NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Road Map

Department of Commerce ∙ National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration ∙ National Marine Fisheries Service

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE PROCEDURE 01-120-01
Effective on: November 17, 2016
To be reviewed on: November 2023
Fisheries Management
Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Policy, 01-120
NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Road Map
NOTICE: This publication is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/lawsand-policies/policy-directive-system
Certified by: Alan Risenhoover
Office: Sustainable Fisheries

Author name: Kelly Denit
Office: Sustainable Fisheries
Type of Issuance: Renewal, November 2018

SUMMARY OF REVISIONS:
Renewed in November 2018. This initial directive was put into effect on April 13, 2017.
Digitally signed by
RISENHOOVER.ALAN.D.1365879490
Date: 2018.11.21 11:13:26 -05'00'

Signed ______________________________________________________
Alan Risenhoover
Date
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries

A special thank you to those who contributed to this document:
Sagar, K. Larsen, K. Osgood, M. Ford (eds.), K. Abrams, W. Arnold, K. Aydin, Y. deReynier, J.
Bohnsack, R. Brainard, M. Brown, T. Curtis, M. Fogarty, S. Gaichas, R. Gamble, T. Garfield, B.
Gerkee, R. Griffis, A. Gutierrez, J. Hare, C. Harvey, A. Hollowed, K. Holsman, J. Ianelli, I. Kaplan,
T. Lederhouse, P. Levin, K. Long, D. Lipton, S. Lucey, P. Lynch, R. Methot, I. Ortiz, J. Polovina, R.
Shuford, M. Sigler, H. Townsend, G. Watters, S. Zador

Executive Summary
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) has long recognized the
importance of implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) in order to
explicitly account for environmental changes and make trade-off decisions for actions that impact
multiple species. These decisions would otherwise be made implicitly with strictly single-species
management. The explicit treatment, transparent examination, and analytical exploration among
the trade-offs across the many objectives in a given region are key outcomes resulting from the
execution of EBFM.
NOAA Fisheries recently formalized its commitment to doing EBFM through the release of its
EBFM Policy. The Policy defines EBFM, describes its benefits, discusses how it relates to

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
existing living marine resource management legal authorities and requirements, establishes a
framework of six Guiding Principles to enhance and accelerate the implementation of EBFM
within NOAA Fisheries, and builds on past progress and clarifies the agency’s commitment to
integrating its management programs for living marine resources and their habitats.
The NOAA Fisheries EBFM Road Map builds upon the Policy by providing a national
implementation strategy for the Policy. This Road Map describes how to operationalize the
Policy’s six Guiding Principles through a series of core components for each one.
The six Guiding Principles, with their associated core components, are:
1. Implement ecosystem-level planning
 Engagement Strategy
 Fishery Ecosystem Plans
2. Advance our understanding of ecosystem processes
 Science to Understand Ecosystems
 Ecosystem Status Reports
3. Prioritize vulnerabilities and risks to ecosystems and their components
 Ecosystem-Level Risk Assessment
 Managed Species, Habitats and Communities Risk Assessment
4. Explore and address trade-offs within an ecosystem
 Modeling Capacity for Trade-offs
 Management Strategy Evaluations
5. Incorporate ecosystem considerations into management advice
 Ecosystem-Level Reference Points
 Ecosystem Considerations for Living Marine Resources
 Integrated Advice for Other Management Considerations
6. Maintain resilient ecosystems
 Resilience
 Community Well Being
These Guiding Principles, and the core components contained within them, are the actionable
steps for the implementation of EBFM within NOAA Fisheries.
NOAA Fisheries will review and, as appropriate, update the Road Map every 5 years. This will
enable NOAA Fisheries to meet further NOAA guidance on EBFM or as the needs of NOAA
Fisheries and its partners evolve. Key to the successful implementation of EBFM will be tradeoff analyses regarding prioritization of various activities in each region.

2

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1.0 Background, Purpose, Scope, and Resources of the EBFM Road Map
1.1 Background
1.2 Purpose
1.3 Scope
1.4 Resources
2.0 Implementation of EBFM
2.1 Guiding Principle 1 - Implement ecosystem-level planning
2.1.a Develop engagement strategies to facilitate the participation of partners
and stakeholders in the EBFM process
2.1.b Support development of Fishery Ecosystem Plans
2.2 Guiding Principle 2 - Advance our understanding of ecosystem processes
2.2.a Conduct Science to Understand Ecosystems
2.2.b Provide Ecosystem Status Reports for each Large Marine Ecosystem
2.3 Guiding Principle 3 - Prioritize vulnerabilities and risks to ecosystems and their
components
2.3.a Identify ecosystem-level, cumulative risk (across LMRs, habitats,
ecosystem functions, and associated fisheries communities) and vulnerability to
human and natural pressures
2.3.b Identify the individual and cumulative pressures that pose the most risk to
vulnerable resources and dependent communities
2.4 Guiding Principle 4 - Explore and address trade-offs within an ecosystem
2.4.a Analyze trade-offs on optimizing benefits from all fisheries within each
ecosystem or jurisdiction, taking into account ecosystem-specific policy goals and
objectives, cognizant that ecosystems are composed of interconnected components
2.4.b Develop Management Strategy Evaluation capabilities to better conduct
ecosystem-level analyses to provide ecosystem-wide management advice
2.5 Guiding Principle 5 - Incorporate ecosystem considerations into management
advice
2.5.a Develop and monitor Ecosystem-Level Reference Points
2.5.b Incorporate ecosystem considerations into appropriate LMR assessments,
control rules, and management decisions
2.5.c Provide integrated advice for other management considerations,
particularly applied across multiple species within an ecosystem
2.6 Guiding Principle 6 - Maintain resilient ecosystems
2.6.a Evaluate ecosystem-level measures of resilience
2.6.b Evaluate community well-being
3.0 Execution of the EBFM Roadmap and Effective Dates
4.0 References
Attachments:
Figure 1 The location of Regional Offices, Fishery Science Centers, Fishery
Management Councils, Interstate Fishery Commissions, Large Marine
3

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Ecosystems, and the US Exclusive Economic Zone for which NOAA Fisheries and
its partners have jurisdiction and are mandated to manage LMRs and marine
ecosystems.
Figure 2 Inter-relationships among NOAA Fisheries programs and plans that support
EBFM.
Box 1 NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) Program: An analytical
framework to deliver management advice in an ecosystem context
Box 2 Levels of EBM
Box 3 Conceptual models guide science and provide for stakeholder engagement in
support of EBFM in the California Current
Box 4 Description of FEPs and general use
Box 5 Ecosystem Status Reports
Box 6 Aggregate Risk Assessment
Box 7 Stock assessment prioritization and ecosystem-linkages
Box 8 Two million metric ton cap for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish
fishery
Box 9 Fisheries Stock Assessments with ecosystem information
Box 10 Interdisciplinary approach to estimate multi-species harvest control rules and
reference points
List of Acronyms

4

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

1.0 Background, Purpose, Scope, and Resources of the EBFM Road Map
1.1 Background
It is NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) policy to
implement ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). This policy is formalized
in the EBFM Policy Statement1. For maximum effectiveness, fisheries should be
managed in an ecosystem context to ensure that interacting effects among fisheries,
ecosystems, and human activities are accounted for. EBFM is an important approach to
deal with changing conditions. The EBFM Policy recognizes the importance of EBFM
and articulates NOAA Fisheries’ commitment to it.
The EBFM Policy describes the background, definition, rationale, legislative context,
and major Guiding Principles for executing EBFM. NOAA Fisheries defines EBFM as:
“a systematic approach to fisheries management in a geographically specified area
that contributes to the resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem; recognizes the
physical, biological, economic, and social interactions among the affected fisheryrelated components of the ecosystem, including humans; and seeks to optimize benefits
among a diverse set of societal goals.”

1.2 Purpose
This EBFM Road Map will guide and enhance NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to implement
the EBFM Policy over the next 5 years. It describes recommended actions to address
each of the Policy’s six Guiding Principles for near-term work. The Road Map is meant
to provide a menu of options, not a prescription of “must-do’s.” Given the breadth and
magnitude of implementing EBFM, the Road Map is an initial national articulation of
priorities that the agency will continue to review, revise, and build on for the efforts
noted herein, with another installment of the Road Map planned in 5 years.
The EBFM Road Map calls for increased coordination across all the living marine
resource (LMR) science and management efforts in each U.S. marine region (Figure 1).
This Road Map is intended to ensure that: no major pressures affecting LMRs and their
habitats are omitted; NOAA Fisheries executes the correct analytical level of
assessment, addresses relevant ecosystem linkages, accounts for ecosystem-level
features and cumulative impacts; and the frequency and scope of LMR assessments
align with the broader ecosystem and fishing community dynamics. A major objective
of this Road Map is to identify complementary efforts that would benefit from
additional coordination. NOAA Fisheries will ensure that its various efforts are well
coordinated among NOAA Fisheries Science Centers, Regions, and Headquarters
Offices, Regional Fishery Management Councils, states, key stakeholders, and with
those of other NOAA Line Offices. Ultimately, all factors affecting fisheries resources
1

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/01/01-120.pdf

5

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
or affected by them need to be considered in a systematic manner in the science and
management pertaining to these resources.
The NOAA Fisheries EBFM implementation is based on six Guiding Principles
outlined in the EBFM Policy Statement:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Implement ecosystem-level planning
Advance our understanding of ecosystem processes
Prioritize vulnerabilities and risks to ecosystems and their components
Explore and address trade-offs within an ecosystem
Incorporate ecosystem considerations into management advice
Maintain resilient ecosystems

These Guiding Principles help NOAA Fisheries prioritize and coordinate across a range
of management objectives to more fully adopt a systematic, integrated approach based
on a solid, continually advancing, and innovative science foundation. Adopting and
meeting these Guiding Principles is an ongoing effort that will harmonize our
endeavors to meet myriad mandates in a more integrated, systematic manner.
This Road Map describes how NOAA Fisheries will translate these Guiding Principles
into actionable steps to further implement EBFM. This Road Map describes operational
EBFM from a national perspective while allowing for flexibility in regional application.
Finally, this Road Map addresses guidance from OMB titled “Incorporating Ecosystem
Services into Federal Decision Making”.
NOAA Fisheries views the EBFM Road Map as an evolution in how it meets its
mandates, not as an additional requirement for meeting them. This Road Map does not
modify any existing legal mandates. NOAA Fisheries recognizes that many EBFM
efforts are already underway. A key point for developing this EBFM Road Map is to
leverage existing efforts and more effectively coordinate among them.
This document is intended to outline a process for NOAA Fisheries employees, and
describe how NOAA Fisheries expects to work with our partners and stakeholders.
NOAA Fisheries recognizes the role that Councils, Commissions, and other critical
partners play in shaping priorities, policy, and management approaches for fisheries
with respect to EBFM implementation.

1.3 Scope
The implementation of EBFM must be scalable and flexible with respect to geographic
scope and extent. The Road Map recognizes that, because of the many major
jurisdictions in the United States for LMR management (Figure 1), management must
occur at multiple spatial, temporal, and governance scales. NOAA Fisheries needs
comprehensive communication and close coordination with multiple partners to
execute EBFM at all these jurisdictional levels.
6

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
This Road Map acknowledges the multiple scales at which NOAA Fisheries could be
involved to execute EBFM. The components of each Guiding Principle are established to
be flexible enough to accommodate varying geographic or governance scales. The
primary emphasis and focus of the Road Map is on the Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)
in each NOAA Fisheries region and particularly the partnership between NOAA
Fisheries and the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils). This approach
capitalizes on NOAA Fisheries’ Fisheries Science Centers (FSCs) and Regional Offices
(ROs) existing structures and strengths, but also allows for the requisite flexibility to
address other jurisdictions that are germane to specific regions and locales.
Many of these jurisdictions have already made significant progress toward components of
EBFM and this Road Map outlines a set of Actions to further support implementation.
NOAA Fisheries recognizes that implementation of EBFM is a process that requires
cooperation among diverse groups, including scientists, managers, resource users, and
stakeholders. NOAA Fisheries, in collaboration with its partners and stakeholders, has
already begun the process of implementing EBFM, through the recognition of the need
for ecosystem considerations in a number of actions including:









The assessment of our fisheries and protected species stocks through the Stock
Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP) and the Protected Species Improvement
Plan (PR-SAIP)
The need to understand the underlying processes that link environmental factors
and fisheries through the existing Fisheries and the Environment (FATE) Program
The consideration of the full socio-ecological system, that explicitly includes the
human dimension, to evaluate ecosystem status, risk, and trade-offs and inform
management decisions through Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs)
The identification and conservation of essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat
areas of particular concern (HAPC) upon which commercial fisheries are
dependent through the Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan (HAIP2), EFH
reviews, consultation and fishery management actions
The monitoring, conservation, and development of solutions to minimize the
bycatch of marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, protected fish, corals, and
sponges through programs such as the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program
and Deep-Sea Coral Research and Technology Program
The need to better understand, prepare for, and respond to effects of climate
variability and change on marine ecosystems and fisheries through the
establishment of NOAA Fisheries’ Climate Science Strategy (NCSS3), its
Regional Action Plans (RAPs), and related activities such as regional Climate

2

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/habitat/pdf/habitatAssesmentImprovementPlan
_052110.pdf
3
https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/habitat/pdf/habitatAssesmentImprovementPlan
_052110.pdf

7

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016


Vulnerability Analyses (CVAs).
The establishment of Fisheries Ecosystem Plans (FEPs), which are intended to
serve as comprehensive management tools that incorporate trophic relationships
among marine predators, prey, habitat, and human activities (Box 4-FEPs)

NOAA Fisheries recognizes that these efforts are complementary and that they
collectively advance EBFM. The present EBFM Road Map serves to interconnect and
build on these existing efforts and describes steps that support and integrate ongoing
analytical and management efforts in each region to ensure that our national efforts are
reflective of the local knowledge resulting from regional science, management, and
stakeholder approaches.
This Road Map recognizes the need for a framework to integrate and synthesize a wide
range of information. While not a requirement, the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment
(IEA4) approach is an appropriate and increasingly adopted framework to provide a
coherent theme for integrating all the various inputs, products, and efforts requisite for
EBFM (Box 1-IEAs). IEAs provide an internationally accepted construct for translating
marine ecosystem science into a range of management advice. Although able to address
multiple ocean-use sectors—and originally intended for the multiple ocean-use, multisector Ecosystem-based Management (EBM; Box 2-EBM Levels)—IEAs also serve as a
basis for implementing EBFM. There is no need to develop a new framework or process;
rather, NOAA Fisheries will adopt the IEA approach to execute the Guiding Principles
for achieving EBFM, and to provide outputs from the IEA process to existing
jurisdictional governance venues.
Implementing EBFM requires action to advance both science and management
considerations. Certainly NOAA Fisheries aims to advance the science capability at its
FSCs, but recognizes that it also needs inputs from a wide array of partners to further
advance the science necessary to support EBFM. NOAA Fisheries also recognizes that
management actions and decisions occur in its ROs/FSCs and in its partner organizations
like Councils, Interstate Fishery Commissions, states, tribal governments, Regional
Fishery Management Organizations, and others. NOAA Fisheries acknowledges that
advances are also needed in management to implement EBFM, and this Road Map
identifies supportive actions where LMR management is led by partners external to
NOAA Fisheries. This Road Map aims to clarify that actionable steps are recommended
in both the science and management contexts.
NOAA Fisheries carries out many interrelated efforts to monitor, model, and manage the
nation’s LMRs and associated goods, services, and emergent properties from marine
ecosystems (Figure 2). In practice, NOAA Fisheries has been working toward EBFM for
many years, and the Road Map will further and more formally codify how NOAA
Fisheries will continue to do so.

4 https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ecosystems/iea/index

8

1.4 Resources
As noted, the Road Map builds upon existing efforts already underway. The timing of the
Action Items is based on need and availability of funding. “Short-term” actions are
ongoing or already planned and either are or will be funded from existing resources.
“Medium and Long-Term” actions are needed to fully implement this Road Map, but
may not yet be completely funded and therefore not immediately implementable.
Throughout the document there are references to Federal employee positions (FTEs =
Full Time Equivalents) that may require 1) new staff to be hired, subject to available
funds, 2) existing staff who are already doing the job, or 3) existing staff that could have
their portfolios expanded or reoriented. However, NOAA Fisheries emphasizes that
EBFM can continue to be advanced in the short-term with existing funds.
Informed decisions will need to be made concerning whether some funding for existing
programs should be re-directed and prioritized to support new efforts contributing to
EBFM. NOAA Fisheries is committed to making EBFM a priority via the execution of
this Road Map, while remaining committed to addressing regionally established needs
and emphases.
Within each Headquarters Office, FSC, and RO within NOAA Fisheries over the next 1
to 2 years, NOAA Fisheries leadership will begin to develop a specific set of milestones
to address EBFM elements in this Road Map. As part of regular strategic planning and
annual planning processes, these milestones will be prioritized. Implementation of
EBFM activities will therefore be an integral part of the annual budget planning process.
Within 18 months of the release of this Road Map, each NOAA Fisheries region
including those conducting business for the Office of Sustainable Fisheries such as
Highly Migratory Species (HMS), using the development of their regional engagement
strategies (section 2.1) as an organizing theme, will combine ongoing facets of NCSS
Regional Action Plans, Next Generation Stock Assessment (NGSA) Priorities, HAIP
Habitat Prioritization, EFH Reviews, NOAA's Water Initiative, and specific systematic
EBFM elements noted herein, into a regional EBFM implementation plan with specific
milestones. Each NOAA Fisheries region will seek efficiencies by working with
appropriate Councils, Commissions, tribes and stakeholders to align and/or coordinate
these milestones with other related ecosystem activities.

2.0 Implementation of EBFM Guiding Principles
This section of the Road Map expands upon the EBFM Policy, providing greater detail for
each of the Guiding Principles and delineating, in broad terms, what is required to make
EBFM operational.

2.1 Implement ecosystem-level planning–Guiding Principle 1
Guiding Principle 1 calls for the use of Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs), or similar
documents, to describe and integrate ecosystem goals, objectives, and priorities across
multiple fisheries and the effects of various pressures on fisheries within an ecosystem.

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
NOAA Fisheries cannot fully implement EBFM without significant engagement from its
partners and interested stakeholders. To implement ecosystem-level planning, Guiding
Principle 1 calls for NOAA Fisheries to:



Facilitate continued participation of external federal, state (including territories),
Council, Commission, tribal, industry, and other non-governmental partners in the
EBFM process
Support and provide guidance or assistance to execute FEPs that are used as
umbrella strategic planning documents to guide coordination and trade-off
evaluation among Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), related documents, and
other ecosystem components

Such ecosystem-level planning would address long-term ecological, economic, and social
goals, objectives, and priorities across NOAA Fisheries’ multiple mandates and in
partnership with its diverse stakeholders.
2.1.a Develop engagement strategies to facilitate the participation of partners and
stakeholders in the EBFM process (Guiding Principle 1a)
NOAA Fisheries will develop, with interested partners (e.g. Councils, Commissions,
tribes, etc.) national and regional EBFM engagement strategies to further this initial
phase of awareness and engagement on EBFM. NOAA Fisheries will initiate and
maintain a national dialogue on EBFM with its partners to ensure that we communicate
underlying principles as well as the needs for and benefits from EBFM, while being open
to input from those audiences and adjusting its efforts accordingly. Additionally, NOAA
Fisheries will build on extant engagement efforts from the IEA program (Box 3Engagement), the NCSS and its Regional Action Plans, Council visioning processes,
regular Council Coordination Committee meetings, NOAA’s Aquaculture Policy, and
similar efforts that serve as part of the ongoing engagement with local fishing
communities, partners and stakeholders regarding EBFM. Other engagement approaches
will also be necessary, including webinars and other venues to reach beyond the usual set
of stakeholders.
Engaging with partners and stakeholders will allow NOAA Fisheries to better identify the
management actions required to achieve agreed-upon results, identify those management
actions that are not working, and address the management decisions that are currently
made with large uncertainty. A useful tool for engagement is the development and use of
conceptual models (Box 3- Engagement), which have helped to promote and support
feedback on ecosystem modeling when developing objectives for a region. A venue for
all stakeholders to provide input and feedback on EBFM analyses will improve the
transparency of implementation of EBFM. While FEPs are a good initial source to
identify ecosystem-level goals and objectives for Councils, it is important that multiple
stakeholders and jurisdictions (not just Councils) engage in this process. In some LMEs
multiple Councils, Commissions, international, and state jurisdictions must be engaged.
Best practices for coordinating across these jurisdictions need to be developed as part of
the regional plan.
10

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
NOAA Fisheries recognizes that to some it is not clear how addressing trade-offs among
multiple objectives can be made under current statutes. While the Policy has a brief
discussion of this issue, as EBFM is implemented, NOAA Fisheries will continue to
explore this issue in the context of specific matters and relevant statutory mandates.
Evaluations to date clearly note a need and authority for EBFM5.
2.1.b Support development of Fishery Ecosystem Plans (Guiding Principle 1b)
Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) are policy planning documents that the Councils or
NOAA Fisheries may use to describe ecosystem objectives and priorities for fishery
science and management, and to inform development of FMPs or FMP amendments (Box
4-FEPs). FEPs provide fisheries management with ecosystem-scale information on
fundamental physical, chemical, biological, and socio-economic structures and functions
of LMEs. They are valuable for describing the relationships between LMRs, human uses
of those resources, and other human activities that affect LMRs and their habitats. By
exploring fishery management options that simultaneously address multiple objectives,
they may help the Councils, Commissions, tribes, RFMOs, NOAA Fisheries, and other
agencies better address the cumulative effects of our actions on the environment.
FEPs have been developed by several Councils, primarily to explore ecosystem-wide
issues under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
A recent inventory6 documents the national progress made in the development of FEPs.
Many Councils are also implementing EBFM through FMPs. To better understand the
scale and scope of EBFM activity within our multiple Council processes, an inventory of
best Council practices for EBFM is needed.
NOAA Fisheries will build on a recently completed review of FEPs and conduct an
inventory and gap analysis of EBFM efforts in FMPs across regions to establish a
baseline understanding of existing approaches nationally and to identify areas ripe for
further guidance. To a large extent, future FEPs will be designed to identify prioritized
information to promote the implementation of EBFM. In some instances Councils have
developed, or are considering the development of, FEPs that meet the MSA requirements
for FMPs and function as FMPs. NOAA Fisheries recognizes that there are efficiencies
in taking such an approach, but notes that it is important for FEPs to maintain their
strategic, ecosystem-level perspective.

5

This will be explored further in Section 2.4
Benchmarking the 1999 EPAP recommendations with existing Fishery Ecosystem Plans;
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/publications/technical-memos/nmfs_osf_tm5.pdf

6

11

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Recommended Actions
EBFM Policy Statement
Guiding Principles

#

Implement Ecosystem Level
planning
1a

EBFM Road Map
Components

Overarching Goal

Action Items

Timing

Engagement
Strategy

Have EBFM
Engagement Strategy
for each region

Establish EBFM Point of Contact at
each Regional Office, Fisheries
Science Center, and Headquarters
Offices

Short

Develop National and Regional
EBFM engagement strategies
Develop best practices where there
are overlapping jurisdictions.

Short

Develop Standardized EBFM Policy
and Road Map Materials for
widespread use (e.g. NOAA Fisheries
personnel, Sea Grant extension
agents)
NOAA Fisheries supports any
Ecosystem Plan Development
Teams, Ecosystem Committees (or
equivalent groups) that Councils
establish
Continue to explore tradeoffs in the
context of EBFM issues and relevant
statutory mandates
Create "X-prize" like competition for
visualizing and communicating
EBFM

Short

Establish FEP Coordinator/Analyst
for each NOAA Fisheries Regional
Office and in appropriate
Headquarters Office

Mid

Review and develop inventory of
existing FEPs and Ecosystem
Considerations in FMPs,
documenting best practices
Assist Councils, Commissions,
RFMOs, and other bodies as
requested, in their development of
new, or revision of existing FEPs

Short

Develop engagement
strategies to facilitate
the participation of
partners and
stakeholders in the
EBFM process

1b

Fishery
Ecosystem Plans

Assist Councils in the
development of their
FEPs for most of our
12 LMEs

Support development of
Fishery Ecosystem
Plans

12

Mid

Continui
ng

Mid

Mid

Continui
ng

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

2.2 Advance our understanding of ecosystem processes–Guiding Principle 2
Ecosystem-level advice requires ecosystem-level science. Here, ecosystem-level science
can be characterized by multidisciplinary information, collaborations and heightened
coordination, and a drive to understand processes important to fishery resources. The
holistic approach of EBFM recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social
complexities of managing living resources as an integrated system. As NOAA Fisheries
moves toward implementation of EBFM, additional information will be required from
many disciplines. Implementation of EBFM will result in better awareness of ecosystem
status and trends as well as new understanding of the ecosystem processes relevant to
fishery resources.
NOAA Fisheries will work to better understand the broader suite of ecosystem processes,
drivers, threats, status, and trends of the nation’s marine ecosystems to inform all levels
of management advice, including:
 Conduct science to understand ecosystems
 Provide Ecosystem Status Reports for each Large Marine Ecosystem
2.2.a Conduct science to understand ecosystems (Guiding Principle 2a)
The science programs within NOAA Fisheries are critically important for advancing the
understanding of ecosystem processes—as are partnerships with universities, states,
tribes, Councils, Interstate Fisheries Commissions, RFMOs, other NOAA Line Offices,
and other federal agencies. Modeling the processes, drivers, threats, status, and trends of
our ecosystems is not possible without data collection programs to ensure that we have
the requisite data to populate those models. As NOAA Fisheries implements EBFM,
additional information will be needed from an array of scientific disciplines. A national
review of the data collection programs is needed across a wide range of disciplines,
including but beyond the typical abundance and basic biological and catch data. For
instance, needs that warrant inventory to identify gaps include diet identification and
predator-prey interactions for LMR species, lower trophic level data, ecosystem
productivity, interactions between protected and other species, habitat data and LMR
species’ habitat use, oceanographic data, broader economic data, social well-being data,
and climate data. We note data available to support EBFM varies considerably across
regions, and an inventory of data, data needs, and associated plans to identify and
determine how to fill data gaps is needed.
An important challenge as we implement EBFM is to advance our understanding of
processes as we discern the relative importance to fishery resources. NOAA Fisheries
will work to better understand a broader suite of ecosystem processes, drivers, and
threats, including:


Measurable biogeochemical, biophysical, and ecological factors, processes, and
interactions, such as:
13

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016





o Population dynamics and spatiotemporal distributions of LMRs
o Trophic relationships (including predator-prey relationships and forage
fish dynamics, and food demands of commercial and protected species)
o Oceanographic features and other environmental factors (including
climate change and ocean acidification)
o Habitat distribution status and predominant threats to ongoing habitat
quality, and linking habitat to ecosystem productivity patterns
o Effects of invasive species on ecosystem function
Social and economic considerations, such as:
o Social and economic factors that influence fishermen, seafood farmers,
and other users of the marine environment
o Economic welfare and social well-being of resource users and dependent
communities
o Community vulnerability and resilience
o Non-market and existence values of marine mammals, turtles, seabirds,
forage species, corals, and other marine species
o Seafood production, inclusive of aquaculture
o Employment
o Long-term social and economic impacts of resource depletion and
recovery
o Gear-specific location and intensity of fishing effort
o Changes in domestic seafood supply and security
o Changes in recreational fishing opportunities
Interactions between fisheries, protected species, and habitats

Results of end-to-end research efforts for EBFM enhance our scientific advice. These
results complement the stock assessments that are a mainstay of the fishery and protected
species management process. Such studies need to cut across scientific disciplines and
accelerate the application of ecosystem research results to NOAA Fisheries scientific
advice. NOAA Fisheries will evaluate current investments in system-level research,
utilize existing mechanisms to support the appropriate portfolio mix of traditional stockoriented research and more interdisciplinary end-to-end studies, and develop budget
initiatives to bolster this research.
In addition, NOAA Fisheries proposes to convene a biennial conference dedicated to
EBFM research and management. This venue will provide an environment to exchange
research results, communicate best practices, and gather experts to address scientific and
management challenges to EBFM. The development of a biennial conference will build
on regular and extant FATE, National Habitat Assessment Workshops (NHAW),
National Stock Assessment Workshops (NSAW), National Ecosystem Modeling
Workshops (NEMoW), and IEA meetings and will elevate NOAA Fisheries science and
management needed to implement EBFM.
2.2.b Provide Ecosystem Status Reports for each Large Marine Ecosystem (Guiding
Principle 2b)
14

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs) for specific LMEs will be produced periodically and
are intended to provide a brief summary of the status of ecosystem dynamics, including
pressures and responses (Box 5-ESRs). These reports are informational products that
provide overall system context using the status and trends of leading indicators.
Additionally, by identifying data useful for further analytical effort, ESRs can highlight
key data gaps and support future technological development and data collection efforts.
Developing and regularly updating ESRs in each region require an efficient process and
sufficient resources. ESRs are maturing conceptually and being used by NOAA Fisheries
partners, such as by various Councils within Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation
reports. Their use to inform a plethora of other LMR management needs (e.g., bycatch
reports, Status of Stocks, stock assessment reviews, biological opinions, status reviews,
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and EFH reviews is not yet fully realized. To implement
EBFM, ESRs need to advance in sophistication and diagnostic capability. An effective
system for delivering the reports and related advisories will enhance efficiencies in their
production time and relevance to stakeholders.

15

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Recommended Actions
EBFM Policy
Statement
Guiding Principles

#

EBFM Road Map
Core Components

Advance our understanding of ecosystem
processes
2a
Science to
Understand
Ecosystems

Overarching Goal

Action Items

Timing

Have robust, innovative,
Internationally-recognized
science programs to
support management

Advance resources to conduct EBFM

Continui
ng

Develop capacity for NOAA Fisheries
to conduct end-to-end ecosystem
studies
Conduct biennial EBFM Science &
Management Conference

Mid

Develop and maintain core data and
information streams

Continui
ng

A national review of the data
collection programs across a wide
range of disciplines, including but
beyond the typical abundance and
basic biological data.

Mid

Conduct a national review of
existing ESRs to assess Fisheries
Science Center (FSC) indicator
information needs to identify
where ESRs address similar
indicators
across LMEs
Establish routine, regular and
dynamic reporting of ESRs for each
LME

Short

Conduct Science to
Understand Ecosystems

2b

Ecosystem Status
Reports

Have ESRs for most of our
12 LMEs

Provide Ecosystem Status
Reports for each Large
Marine Ecosystem

16

Mid

Mid

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

2.3 Prioritize vulnerabilities and risks of ecosystems and their components—
Guiding Principle 3
Resources to manage our nation’s LMRs and their ecosystems are finite. NOAA
Fisheries and its partners must identify and prioritize which ecosystems, habitats, or
LMRs warrant additional attention relative to risks such as effects from climate change,
pollution, overfishing, etc. Rapid evaluation of key pressures, drivers, and threats is
needed to identify and mitigate them, to rebuild depleted species, produce additional
seafood, and to improve resilience of the ecosystems in which they live. Attempting such
triage exercises can be daunting, but is warranted to best capture the risks facing the
nation’s managed species and ecosystems. Building off work and information from the
previous two Guiding Principles, prioritization through existing and ongoing risk7 and
vulnerability analyses will help to focus responses to the ever-changing and increasingly
dynamic pressures that managers responsible for marine ecosystems face.
NOAA Fisheries needs to evaluate and address the individual and cumulative drivers for
threats to and pressures on the physical, chemical, biological, social, and economic
components of marine ecosystems. This should take into account the comprehensive and
systematic risk, vulnerability, and susceptibility of LMRs and ecosystems, including:



Identify the ecosystem-level, cumulative risk (across LMRs, habitats, ecosystem
functions, and associated fisheries communities) in each region and the relative
vulnerability to human and natural pressures
Identify the individual and cumulative pressures that pose the most risk to those
vulnerable resources and dependent communities

This starts at an ecosystem level to identify those overarching, common risks across all
taxa. Doing so will allow for efficiency of effort, as those major risks can then be
explored for individual taxa or habitats, fishery participants, and dependent communities.
2.3.a Identify ecosystem-level, cumulative risk (across LMRs, habitats, ecosystem
functions, and associated fisheries communities) and vulnerability to human and natural
pressures (Guiding Principle 3a)
NOAA Fisheries will conduct comprehensive, ecosystem-level risk assessments. These
analyses will allow jurisdictions (i.e., fishery management authorities such as NOAA
Fisheries, Councils, Commissions, etc.) to explore multiple pressures and drivers,
including climate and other abiotic factors specific to each jurisdiction, to better
understand the cumulative effects on the ecosystem and its fisheries. Ideally, this initial
suite of products would be developed and evaluated at an ecosystem-level. The analyses
help each region to prioritize management and scientific needs. Taking a systemic, or

7

Here risk means the possibility of any factor, or combination of factors, that negatively influence or impact the status
of the ecosystem and stocks in it. Risk has elements of probability of occurring, scale or magnitude of impact,
vulnerability to the impact, and exposure to the possible impact.

17

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
aggregate approach, helps to identify overarching, common risks across all habitats, taxa,
ecosystem functions (Box 6 -Agg Risk), fishery participants, and dependent
communities. It also helps to capture the potential cumulative or synergistic effects of
multiple pressures.
2.3.b Identify the individual and cumulative pressures that pose the most risk to
vulnerable resources and dependent communities (Guiding Principle 3b)
Risk assessments need to be conducted to evaluate the vulnerability of the 800+ U.S.
managed and non-managed LMR (including targeted, bycaught, and protected) species
with respect to their exposure and sensitivity to ecological and environmental factors
affecting their populations. Habitat risk assessments are also needed to identify those
species that are habitat-limited, locales that will be most stressed by human activities and
changes in oceanographic conditions, and that are most important for conservation. These
assessments will be useful in prioritizing which of the LMRs and habitats need to be
examined in more detail or more frequently, and where conservation actions may be
needed most. Although they must be comprehensive in scope, risk assessment methods
can use a wide range of readily available qualitative and ordinal data, to rapidly and
systematically assess those factors that affect managed species or habitats. An example of
an existing rapid risk assessment tool is the Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis
(PSA). Another example is the Climate Vulnerability Assessment methodology, first
implemented in the Northeast region and now being conducted or planned for other
regions as part of the NCSS. Habitat assessment prioritization processes have been
completed in three NOAA Fisheries regions. Additionally, a comprehensive stock
assessment prioritization effort is ongoing (Box 7- SA Priority Analyses). Similar risk
analyses to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA))
will be conducted to plan for major projects such as aquaculture production in federal
waters (for regions where offshore aquaculture is most likely to occur) or coastal and
offshore development and infrastructure. The overall outcome of these risk assessments
is to identify the LMRs and habitats for which broader ecosystem considerations are
highest priority.
Fisheries communities are also at risk as LMR dynamics change in response to a range of
human and natural factors. Risk assessment of fleets, ports, and related communities is
warranted as those human elements of the ecosystem will need to adapt to changing
ecosystem and management conditions, and face related economic and social
consequences. The IEA program has developed a methodology which provides a
hierarchical conceptual framework for an ecosystem-based approach to risk assessment
that addresses the coupled natural and human systems. Community well-being and
community vulnerability analyses are necessary to fully evaluate the extent of risk.
Associated details for these community analysis are further described in Section 2.6.

18

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Recommended Actions
EBFM Policy Statement
Guiding Principles

#

EBFM Road Map
Core
Components

Overarching
Goal

Action Items

Timing

3a

Ecosystem-level
Risk assessment

Evaluate
majority of main
risks, including
Climate Change,
for most of our
12 LMEs

Conduct Systematic Risk Assessments
for relevant NOAA regional
ecosystems

Long

Explore protocols for conducting
regional habitat risk assessments for
those areas known to serve important
ecological functions for multiple
species groups or will be especially
vulnerable or important in the face of
climate change
Ensure more integrated, systematic
risk assessments, which could be used
to coordinate regional NEPA analyses
Ensure that factors which impact
800+ US managed species are being
considered

Mid

Conduct Habitat Assessment
Prioritization for all NOAA Fisheries
regions

Mid

Conduct Fishing Community
vulnerability assessments for all
NOAA Fisheries regions

Short

Prioritize
vulnerabilities and risks

Conduct comprehensive
ecosystem-level risk
assessment

3b

Managed
species, Habitats
& Communities
Risk Assessment

Evaluate risks for
all of our
managed species

Conduct risk assessment
for each of NOAA
Fisheries’ Managed
Species, Habitats and
Fishing Communities

19

Long

Continui
ng

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

2.4 Explore and address trade-offs within an ecosystem—Guiding Principle
4
Once priorities have been established following the risk and vulnerability assessments,
trade-offs need to be evaluated within and between activities and components in the
associated ecosystems, including those related to alternate management strategies and
evaluation of potential impacts. In close cooperation with its partners, NOAA Fisheries
supports the consideration of and efforts to take into account various trade-offs when
considering the independent and the cumulative effects of natural and human pressures
on the ecosystem, including:




Analyze trade-offs to optimize total benefits from all fisheries within each
ecosystem or jurisdiction. This will be done by taking into account statutory
mandates (e.g., MSA, Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), ESA, National
Aquaculture Act, etc.), regional socio-economic considerations, and ecosystemspecific policy goals and objectives that may apply
Develop Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) capabilities to better conduct
ecosystem-level analyses that provide ecosystem-wide management advice

NOAA Fisheries recommends using MSEs to explore trade-offs among the objectives
identified in Guiding Principle 1, and remaining cognizant of the statutory obligations
under the ESA, NEPA, MMPA, National Aquaculture Act, MSA, et seq. as noted in the
EBFM Policy. These need to be juxtaposed with ecosystem-level reference points and
benchmarks, so that cumulative impacts or ecosystem-specific objectives are not
overlooked.
2.4.a Analyze trade-offs for optimizing benefits from all fisheries within each ecosystem
or jurisdiction, taking into account ecosystem-specific policy goals and objectives,
cognizant that ecosystems are composed of interconnected components (Guiding
Principle 4a)
Sufficient modeling capacity to analyze trade-offs is important for EBFM. This is because
a wide range of information and objectives needs to be synthesized and integrated. That
said, there are a wide range of modeling tools available, ranging from qualitative mental
modeling to fully and highly quantitative end-to-end models. Before establishing reference
points against which objectives can be measured, and before establishing MSE protocols
and processes, the analytical basis for exploring ecosystem dynamics is required. While
NOAA Fisheries has some existing capacity, it still needs to bolster this capability,
including both complex and simple models and tools. Fully coupled, end-to-end models
capturing the entire Earth-system, physical, chemical, geological, biological, and socioeconomic facets of ecosystem dynamics are not possible nor necessary in every locale.
Other models of intermediate complexity can also be used and should be further
developed. However, a suite of data-poor tools, techniques, and models exist to begin
modeling for EBFM practically everywhere. Development of an EBFM analytical toolbox
is needed, particularly one that includes ecosystem modeling tools and best practices; data20

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
poor qualitative and semi-quantitative tools; and related decision support tools. This
toolbox would be used in conjunction with Fisheries and Protected Species toolboxes and
in conjunction with risk assessment tools. NOAA Fisheries needs to bolster its ecosystem
modeling capacity and harmonize its ecosystem modeling efforts with its fish assessment
and protected species modeling efforts.
Comparisons across multiple models are ongoing, but expansion of multi-model
inference is prudent.
2.4.b Develop Management Strategy Evaluation capabilities to better conduct ecosystemlevel analyses to provide ecosystem-wide management advice (Guiding Principle 4b)
Assessing and appropriately accounting for uncertainty when making management
decisions for LMRs is critical. MSEs allow jurisdictions to test management options
under various ecological and environmental conditions. As such MSEs are an important
tool to help develop robust management alternatives in the face of changing conditions.
A wide range of simulations using MSEs will help determine which management options
will most likely accomplish desirable outcomes and are most robust to accommodate a
range of considerations. MSEs help evaluate trade-offs among different management
scenarios and can highlight key gaps in data and understanding of ecosystem processes
and human impacts. Executing MSEs at the ecosystem level can capture major drivers,
pressures, and responses, as well as emergent properties that would be missed if explored
on a taxa-by-taxa basis. NOAA Fisheries will ensure that Ecosystem MSEs link to
multispecies and single species MSEs, inclusive of economic, socio-cultural, and habitat
considerations and objectives.
Innovative means for visualizing complex MSE and model output are also needed.
The use of social media, interactive graphics, and engaging storytelling has become
commonplace and is now almost expected. Typically we present model results in
complex, static graphic format. As technologies and tools continue to develop, the ability
to more interactively allow stakeholders to “play” possible fishing, aquaculture,
mitigation, or other management scenarios seems warranted, and better captures the
truest sense of transparency when making multi-objective decisions.

21

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Recommended Actions8
EBFM Policy
Statement Guiding
Principles

#

EBFM Road Map Core
Components

Overarching
Goal

Action Items

Timing

Have sufficient
analytical
capacity to
evaluate a full
range of
tradeoffs

Assess and bolster ecosystem and
LMR modeling needs in each FSC

Short-Mid

Explore and address trade-offs within an ecosystem
4a

Modeling Capacity for
Trade-offs

Establish sufficient EBFM
modeling capacity to analyze
trade-offs

4b

Management Strategy
Evaluations

Have MSEs that
cover most our
12 LMEs and
Fisheries

Developing Management
Strategy Evaluation
Capabilities

8

Development of an EBFM
analytical toolbox that includes
ecosystem modeling tools and best
practices; data-poor qualitative
and semi-quantitative tools; and
related decision support tools.

Mid

Encourage and expand the use of
multi-model inference

Continuin
g

Establish suitable review venues
and deliberative bodies for
ecosystem models and associated
information in each FSC region

Mid

Develop functional system-level
MSEs

Mid

Explore novel Harvest Control
Rules (HCRs) and develop
associated guidelines, as
appropriate and consistent with
National Standards, especially to
test & explore robust Ecosystem
Level strategies
Create "X-prize" like competition
for visualizing and communicating
complex ecosystem model and
MSE outputs

Long

Long

In conjunction with NGSA/SAIP and from SA Program reviews, each FSC to get one FTE for conducting MSEs as
operating models. This increase in MSE capacity will augment this EBFM effort in coming years.

22

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

2.5 Incorporate ecosystem considerations into management advice—
Guiding Principle 5
The EBFM Policy notes that implementing EBFM will assist the agency in better
meeting its mandates to sustainably manage the nation’s trust LMRs and maintain
resilient ecosystems. NOAA Fisheries recognizes the value of placing its resource
management efforts into a broader ecosystem context. LMR management should consider
best available ecosystem science in decision-making processes (within our legal and
policy frameworks), in order to:




Develop and monitor ecosystem-level reference points
Incorporate ecosystem considerations into appropriate LMR assessments, control
rules, and management decisions
Provide integrated advice for other management considerations, particularly
applied across multiple species within an ecosystem

Implementation of this principle will focus on four areas. First, NOAA Fisheries will
clarify the concept of ecosystem-level reference points and how they could be used in the
context of already required species or fisheries reference points. This will require close
coordination among FSCs, ROs, Councils, states, Commissions, RFMOs, tribes, and
other key stakeholders. This will be done consistent with the National Standard
guidelines99. Second, NOAA Fisheries has already begun work to incorporate ecosystem
information into species and stock assessments used to implement statutorily required
reference points. NOAA will continue to advance that work. Third, NOAA has several
mandates that are not reference point–driven but whose implementation could either
contribute information about ecosystem status or could be bolstered with additional
ecosystem information. Such mandates include requirements to minimize to the extent
practicable bycatch and bycatch mortality and adverse effects on essential fish habitat. It
also includes the well-being of coastal communities and participating persons in the
fisheries. Fourth, NOAA Fisheries will use ecosystem information in regional studies of
federal waters (e.g., NEPA analyses) where offshore aquaculture operations or related
ocean development are likely to occur and in studies of ecosystem carrying capacity
important to seafood farming in coastal areas.
Evaluating cumulative impacts of proposed management actions for LMRs, their
ecosystems, and associated coastal communities, as well as identifying alternative actions
that achieve societal goals will further inform EBFM decisions. Cumulative and
synergistic impacts are difficult to identify on a species-by-species basis, and systemic
analyses will help to identify any such impacts. The NEPA process is one tool that will
be utilized to better evaluate these cross-cutting potential impacts. In conjunction with
results of systemic risk assessments (Section 2.3.a), these analyses will help delineate

9

81 Fed. Reg. 71858 (Oct. 18, 2016).

23

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
those facets that result in the most pressure or largest constraints for achieving desired
stock, seafood production, and ecosystem status.
2.5.a Develop and monitor Ecosystem-Level Reference Points (Guiding Principle 5a)
Ecosystem-level reference points (ELRPs) and thresholds can inform the use of
statutorily required reference points (Box 8—Two million ton cap). These reference
points could help to identify key dynamics, emergent ecosystem properties, or major
ecosystem-wide issues that impact multiple species, stocks, and fisheries over the long
term that could be missed if decision criteria were developed and examined only on a
species-by-species basis. These ecosystem or aggregate level decision criteria will also be
used to track major structural or systemic issues that impact all LMRs. A number of
options for developing and using ELRPs could be applicable under different scenarios,
including measures of ecosystem productivity, ecosystem indicator-based tipping points,
or aggregate or system level yield, consistent with National Standard guidelines.
Evaluation of simple summations of LMR reference points in the context of total
ecosystem productivity can aid in evaluating overall fisheries performance in an
ecosystem. Best practices for evaluating ecosystem-level considerations, and the salient
Terms of Reference to encourage doing so as part of the usual science-informed
management processes (Figure 2), are warranted. Such best practices will be identified in
conjunction with NCSS, Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan (HAIP), Protected
Species Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (PRSAIP) & NGSA considerations.
2.5.b Incorporate ecosystem considerations into appropriate LMR assessments, control
rules, and management decisions (Guiding Principle 5b)
NOAA Fisheries uses a variety of reference points to manage fisheries. Reference points
that incorporate ecosystem considerations may be helpful in the management of some
fisheries or species in the near term, and many more in the long term. These
considerations may include factors impacting stock structure, dynamics, and production
that are considered important for those LMRs, particularly as identified by risk
assessments (c.f. Section 2.3.b) for stocks which have been identified as imperative to
account for ecosystem considerations factors (Box 9-Incl. ecosystem info). NOAA
Fisheries is clear that incorporating ecosystem considerations may not be necessary or
feasible for all 800+ U.S. managed species, but it will be increasingly worth monitoring
for those species identified in such risk assessments, particularly in the context of a
changing climate (as in conjunction with the NCSS). Ecosystem factors may be
incorporated directly into parameters in stock assessment calculations, considered in
stock assessment plan team reviews of actions, or accounted for when setting harvest
control rules (HCR; Box 10-MS HCR), or even just simply reviewed by Councils’
Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) if not formally included. Ecosystem
considerations for these LMRs will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the
uncertainty associated with estimating biological reference points, and stock status that
lead to management advice. Best practices for incorporating ecosystem considerations
and the salient Terms of Reference to encourage doing so as part of the usual scienceinformed management processes (Figure 2) are warranted. Such best practices will be
24

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
identified in conjunction with NCSS, Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan (HAIP),
Protected Species Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (PRSAIP) & NGSA
considerations
2.5.c Provide integrated advice for other management considerations, particularly
applied across multiple species within an ecosystem (Guiding Principle 5c)
Ending and preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks are required under
the MSA, and the ESA and MMPA have requirements pertaining to the conservation and
recovery of protected species. There are also other required management considerations
that would benefit from coordination across all taxa in an ecosystem.
NOAA Fisheries is required under the MSA to identify and describe essential fish habitat
(EFH) for managed species and under the ESA to designate critical habitat for
endangered species. In conjunction with the NOAA Habitat Blueprint, NOAA Fisheries
Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan (HAIP), and regional habitat assessment
prioritization processes within the next 10 years NOAA Fisheries will support each
Council in considering EFH at a system level by 1) updating EFH information in FMPs10
or FEPs , 2) identifying habitat areas of particular concern that are known to support
important ecological functions for multiple species or species groups or may be
especially vulnerable or provide essential functions in a changing climate, and 3)
establishing habitat conservation objectives for those areas and indicators to measure
progress in achieving those objectives.
NOAA Fisheries is required under MSA, to the extent practicable, to minimize bycatch
of fish, and, to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of bycatch in
National Standard 911. In conjunction with the NOAA Fisheries Bycatch Reduction
Strategy, NOAA Fisheries will integrate bycatch-related efforts with the EBFM Policy
and this Road Map. NOAA Fisheries will also take into account Take Reduction Plans
under the MMPA. Information resulting from work to implement the Bycatch Reduction
Strategy will contribute to NOAA Fisheries’ implementation of the EBFM policy.
NOAA Fisheries assists in the development of aquaculture under the National
Aquaculture Act, which calls for increasing U.S. seafood production, and has the
authority to regulate aquaculture in federal waters for species regulated under MSA. The
agency consults with federal permitting agencies under ESA and MSA essential fish
habitat provisions for aquaculture activities in both state and federal waters, and develops
and uses aquaculture techniques in the restoration of species and habitats. Under both
NEPA and the National Aquaculture Act, NOAA Fisheries will evaluate the ecosystemlevel effects of aquaculture.

10

Regulatory language at 600.815(a)(10) indicates that a complete review of the EFH components of FMPs should be
conducted as recommended by the Secretary of Commerce, but at least once every 5 years
11
Fish are defined under the MSA as finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant
life other than marine mammals and birds, and would include deep-sea corals and sponges (16 U.S.C. §1802(12)).

25

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Recommended Actions12
EBFM Policy
Statement

#

EBFM Road Map Core
Components

Incorporate Ecosystem Considerations into
Management Advice
5a
Ecosystem-level
reference points

Overarching
Goal

Action Items

Timing

Establish and use
Ecosystem Level
Reference Points

Delineate, evaluate, and explore
best practices for estimating and
using system-wide or aggregate
group harvest limits, ecosystem
production measures, and other
ELRPs, to inform management
decisions.
Explore best measures of crosspressure, cumulative impacts in an
ecosystem (in conjunction with
Section 2.3.)

Mid

Develop and track fishery stock
status indices that denote when
ecosystem considerations are used

Mid

Support consistent and effective
implementation of the National
Standard 1 Guidelines, which
includes guidance on incorporating
ecosystem information into stock
management.

Mid

Identify best practices for
incorporating ecosystem
considerations into management
decisions.

ShortMid

Develop and Monitor
Ecosystem-Level
Reference Points
5b

Ecosystem
considerations for
LMRs

Appropriately
include
ecosystemfactors in
crafting advice
for managed
species

Incorporate Ecosystem
Considerations into
Appropriate LMR
Assessments, Control
Rules, and
Management
Decisions

5c

Integrated Advice for
other Management
Considerations

Systematically
evaluate advice
provided

Provide Systematic Advice for
other Management
Considerations, particularly
Applied Across Multiple
Species within an Ecosystem

12

In conjunction with NGSA & SAIP update, NCSS, and HAIP

26

Establish ecosystem-related TOR for
stock assessments (SAs), stock
assessment reviews, and support
ecosystem-related TOR for status
review groups, HCRs, and science
and statistical committee (SSC)
review processes.
Explore protocols for considering
ecosystem-level information in EFH
reviews, identifying ecosystem-level
habitat areas of particular concern,
and setting habitat conservation
objectives and/or indicators

ShortMid

Mid

Short

Finalize and implement National
Bycatch Reduction Strategy

Short

Evaluate the ecosystem effects of
offshore aquaculture

Long

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

13

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/01/01-119.pdf

27

Implement the National Allocation
Policy13

Short

Review long-term protected species
recovery and rebuilding plans to
ensure they account for the
potential effects of near-term and
long-term climate change,
particularly relating to alterations to
food web structure

Long

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

2.6 Maintain resilient ecosystems—Guiding Principle 6
NOAA Fisheries recognizes that its mandates are intended to sustain resilient14 and
productive LMR populations and habitats, maintain overall ecosystem structure and
function, and support the contributions that fisheries make to the socio-economic
resiliency of coastal communities. Implementation of EBFM will require NOAA
Fisheries to develop operating protocols that maintain resilient ecosystems. Community
vulnerability indices initially developed to support current fisheries management
decisions are being adapted to inform assessments of the impact of climate change and
can be used in other complex decision settings15. Indicators of human well-being have
also been developed to enhance incorporation of the human dimension in ecosystembased approaches. Actions in support of these mandates include:



Evaluate ecosystem-level measures of resilience to maintain core ecosystem
structure, biodiversity, production, energy flow, and functioning
Evaluate coastal fishing community well-being

2.6.a Evaluate ecosystem-level measures of resilience (Guiding Principle 6a)
Ultimately, humans are part of marine ecosystems and human communities need the
ecosystem goods and services provided by the nation’s managed species and functioning
marine ecosystem. Maintaining and monitoring the status of marine ecosystems, as well
as supporting the coastal communities that rely on them, are critical for evaluating the
success of EBFM. There are a range of emergent property, systems, and cybernetic
measures that are available to evaluate ecosystem resilience. To this end, NOAA
Fisheries will track those ecosystem-level reference points that can be used as measures
of ecosystem-level resilience. Furthermore, there are numerous tradeoffs that warrant
evaluation in the context of achieving resilient ecosystems and communities.
Establishing best practices to evaluate such tradeoffs in the feasible space of options to
obtain resilience is needed.
2.6.b Evaluate community well-being (Guiding Principle 6b)
NOAA Fisheries is required, consistent with the conservation requirements of the MSA,
to take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by using
the best available social and economic data, in order to provide for the sustained
participation of such communities and, to the extent practicable, mitigate adverse
economic impacts on such communities (MSA National Standard 8). There are a range of

14

Resilience in this context means the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and successfully adapt to
adverse events. There are elements of both resistance to and recovery from perturbations, and this can be applied to
both biophysical and socio-economic systems in marine ecosystems. There are many metrics of resilience, and here
the term is used generally and conceptually rather than in any one of those specific mathematical formulations,
although those will be evaluated as part of the action items in this section.
15
https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/vulnerability)

28

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
emerging social, economic, cultural, and human-dimension measures that are available.
NOAA Fisheries will support the development, assessment, testing and refinement of
community vulnerability and community well-being indices in collaboration with
appropriate stakeholders. Gaps in indicators and/or the data needed to implement them
will be identified and met, as resources allow. Efforts will be shared across Regions to
gain efficiency and identify best practices. NOAA Fisheries will explore and also track
those ecosystem-level reference points that can be used as measures of community wellbeing.

Recommended Actions
EBFM Policy
Statement Guiding
Principles

EBFM Road Map
Core Components

#

Overarching Goal

Action Items

Timing

Develop and
achieve ecosystem
performance
measures

Evaluate and Track Ecosystem-level
reference point to assess changes in
ecosystem-level resilience

Continuing

Evaluate, conduct and track
ecosystem goods and services
valuation methods and best
practices
Develop best practices for tradeoff
evaluation with respect to overall
ecosystem and community
resilience and well-being
Develop National EBFM
Performance measures

Mid

Explore community health and wellbeing socio-economic metrics

Mid

Adopt community vulnerability
analyses to a broader range of
cumulative factors
Track community health, well-being
and vulnerability socio-economic
metrics
Establish National EBFM
Coordinator

Mid

Maintain Resilient Ecosystems
Evaluate
Resilience

6a

Evaluate EcosystemLevel Measures of
Resilience

6b

Community Wellbeing

Maintain well-being
of coastal
communities

Evaluate Community
Well-being

29

Mid

Mid

Midcontinual
Short

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

3.0 Execution of the EBFM Road Map and Effective Dates
Tracking the implementation and oversight of this plan will be the responsibility of the
NOAA Fisheries Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor in
consultation with the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs. Day-today work will be completed by the National EBFM Coordinator (Action 6b).
The elements of the EBFM Policy and EBFM Road Map afford the opportunity to
improve how we manage our nation’s living marine resources. Actions noted herein have
longer-term timelines built into them that can help track progress toward EBFM
implementation. NOAA Fisheries will review and amend this guidance on a 5-year basis.
Road Map implementation that builds upon existing efforts will start 1 month after the
final clearance date of the Road Map. This Road Map will provide the metrics by which
Agency progress is evaluated, taking resource availability into consideration.
This Road Map includes recommended actions to guide NOAA Fisheries as it
implements EBFM. These require active management. Some of the recommended actions
are ongoing and will continue. Some of the recommended actions constitute new
activities, where existing or new resources would have to be allocated to accomplish the
actions. Close cooperation among the FSCs, ROs, Councils, Commissions, tribes, and
States will be required to complete the trade-off analyses needed to inform NOAA
Fisheries decision-makers. This Road Map will help direct the activities of NOAA
Fisheries staff at a large number of offices and laboratories. For successful
implementation, the connection between the actions recommended herein and the many
laboratories, divisions, and branches of NOAA Fisheries is critical, as well as
connections among NOAA Fisheries and key stakeholders
As noted earlier, NOAA Fisheries will convene a biennial meeting regarding EBFM.
Participants will include staff representing the NOAA Fisheries science and regulatory
enterprises as well as interested Councils, Commissions, and other partners. The primary
focus of this meeting will be to review progress in implementing EBFM in NOAA
Fisheries and exchange best practices for doing so. The metrics identified in this Road
Map will form the basis for this evaluation.
Once the Road Map is finalized, a protocol for providing national oversight among the
FSCs, ROs, and Headquarters will be developed and implemented. Oversight for EBFM
implementation will be based on best practices developed nationally and in alignment
with the principles codified in this document. Annual updates will provide an evaluation
of EBFM progress. This coordination of efforts to implement EBFM will provide an
agency-level understanding of progress toward these goals. To facilitate this, a national
EBFM coordinator will be established, along with POCs in each FSC, RO, and HQ
office. The application of best practices, identified during the annual updates and the
biennial meetings, should provide for an efficient and effective way for NOAA Fisheries
to improve on its stewardship responsibility for its trust resources. This will be an
30

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
evolutionary process, where progress will be based on previous accomplishments. EBFM
is only achievable with broad support, yet NOAA Fisheries and its many partners will
benefit from implementing EBFM as described in this Road Map.

31

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016

4.0 References
Aydin, K.Y., and F. Mueter. 2007. The Bering Sea – a dynamic food web perspective. Deep-sea
Res. II. 54: 2501–2525.
Baylis, K. et al. 2016. Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation. Cons. Lett.
9:58-64.
Blackhart, K. 2014. Habitat assessment prioritization for West Coast stocks. Report of the
Northwest and Southwest Regional Habitat Assessment Prioritization Working Groups.
Internal report, NOAA Fisheries White Paper. Office of Science and Technology, NOAA
Fisheries, NOAA. Silver Spring, MD. 199 p. Corrected edition, December 2014.
Bundy, A. et al. 2005. Balancing exploitation and conservation of the eastern Scotian Shelf
ecosystem: application of a 4D ecosystem exploitation index. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 503-510
Coll, M. et al. 2008. Ecosystem overfishing in the ocean. PLOS ONE 3(12): e3881 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0003881
de la Mare, W. K. 1986. Simulation studies on management procedures. Reports of the
International Whaling Commission, 36: 429 – 450.
deReynier, Y. 2014. U.S. Fishery Management Councils as Ecosystem-Based Management
Policy Takers and Policymakers, Coastal Management, 42:6, 512-530.
Foran, C.M., J.S. Link, W. Patrick, L. Sharpe, M. Wood, I. Linkov. 2016. Relating Mandates in
the United States for Managing the Ocean to Ecosystem Goods and Services. Frontiers in
Marine Science doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00005
Gaichas, S., K. Aydin, and R. C. Francis. 2015. Wasp waist or beer belly? Modeling food web
structure and energetic control in Alaskan marine ecosystems, with implications for fishing
and environmental forcing. Progress in Oceanography 138, Part A:1-17.
Gaichas, S.K, Link, J.S., Hare, J.A. 2014. Addressing Hjort's "other considerations" with
ecological risk assessment: a review of methods and application evaluating Northeast U.S. fish
community vulnerability to climate change. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71:2323-2342.
Gascuel, D. et al. 2005 The trophic spectrum: theory and application as an ecosystem indicator.
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 443−452
Hare, J.A. et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change
on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0146756.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146756
Hermann, A. J., and coauthors. In Press. Projected future biophysical states of the Bering Sea.
Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography.
Heymans, J.J. et al. 2014. Global patterns in ecological indicators of marine food webs: a
modelling approach. PLOS One 9(4):e95845 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095845
Holsman, K. K., J. Ianelli, K. Aydin, A. E. Punt, and E. A. Moffitt. In Press. A comparison of
fisheries biological reference points estimated from temperature-specific multi-species and
single-species climate-enhanced stock assessment models. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical
Studies in Oceanography.
Hussey, N.E. et al. 2014. Rescaling the trophic structure of marine food webs. Ecol. Lett. 17,
239-250

32

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Ianelli, J. 2005. Assessment and fisheries management of eastern Bering Sea walleye pollock: is
sustainability luck? Bulletin of Marine Science 76(2):321-335.
Ianelli, J., K. K. Holsman, A. E. Punt, and K. Aydin. In Press. Multi-model inference for
incorporating trophic and climate uncertainty into stock assessments. Deep Sea Research Part
II: Topical Studies in Oceanography (0).
ICES. 2014. ICES Strategic Plan 2014–2018. 21 pp.
Jennings, S. and Blanchard, J. 2004. Fish abundance with no fishing: predictions based on
macroecological theory. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 632-642
Jepson, M. and L.L. Colburn. 2013. Development of Social Indicators of Fishing Community
Vulnerability and Resilience in the U.S. Southeast and Northeast Regions. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce., NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA Fisheries-F/SPO-129, 64 p.
Levin PS, Fogarty MJ, Murawski SA, Fluharty D (2009) Integrated ecosystem assessments:
Developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based management of the ocean. PLoS Biol
7(1): e1000014. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000014
Levin, P. S., Kelble, C. R., Shuford, R., Ainsworth, C., deReynier, Y., Dunsmore, R., Fogarty, M.
J., Holsman, K., Howell, E., Monaco, M., Oakes, S., and Werner, F. 2013. Guidance for
implementation of integrated ecosystem assessments: a US perspective. – ICES Journal of
Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst112.
Libralato, S. et al. (2008) Novel index for quantification of ecosystem effects of fishing as
removal of secondary production. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 355, 107-129
Methot Jr. Richard D. (editor). 2015. Prioritizing fish stock assessments. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA Fisheries-F/SPO-152, 31p.
Moffitt, E. A., et al. In Press. Moving towards ecosystem-based fisheries management: Options
for parameterizing multi-species biological reference points. Deep Sea Research Part II:
Topical Studies in Oceanography.
Morrison W, Nelson M, Howard J, Teeters E, Hare JA, Griffis R, et al. 2015. Methodology for
assessing the vulnerability of fish stocks to a changing climate. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOAA Fisheries-OSF-3, 48 p.
NOAA Fisheries. 2001. Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP). Report of
the National Marine Fisheries Service National Task Force for Improving Fish Stock
Assessments. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA Fisheries-F/SPO-56, 69 p.,
25 appendices.
NOAA Fisheries. 2010. Marine fisheries habitat assessment improvement plan. Report of the
National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team. U.S. Dep.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA Fisheries-F/SPO-108, 115 p.
NOAA Fisheries. 2012. Regional habitat assessment prioritization for California stocks. Report of
the Southwest Regional Habitat Assessment Prioritization Working Group. Internal report,
NOAA Fisheries White Paper. Office of Science and Technology, NOAA Fisheries, NOAA.
Silver Spring, MD. 20 p.
NOAA Fisheries. 2015. Our living oceans: habitat. Status of the habitat of U.S. living marine
resources. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA Fisheries-F/SPO-75, 327 p.
NOAA Fisheries. 2016. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Policy of the National Marine

33

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, November 17, 2016
Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NPFMC. 1995. Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Groundfish. North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, P.O. Box 103136, Anchorage, Alaska 99510.
Patrick, W.S., et al.. 2010. Assessing the vulnerability of U.S. fisheries to becoming overfished
or undergoing overfishing through the use of productivity and susceptibility indices. Fish.
Bull. 108:305-322.
Patrick, W.S., J.S. Link. 2015a. Hidden in plain sight: using optimum yield as a policy framework
to operationalize ecosystem- based fisheries management. Mar. Pol. 62:74-81.
Patrick, W.S., J.S. Link. 2015b. Myths that continue to impede progress in ecosystem-based
fisheries management. Fisheries 40:4, 155-160.
Peterson, W.T., Fisher, J.L., Peterson, J.O., Morgan, C.A., Burke, B.J. and Fresh, K.L. 2014.
Applied fisheries oceanography: Ecosystem indicators of ocean conditions inform fisheries
management in the California Current. Oceanography, 27: 80-89.
Pauly, D. and Christensen, V. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries.
Nature 374, 255-257
Punt, D.S. Butterworth, C.L. de Moor, J.A.A. De Oliveira, and M. Haddon. 2014. Management
strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish and Fisheries. doi: 10.1111/faf.12104
Samhouri, J. F., Haupt, A. J., Levin, P. S., Link, J. S., and Shuford, R. 2013. Lessons learned
from developing integrated ecosystem assessments to inform marine ecosystem-based
management in the USA. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, oi:10.1093/icesjms/fst141.
Smith, A.D.M., Sainsbury, K.J. and Stevens, R.A. 1999. Implementing effective fisheriesmanagement systems –management strategy evaluation and the Australian partnership
approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 967–979.
Smith, T.D. & Link, J.S. 2005. Autopsy your dead,... and your living: Evaluating properties of
fishery management settings. Fish and Fisheries 6:73-87.
Spencer, P. D., and coauthors. In Press. Modeling of spatially-dependent predation mortality upon
eastern Bering Sea walleye pollock, and its implications for stock dynamics under future
climate scenarios. ICES Journal of Marine Science.
Szuwalski, C. S., and A. B. Hollowed. 2016. Climate change and non-stationary population
processes in fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil.
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv229
Wilkinson, E.B and Abrams, K. 2015. Benchmarking the 1999 EPAP recommendations with
existing Fishery Ecosystem Plans. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOAA Fisheries-OSF-5, 22 p.
Witherell, D. 1995. Management of flatfish fisheries in the North Pacific. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on North Pacific Flatfish, pp. 573–589. Alaska Sea Grant
College Program Report AK-SG-95-04, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 643 pp.

34

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016

Figure 1. The location of Regional Offices (RO), Fishery Science Centers (FSC), Fishery Management Councils (Councils;
Northeast, Mid Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, North Pacific, West Pacific), Interstate Fishery
Commissions (SFCs; Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf; Great Lakes not noted), Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs; Beaufort, Chukchi, Eastern
Bering Sea, Aleutian Archipelago, Gulf of Alaska, California Current, Insular Pacific/Hawaiian, Gulf of Mexico, SEUS, NEUS,
Caribbean, Antarctic – not shown), and the US Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) for which NOAA Fisheries and its partners have
jurisdiction and are mandated to manage LMRs and marine ecosystems. The Antarctic (CCAMLR), Arctic, and regional fishery
management organizations (RFMOs; i.e., CCAS, IPHC, IWC, ICCAT, NASCO, NAFO, WECAFC, IATTC, PSC, NPAFC, WCPFC,
AIDCP, IOTC, IOSEA, IAC, ACAP, CBD, CITES, UNFSA, COFI), often associated with the high seas, are not denoted. Nor are the
Science Review Groups (SRGs) for marine mammals (Pacific, Atlantic, Gulf).

35

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016
Figure 2. Inter-relationships between NOAA Fisheries programs and plans that support EBFM. See list of acronyms in the back for
definitions.

36

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016
Box 1. NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) Program: An analytical framework
to deliver management advice in an ecosystem context

NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program is an end-to-end framework
that enables the implementation of EBM, including EBFM, to provide resource managers
with ecosystem-specific information to make more informed and effective management
decisions. While IEAs are designed to enable full multisector EBM, they support needs
along the ecosystem management continuum by providing an ecosystem context to
traditional single-sector decisions, such as fisheries management.
NOAA’s IEA is a science-based stepwise process implemented with stakeholders and
managers to identify priority issues and provide robust decision-support information in an
ecosystem context. The approach identifies socio-economic and biophysical attributes
that maintain ecosystem structure and function, assesses human activities and their
interdependence with the natural ecosystem, and evaluates trade-offs of management
alternatives to sustain human well-being in the coupled social-ecological system.
Though IEAs share a common national framework, the implementation varies regionally
based on the ecosystem of interest and the management drivers. The overarching goal is
to inform decisions that will promote ecosystems that are both sustainable and capable of
providing the diverse ecosystem services upon which our society depends.
CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT

37

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016

Box 2—Levels of EBM
“Ecosystem management” can be adopted at multiple levels. Some levels of application
are focused solely on fish stocks, some focus on fish stocks but with ecosystem
considerations incorporated (ecosystem approach to fisheries management, EAFM), some
focus solely on the fisheries sector but for the full system of fisheries and stocks (EBFM),
and others focus on the full set of ocean-use sectors impacted by and impacting the
fisheries sector (EBM). For example, consider forage stocks such as small pelagic fish.
For an EAFM, one would need to consider the effects of environmental factors (e.g.,
temperature changes or North Atlantic Oscillation changes) and ecological factors (e.g.,
predator removals or models of multispecies interactions) in addition to targeted fisheries
removals to truly grasp what is driving the population dynamics of such stocks. Using the
same type of focal species as an example, for EBFM that takes a system focus in the
fisheries sector, one would have to consider not only the impacts of other factors on these
forage stocks, but also the dynamics of these forage stocks on other parts of the
ecosystem. For instance, some seabirds and marine mammals have some form of
protected or conservation status and are highly dependent on small pelagic forage fish.
Some commercially targeted groundfish are also major predators of these small pelagic
forage fish. In addition, multiple fisheries operate on both the groundfish and the small
pelagic species. In such a case, clearly a more integrated, “bigger picture” evaluation of
the whole system and how it fits together is needed to address the potential trade-offs
among the different uses of and impacts to these forage stocks. Further, if these forage
stocks represent a key pathway of energy from lower trophic levels to upper trophic
levels (which they typically do), then the resilience, structure, and functioning of the
system would need to be evaluated. For an EBM that covers all ocean-use sectors,
consideration of these small pelagics and their role in the ecosystem is warranted in a
broader context for anthropogenic drivers such as power plant discharges (thermal
impacts), eutrophication, toxin deposition, hydroelectric energy generation, dredging for
navigation safety, and similar uses that might impact the habitats of these species.
Certainly the lines among the different levels are somewhat blurry, but defining the level
of analysis and management being done helps to dispel concerns associated with
linguistic uncertainty for such a comprehensive topic.
CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT

38

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016

Box 2—Levels of EBM

39

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016
Box 3. Conceptual models guide science and provide for stakeholder engagement in support of
EBFM in the California Current
NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program is developing conceptual models that
distill marine ecosystems down to their essential elements. Conceptual models convey the
intricacy of an ecosystem’s structure and function in a way that facilitates further discussion of
priorities, objectives, and trade-offs without miring viewers in excessive detail. These models are
developed in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries partners and stakeholders to assist in identifying
the most pressing issues in any given region.
The California Current IEA team has developed a series of conceptual models to illustrate the key
relationships between focal species groups and physical drivers, habitats, other species, human
activities, and human well-being. These elegant models were derived through extensive,
consensus-based discussions with a range of stakeholders, and are readily adaptable as new
information becomes available. Models exist for target species (coastal pelagic species, salmon,
and groundfish) and protected species (seabirds and marine mammals); new models are being
developed for major habitat types, and for the diverse human-natural interactions that characterize
the socio-ecological nature of the California Current.
These conceptual models have already proven their value as communication tools. The California
Current IEA team uses them in discussions with the Pacific Fishery Management Council and
other groups. Each symbol and line represents indicators that the IEA team is analyzing to track
ecosystem status and management effectiveness. These models thus set the stage for more
detailed discussions, and IEA scientists are using mathematical approaches to convert them from
simple illustrations into dynamic simulation models.

Figure. Conceptual model of the roles of Pacific salmon in the California Current Ecosystem. The
general summary model (upper left) expands to detailed submodels of interactions between the focal
species and environmental, ecological, and human components. (Illustrations: Su Kim, NOAA)

CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT

40

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016

Box 4. Description of FEPs and general use

Ten Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) are currently being used by four Fishery
Management Councils (North Pacific, Pacific, Western Pacific, and South Atlantic). Each
FEP covers similar ideas and principles, and varies depending on the needs of a specific
Council and the fisheries and ecosystems under their jurisdiction. For example, the
Pacific Council has set up their FEP to create a framework for setting policies and
priorities to be implemented through Fishery Management Plan (FMP) amendments and
for tracking progress through a set of indicators. In some cases, the FEPs are
compilations of ecosystem information with a strong focus on habitat that support
implementation of MSA essential fish habitat. Others, such as the Aleutian Islands FEP,
are primarily reference documents of ecosystem information to facilitate efficient
implementation through FMPs. The Western Pacific Council FEPs contain conservation
and management measures and meet the requirements of FMPs, but reflect groupings of
managed stocks around geographically defined island/archipelago areas. Most of the
Councils also supplement their FEPs with additional documents such as ecosystem
chapters of Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation reports, stock assessments, and
FMP amendments. Using supplemental documents has made it easier for some of the
Councils to update crucial ecosystem-related information without having to update an
entire FEP.

CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT

41

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016
Box 5. Ecosystem Status Reports

Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs) are a key element of the NOAA Fisheries EBFM Road
Map. These regularly updated reports provide a vehicle for disseminating information on
the state of regional ecosystems. They describe the dynamic interplay of natural and
anthropogenic drivers and resulting changes in different parts of the ecosystem These
status reports are intended to concisely convey to stakeholders, managers, and the general
public how marine ecosystems are responding to different stressors and to natural
environmental change. By monitoring the pulse of ecosystem change, we hope to identify
early warning signals of changes within systems. NOAA’s IEA Program plays a critical
role in synthesising ecosystem information and capturing it in ESRs for each region. The
main findings are translated to management partners, including to Regional Fishery
Management Councils and Interstate Fishery Commissions throughout the nation to help
guide management actions, particularly to consider the system as a whole and not just its
parts.
An example is the current Northeast Region ESR, an entirely web-based product that can
be viewed on a number of devices (including smartphones and tablets) through its use of
Responsive Design technology (c.f. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/). The New
England Fishery Management Council has requested annual spring updates based on a
distillation of the ESR in the form of a brief State of the Ecosystem Report to help
provide an ecosystem context for its deliberations. Similar applicatiions are now
underway in other parts of the country
(http://www.integratedecosystemassessmentnoaa.gov/transfer-knowledge/sciencesupporting-ecosystem-status.html).

CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT

42

NMFSI 01-120-01 November 16, 2016

Box 6. Aggregate Risk Assessment

Risk assessment methods are used worldwide to evaluate potential threats to living
marine resources, and to prioritize management of these threats. For example, a semiquantitative risk analysis for aggregate fish communities in the Northeast United States
was used to identify priorities for further detailed assessment (Gaichas et al., 2015). A
place-based, functional group approach was taken to provide information on threats for
comprehensive categories of regional fishery resources, rather than attempting to do so
for individual species. In this example, climate-driven risks were the focus of the risk
assessment because some of the largest observed rates of sea surface temperature increase
within U.S. marine ecosystems are on the northeast U.S. continental shelf. Climate
vulnerability across two ecosystems (the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Mid-Atlantic bight
(MAB)) was evaluated for six communities (both commercial and non-commercial
demersal fish, pelagic fish, and benthic invertebrates, respectively). First, the probability
that anticipated effects of climate change (e.g., warming water, decreased salinity,
increased acidity, and altered boundary currents) would occur in these regions was
evaluated, and the potential severity of change over the next 10 years was rated. Then, the
sensitivity of each biological community in each region was evaluated using 12 attributes
(e.g., habitat and prey specificity, temperature and acidity sensitivity, larval dispersal,
adult mobility, population productivity, among others). Risks to living marine resources
from increased surface water temperature, sea level rise, and earlier spring were rated
moderate to high in both regions, with additional moderate to high risks in the GOM from
increased bottom temperature, stratification, and river inputs. The figure shows that
benthic invertebrates were rated most sensitive, with demersals intermediate and pelagics
lowest. Two MAB communities were rated more sensitive than corresponding GOM
communities, but greater short-term risks in the GOM indicated increased exposure for
GOM communities. Overall, this simple analysis may help prioritize short-term regional
climate risk management action for many fished and unfished resources, and show where
more specific assessment is warranted.
CTRL+CLICK HERE TO
RETURN TO TEXT

43

Box 7. Stock assessment prioritization and ecosystem-linkages
NOAA Fisheries conducts stock assessments and provides fishery managers with
scientific advice to support the sustainable management of nearly 500 fished stocks.
There are limitations on the number of assessments that can be done each year, and on
the amount and types of data collected for those assessments. Also, each stock is unique
in its biology, its economic
importance, and how it responds to
fishing; hence, no single stock
assessment approach is appropriate
for all stocks. Recognizing the need
for a process that maximizes stock
assessment capacity in support of
fisheries management, NOAA
Fisheries recently released a national
protocol for prioritizing stock
assessments.16 The prioritization
process is being implemented at a regional scale, and is intended to identify which stocks
in a given region are candidates for stock assessments, the frequency by which
assessments should be conducted for each stock, and the level (i.e., ideal data inputs and
analytical complexity) at which those
assessments should be conducted. This
process provides regional planning
bodies with an objective approach to
determine which, when, and at what
frequency stock assessments should be
conducted, along with the data
requirements associated with those
assessments. Ecosystem data—
including information on predator-prey
dynamics, habitats, and physical and
chemical properties of the ocean—are
candidate inputs for stock assessments.
Thus, through the assessment
prioritization process, NOAA Fisheries
will evaluate relationships between stocks and their ecosystems to provide guidance on
which assessments should incorporate ecosystem factors. In the first phase of
implementation, the prioritization process is primarily focused on identifying stocks that
are candidates for assessments and on setting target assessment frequencies for those
stocks. Additionally, habitat assessment prioritization processes have been completed in
three NOAA Fisheries regions to identify species that would most benefit from habitat
information included in stock assessments (NOAA Fisheries 2011).
CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT
16 http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stock-assessment/stock-assessment-prioritization

44

Box 8. Two million metric ton cap for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
groundfish fishery
One tool that the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council uses to prevent
overfishing in the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) is the 2 million metric
ton (M mt) optimum yield cap for the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The cap is an upper
limit on the total amount of groundfish that can be harvested from the BSAI each year.
The allowable catch limit (ACL) for the BSAI typically is greater than 2Mmt and in these
years, the cap constrains total BSAI catch. The cap was established in 1984. As a result,
many stocks, particularly flatfish, have been exploited well below sustainable levels for
the individual flatfish species (Witherell 1995).
This cap is a measure of ecosystem productivity and the amount of fish protein that can
be removed sustainably. A system cap that constrains individual species caps was chosen
because ecological relationships in the BSAI are complex (NPFMC 1995). The cap was
derived from the sum of the maximum sustainable yields of the individual species,
referenced with the results of an ecosystem model of the Bering Sea, and adjusted
downward for incomplete data and uncertainty in stock assessment models (NPFMC
1995).

Figure. Catch, total allowable catch (TAC), allowable biological catch (ABC),
overfishing limit (OFL), and total biomass of groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands.
CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT

45

Box 9. Fisheries Stock Assessments with ecosystem information
NOAA Fisheries conducts stock assessments to produce scientific advice for fishery
managers. The main objectives of fishery stock assessments are to evaluate stock status
relative to defined limits, and to recommend harvest levels that optimize yield, prevent
overfishing, and rebuild depleted stocks as necessary. In most cases, assessments are
conducted from a single-species perspective, where
ecosystem and environmental factors are not explicit
drivers of stock dynamics, but are assumed to either
be constant or to contribute to unexplained variation
in stock abundance or biology. However, for a
number of stocks, ecosystem information has been
directly incorporated into assessment models,
thereby providing fishery managers with stockspecific advice that accounts for changes in the
ecosystem. West Coast salmon forecasts are
informed by numerous ocean and ecosystem
indicators. The North Pacific groundfish stocks,
West Coast small pelagics, and the butterfish stock
in the northeast Atlantic incorporate water
temperature into their assessments, because this
variable affects the number of fish encountered by
abundance surveys. Finally, for Atlantic herring,
northern shrimp, and Gulf of Mexico groupers, the
numbers that die due to natural causes (i.e., natural
mortality) is modeled using ecosystem indices. With
herring, an important prey species in the northeast
Atlantic, predator dynamics are incorporated into the
stock assessment. For groupers, a red tide index is incorporated in the stock assessments,
as fishermen and scientists have observed mass mortality events when there are
substantial red tides (i.e., harmful algal blooms).
The number of assessments that incorporate ecosystem data has continued to increase
over time. In 2005, 4% of the stock assessments conducted by NOAA Fisheries in that
year included ecosystem factors, and by 2015 that number increased to 8%. As research
and monitoring of stock and ecosystem dynamics continues to expand, the number of
stock assessments and management measures that consider ecosystem variability and
change will continue to increase.

46

Box 9 cont.

Figure. Illustration of how basin-scale and local-scale physical forces influence the northern California
Current and resultant food web structure. PDO = Pacific Decadal Oscillation. NPGO = North Pacific
Gyre Oscillation. ENSO = El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Figure from Peterson et al. 2014
Oceanography 27(4):80-89.
CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT

47

Box 10. Interdisciplinary approach to estimate Multi-Species harvest control rules
and reference points
Through a partnership between NOAA Fisheries, the North Pacific Research Board, and
the National Science Foundation, (the Bering Sea Project,
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/HEPR/bseirp.htm) scientists have advanced the mechanistic
understanding of Bering Sea processes governing fish responses to climate variability,
which resulted in a modeling framework to explore trophic interactions and climate
change impacts on key species within the eastern Bering Sea. Analysts extended the datarich single species stock assessment model for walleye pollock in the eastern Bering Sea
(Ianelli 2005) and a simulation model of the Bering Sea foodweb, Ecosim (Aydin and
Mueter 2007) to explore alternative harvest strategies under changing climate conditions.
These enhancements utilized diet data derived from Alaska Fisheries Science Centers’s
food-habits data collections
(http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/REEM/WebDietData/DietTableIntro.php). A
climateenhanced multispecies stock assessment was developed to incorporate species
interactions between pollock and two of the main Bering Sea piscivorous groundfish
(Pacific cod and arrowtooth flounder) (Holsman et al. In Press). The application of
traditional harvest control rules within a multi-species model yielded regions of
sustainable harvest levels rather than a single solution. Scientists utilized the Ecosim
model to define this surface for Pacific cod and walleye pollock (Figure) (Moffitt et al. In
Press) and they explored the effect of changing temperature on predator and prey
interactions and subsequent climate-specific multispecies biological reference points (via
CEATTLE; Holsman et al. In Press). Though there are many other multi-species
interactions (e.g., Steller sea lions, arrowtooth flounder) and climate features to consider,
these projections will help the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and its
scientific review teams to develop strategies for managing fisheries under non-stationary
population processes (Szuwalski and Hollowed 2016,
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/News/BS_climate-change-study.htm).

48

Box 10 cont.

Figure. Candidate multi-species biological reference points modeled as a function of pollock and cod
fishing mortality rates (Moffitt et al. In Press). Letters refer to different candidate multispecies biological
reference points (A: solve for Fx% by species when fishing mortality for all other species is set to current
average values; B: solve for Fx% by species when fishing mortality for all other species is set to zero; C:
calculate Fx% when M-at-age for each species is set to the values at B0; D: x*B0 would apply over all
species combined, FMSY for each species would be a scalar multiplied by M; E1: unconstrained
optimization; E2 constrained so no stock falls below y*B0; and E3: unconstrained with relative fishing
mortality pre-specified. The gray area represents the “single-species” overfishing limit (fishing rate >F35%
when in Option A).

CTRL+CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TEXT

49

NMFS Procedure 01-120-01, Effective Date (November 17, 2016)
List of Acronyms
ABC - Allowable Biological Catch
ACAP - Agreement on the Conservation of
Albatrosses and Petrels
ACL - Annual Catch Limit
AIDCP - Agreement on the International
Dolphin Conservation Program
CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity
CCAMLR - Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources
CCAS - Convention for the Conservation of
Antarctic Seals
CITES - Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species
COFI - Committee on Fisheries Council
- Fishery Management Council E2E End to End models
EBM - Ecosystem-Based Management
EBFM - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries
Management
EFH - Essential Fish Habitat
ELRP - Ecosystem-Level Reference Point
EPAP - Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel
ESA - Endangered Species Act
ESR - Ecosystem Status Report
FATE - Fisheries and the Environment FEP
- Fishery Ecosystem Plans
FMP - Fishery Management Plan FSC
- Fisheries Science Center FTE—Full
Time Equivalent
FY - Fiscal Year
HAIP—Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan
HAPWG - Habitat Assessment Prioritization
Working Group
HAPC - Habitat Area of Particular Concern
HCR - Harvest Control Rule
IAC - Inter-American Convention
ICCAT - International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
ICES - International Council for the Exploration
of the Sea
IEA - Integrated Ecosystem Assessment
IGO - Inter-Governmental Organization
IOSEA - The Indian Ocean - South-East Asian
IOTC - Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
IPHC - International Pacific Halibut
Commission
ITTAC - International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

IWC - International Whaling
Commission LME - Large Marine
Ecosystem
LMR - Living Marine Resource
MSE - Management Strategy Evaluation
MMPA - Marine Mammal Protection
Act MSA—Magnuson-Stevens Act
MSY - Maximum Sustainable Yield
NAFO - Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization
NAO - North Atlantic Oscillation
NASCO - North Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Organization
NCSS - NOAA Fisheries Climate
Science Strategy
NEMoW - National Ecosystem
Modeling Workshop
NEPA - National Environmental Protection Act
NGO - Non-governmental Organization
NGSA - Next Generation Stock Assessment
NHAW - National Habitat Assessment
Workshop
NPAFC - North Pacific Anadromous
Fish Commission
NSAW - National Stock Assessment Workshop
NRC - National Research Council
NSF - National Science
Foundation OFL - Overfishing
Limit
OSP - Optimum Sustainable
Population OY - Optimum Yield
PBR - Potential Biological Removal
PR-SAIP - Protected Species Stock Assessment
Improvement Plan
PSA - Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis
PSC - Prohibited Species Catch
RFMO- Regional Fisheries Management
Organization
RO - Regional Office
SA - Stock Assessment
SAIP - Stock Assessment Improvement
Plan SSC - Scientific and Statistical
Committee TAC - Total Allowable Catch
TOR-- Terms of Reference
UNFSA - United Nations Fish Stocks
Agreement VES-V - Virtual Ecosystem Scenario
Viewer WCPFC - Western & Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission
WECAFC - Western Central Atlantic Fishery
Commission

50