simultaneously can be found in Section 1.2. 

Figure 1. Single sector EAM continuum, (adapted from Link, 2002). 

Lack of data is not a valid reason for inaction. Internationally, the precautionary principle has 

been interpreted to mean that insufficient data, models or governance structures to attain the full 

regional ecosystem level of management should not be used as an excuse to ignore some of the 

issues at the second level that sorely need to be addressed. In the U.S., this has generally not 

been a problem, as the MSFCMA and other statutes require that management proceed based on 

the best available science. 

An EAM is also a collaborative process since the governance authorities for ecosystem 

management are distributed across many levels of government, and successful management 

requires participation of many different stakeholder groups in the public and private sectors. 

Unlike Canada, whose Oceans Act of 1997 provides it’s Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with 

the responsibility and authority to implement a national strategy for the management of 

estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems, the U.S. has distributed the equivalent authority among 

20 different agencies under a myriad of statutes. As noted in the US Commission on Ocean 

Policy Report (2004, p. 46): 

“Ocean issues” include virtually every aspect of the government’s duties, from promoting 

international commerce to protecting the environment, and from guarding national security to 

facilitating tourism and recreation. More than half of the fifteen existing cabinet-level 

departments, plus several independent agencies, play important roles in the development of ocean 

and coastal policy... Many individual programs within these departments and agencies administer 

specific initiatives that address varying, and sometimes overlapping, ocean and coastal issues... 

The NOAA mission of LMR stewardship itself encompasses hundreds of statutory authorities 

cutting across many industries, interest groups, sectors of the economy, stakeholders, 

Gadids Pelagics

Flatfish Disease, Genetic 

diversity, 

Fecundity, Migration, 

Stock recruitment, etc 

Predation, 

Competition,

Mutualism, 

etc 

Technical interactions, 

Biomass allocation 

Biodiversity, etc 

Habitat, Climate, etc

FEP 

Cod Gadids

Fisheries within Sector View of EAM continuum 

Stock/single species ÎÎ Multi-species ÎÎ Aggregate 

Biomass ÎÎ

Fisheries 

Ecosystem 

Plan 

Protected

LMRs
3

constituents and partners. The value of these guidelines to NOAA and its partners is to help cut 

across these differences to create an agreed-upon set of LMR objectives, and ensure consistent 

and effective implementation of actions and regulations. Adoption of this process by other 

agencies will bring their regulatory and governance decisions into similar alignment, such that 

the sum of all ecosystem approaches to fisheries, water and air quality, agriculture, energy, 

forestry, coastal zone, and transportation activities produces the greatest benefit to the nation as a 

whole. 

1.2 National and international advances in EAM 

EAM is not a new concept. Many activities in the last decade have incorporated ecological and 

environmental effects into the management of fisheries, protected resources and habitat. Almost 

two decades ago NOAA published (NMFS, 1987) a program development plan for ecosystems 

monitoring and fisheries management that outlined management objectives, strategies, structure, 

reporting and coordination objectives for seven regional marine ecosystems within U.S. 

jurisdictions or containing resources of U.S interest (i.e., Antarctic). In the 1996 Sustainable 

Fisheries Act Amendments to the MSFCMA, Congress included amendments establishing an 

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel to expand the application of ecosystem principles in 

fishery conservation and management activities. Now, a growing international and domestic 

consensus has been developing on the application of ecosystem principles to LMR management 

challenges. Developments include: 

• The eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (established under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) and NOAA have increasingly incorporated an ecosystem approach into the development 

and implementation of 48 Fishery Management Plans and numerous international fisheries 

management agreements. Further progress on incorporating ecological and environmental 

factors into their policy decisions along the continuum to a fully integrated multi-sector 

ecosystem approach will be based on recent successes, such as the Western Pacific Council 

Coral Reef Ecosystem Plan and the North Pacific Council Groundfish Plans. 

• The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has been advancing 

ecosystem principles under the auspices of its evolving Code of Conduct for Responsible 

Fisheries (FAO, 1995). For example, in October 2001, the Conference on Responsible 

Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem held in Reykjavik, Iceland, produced a Reykjavik 

Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (FAO, 2001) that asserted the 

need to: 

“...strengthen, improve, and where appropriate establish, regional and international fisheries 

management organizations and incorporate in their work ecosystem considerations and improve 

cooperation between those bodies and regional bodies in charge of managing and conserving the 

marine environment.” 

As further follow-up to promoting ecosystem approaches to fisheries (EAF), FAO (2003) 

also produced technical guidelines for responsible fisheries that: 

“... describe how the current management process would change under EAF. Although the EAF 

management process uses essentially the same cycle of planning, implementation and evaluation, 

there is a need to provide for better consultation with a broader range of stakeholders, and for a 
4

more rigorous setting of operational objectives, decision rules and evaluation of management 

performance.” 

• NOAA has been a world leader in defining, coordinating research and developing processes 

for stewardship of the world’s 64 ‘Large Marine Ecosystems’ (LMEs), seven of which are 

within U.S. waters. NOAA has pioneered the LME scale, which defines LMEs as “regions 

of ocean space encompassing coastal areas from river basins and estuaries to the seaward 

boundaries of continental shelves and the outer margins of the major current systems” 

(UNIDO, 2002). LMEs are relatively large regions, on the order of 200,000 km2 or greater, 

characterized by distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically dependent 

populations. At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), over 100 

countries adopted the following ecosystem related targets (U.N., 2002): 

o Substantial reductions in land-based sources of pollution by 2006;

o Introduction of the ecosystems approach to marine resource assessment and 

management by 2010;

o Designation of a network of marine protected areas by 2012; and

o Maintenance and restoration of fish stocks to maximum sustainable yield by 2015.

• Another development at the WSSD was the commitment of nearly 50 countries, including the 

U.S., to develop a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), integrating earth 

observations from all countries to provide researchers and managers around the globe with 

access to comprehensive data streams on weather, climate, oceans, land, geology, natural 

resources, ecosystems, and natural and human-induced hazards. The quality and quantity of 

data available from GEOSS and the Integrated Ocean Observing System (the U.S. ocean 

component of the global system) will provide a substantial source of new and improved data 

for use in EAM. 

• Multidisciplinary fisheries oceanography research by NOAA has already been integrated into 

management decisions through coordinated ecological research. These programs target the 

physical and biological processes (i.e., recruitment variability, compensatory mechanisms, 

and species interactions) that control the abundance of living marine resource populations. 

Secondarily, these projects enhance the ability to identify, understand and manage 

anthropogenic impacts to marine ecosystems against the background of natural system 

variability. Still other programs investigate the scientific bases for defining policy issues 

relative to climate-driven environmental change and renewable resource use over much 

longer time periods and greater spatial (global) scales. Relevant examples include: 

o U.S. GLOBEC (GLOBal ocean ECosystems dynamics), a research program that 

addresses how global climate change may affect the abundance and production of 

animals in the sea. Ocean circulation and other aspects of the physical environment are 

major factors controlling patterns of marine animal abundance. 

o FOCI (Fisheries-Oceanography Coordinated Investigations), investigating the 

recruitment of walleye pollock in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. 

o SABRE (South Atlantic Bight Recruitment Experiment), researching the relationship 

between variation in environmental factors and the variable recruitment of "estuarine 

dependent" fishes, principally menhaden, in the South Atlantic. 
5

• Several recent policy reports have focused interest on ecosystem approaches (e.g., the 2003 

Pew Ocean Commission report; the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee’s Ecosystem 

Approach Task Force report (2003); the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

(2004)). Each has advised NOAA and NOAA Fisheries to advance and adopt an EAM. 

 

1.3 Scale and scope of the RMES and RMEIPs

The proposed process in section 2 is designed to promote integrated regional marine ecosystem 

approaches to management by federal and state agencies and their stakeholders. The regional

focus of the process is important since many of the specific factors or drivers affecting 

ecosystems are unique to a region, such that the relevant stakeholders or prescribed actions and 

regulations are derived best as regional-level solutions. Nationwide processes and standards for 

the regional approaches are suggested, however, to provide consistency and efficiency. The 

marine focus of the process intentionally focuses the scope on a subset of the Earth’s ecosystems 

for practical reasons, yet it is acknowledged that an EAM must include the complexity of air-sealand interactions. Thus, while the focus is marine ecosystems, the reach of the proposed process 

includes coastal and estuarine areas including the associated watersheds, as well as inland areas 

where activities create consequences that impact marine ecosystems. 

While the proposed process is generic enough to develop a RMES for an entire LME, for reasons 

of feasibility and tractability in implementation it is more likely the process will be applied at 

smaller scale management areas than a LME. While scientific information from LME-scale 

research can inform development of management strategies, the scale of the management area 

should be commensurate with management bodies that are empowered to set objectives. In other 

words, RMES boundaries should be based on the spatial extent of the ecosystem characteristics 

and/or dynamic processes that are to be studied or influenced through management. This 

includes accounting for natural discontinuities in oceanographic and/or bathymetric features, the 

geographic distribution of ecosystem characteristics and political/management jurisdictions. 

This will most likely lead to a suite of nested ecosystems, specified at a hierarchy of scales with 

boundaries that sometimes overlap. More specific guidance for delineation of boundaries is 

discussed in section 2.4.2. 

Section 2: A Collaborative Planning Process 

2.1 Coordination process for developing the RMES and RMEIPs

The institutional structure for producing a RMES and RMEIPs needs to acknowledge existing 

organizations, statutes and missions. However, for each marine ecosystem, some new venue is 

required to bring together diverse sectors for developing integrated strategic goals and 

operational objectives for the region being managed (Figure 2). Creation and participation in 

such a venue would be voluntary, and its purpose would be to promote communication and 

collaboration, integrating input from federal and state regulatory agencies and their stakeholders. 

It would not have any independent regulatory or statutory authority nor would any be required. 

The exact form and structure would vary based on the needs and requirements of each ecosystem 

region. Since NOAA’s research and management interests span all the targeted ecosystems, it 

makes sense for NOAA to consider serving as the secretariat for each venue to facilitate the 

process and document the results (this role for NOAA is not a requirement; some other entity 
6

could volunteer). All stakeholders and partners with interest in the marine ecosystem would be 

represented (e.g., federal, state, local agencies, Regional Fishery Management Councils, 

commissions, boards; existing advisory bodies; industry/trade associations; conservation 

organizations; community and interest groups; academia/researchers; general public). Individual 

work groups would be created to research and discuss specific technical or management issues 

surrounding the strategic goals and objectives. 

Figure 2. Proposed coordination process for cross-sector communication and planning.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463, 1972) requires federal agencies creating an 

advisory body containing non-federal membership for purposes of deriving consensus 

recommendations to create a charter and seek prior approval at the highest levels in their 

Executive Branch and by the General Services Administration. The proposed coordination 

process would require such approval if it took the form of a federally-sponsored committee or 

board. 

Unless or until FACA approval is obtained, an alternative regional ecosystem coordinating 

function would need to be organized and created by a non-federal entity. Nevertheless, federal 

agencies would still continue their intergovernmental consultations with each other and state, 

local and tribal governments, and solicitation of information and viewpoints from individual 

stakeholder groups (FACA prohibits unapproved groups from soliciting advice, opinions or 

recommendations from a group of stakeholder groups acting in a collective mode). This 

Coordination Process 

Ecosystem-specific venue for 

information sharing, discussing 

strategic goals and objectives across 

sectors 

 Federal, State, Local Agencies 

Regional Fishery Mgt. Councils 

 Tribal Organizations 

 Industry & resource users 

 Community & NGO interest groups 

 Academia 

Public 

Secretariat 

(NOAA, 

others?)

Implementation, 

Operations & 

Regulations 

Federal & State 

Regulators 

Work Groups 

Work Groups 

Work Groups 

Work Groups 

Task / 

IssueSpecific 

Help 

Coordination 

Support 

Recommendations 
7

coordinating function could still be supported by a NOAA secretariat function. In addition, using 

the current institutional framework would include access to existing FACA-approved advisory 

committees of individual agencies (over 1,000 already exist). Such groups could provide input 

to their respective federal agencies so they can bring such information forward to the 

intergovernmental group (an all-federal group would be FACA-exempt). For example, the eight 

Regional Fishery Management Councils established under the MSFCMA, the three Interstate 

Marine Fisheries Commissions and the FACA-approved Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee 

are examples of well-established collaborative partnerships in NOAA that could contribute 

inputs for creating goals and objectives for a RMES from the LMR perspective. 

In the long term, Congressional action may resolve the FACA issue, or FACA approval could be 

obtained. A variety of Congressional opportunities are forthcoming (e.g., responses to findings of 

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; authorization of a NOAA Organic Act; reauthorization of 

the MSFCMA) that could create new FACA-exempt venues, or the process for obtaining FACA 

approval could be satisfied over time. 

The creation of such a venue will provide for a top-down EAM that brings together multiple 

sectors with different interests, objectives and management authorities for components of a 

marine ecosystem in one place (virtually if not geographically) to work together. Their goal 

would be to create a common strategy that results in the optimal sustainable value to society 

from the regional marine ecosystem of interest. This differs from the status quo in that it 

integrates the management authorities and interests in an ecosystem across traditionally separate 

management and use sectors. The result of this voluntary top-down process is called a Regional 

Marine Ecosystem Strategy (RMES). Figure 3 depicts the interactions in this top-down approach. 

Figure 3. Multi-sector EAM, each line represents a stakeholder interaction or sector impact 

2.2 Process for developing the RMES and RMEIPs 

Many models exist in the literature to describe the process for developing management plans in 

an ecosystem context. Figure 4 shows the approach suggested by FAO and is a useful starting 

point. Despite its strong linear/sequential approach, it emphasizes the underlying importance of 

Tourism/recreation Sector 

Transportation Sector

 Highway runoff 

 Construction 

 Shipping: strikes, channels 

 Ballast water/invasive spp. 

Coastal Develop. Sector

 Sand/gravel extraction 

 Aquaculture 

 Dredge spoil 

 Pipelines and cables 

Military Sector

 Acoustics 

 Ordinance 

Energy Sector

 Oil/gas extraction 

 Wind farms 

 Hydropower 

 Thermal effluent 

Upland Develop. Sector

 Air quality 

 Water quality 

 Agriculture 

 Silviculture 

 Waste treatment 

Fisheries Sector
8

broadening stakeholder participation. Consultations with stakeholders occur continuously 

throughout the development and implementation process, not just in the initial scoping process or 

the final stages of implementation. 

The integrated management framework of Canada for estuarine, coastal and marine 

environments (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2001) is a simpler variation and is comprised of 

five inter-related stages:

1. Define and assess the management area 

2. Engage the affected interests 

3. Develop the integrated management plan 

4. Implement the plan 

5. Monitor and evaluate outcomes 

The strengths of this framework include its simplicity, and the feedback built into the 

progression through the stages. All stages occur simultaneously as the process advances. The 

adaptive nature of this cycle is desirable as the dynamics and uncertainties of ecosystems warrant 

a strong iterative approach. 

Similarly, Australia’s Oceans Policy (1998) outlines the following steps for development 

of Regional Marine Plans: 

4.1.2 Scoping

[Fishery & area,

Stakeholders,

Broad issues]

Consultation with stakeholders

4.1.3 Background information & analysis

4.1.5 Formulating rules

Implementation & enforcement

4.1.4 Setting objectives

[Broad objectives,

Operational objectives,

Indicators & performance

measures]

4.1.6 Monitoring

4.1.6 Long-term review

4.1.6 Short-term assessments & review

3-5 years

annual

Figure 4. Process for Developing a 

Management Plan (FAO, 2003) 
9

1. Assess our ocean resources, on a biogeographical basis 

2. Understand the current uses of those resources and the emerging pressures on them 

3. Evaluate what is needed to maintain ecosystem health and integrity, and the implications 

for sectoral activities and conservation reservation 

4. Propose allocations of ocean resources, delivered principally through existing responsible 

sectoral management arrangements, using multiple use principles to generate income and 

employment and to optimize long-term benefits to the community 

5. Assess and control the external impacts of proposed resources uses 

6. Continually monitor the performance of ocean planning and management processes; and 

7. Maintain flexibility to respond to emerging information within this broad framework 

Following these precedents, nine operational steps are recommended for adoption. They are 

based on work within NOAA by a multidisciplinary team assigned the responsibility for 

ecosystems under the NOAA Strategic Plan (NOAA, 2004). Together, these steps refine the 

design, implementation and evaluation process for creating goals and objectives. 

 

1. Formalize agreements on how ecosystem-oriented institutions will operate 

2. Identify stakeholders and partners 

3. Identify the ecosystem-level issues or problems to be addressed 

4. Determine major factors/stressors that affect ecosystem performance and conduct 

ecological risk/benefit assessments 

5. Establish objectives and targets for specific ecosystem parameters 

6. Establish strategies for achieving targets and performance measures 

7. Determine research, resource and information needs 

8. Design ecosystem-level systems for information and monitoring 

9. Implement, monitor and adapt plans as needed 

Execution of these various steps results in the proposed process for producing a RMES and 

RMEIPs as shown in Figure 5. Multiple regulatory authorities and stakeholders would engage in 

a public process where statutory mandates and stakeholder interests would come together for 

discussion and debate. The public participation process would capture the informed input from 

all relevant stakeholders to evaluate options. A wide variety of public meetings and other 

mechanisms for eliciting stakeholder preferences for goals and objectives should be used (e.g., 

telephone and mail surveys, voice mail or email comments, WWW response site, town meetings, 

advisory committees, listening/focus groups, input from existing boards and organizations, 

individual interviews). 

Broad participation in RMES development should be sought and include commercial interests, 

environmental interests, and the general public. The intent is to create a transparent and inclusive 

process for generating goals, objectives and performance measures. For each ecosystem 

management area, it will be necessary to identify which stakeholders need to be involved, in 

what capacity and to what extent. The following questions are suggested to help frame these 

decisions: 
10

Other Regulatory/Governance Authorities...

Agency-specific strategies/prescribed management actions including list of 

activities, regulations & performance measures/metrics

COE Regional Marine Ecosystem Implementation Plan 

Agency-specific strategies/prescribed management actions including list of 

activities, regulations & performance measures/metrics

• Definition & overview of management area 

• Information necessary to understand and make management decisions 

• Application of NOAA Fisheries management authorities in FEP context 

• Identification and evaluation of NOAA Fisheries management options 

• Preferred management actions 

• Performance measures and ecosystem monitoring 

• Process for adaptive management feedback loop 

EPA Regional Marine Ecosystem Implementation Plan 

Agency-specific strategies/prescribed management actions including list of 

activities, regulations & performance measures/metrics

• Definition & overview of management area 

• Information necessary to understand and make management decisions 

• Application of NOAA Fisheries management authorities in FEP context 

• Identification and evaluation of NOAA Fisheries management options 

• Preferred management actions 

• Performance measures and ecosystem monitoring 

• Process for adaptive management feedback loop 

REGIONAL MARINE ECOSYSTEM STRATEGY

Common Strategic Goals, Objectives and Performance 

Measures across Sectors 

• Every RMES includes 3 strategic goals: 

1- Conserve biodiversity 

2- Ensure sustainability of resources 

3- Maintain economic, social, & cultural access to resources 

• Operational goals and objectives (e.g., conditions, thresholds, 

floors, reference points) unique to the region that must be obtained 

to achieve the strategic goals

• Definition & overview of management area

• Information necessary to understand and make management 

decisions 

• Performance metrics

• Process for iterative management feedback loop 

NOAA Regional Marine Ecosystem Implementation Plan 

Agency-specific strategies/prescribed management actions 

including list of activities, regulations & performance 

measures/metrics 

• Application of NOAA management authorities in RMES 

context 

• Identification and evaluation of NOAA management options 

• Preferred management actions 

• Performance measures and ecosystem monitoring 

• Process for iterative management feedback loop 

Developed by:

Federal agencies (includes NOAA Line and 

Program Offices; Regional Fishery Management 

Councils) 

State, tribal and local natural resource and land use 

planning agencies 

Interstate and state fishery management agencies 

Stakeholder and constituent groups 

Based on:

• Agency statutory mandates 

• Agency strategic plans 

• Regional Fishery, Coastal Zone, Protected 

Resource, Environmental Mgt. plans, etc. 

• Underlying generic principles of ecosystemapproaches to management 

• Process guidance for how to develop and 

implement objectives 

• Public and stakeholder input 

Developed by:

Regulatory Agencies/Governance Authorities 

and their Stakeholders and Collaborators: 

Other federal/state/local agencies, tribes, 

commissions, boards 

Existing advisory bodies 

Industry/trade associations 

Conservation organizations 

Community and interest groups 

Universities/researchers 

General Public 

Based on:

Strategic RMES Goals and Objectives and 

Agency regulatory products (e.g., for NOAA 

Fisheries: FMPs; Rebuilding plans; Protected 

resource Recovery plans; Take Reduction plans; 

Research plans; Biological opinions; EIS/EAs) 

Regional-level issues and needs in the 

management area 

Across Sectors 

Within Sectors 

Figure 5. Development process for a Regional Marine Ecosystem Strategy, and creating Regional Marine 

Ecosystem Implementation Plans.
11

- At which points in the development process will stakeholders be involved (e.g., 

boundary setting, development of objectives, development of management alternatives, 

implementation, etc.)? 

- How will stakeholders be selected for inclusion at each point? How will fairness and 

representativeness in the selection process be ensured? (e.g., create a list of criteria for 

ranking importance of stakeholders to involve.) 

- At each point, what level of involvement will stakeholders have? 

- What weight will be given to each participant’s input? (i.e., will there be varying levels 

of involvement based on management authorities, commercial interests, citizens of 

coastal communities, etc., or will all involved have an equal voice?) 

- How will local, state, tribal, regional, national, and international interests be weighted? 

- How will differences of opinion be resolved? 

- What existing institutional models or processes can/will be followed and what are the 

pros and cons of each? Identify the role of existing advisory bodies. 

Following development of recommendations on operational goals, objectives and performance 

measures, individual federal, state, tribal or local regulatory or governance authorities would 

prepare RMEIPs for their sector using their existing statutory, governance and regulatory powers 

and processes. The resulting regulations, control rules and actions comprise the elements of the 

RMEIP. Associated performance metrics and reporting standards would be implemented, 

monitored and shared with all partners. 

2.3 Timeframe for developing and revising the RMES and RMEIPs 

The RMES and RMEIPs should be designed with at least a 5-year horizon in mind. This 

timeframe is based on a balance among: 

• The feasibility of developing the documents; 

• The need to react to and account for changes in the ecosystem and human uses of the 

marine environment (e.g., 10 years is too long given potential changes in proposed use); 

• The ability to influence and plan for management actions in the future. 

Therefore, in the RMES, operational objectives should be chosen such that a 5 year evaluation 

period is feasible; i.e., as a result of management, measurable changes could be expected to be 

detected in this time period. Similarly, in the RMEIPs, the action plan for addressing problems 

should focus on what is achievable over that same time period. The analysis of factors affecting 

the regional marine ecosystem area, however, can and should identify impacts (positive or 

negative) that might be incurred at any point in the future, depending on the nature of the impact 

(see Section 2.4.5). 

2.4 Contents of the RMES 

This section describes the contents of a RMES. Table 1 summarizes these contents and indicates the 

typical roles, responsibilities and the outcomes for the various steps for creating the RMES. 
12

2.4.1 Statement of current management issues 

Each RMES should begin with the need for creation of the strategy, including the specific 

management circumstances requiring action. This will establish a set of current reference points 

for comparison to the set of common goals and objectives being developed. Each RMES should: 

 

1. Summarize the current management authorities, goals, and objectives across sectors. 

2. Summarize the conditions affecting the achievement of current goals; 

3. Examine specific examples of the problems, challenges, and impediments associated with 

the current management paradigm; 

4. Describe examples, if any, of efforts to date of adopting an EAM. 

Table 1. Roles and responsibilities for development and implementation of the 

Regional Marine Ecosystem Strategy

Document 

Section Description Who 

Regional Marine Ecosystem Strategy (RMES) Product of agencies & 

stakeholders across sectors 

Problem 

statement 

Describes the general conditions in the ecosystem and 

major problems to be addressed 

Responsible agencies & 

stakeholders 

Definition 

of 

management 

area 

Describes boundaries of the marine ecosystem 

management area, based on geopolitical/ecological 

considerations 

Inter-agency work group on 

boundaries 

Strategic 

goals 

1) Maintain ecosystem structure & functioning 

2) Conserve biodiversity 

3) Maintain economic, social & cultural access to 

resources 

Given 

Operational 

goals and 

objectives 

Development of operational goals and objectives (or 

thresholds) that the RMES must achieve to satisfy the 

strategic goals 

Responsible agencies & 

stakeholders 

Assessment 

of drivers 

and uses 

Description/mapping of all relevant activities/uses of 

the management area. Identify forcing 

functions/drivers 

Responsible agencies & 

stakeholders 

Secretariat 

Performance 

Metrics 

Performance measures associated with operational 

objectives 

Responsible agencies & 

stakeholders 

Iterative 

mgt. process 

Process to be taken to monitor, evaluate & revise the 

RMES to ensure that strategic goals and operational 

goals and objectives are met 

Responsible agencies & 

stakeholders 
13

2.4.2 Definition of the regional ecosystem management area 

The definition of the regional ecosystem management area should describe the boundaries of the 

ecosystem management area based on geopolitical and ecological considerations. Boundaries 

should be determined by evaluating the intersection of the following categories of information: 

 

1. Geographic ranges of LMR including managed fish species and important prey species 

(at all key life stages) 

2. Geographic ranges of endangered species, marine mammals, and sea birds. 

3. Managed habitat ranges such as essential fish habitat (EFH), critical habitat, etc. 

Geological substrate types and biological habitat (such as submerged aquatic vegetation, 

wetlands, live hard-bottom, coral, etc.) should be considered if they demarcate relevant 

areas for management. 

4. Watershed boundaries as defined by coastal drainage areas and estuarine areas. 

5. Oceanographic or environmental phenomena (e.g., the California current). 

6. Boundaries of existing jurisdictional or management authorities (e.g., Regional Fishery 

Management Council areas, coastal zone management areas, treaty boundaries, 

international boundaries (e.g., the EEZ)) to maximize/account for political feasibility. 

7. Location of relevant existing managed areas (e.g., National Marine Sanctuaries, National 

Estuarine Research Reserves, marine mammal Dynamic Area Management closures, 

fishery spawning area closures, etc.) 

The elements that define the boundaries for the management region (as described above) should 

be integrated into maps using spatial analysis software for ease of subsequent analysis. Where 

ecosystem boundaries and political boundaries do not coincide, the RMES should provide an 

analysis of the factors influencing the choice of boundaries. Based on this analysis, the RMES 

will produce a map(s) that delineates the management area and includes key features from the 

above list. 

Note that not all factors need to be used to determine the management area. For example, while 

agricultural runoff from farmlands in the Midwest contributes to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, 

it may be impractical to include the entire Mississippi watershed as part of the Gulf ecosystem 

management area. However, while the source of these impacts may be outside the practical 

regulatory reach of the partner agencies, the impacts will still be documented in the RMEIPs and 

accounted for when determining what actions to take. Also, since the boundary should be set 

based on the geographic ranges of fish and/or marine mammal populations, it is possible that 

species with extremely large ranges will be managed under multiple RMESs. 

2.4.3 Strategic goals 

The overarching outcome of an EAM for every regional ecosystem management area is to: 

Derive the optimal sustainable value to society and future generations from the 

nation’s regional marine ecosystems under stewardship. 

The ecosystem goods and services comprising this value include both uses and non-uses of the 

ecosystem (Alcamo, et al, 2003). They can be accounted for in four categories: 
14

1) Provisioning services (e.g., products obtained from the ecosystem such as food, water, 

minerals, genetic resources); 

2) Regulating services (benefits derived from regulation of ecosystem processes such as 

climate regulation, disease regulation); 

3) Cultural services (nonmaterial or non-market benefits obtained from ecosystems, such as 

religious, recreation and ecotourism, aesthetic, cultural heritage); and 

4) Supporting services (services necessary for the production of all other services, such as 

nutrient cycling, primary production). 

To obtain this outcome, three strategic goals are proposed for inclusion in every RMES: 

1) Ensure sustainability of resources 

2) Conserve biodiversity 

3) Maintain economic, social and cultural access to resources 

In combination, these three goals capture society’s desire to balance both the use and 

preservation of resources in marine ecosystems. While the specific wording may vary, the goals 

are analogous to Australian and Canadian models. The three “core objectives” from Australia’s 

National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development are: “to enhance individual and 

community well being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards 

the welfare of future generations; to provide for equity within and between generations; and to 

protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems 

(Commonwealth of Australia, 1998).” Similarly, the specific objectives for Canada’s Eastern 

Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Initiative (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2001) are: “to 

integrate the management of all activities in the eastern Scotian Shelf area; to encourage the 

conservation, effective management and responsible use of marine resources; to support the 

maintenance of natural biological diversity and productivity; and to foster opportunities for 

economic diversification and sustainable wealth generation for coastal communities and 

stakeholders.” 

2.4.4 Operational goals and objectives 

Each RMES should include specific operational goals and objectives. Sainsbury and Sumaila 

(2003) define an operational objective to be “an objective that has a direct and practical 

interpretation.” As the type and intensity of anthropogenic and environmental factors 

influencing ecosystems will vary by region, the guidelines cannot prescribe what the operational 

goals and objectives for each RMES should be. Explicit, transparent, and inclusive stakeholder 

input is necessary to determine them; the process for obtaining such public input was described 

in the previous section. 

Selection of operational goals and objectives should be based on an evaluation of how each 

contributes to achieving the three strategic goals listed above. Operational goals and objectives 

should describe exactly what will be achieved and in what time period for each ecosystem 

management area, including an outcome-based performance measure where possible. 

Examples of operational goals (in italics) and objectives (bullets) are listed below. They are 

drawn from NOAA Fisheries experience, are not exhaustive and only represent one sector’s 

possible contribution. In addition, many of the examples have roots in single species 

management. However, as part of a RMES, their precise outcomes and time frames for results 
15

will be specified. They will then be evaluated relative to and integrated with goals and 

objectives from other sectors in the broader multi-sector ecosystem context. 

Prevent Overfishing... 

• Develop and implement conservation and management measures that prevent 

overfishing of species/species complexes in each region within X years. 

• Maintain the status of species or species complexes relative to overfishing, 

overfished or other ecosystem limit reference points. 

• Develop rebuilding plans by a certain date for those species or specific complexes 

deemed to be overfished. 

Protect Sensitive Species...

• Implement conservation measures within X years to maintain protected species at 

optimum sustainable population levels. 

• Develop conservation and recovery plans for ESA-listed species and depleted 

protected stocks by a certain date. 

Conserve Genetic Diversity and Structure... 

• Develop and implement measures to conserve non-target species. 

• Ensure that no native species shall go extinct due to anthropogenic factors. 

• Monitor and evaluate impacts of invasive species on native species. 

• Establish conservation and management measures to reduce fishing mortality of 

non-target species (e.g., manage bycatch mortality and incidental catch rates to 

avoid overfishing of non-target species), and establish incidental catch thresholds 

that will allow non-target species to remain functioning components of the 

ecosystem. 

• 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. 

• Develop and implement harvest policies that protect genetic diversity of species 

or stocks by protecting Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) from excessive 

mortality. 

• Establish measures for those species or stocks at risk of losing genetic diversity to 

protect the ESU. 

Conserve Living Marine Resource Habitat...

• Develop and implement measures to conserve marine habitat, including Essential 

Fish Habitat, critical habitat, and anadromous fish habitat, for all targeted and 

protected species with respect to their ability to spawn, breed, feed and/or grow to 

maturity. 

• Evaluate and manage potential cumulative adverse effects of fishing on habitat so 

as to maintain healthy functioning of the ecosystem. 

• Manage adverse habitat 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. 

• Monitor habitat quality and quantity, and its biological, chemical and physical 

characteristics, by habitat type. 
16

Maintain Trophic Structure...

• Develop and implement measures to appropriately limit anthropogenic impacts on 

trophic structure and functioning. Ecological relationships between harvested, 

dependent and related species shall be maintained within the range of observed 

natural variability. 

• Develop and implement X 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. 

• Establish X 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. 

Prevent Systemic Over-exploitation...

• Prevent systemic over-exploitation of an ecosystem at relevant spatial and 

temporal scales. 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. 

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 non-target species that are significantly impacted by 

anthropogenic activities. 

• 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. 

These examples include a wide range of possible operational goals and objectives. For any given 

marine ecosystem, the specific operational objectives must support the achievement of the three 

strategic goals. Operational objectives should be set with reference to a specific time frame for 

evaluation and revision. As stated in Section 2.3, the default for operational objectives should be 

a 5-year evaluation period. 
17

To achieve the strategic goals and operational objectives, specific management actions will be 

described in the RMEIP (see Section 3). Along with the actions will be a list of the 

agencies/partners responsible for undertaking the action, a specific date or timeline for 

accomplishing the action, and a means to measure the progress of the action as a performance 

monitoring tool. 

2.4.4.1 Incorporating uncertainty and the precautionary approach into objectives 

Marine ecosystems are almost always going to be more complicated than can be fully 

understood. The limitations of scientific knowledge will make it impossible to predict with 

absolute certainty the future state of any ecosystem or to understand the forces that created an 

observed state. Changes resulting from management measures will be compounded by other 

factors, not all of which will be known or even identifiable. It may not be possible to predict all 

of the interactions between forcing functions within an ecosystem. Management measures could 

fail to achieve their desired impact not because they were inappropriate, but because of a change 

in other factors beyond the control of regulators. Managers are limited to only regulating human 

activity in the ecosystem and not the ecosystem itself. 

Given this uncertainty, a full and predictable understanding of the ecosystem is not feasible 

before management actions are taken. In some cases, scientists may only be able to describe in a 

qualitative way how changes in one component of the ecosystem will affect other components. It 

will not always be possible to make accurate quantitative predictions of the impacts of 

management measures on the ecosystem. Additionally, managers may not know if a particular 

ecosystem condition is achievable, even if it were desirable. Managers may not know how long 

it will take to achieve a particular state of the ecosystem, or what changes are needed to ensure 

the development of such a state. However, all this uncertainty does not absolve managers from 

managing. Managers must utilize all available information and make decisions, including what 

actions are necessary to “purchase” insurance against unforeseen negative impacts. Managers 

can also use this information to identify research priorities that inform future agency funding 

decisions. 

Given this degree of uncertainty, many of the outcomes of management actions are probabilistic 

in nature. When there are identified gaps in knowledge, it is appropriate to manage risk using a 

precautionary approach that limits the risk that management measures will not achieve the 

desired goals and objectives. That is, when the probability of a specific outcome occurring at a 

specified time is uncertain, or there is some risk that the outcome will not be or will only 

partially be achieved, then employing a precautionary approach up-front in selecting goals, 

objectives and management measures is appropriate. 

The adoption of a precautionary approach in fisheries management has gained favor in the last 

decade as societal preferences have leaned toward more conservative policies on LMR removals 

in the face of scientific and behavioral uncertainty. Applying conservation measures even in the 

absence of absolute scientific certainty that fish stocks are being overexploited has become a 

basic premise associated with fisheries sustainability (Restrepo et al., 1999). The elements of a 

precautionary approach include establishing limits to ensure resource conservation targets for 

management are safely below certain thresholds. Not exceeding limits takes precedence over 

achieving targets. This more conservative specification of removals of species in single-species 

fisheries management has analogous utility in the application of EAM. 
18

 

The RMES operational objectives should account for this uncertainty explicitly in deciding 

among alternative uses (or non-uses) of ecosystem resources. Factors such as ecosystem 

resilience and the number and type of impacts to the ecosystem should shape the subsequent 

RMEIP management alternatives evaluated and ultimately selected. The following tenets of a 

precautionary approach from Australia’s Ocean Policy (1998) are recommended for adoption: 

• If the potential impact of an action is uncertain, priority should be given to maintaining 

ecosystem health and productivity. 

• Incomplete information on possible impacts should not be used as a reason for 

postponing precautionary measures intended to reduce or avoid unacceptable levels of 

change or to prevent serious or irreversible environmental degradation of the oceans. 

• In the application of the precautionary approach, public and private decisions should be 

guided by: 

o Careful evaluation to ensure that changes arising from a use or uses remain within 

limits considered acceptable, to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or 

irreversible damage to the environment; and 

o Assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options. 

• If there is a risk of serious and irreversible environmental damage resulting from an 

ocean use, that use should be permitted only if the damage can be mitigated, or it is 

limited in its extent, and there is an overriding net community benefit from the use: 

o The higher the risk of unacceptable levels of change or of serious or irreversible 

environmental damage, the more conservative should be the measures required to 

reduce that risk. 

• Ocean users carry a responsibility to assure the ecological sustainability of their 

operations and an obligation to identify and implement precautionary measures. 

This approach suggests that when setting operational goals and objectives, a decision support 

framework is needed to evaluate the tradeoffs, measured as forgone benefits due to the more 

conservative precautionary approaches, compared to the probabilities of different ecosystem 

scenarios and conditions occurring. The benefits and costs (both social and economic) of a 

precautionary approach would be made visible and subject to discussion and choice by managers 

and stakeholders. 

2.4.5 Assessment of drivers and uses

The status, performance or behavior of any regional marine ecosystem will be affected by a 

number of drivers or factors, including those that occur in adjacent terrestrial areas. These 

factors can be categorized as either anthropogenic (i.e., caused by human activity) or 

environmental. Examples of environmental factors include: regional rainfall variation; changes 

in oceanic currents; and catastrophic events (e.g., hurricanes). Anthropogenic factors include the 

harvest of fish (commercial and recreational), coastal development, and pollution. Appendix A 

describes a suite of anthropogenic and environmental factors for potential analysis in the RMES. 

While the main focus of the RMES will be on the anthropogenic activities in and uses of the 

ecosystem, the RMES should identify both types of factors. Changes in the environment can 

affect the success of management actions taken, and the option(s) evaluated should take into 

account the influence of these factors to the extent possible. 
19

A two-stage process is suggested for evaluation and prioritization of these factors. This process 

will set up the framework for evaluating and selecting management strategies and alternatives in 

the RMEIP. 

Stage 1: Define the scope of the problem(s)

 

In the first stage, the RMES should evaluate the impact of each factor (anthropogenic activity or 

environmental impact) on each of the operational objectives. For each factor, the spatial and 

temporal scale of the effects should be identified, as well as some measure of the intensity or 

degree to which the factor impedes or contributes to the achievement of the objective. 

A matrix approach is proposed to evaluate the impacts of anthropogenic and environmental 

factors on operational objectives (Table 2). The degree of complexity of the analysis in an actual 

RMES will vary with the number of objectives to be achieved, the range of factors affecting the 

particular marine ecosystem, and the quality and quantity of scientific data available for analysis. 

Table 2. Analysis of the Effect of Factors on Operational Objectives 

 Operational Objective 

Factor Eliminate 

overfishing 

on 

species X 

Protect 

sensitive spp. 

Y (fish) and Z 

(marine 

mammal) 

Conserve 

habitat in 

ABC estuary 

for 

spp. Y 

recovery 

Î ... 

Objective N 

Commercial 

fishery for X 

 

Recreational 

boating in estuary 

Military sonar 

testing 

Coastal 

development 

Factors 

x...n 

ÎÎÎ

 

The type of information in each cell could be: 

• Directional – e.g., “Regulating this activity would have ______ (a very positive 

significant effect, a somewhat significant effect, no effect, a somewhat negative effect, a 

very negative effect, an unknown effect) on achieving the objective of ...” 

• Ordinal – e.g., “Recreational boating in the ABC estuary results in substantial losses of 

submerged aquatic vegetation, which has impacted the survivability of larval Y.” 

• Parametric – e.g., “The commercial fishery for X results in 4 tons of bycatch of spp. Y 

annually, and also incurs interactions with marine mammal Z approximately 75 times per 

year. A 10% reduction of effort in the fishery would result in a decrease of bycatch of 

one ton and 15% fewer marine mammal interactions.” 
20

Whenever possible, the information should be linked to measures of value (see p. 16). As with 

the above examples, the ability to quantify value may vary. For example: 

• Restricting recreational boating access in the ABC estuary would result in a loss of 

approximately $7 million annually to boaters. However, a closure of the area would 

enhance survivability rates of Y to a level that would allow it to be taken off the list of 

threatened species. Surveys and subsequent economic analyses have estimated 

willingness-to-pay for Y’s survival of almost $50 million. 

• A 10% reduction in effort in fishery X is estimated to produce a net benefit of $35 

million to the nation. The gains from the reduced bycatch of Y (valued at $yy) and from 

reductions in marine mammal interactions (valued at $zz) more than offset the losses to 

the commercial fishing industry from the reduced harvest (estimated at $xx). 

These examples are illustrative, but other qualitative and quantitative information could be used 

to analyze and compare the current and anticipated future effects of each factor on the objectives. 

In some cases, sophisticated models will be available to estimate the impacts of a particular 

factor(s); in others, only simple descriptive information may be available. The RMES should use 

and present the most useful information possible. Regardless of how the information is 

presented, the end result should be an identification of the most influential factors on the status 

of the ecosystem. 

Stage 2: Prioritize the factors contributing to the problem(s)

The Stage 1 analysis will identify multiple factors with significant effects. However, it may be 

impractical to derive management actions for each one. In the 5-year timeframe, given 

existing/expected fiscal and staff resources, only a subset of factors might reasonably be 

addressed. Prioritization of which factors to manage is necessary. The RMES should develop a 

process and a list of criteria by which to evaluate the various factors. Criteria for evaluating 

whether to manage an activity or mitigate an environmental impact might include (but are not 

limited to): 

• Quantity/quality/reliability of scientific data 

• Timeframe for implementation and/or achievement of results (i.e., will the action be 

implemented in time to have its desired effect on the management problem?) 

• Net economic benefits (including non-market values) and their distribution 

• Social and cultural benefits and costs 

• Enforcement feasibility (i.e., to what degree is it possible to enforce regulation of the 

activity?) 

• Technical capacity (i.e., does a technical solution exist to address the problem?) 

• Management feasibility (e.g., is more than one jurisdiction involved? If so, what degree 

of intergovernmental coordination is necessary? Do current mandates support this action 

or will it necessitate significant governance/statutory modifications?) 

• Probability of success (e.g., is there broad based support to address the issue? Are there 

other significant impediments that would hinder success?) 

• Ecological consequences of inaction (e.g., if an activity is not managed, are specific 

ecological thresholds exceeded?) 
21

Application of the selected criteria to the identified factors should result in a prioritized list of 

factors to address in the RMEIPs. The RMES should list those factors that will be addressed in 

the RMEIPs versus those that will not. Documentation of the prioritization process will provide 

a transparent record of decision and useful information for the iterative feedback process on 

future actions. 

2.4.6 Performance measures 

Performance measures are the key to evaluating management effectiveness. The performance 

measure does two things: it evaluates how well predicted outcomes are achieved after the fact, 

and it serves as a control on how well processes are performing as the work is being done. A 

good performance measure will have only one right answer, and its measurement will be taken at 

a defined point or at specific intervals in time. As applied to EAM, performance measures will be 

used to: 

• Determine whether the three strategic goals are met; 

• Evaluate how closely the RMEIP management actions achieve the operational goals and 

objectives proposed in the RMES; and 

• Appraise how effectively the RMES and RMEIP processes are conducted. 

The following definitions as illustrated by Figure 6 (Sainsbury and Sumaila, 2003) are 

recommended for developing performance metrics in the RMES and RMEIPs: 

• Indicator – Something that is measured (not necessarily numerically) and used to track an 

operational objective. An indicator that does not relate to an operational objective is not 

useful in this context. 

• Reference point – A ‘benchmark’ value of an indicator, usually in relation to the 

operational objective, such as desired targets, undesirable limits or triggers for specified 

management responses. A target reference point could serve as an operational objective. 

• Performance measure – A relationship between the indicator and reference point that 

measures how well intended outcomes are being achieved. 

Figure 6. Relationship between indicators, reference points and performance measures. 
22

The RMES should list specific indicators and performance measures that relate directly to the 

operational objectives, which themselves are specific, measurable, agreed-to, and achievable 

within a defined time frame. While the objectives will usually attempt to have an indicator 

increase or decrease, in some cases “no change” will be the desired outcome. The RMES should 

assess the levels of change attributable to direct and indirect effects of resource uses, and decide 

on the level of change considered acceptable. Each RMES should include one or more 

performance measures associated with each and every RMES objective. 

2.4.7 Iterative management process 

The last section of the RMES should discuss the process to monitor feedback and evaluate and 

revise the RMES over time. It is expected that both the RMES and RMEIPs will be evaluated 

and updated every 5 years. Periodic assessments of the RMES operational objectives, 

performance measures, and expected outcomes should be undertaken in the light of new 

scientific and/or management information, or to address new types of use activities or interests in 

the regional ecosystem management area. 

The evaluation process should include a comparison of actual outcomes to those that were 

expected based on the analysis in Section 2.4.5. The regional management authorities and their 

stakeholders should evaluate the reasons underlying any differences between actual and expected 

outcomes: were objectives met? If not, why not? The evaluation should also analyze to what 

degree tested hypotheses were supported by the results. This information should be documented 

and relayed back to RMES and RMEIP partners. 

The information should be used to adjust the RMES and RMEIP accordingly. The original 

actions may be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that they remain consistent with the RMES goals 

and objectives. New operational goals or objectives, new management solutions or new 

questions to answer may be identified and initiated in the updated RMES. In adjusting 

subsequent management decisions and policies, the underlying differences between expected and 

actual outcomes should be taken into consideration, and subsequent actions should be based on 

which hypotheses were supported by results. The RMES and RMEIP should describe how 

evaluations and revisions will be made, by whom and how often (or under what conditions). The 

intensity and degree of response in a performance measure that will trigger a change in 

management actions or objectives should be defined and agreed to by all partners. 

Finally, the evaluation process should be used to identify and highlight data and research gaps so 

that observation, scientific and management programs can be modified accordingly. The 

resources needed to fill these gaps as well as to accomplish revisions to the plan should also be 

assessed. 

 
23

Section 3: Regional Marine Ecosystem Implementation Plans 

The RMEIP translates the operational goals and objectives established in the cross-sector RMES 

into specific actions by each sector/agency. Each agency or partner associated with the RMES 

will develop its own within-sector RMEIP that supports the jointly-produced RMES, using its 

own regulatory authorities and public participation processes (recall Figure 4). The 

NOAA/living marine resource sector is used as an example throughout this section to illustrate 

the process and features of a RMEIP. However, the guidelines are sufficiently generic so they 

can be adopted as an ecosystem approach by other sectors/agencies with only minor 

modifications. 

The rest of this section describes the contents of the RMEIP as follows: 

3.1. Description of management authorities: Identification of the agency(ies) responsible 

for managing or controlling each of the factors to be addressed. 

3.2. List of actions: A list of actions that must be taken to achieve each operational 

objective in the RMES, based on the assessment of factors and responsible parties, with 

specific steps to be taken to accomplish each action. Includes identification of 

responsible agencies/partners, requirements and resources needed, and dates/timelines 

for completing the steps. 

3.3. Performance measures: Performance measures for each operational objective that will 

be used to measure progress towards its accomplishment. 

3.4. Monitoring, evaluating and revising the RMEIP: A description of the steps to be 

taken to monitor, evaluate and revise the components of the RMEIP. 

3.1 Description of management authorities 

The RMEIP is designed to operate within the current governance structure and institutional 

framework to manage LMRs in the management area. For example, NOAA is guided in LMR 

stewardship by institutional arrangements and mandates that are determined by Congress.1

 

Within this guidance, the Agency has the ability to determine many aspects of governance in the 

application of its mandates. With respect to creating RMEIPs, NOAA does not need to wait for 

new statutory authority to take an EAM, but can apply its current mandates in a way that adopts 

such an approach. 

There are many agencies and sectors that have oversight over the ecosystem drivers and 

uses identified in Section 2.4.5 and Figure 3. In most cases, jurisdictions overlap. For the 

RMEIP to be effectively developed within this complicated institutional framework, the 

various jurisdictional authorities that affect application of each agency’s management 

strategies need to be identified. Resolution of structural or process impediments and new 

governance strategies (absent new legislation) to address factors needing management 

should be identified in the plan. 

For each of the factors to be addressed in an agency’s RMEIP (as identified in Section 2.4.5), the 

RMEIP should: 

 

1

 Including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. 
24

• Document and evaluate current management authorities and responsibilities; and 

• Identify formal and informal management processes and governance structures to resolve 

impediments and take action. 

This evaluation will identify the issues within each agency’s statutory authority and control. For 

example, the Regional Fishery Management Councils and NOAA will be the lead authority in 

the case of fisheries management in the EEZ. However, they are only a stakeholder to the 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) in the approval of oil and gas leases in coastal waters. 

The Council’s and NOAA’s stakeholder role in the latter case includes identifying fisheries goals 

and objectives to the Minerals Management Service in the RMES coordination process, and 

engaging in the MMS RMEIP process that develops leasing management decisions to ensure 

they are consistent with the fisheries and broader ecosystem goals and objectives within the 

RMES. 

3.1.1 Management authorities and responsibilities 

The RMEIP should identify the relevant management: 1) authorities, 2) jurisdictions and 3) areas 

that exist within the spatial boundary of the management area that are relevant to the ecological, 

economic, technological and environmental issues being managed by the RMEIP. The 

intersection of jurisdictions will identify necessary points of coordination among resource 

agencies, councils, commissions, and institutions for effective ecosystem management. These 

include: 

o Federal authorities such as NOAA, Regional Fishery Management Councils, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Defense, National 

Park Service, Maritime Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, Minerals Management 

Service, etc. 

o State authorities such as Interstate Commissions, state coastal zone management 

agencies, state departments of fisheries management, other natural resource/wildlife 

agencies, etc. 

o Local authorities such as planning commissions, zoning boards, etc. 

o Tribes/tribal jurisdictions 

o International commissions and institutions implementing international science and 

management agreements governing multiple countries. 

o Management areas such as: marine managed areas (MMAs)/marine protected areas 

(MPAs); National Wildlife Refuges; National Marine Sanctuaries; National Estuarine 

Research Reserves; fishery management areas; habitat 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, coastal reserves, etc. 

Management authorities or areas are considered relevant if they contribute directly or indirectly 

to management or control of at least one of the factors identified in Section 2.4.5 as having an 

impact on the ecosystem management area. The RMEIP should identify the mechanism (e.g., 

legislation) that enables management action (e.g., MSFCMA, MMPA, ESA, and CZMA are 

principle NOAA authorities). Table 3 provides a template for summarizing this information, and 

gives a stylized example for NOAA. 
25

 

Table 3. Example of Responsible Agencies and Mandates for Factors 

in the Regional Ecosystem Management Area 

Factors Lead 

Agency Other Partners Authorizing Legislation Role of NOAA 

Anthropogenic 

Commercial harvest of fishery 

X: overfishing occurring 

Bycatch of fish species Y in 

fishery X 

NOAA/

RFMC 

Interstate Fishery 

Commissions 

State fishery agencies 

MSFCMA 

Interjurisdictional 

Fisheries Act (IFA) 

Approval of federal FMP 

for X 

Consultative role in 

state/interstate FMP for X 

Incidental take of marine 

mammal Z in fishery X 

NOAA/

RFMC 

State natural resource 

agencies 

DOI 

MSFCMA, ESA, 

MMPA 

Approval of federal FMP 

for X 

Management of take 

reduction team for Z 

Development of species 

recovery plan for Z 

Alteration of essential fish 

habitat for endangered species S 

and commercial fishery X 

COE; 

NOAA/

RFMC 

NOAA, DOI, Interstate 

Fishery Commissions, 

State fishery agencies 

ESA, MSFCMA, 

IFA 

Section 7 consultations 

Development of species 

recovery plan for S 

Development of habitat 

restoration plan for critical 

habitat for S 

Approval of federal FMP 

for X 

Consultative role in 

state/interstate FMP for X 

Aquaculture production of 

shellfish C: affects water 

quality for commercial fishery 

X; potential for escapement and 

cross-fertilization with wild 

stock of shellfish C 

NOAA USDA, EPA, Regional 

FMCs, Interstate 

Fishery Commissions, 

State fishery agencies 

National 

Aquaculture Act, 

IFA 

Approval of federal FMP 

for X 

Consultative role in 

state/interstate FMP for X 

Aquaculture siting and 

permitting 

Naval testing of sonar 

equipment: impact on marine 

mammal Z 

DOD NOAA MMPA Consultative role 

Nonpoint pollution / degraded 

coastal water quality: affects 

survival rate of juveniles in 

fishery X 

EPA 

USDA 

State CZM 

NOAA/Coastal 

Programs Div. 

USDA/NRCS 

Soil Conservation 

Districts 

Local planning or 

zoning boards 

CWA 

CZMA 

Consultative role 

Environmental 

El Nino events: affect stock 

distributions and survival rates 

for commercial fishery X 

NOAA 

 

MSFCMA, FWCA Scientific modeling and 

prediction 

The RMEIP should note which factors the agency: (1) has direct control over (e.g., through 

legislative authority); (2) has indirect control over (e.g., through a consultative role with another 

agency); or (3) has no control over but needs to take into account because they affect the ability 
26

to achieve an objective (e.g., climatic events). The integration of all agencies’ RMEIPs will 

yield a comprehensive picture of factors, authorities, and authorizing legislation and 

management tools for managing impacts. 

3.2 List of actions 

The next section of the RMEIP is the roadmap for moving forward with EAM in the regional 

ecosystem management area. Each individual agency’s RMEIP provides the framework for 

modifying existing or creating new actions to achieve the RMES operational objectives and 

establishes accountability for each agency. 

Each RMEIP should account for: (1) the cumulative effects of each of the factors identified as 

affecting the RMES operational objectives, (2) the prioritization of factors to be managed, and 

(3) the legislative or other authority to directly or indirectly manage those factors. The plan 

should be publicly available. The contents should include: 

• A description of the actions that must be taken to achieve each operational objective in 

the RMES. As background for identifying the appropriate actions, the plan should 

describe impediments to agency action in existing policy, legal mandates, or institutional 

arrangements, and list any outstanding unresolved issues. 

• Specific steps necessary to accomplish each action, including identification of the 

existing, new or enhanced management processes, both formal and informal, to be used. 

Examples include: rulemaking; consultations; enhanced intra- and inter-agency 

communication, cooperation, and collaboration; creation of co-management systems and 

increased implementation of distributive governance; establishment of memoranda of 

agreements; development of regional operating agreements; education programs; 

technical assistance; financial incentives, etc. 

• Identification of agencies/partners responsible for each step. 

• Dates/timelines/milestones associated with each step. 

• Specification of the monitoring protocol that will be followed. 

• Identification of the fiscal, staff and other requirements needed to accomplish each 

action. 

Many of the specific regulatory tools used for EAM will likely be the same as those traditionally 

used by an agency (e.g., for NOAA this includes Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), Species 

Recovery Plans, habitat protection plans, ESA Section 7 consultations, CZMA plans, etc.). 

However, the objectives to be considered could be quite different than those under traditional 

management. These guidelines for RMEIPs do not prescribe how implementation should occur. 

Each agency’s process for public notification, public participation, analysis of reasonable 

alternatives, and selection of preferred alternatives is governed by a suite of federal and state 

regulations that guide this process (e.g., NEPA, the Administrative Procedures Act, Executive 

Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, etc.). This doesn’t mean an EAM should be 

interpreted as “business as usual.” Rather, it is simply that as the goals and objectives change 

under EAM, the regulatory mechanics for implementation may not need to change. Changes in 

the regulatory process may be desired to accelerate or enhance EAM, but are not required before 

EAM is undertaken. 

 
27

Special circumstances exist for management actions governing transboundary species. Species 

with ranges that cross management areas will not be fully represented in one RMEIP (or RMES). 

The Secretariats of the RMES should ensure that objectives relating to these species are 

coordinated among regional marine ecosystems such that all RMESs and RMEIPs that 

encompass the range of those species are consistent. Issues of concern, assessments and research 

activities, and management actions should be coordinated across the relevant RMESs/RMEIPs as 

much as possible.

3.3 Performance measures 

As in the RMES, the RMEIP should include performance measures for evaluating management 

effectiveness. While the RMES performance measures capture the progress made towards 

achievement of the operational goals and objectives, the measures in the RMEIP should be 

aimed at measuring progress towards achieving the steps laid out in the action plan. The 

guidelines for development of performance measures presented in Section 2.4.6 are also relevant 

for the RMEIP. 

The RMEIP should include one or more performance measures associated with each action or set 

of actions. For example, an RMES operational objective may be to “Eliminate overfishing on all 

target fisheries in the regional ecosystem management area by 2010.” The associated action in 

the RMEIP might be to “Implement or modify FMPs to eliminate overfishing on fisheries A-K in 

the regional ecosystem management area by 2010 by setting total allowable catches and fishing 

mortality targets as follows...” The associated performance measure might then be “Number of 

FMPs implemented or modified to eliminate overfishing that have met specifications.” 

3.4 Monitoring, evaluating and revising the RMEIP 

3.4.1 Monitoring 

Two aspects of monitoring for the RMEIP are discussed below. The first relates to observation 

and monitoring of the physical and socio-economic components of the ecosystem and human 

environment. The second focuses on monitoring the effectiveness of the RMEIP process itself. 

Monitoring protocols for abiotic, biotic, habitat and socio-economic factors 

Appropriate time scales and monitoring frequency for all monitored phenomena should be 

specified and linked to the underlying processes of the objectives and their performance 

measures. Monitoring should extend spatially to the boundaries defined by the RMEIP. 

The monitoring protocol should include the following elements (Nyberg, 1999): 

• The type and amount of data required 

• Frequency, timing and duration of monitoring 

• Indicators or models to be monitored at each interval 

• Appropriate spatial scales for monitoring different indicators 

• Who is responsible for undertaking different aspects of monitoring 

The protocol should be applied to monitoring programs for abiotic, biotic, habitat and socioeconomic factors as follows: 
28

• Abiotic (i.e., chemical, physical and meteorological/climatic) environmental data 

required to assess linkages between physical forcing functions and biological responses 

affecting LMRs, directly or indirectly (e.g., by altering trophic structure). 

• Requirements that provide quantitative information on the relative or absolute magnitude 

of a population; life history data including rates of growth, average age of the onset of 

sexual maturity, maximum longevity, and the proportion of each age group dying each 

year due to natural causes; and other factors that affect stock productivity; temporal and 

spatial distribution and abundance of commercially-targeted and ecologically-important 

species; changes in species composition, size, sex, and age compositions over time and 

space; reproductive biology; trophic relationships; diet compositions of key indicator 

species; forage base faunal composition and availability; feeding guild structure and 

resource partitioning; feeding habitat and behavior; and community structure. 

• Requirements to characterize and map habitat and monitor anthropogenic and natural 

substrate alteration. 

• Requirements to characterize the economic, community and other social science 

attributes of the human environment affected by the RMEIP. 

• Requirements to test specific hypotheses with adequate statistical power concerning 

trophic interactions and relationships within the RMES. 

Monitoring the RMEIP process

An EAM includes the necessity to monitor how effective actions are in meeting management 

objectives, to evaluate actual outcomes against those that were predicted, and to interpret the 

reasons underlying any differences. By also doing this the RMEIP, it can be adjusted to reflect 

new understanding and develop new options that create a continual cycle of improvement. Each 

RMEIP should contain a description of the steps to be taken to monitor, evaluate and revise the 

components of the plan. 

The RMEIP should monitor for (Nyberg, 1999): 

• Implementation or compliance (Did we do what we planned?) 

• Effectiveness (Did the plan meet objectives?) 

• Validation of model parameters and relationships (How well did our models forecast 

what would happen?) 

The time frames for evaluation of an RMEIP’s success or failure should be conditioned on and 

closely aligned with the predicted response times of elements and processes of the ecosystem, 

including changes in human behavior. Thus, each RMEIP should set out a specific time 

schedule for when the RMEIP actions and performance measures will be evaluated to track 

RMEIP outcomes. The default maximum time interval is every 5 years. However, as specific 

actions and activities are likely linked to annual funding cycles, monitoring annual progress may 

be warranted. 

3.4.2 Evaluating and revising the RMEIP 

The RMEIP should document the process to monitor feedback and evaluate and revise the plan 

over time. As described in Section 2.4.7, the RMEIP should describe how evaluations and 

revisions will be made, by whom and how often (or under what conditions). 
29

Section 4: Summary and Conclusion 

An ecosystem approach to management is a highly desirous goal for our nation’s coastal and 

ocean resources. However, no single federal, state or local entity has full authority over all 

sectors impacting coastal and ocean resources or marine ecosystems. No one entity can succeed 

by itself. Therefore, guidance has been proposed on how to promote cross-sector discussion and 

actions across governance authorities and stakeholders. At the same time, guidance for advancing 

an EAM within a single sector was described. The combination of these two parallel EAM 

processes is considered essential to advance the management of coastal and ocean resources. This 

top-down and bottom-up approach is shown visually in Figure 7. 
30

Figure 7. The integration of a top-down and bottom-up ecosystem approach to management

Tourism/recreation Sector

Transportation Sector

 Highway runoff 

 Construction 

 Shipping: strikes, channels

 Ballast water/invasive spp.

Coastal Develop. Sector

 Sand/gravel extraction 

 Aquaculture 

 Dredge spoil 

 Pipelines and Cables 

Military Sector

 Acoustics 

 Ordinance 

Energy Sector

 Oil/gas extraction 

 Wind farms 

 Hydropower 

 Thermal effluent 

Upland Develop. Sector

 Air quality 

 Water quality 

 Agriculture 

 Silviculture 

 Waste treatment 

Fisheries 

Sector

Multi-sector 

Cod Pelagics

Flatfish Disease, Genetic 

diversity, 

Fecundity, Migration, 

Stock recruitment, etc 

Predation, 

Competition, 

Mutualism, etc Technical interactions, 

Biomass allocation 

Biodiversity, etc 

Habitat, Climate, etc

FEP Cod Cod

Fisheries Management Sector View of EAM 

Stock/single species Multi-species Aggregate 

Biomass

Fisheries 

Ecosystem 

Plan 

Protected 

resources

Top-down Ecosystem Approach to Management

Bottom-up Ecosystem Approach to Management
31

References

Alcamo, J., et al. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute. 

Busch, W.-D.N., B.L. Brown, and G.F. Mayer (Eds). 2003. Strategic Guidance for Implementing 

an Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries Management. United States Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. Australia’s Ocean Policy. 

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. 

FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2001. Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2003. The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible 

Fisheries. No. 4, Suppl. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 

Italy. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2001. The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) 

Initiative: Development of a Collaborative Management and Planning Process. A Discussion 

Paper prepared for the Federal-Provincial ESSIM Working Group. Oceans and Coastal 

Management Division, Oceans and Environment Branch Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Maritimes Region. 

Link, Jason S. 2002. What does ecosystem-based fisheries management mean? Fisheries vol. 27 

No. 4: 18-21, Bethesda, MD. 

NMFS. 2004. Evaluating bycatch: a national approach to standardized bycatch monitoring 

programs. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 1987. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Program Development Plan for 

Ecosystems Monitoring and Fisheries Management. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

MD. 

NOAA. 2003a. Making “Ecosystems” Part of NOAA’s Shared Vocabulary. Report to the 

NOAA Executive Panel. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 
32

NOAA. 2003b. New Priorities for the 21st Century: NOAA’s Strategic Vision. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, 

MD. 

NOAA. 2004. Ecosystem Goal Team Program Plan Decisional Brief. January 2, 2004. 

NRC. 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. National Research Council. 

National Academy Press. Washington D.C. 

Nyberg, B. 1999. An Introductory Guide to Adaptive Management for Project Leaders and 

Participants. Forest Practices Branch, British Columbia Forest Service. 

Packer, D. 2004. NOAA Fisheries National Gravel Extraction Guidance. Draft. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. 

May 2003. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. 

Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. Governors’ Draft, 

Washington, D.C. 

P.L. 92-463. 1972. Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972.

Restrepo, V.R. (Editor). 1999. Proceedings of the Fifth National NMFS Stock Assessment 

Workshop: Providing Scientific Advice to Implement the Precautionary Approach Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, MD. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-F/SPO-40. 

Sainsbury, K. and U.R. Sumaila. 2003. Incorporating ecosystem objectives into management of 

sustainable marine fisheries, including ‘best practice’ reference points and use of marine 

protected areas. Chapter 20 in Responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. Eds. M.Sinclair 

and G. Valdimarsson. FAO, Rome. 

Sherman, K. 1994. Sustainability, biomass yields, and health of coastal ecosystems: an 

ecological perspective. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 112:277-301. 

United Nations. 2002. Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Report of the World Summit on 

Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa 26 August-4 September, 2002. New 

York. 

UNIDO, 2002. Developing Countries and the Restoration of Large Marine Ecosystems. Oceans 

and the World Summit on Sustainable Development. United Nations Industrial Development 

Organization, Vienna, Austria. 
33

 Appendix A 

Anthropogenic and Environmental Factors for Analysis 

A framework for analyzing the impacts of a variety of anthropogenic and environmental factors 

on marine ecosystems is given in this appendix according to the outline below. Not all 

factors will be relevant in each regional ecosystem management area, and the list is not 

exhaustive. 

Anthropogenic Effects

Marine Impacts

A. Living Marine Resource Harvest 

 i. Effects of fishing and hunting 

 ii. Effects of bycatch 

 iii. Effects of fishing gear 

 B. Non-living Marine Resource Extraction 

 i. Effects of oil and gas extraction 

 ii. Effects of gravel mining 

 C. Marine tourism and recreation 

 D. Commercial shipping and cruise ships 

 E. Military activities 

 F. Offshore disposal activities/Dredged material disposal 

 G. Water uptake and discharge facilities 

 H. Submerged pipelines and cables 

 I. Aquaculture 

 J. Non-native invasive species 

 K. Scientific research 

 L. Other 

Non-marine Impacts (coastal, upland, riverine) 

 A. Coastal development 

 B. Alteration to freshwater systems 

 C. Agriculture 

Environmental Considerations (e.g., climate trends, regime 

shifts)
34

Anthropogenic Effects 

Marine Impacts 

A. Living Marine Resource Harvest 

i. Effects of resource removal on target and non-target species 

The RMES should identify the effects of fishing (both commercial and recreational) or 

collection (e.g., sponges, corals) on the abundance of targeted marine populations as well 

as known effects of current harvest practices on the age of maturity, size structure, sex 

ratio, and genetic makeup of those resources. The RMES should assess the impact of all 

directed takes of marine mammals on marine mammal stocks and should indicate how 

these takes affect marine mammal stock status. 

The RMES should evaluate the effect of fishing, collecting or hunting on nontarget 

species including predator-prey relationships, competitive interactions, and marine food 

webs. Ecological models may be used to assess the significance of these changes, since 

the decline of one species may have immediate effects on food webs whereas the decline 

of another may be virtually unnoticed. 

ii. Effects of bycatch 

“Bycatch” is defined to mean the “discarded catch of any living marine resource due to a 

direct encounter with fishing gear.” (NMFS, 2004). The RMES should assess the effects 

of bycatch and bycatch mortality in the management area, including the impact on 

commercially valuable species, protected resources, endangered species, socioeconomic 

conditions, and integrity of data. 

iii. Effects of fishing gear on habitat 

When analyzing the effects of fishing gear on habitat, the RMES should include: a 

description of the mechanisms or processes causing adverse effects on the ecosystem; 

what particular component of the ecosystem is affected; a description of known or 

potential ecosystem functions disturbed or disrupted by these effects; and the extent of 

such disturbance or disruption. In describing the ecosystem components and functions 

that may be disturbed, information should also be assessed related to the rates of recovery 

both structurally and functionally (NRC, 2002). Information relevant to Essential Fish 

Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, and critical habitat should be included here. 

B. Non-living Marine Resource Extraction 

 i. Effects of oil and gas extraction 

The RMES should analyze the various components of oil and gas extraction activities 

(e.g., an oil or gas platform, a pipeline, and a transfer facility) together rather than 

separately. The RMES should analyze the effects of these operations not only while they 

are ongoing, but after they have ceased operation, since inactive structures often remain 

in place. 
35

The RMES should analyze: noise impacts from seismic surveys, vessel traffic, and 

structure construction; physical alteration of seabed and coastal habitats; discharge of 

wastes, including drilling muds, drilling fluids, and human waste; and oil spills. The 

RMES should also include the impacts that occur when a structure such as a drill rig is 

removed. When analyzing the effects of offshore mineral mining, the RMES should 

include not only physical impacts from dredging but also the effects of chemicals such as 

flocculants. 

 ii. Effects of gravel mining 

Gravel mining presents a number of potential impacts to LMR, not only at the site of 

extraction, but also at upstream and downstream locations and potentially throughout a 

watershed. Gravel removal alters the physical characteristics of the channel, either within 

the streambed, adjacent riparian buffer areas, or the floodplain, which can directly and 

indirectly affect structural components used by fish as spawning, juvenile rearing, and 

migratory habitat. 

When evaluating the primary effects of gravel mining, the RMES should determine 

whether existing and proposed activities conform with the prioritized siting criteria and 

environmentally preferred methodology of gravel extraction operations presented in 

NOAA Fisheries National Gravel Extraction Guidance (Packer, 2004). The RMES 

should analyze the effects of gravel mining on water quality, including the detrimental 

effects of turbidity and sedimentation, the potential release of toxic or contaminated 

sediments, and the risk of oil, gas, and chemical spill associated with the heavy 

equipment used during operations. 

When evaluating secondary and cumulative impacts of gravel mining, the RMES should 

consider that stream recovery is a slow and difficult to predict process that is dependent 

on upstream sediment supply and transport. The secondary impacts of gravel removal 

may be most obvious at the area of impact, upstream and downstream locations, but may 

be as far reaching as distant locations in the watershed. An evaluation of secondary 

impacts should analyze all life stages of affected fish species and should analyze the 

effects of reduced or replaced fish populations and associated impacts on food webs. The 

RMES should emphasize the important role of restoration and monitoring in reducing the 

long-term effects of gravel mining. 

C. Marine tourism and recreation 

The RMES should assess the impacts of recreational activities (other than recreational 

fishing) on the ecosystem within the management area. Examples of impacts include, but 

are not limited to: damage to coral reefs or other marine habitats from recreational 

boating/diving; shoreline damage due to excessive wakes from recreational boating; 

human interactions with or harassment of marine mammals (during whale watching; 

dolphin encounters, etc.); and marine pollution from recreational vehicles (boats, jet skis, 

etc.). 
36

D. Commercial shipping and cruise ships 

When examining the effects of marine transportation, the RMES should include: the 

effects of dredging to create deep-water channels; the loss of wetlands and shallow-water 

habitat to create docking and loading platforms; noise; the discharge of waste; increased 

turbidity; the introduction of non-native species in discharged ballast water; and 

collisions of ships with marine life. 

E. Military activities 

The RMES should analyze the impacts of any military activities in the management area 

if they impact the key LMRs within the area. Examples of activities include, but are not 

limited to: ship shock trials, detonations, air gun arrays, and sonar deployment, all of 

which may have noise impacts on marine mammals and other protected species; ship 

strikes of marine mammals; and ocean-based detonations that have residual impacts on 

marine habitat. 

F. Offshore disposal activities/Dredged material disposal 

The RMES should pay particular attention to the cumulative effects of dredged material 

disposal. The RMES should analyze the effects of designated disposal sites on the 

ecosystem even after the site is no longer being used. 

The analysis should include not only the direct loss of habitat from burial, but also effects 

of sedimentation, turbidity and chemical contamination. The analysis should pay 

particular attention to whether the disposal activities coincide with migratory routes and 

whether the disposal activities are occurring at times when eggs and larvae (which are 

particularly sensitive to increased turbidity) are present. The analysis should also 

consider the effects of beach renourishment projects on nesting sea turtles. 

G. Water uptake and discharge facilities 

The RMES should assess the uptake and/or discharge of water associated with power 

plants, LNG (liquefied natural gas) facilities, sewage treatment systems, and the like. 

Particular attention should be paid to the proximity of the intake or discharge to migration 

routes and spawning or nursery habitat. The analysis should include the effects of 

entrainment and impingement of all stages of marine life by intake structures, and the 

efficacy of any impact minimization measures. The analysis should also include the 

effects of thermal differences in discharge water. When assessing the effects of treated or 

raw sewage discharge, the analysis should include nutrient enrichment, toxic chemicals 

(such as chlorine, formaldehyde, ammonium and zinc), pathogenic organisms such as 

bacteria, and effects on biological oxygen demand. The analysis should pay particular 

attention to the proximity of outfalls to public recreation areas such as beaches. 

H. Submerged pipelines and cables 

The RMES should evaluate the coastal habitat types that may be affected by submerged 

pipelines and cables. For example, nearshore portions of the submerged systems intersect 

with sensitive habitats such as wetlands, estuaries, beaches and dunes. The land clearing 
37

and excavation activity required for installation can have a detrimental effect on these 

sensitive aquatic habitats. Examples of installation concerns that should be addressed by 

the RMES include: the need to perform thorough resource mapping prior to placement; 

restoration of wetlands and other habitats where excavation occurs; minimization of 

erosional effects; and the avoidance of marine resources such as submerged aquatic 

vegetation, corals, and live hardbottom. Maintenance and timely repair are critical 

requirements of submerged pipe and cable systems. The RMES should identify 

maintenance activities that will reduce the likelihood of damage, saltwater intrusion, and 

leaks, such as routine inspections and burial of pipes. The RMES should address when it 

is appropriate to leave inactive pipes and cables in place, such as when their removal 

would cause unnecessary damage to marine resources. The RMES should also address 

measures that should be taken to ensure that the abandoned pipes pose no future threat. 

I. Aquaculture 

The RMES should analyze the known and likely adverse effects of all aquaculture 

facilities in the ecosystem, paying particular attention to: biological pollution 

(escapement of farmed species and/or diseases and parasites associated with the farmed 

species); harvesting and potential overfishing of fish for fish feed; nutrient enrichment at 

aquaculture sites; release of antibiotics and pesticides; lethal or harmful interactions with 

wild species (such as predators); and habitat alteration (conversion of natural habitats to 

aquaculture facilities or alteration of habitat adjacent to aquaculture facilities). 

J. Non-native invasive species 

When evaluating the effects of non-native invasive species, the analysis should include 

an assessment of habitat alteration, trophic alteration, gene pool alteration, spatial 

alteration (physical displacement of native species), and introduction of disease. 

K. Scientific research 

Scientific research can have direct and indirect negative effects on LMR, such as marine 

mammals, threatened or endangered species, or targeted fish stocks and their habitats. 

The RMES should consider these effects if the research itself (e.g., through direct or 

incidental "take" or fish population sampling) has an impact on the entire species or stock 

or its habitat. Permitting processes used to authorize such activities can be used to gauge 

the extent of the potential impact. 

L. Other 

As the above list may not encompass all activities in or around the regional ecosystem, 

the RMES should analyze any other relevant uses or activities that impact achievement of 

the specific operational objectives. 

Non-marine Impacts (coastal, upland, riverine) 

A. Coastal development (loss of wetland and shallow estuarine habitats, pollution, loss of 

upland buffers) 
38

When evaluating the effects of coastal development, the RMES should analyze the 

connectivity between coastal ecosystem components and marine components. The 

RMES should pay particular attention to the loss and degradation of aquatic habitat due 

to fill and runoff. Other types of coastal development impacts that the RMES should 

evaluate include: eutrophication; habitat fragmentation; shading (from docks and piers); 

loss of buffers, dunes, or shoreline protection; changes in water circulation, temperature, 

and salinity; and exclusion of marine species by tide gates or other flood control 

structures. 

B. Alteration of freshwater systems 

When analyzing the effects of activities that alter freshwater systems (e.g., construction 

of dams, loss of riparian buffers, flood control by channelization, dredging of rivers for 

deep water ports, building canals), the RMES should evaluate not only the physical 

impediments that structures (e.g., dams) present to upstream and downstream migrating 

fish, but also the changes that they cause in hydrology and water quality. The RMES 

should evaluate the extent to which these activities alter the patterns and timing of flow, 

and identify related effects on access to spawning habitat and reduced survival. The 

RMES should determine whether altered flow conditions are affecting normal water 

temperatures, or adversely affecting oxygenation and egg incubation. Since dams in 

particular also block downstream movement of nutrients and sediment, RMESs should 

determine whether food web dynamics, the movement of sediments and debris, or 

downstream erosion are being affected. In addition, known physical impacts associated 

with fish passage should be included, including gas bubble disease, fishway mortality, 

stranding, and others. 

The RMES should describe the health and degree of alteration of streams that drain 

coastal watersheds. When analyzing the effects of the above-identified activities on the 

ecosystem, the RMES should also evaluate the changes that these activities cause in 

hydrologic and thermal regimes. The analysis should also include the effects of 

aggregate mining, which include substantial changes to stream morphology as well as the 

loss of spawning habitat. 

C. Agriculture (including silviculture) 

The RMES should assess the adverse effects of agricultural and nursery runoff resulting 

from: nutrient loading; introduction of animal wastes; erosion; and sedimentation. The 

impacts of these processes include increased turbidity, increased temperature, and the 

accumulation of dead organic material, which can result in decreased light penetration, 

decreased oxygen, and reduced growth of submerged aquatic vegetation. 

With respect to silviculture, the RMES should assess changes in dominant vegetation, 

reduced permeability of soils, increased sedimentation from surface runoff and mass 

wasting processes, altered hydrologic regimes, and impaired fish passage through 

inadequate design, construction, and/or maintenance of stream crossings. The RMES 

should also assess the effects of deforestation and timber harvest, such as: altered or 

impaired instream habitat structure and watershed function, inadequate or excessive 

surface and stream flows, increased stream bank and stream bed erosion, loss of complex 

instream habitats, sedimentation of riparian habitat, increased surface runoff with 
39

associated contaminants (e.g., herbicides, fertilizers, fine sediments), and changes in 

hydrologic characteristics (e.g., water temperature, annual hydrograph change, and 

instream discharge). 

Environmental Considerations 

Climate trends (both short- and long-term), catastrophic events (such as hurricanes), geotectonic 

factors (subsidence or glacial rebound), and other large-scale changes in the environment (e.g., 

regime shifts) may affect the degree to which specific threats affect the ecosystem, or the degree 

to which management alternatives succeed. To the extent possible, the RMES should analyze 

any overarching environmental trends or processes that may have those effects.