Overview of Ecosystem Management

1
Overview of Ecosystem Management

• Lecture 1
• Dr. Samuel Brody, LAUP-TX, AM University

2
Traditional Resource Management Not Sufficient

• 75 of major fish stocks depleted from over
  fishing or fished to biological limit (Garcia and
  Deleiva, 2001).
• Logging and conversion have shrunk forest cover
  by as much as half (Bryant et al., 1997).
• 58 of coral reefs are threatened by human
  activities (Bryant et al., 1998).
• 65 of world cropland experience soil degradation
  (Wood et al., 2000).

3
Traditional Resource Management Approach Not
Sufficient

• 85 percent of the endangered species examined
  were threatened by habitat degradation and loss
  (Wilcove et al. 1997).
• 45 percent of the original wetlands remain in the
  United States.
• 81 percent of fish communities are adversely
  affected by human development.
• less than 2 percent of streams are of high enough
  quality to be worthy of federal designation as
  wild or scenic rivers (Noss and Cooperrider,
  1994).

4
Emergence of Ecosystem Management

• Term emerged in the late 1980's and has
  subsequently been widely embraced.
• At least 18 federal agencies have committed to
  the principles.
• Survey identified over 600 ecosystem management
  projects.
• Hailed as a new paradigm for Sustainable
  management.

5
Historical Development

• Credit given to Aldo Leopold in 1949.
• Ecological Society of America preceded Leopold.
• In the late 1970's, the grizzly bear and northern
  spotted owl controversies helped cause shift in
  thinking.

6
Definitions of Ecosystem Management

• "integrating scientific knowledge of ecological
  relationships within a complex sociopolitical and
  values framework toward the general goal of
  protecting native ecosystem integrity over the
  long term (Grumbine, 1994).
• "a resource management system designed to
  maintain or enhance ecosystem health and
  productivity while producing essential
  commodities and other values to meet human needs
  and desires within the limits of socially,
  biologically, and economically acceptable risk
  American Forest and Paper Association (1993).

7
(No Transcript)
8
Major Themes of Ecosystem Management

• Focused on maintaining ecosystem integrity via
  protection of critical habitats
• Incorporation of human values
• Inter-organizational Coordination
• Collaboration of multiple stakeholders
• Implementation of plans and planning tools

9
Chesapeake Bay Case Study
10
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
New York
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Delaware
West Virginia
District of Columbia
Virginia
11
(No Transcript)
12
Value of the Bay
13
Status and Trendsin Nitrogen Concentrationsin
the Bay andits Tidal Rivers
14
Status and Trendsin Phosphorus Concentrationsin
the Bay and its Tidal Rivers
15
Sources of Pollutants to the Bay
Nonpoint Sources

• Run-off from farmland
• Run-off from lawns and paved areas

Point Sources

• Industry
• Wastewater Treatment Plants

16
Stormwater and groundwater carry nutrients into
rivers and the Bay from a variety of nonpoint
sources.

17
The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership
Governor of MD
Governor of VA
Governor of PA
Mayor of DC
EPA Administrator
Executive Council
Chair of Chesapeake Bay Commission
18
Bay Cleanup Has Citizen Involvement
CHESAPEAKEBAY PROGRAM Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee Citizen Advisory Committee
representing the interests of Business,
Industry, Environment, Agriculture, Fisheries,
Local Governments, Developers, etc.
ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION
WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONS LAND TRUSTS CONSERVATION
GROUPS
CHESAPEAKE BAY CLEANUP
19
Goal40 Reduction in Nutrient Pollutionby the
Year 2000
20
Nutrient Pollution Declining,but We Still Need
to Do More
Total Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay from
All Bay Tributaries (MD, PA, VA, DC).
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Maintaining reduced nutrient loads will be a
challenge due to expected population growth in
the region. New goals will be established soon
for additional reductions of nutrients, as well
as sediment, to be achieved by 2010.
Nitrogen Goal
Phosphorus Goal
Source Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3
Watershed Model. Data include total nutrient
loads delivered to the Bay, from point and
nonpoint sources, from Chesapeake Bay Agreement
jurisdictions MD, PA, VA and DC.
21
Phosphorus Levels Decliningin Non-tidal Portions
of the Rivers
Monitoring data from major rivers entering tidal
waters of Chesapeake Bay show that phosphorus
concentrations are decreasing in portions of the
Susquehanna River, in the Patuxent, Rappahannock
and James rivers and in the Mattaponi (a
tributary to the York). The Potomac River and the
and Pamunkey (a tributary to the York) show
increasing trends. Portions of the Susquehanna
and the Appomattox (a tributary to the James)
show no trend.
1980s 2000 Decreasing No significant
trend Increasing
22
Nitrogen Levels Decliningin Non-tidal Portions
of the Rivers
Monitoring data from major rivers entering tidal
waters of Chesapeake Bay show that nitrogen
concentrations are decreasing in the Susquehanna,
Potomac, Patuxent, Rappahannock, Mattaponi (a
tributary to the York), and James rivers. The
Pamunkey (a tributary to the York) shows an
increasing trend. The Appomattox (a tributary to
the James) shows no trend.
1980s 2000 Decreasing No significant
trend Increasing
23
Forest Acreage Declining
Forests provide critical habitat and help prevent
pollutants and sediment from reaching the Bay and
rivers. About 59 of the Bay basin is currently
forested. The forest that regrew from the 19th to
the mid-20th centuries is steadily declining.
Current losses represent permanent conversions.
24
Wetland Loss Continues
In the 1980s we were still losingestuarine
wetlands, like tidal marshes,but loss rates were
significantly reduced.Loss rates were down
from547 acres/year during the 1950s - 1970s,to
5 acres/year during the 1980s. However,
freshwater wetlands, like forested swamps, were
lost at an increasing rate.Loss rates were up
from2,373 acres/year during the 1950s -
1970s,to 2,807 acres/year during the 1980s.
25
Patterns of Land Use and Consumption of Natural
Resources Threaten Our Progress
Low density, single-use development, often called
sprawl, tends to use "resource lands", such as
forests, farms and wetlands. This impacts the
water quality of local waterways and the Bay, as
well as the region's economy and heritage. These
development trends also have resulted in people
driving farther to reach jobs and services,
leading to increases in vehicle miles traveled.
26
Summary of Impacts
In sum, the Bay watershed has lost half its
forests, 60 percent of its wetlands, almost 90
percent of its underwater grasses, and nearly 98
percent of its oysters. The result is that we
have stripped the Bay of its natural habitats on
the land and in the water, as well as stripping
it of its ability to filter out pollution.
27
Bay 2000 Agreement

• By 2010, develop and implement locally supported
  watershed management plans in two-thirds of the
  Bay watershed covered by this Agreement.
• By 2010, achieve a net resource gain by restoring
  25,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.
• By 2002, ensure that measures are in place to
  meet our riparian forest buffer restoration goal
  of 2,010 miles by 2010.

28
Bay 2000 Agreement (Cont.)

• By 2010, correct the nutrient- and
  sediment-related problems sufficiently to remove
  the Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries
  from the list of impaired waters under the Clean
  Water Act.
• Permanently preserve from development 20 percent
  of the land area in the watershed by 2010.
• By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl
  development of forest and agricultural land in
  the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30 percent.

29
Acres of Bay Grasses
GOAL 185,000 acres by 2010. STATUS Total
acreage in 2003 is estimated to be 64,709. The
decrease appears to be the result of substantial
reductions in widgeongrass in the lower and
mid-bay regions. In addition, major declines in
freshwater species occurred in the upper portion
the Potomac River and Susquehanna region likely
due to persistent turbidity resulting from rain
occurring throughout the spring and summer that
may have contributed to a very early decline,
well before Hurricane Isabel affected Chesapeake
Bay.
Restoration Goal (185,000 acres by 2010)
Note Hatched area of bar includes estimated
additional acreage. No survey in 1988. Source
Chesapeake Bay Program.
30
Wetlands Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement
Wetlands Restoration Program Achievement
GOAL Achieve a net resource gain by restoring
25,000 acres by 2010 in the Wetlands Restoration
Program. In addition, the states regulatory
programs will achieve a No-net loss of
wetlands. STATUS Since 1998, 14,317 acres were
restored. In order to achieve the goal, 10,683
additional acres need to be restored by
2010. During this time, an additional 1,312
acres were gained in the regulatory programs.
PA Goal 4,000 acres Restored 930 acres Percent
Achievement 23
MD Goal 15,000 acres Restored 12,593
acres Percent Achievement 84
VA Goal 6,000 acres Restored 794 acres Percent
Achievement 13
Source Chesapeake Bay Program. Regulatory
Program data MD, 1998-2003 PA ,1998-2002 VA,
2000-2003. Restoration Program data MD,
1998-2003 (2003 partial) PA, 1998-2001 VA
2001-2003 (2002-2003 partial). Restoration totals
include restoration, enhancement, and creation
of tidal and non-tidal wetlands in the Wetlands
Restoration Program
31
Stream Miles Opened to Migratory Fish
GOAL To restore access to historical spawning
grounds for migratory fish. STATUS The removal
of stream blockages and construction of fish
passages in 2004 reopened 352 miles of historic
spawning habitat to migratory fish. Total miles
made available to migratory fish since 1988 is
1,570. The 1,357 mile goal has been achieved.
An additional 238 miles have been made available
to resident fish.
2003 Goal (1,357 miles)
1998 Goal (731 miles)
Source Chesapeake Bay Program Office
32
Trends in Finfish Striped Bass
Maryland
GOAL Sustain the fishery. STATUS Moratoriums
in Maryland and Virginia followed by conservative
harvest limits allowed the stock to rebound. The
stock was declared restored in January 1995 by
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. Note Differences in data treatment
by MD and VA mean these graphs are not directly
comparable.
Moratorium 1985 - 1990
Virginia
Moratorium 1989 - 1990
Source for Maryland index data Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. Source for
Virginia index data Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences.
33
Striped Bass Spawning Stock
GOAL The goal for a recovered fishery was a
spawning stock biomass (SSB) equal to the
average SSBs recorded during 1960 -
1972. STATUS Successful management measures
led to decreased harvest pressure. The Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission declared the
stock restored as ofJanuary 1, 1995.
Baywide Female Spawning Stock Biomass
Fishing moratoria MD DE 1985-1990 VA
1989-1990
Source Advisory and Summary Reports on the
Status of the Atlantic Striped Bass, Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Striped Bass Technical
Committee
34
American Shad Population Trends
GOAL Restore shad populations in the upper
Chesapeake Bay. STATUS Stocking efforts, a
moratorium on shad fishing, and fish passage
development on the Susquehanna River have helped
to increase the number of shad returning to
Conowingo Dam from several hundred per year in
the early 1980s to an average 114,165 per year in
2002-2004. In 2004, 109,360 shad returned. In
spite of these improvements, Susquehanna
populations are far below the restoration program
goal of 2 million fish.
Source PA Fish and Boat Commission
35
Trends in Blue Crab Commercial Harvest
GOAL Manage blue crabs to conserve the Baywide
stock, protect its ecological value and optimize
the long-term use of the resource. STATUS The
2003 harvest of approximately 48 million pounds
is below the long term average and near historic
lows. The 2003 fishing mortality rate did not
exceed the overfishing threshold but is above the
target.
Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Landings
2003
Average Fishing Mortality Rate
Threshold Not to be exceeded
Target Safe Harvest Level
2003
Sources Landings - National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA.. Fishing Mortality Rate -
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee
(CBSAC), unweighted average of 4 surveys.
36
Trends in Blue Crab Mature Females
GOAL To protect the health of the blue crab
stock and maintain the spawning stock at a
sustainable level. STATUS Mature female
abundance has trended upwards for the past three
years after hitting an historic low in 2000, but
has been below the long-term average for six
straight years and ten of the past twelve years.
Spawning Stock Abundance
Average
VIMS Trawl, Calvert Cliffs, MD Trawl Winter
Dredge
VIMS Trawl, Calvert Cliffs MD Trawl
VIMS Trawl Calvert Cliffs
2003
Sources MD Department of Natural Resources,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Academy of
Natural Science, NOAA CBSAC.
37
Trends in Shellfish Oyster Harvest
Oyster harvests in the Bay have declined due to
overharvesting, disease, pollution and loss of
oyster reef habitat. Two diseases, discovered in
the 1950s and caused by the parasites MSX and
Dermo, have been a major cause of the oysters
decline during recent times.
Maryland and Virginia Commercial Landings
Recent Trends (millions of lbs.)
Source NMFS Fisheries Statistics of the U.S.
calendar year data.
38
Trends in Shellfish Oyster Spat
GOAL Enhance production of oysters by restoring
habitat, controlling fishing mortality, promoting
aquaculture and continuing repletion
programs. STATUS Oyster reproduction has
continued to show strong annual variability, even
during recent decades, but survival to
harvestable size is severely compromised by MSX
and Dermo.
Maryland Spat Set Average Based on 53 Key Bars in
MD
2003
Source MD Department of Natural Resources.
39
Bald Eagle Populations on the Rebound!
Actions to control chemical contaminants have led
to improved conditions in the Bay. Bald eagles
are no longer endangered due to the ban on the
pesticide DDT and subsequent habitat improvements.
40
Trends in Waterfowl Black Duck and Mallard
Black Duck
GOAL Restore populations and habitats to 1970s
levels by the year 2000. STATUS The goal for
black ducks has not been reached, while the goal
for mallards has been achieved.
Mallard
Source U.S. Fish Wildlife Service.
41
Trends in Diving Ducks
Canvasbacks
Redheads
GOAL Restore populations and habitats to 1970s
levels by the year 2000. STATUS Overall,
diving ducks are doing well, however, redheads
and canvasbacks are below goal levels.
goal
goal
2004
2004
Total Diving Ducks
Other Diving Ducks
(Scaup, Ring-necked Ducks, Common Goldeneye,
Bufflehead, Ruddy Duck)
goal
goal
2004
2004
Source U.S. Fish Wildlife Service.
42
For More Information

• www.chesapeakebay.net
• www.cbf.org