management and environmental impact assessment. These areas of discussion are 

 (1) Panel A - Ecosystem Modeling as a Fisheries Management Tool; (2) Panel B - 

 Ecosystem Modeling as an Environmental Management Tool; (3) Panel C - 

 Integration/Linkage of Biological and Physical Ecosystem Models; and (4) Panel D 

 - Integrating Ecosystem Modeling into a Socio -Economic Framework. Although the 

 panels were requested to consider a given list of several issues or questions as 

 it may pertain to their general topic area, the panels were free to follow their 

 own agendas for debate and discussion. The key charge to the panels was that 

 their deliberations should be focused towards the enhancement of ecosystem model- 

 ing as a tool for marine resource management and impact assessment planning 

 and policy. The plenary session met on the morning of the third day. The indi- 

 vidual panel reports were presented and opened to discussion by the audience. 



We (EDIS) are fully cognizant that the panels were not able to comprehen- 

 sively address their topic areas in only one day. As a matter of fact, any one 

 of the topic areas, especially that of Panel D, could by itself have been the 

 basis for a several days, multipanel workshop of its own. The results of this 

 workshop certainly are not the definitive treatise on marine ecosystem modeling. 

 However, the participants were enthusiastic and diligent in tackling their tasks. 

 Because of their tireless efforts, these proceedings should provide useful 

 information for future assessment, development, and application of ecosystem 

 modeling in a marine resource management context. 



Kenneth W. Turgeon 

 Workshop Chairman 



VI 11 



