What’s All the Fuss about Ecosystem Based Management?

What’s All the Fuss about Ecosystem Based Management? What’s All the Fuss about Ecosystem Based Management?

April 14, 2008

Successful Regional EBM Efforts around the Country: Models

for Action

Portrait of an EcosystemPortrait of an Ecosystem

Ecosystem-Based Management RationaleEcosystem-Based Management Rationale

Governance Challenges:• Sector-specific laws and institutions that do

not allow for consideration of cumulative impacts

• Overlapping mandates may lead to management and/or user conflict or create redundant management systems

• Fragmented governance leads to legal and regulatory gaps

• Mismatches of scale (geographic and temporal) exist between governance and ecosystems

EBM Issues to ConsiderEBM Issues to Consider

Commission, Councils…

NMFS, EPA, CZM, NERR…

Commission,Councils, regional bodies…

Governors, legislatures, state agencies…

Mayors, city boards, developers, planners,

Institutions & Actors

Defined by agreements

BMPs, BATs, MSY, EFH…

TMDLs, sustainable use, basin requirements

Permit requirementsdesignated uses…

Defined by state and local law

Scientific Provisions and Standards

International treaties, multi-lateral treaties, soft-law documents, regional initiatives…

CWA, MSA, CZMA, ESA…

Inter-State compacts, agreements, fishery councils. . .

State ESAs, NEPAs, CZMs, plans, fisheries, land-use mgmt

Land-use laws, ordinances, zoning, plans, critical areas…

Laws & Regulations

Multi-LateralFederalMulti-StateStateLocal

LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL SCALE

Regional (e.g., Outer Continental Shelf energy siting)

Intermediate (e.g., invasive species establishment and spread)

Local (e.g., post-rain elevated bacterial count at local beaches)

Coarse (e.g., harmful algal blooms) Ecosystem Issue & Scale

EBM ComponentsEBM Components

Ecosystems• Recognize need for biological diversity • Recognize dynamic nature of ecosystems • Protect ecosystem structure, function and key processes • Accounts for interconnectedness within and among systems • Range of spatial and temporal scales • Intergenerational sustainability

Science• Measurable goals • Decisions informed by good science

Humans• Humans are components of the system• Integrates ecological, social, economic, and institutional

perspectives• Stewardship

Approach• Place-based with ecosystem focus • Adaptive management• Precautionary• Public information and participation

Case StudiesCase Studies

California Ocean Protection Council

Chesapeake Bay Program

Great Lakes

Gulf of Maine Council

Gulf of Mexico Alliance

Puget Sound Partnership

San Luis Obispo Science and Ecosystem Alliance

Coordination and CooperationCoordination and CooperationCalifornia Ocean Protection CouncilCalifornia Ocean Protection Act (2005), California Ocean Resources Management Act of 1990

Chesapeake Bay Program1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake 2000

Gulf of Maine CouncilGovernors’ and Premiers’ 1989 Agreement on Conservation of the Marine Environment of the Gulf of Maine between the Bordering States and Provinces, Agreement on Conservation of the Marine Environment of the Gulf of Maine between the Bordering States and Provinces (2001?), Resolution of Support by the Federal Partners to the Gulf of Maine Council (2001)

Gulf of Mexico AllianceAccord of the States of the Gulf of Mexico (1995), Governors' Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts

Great Lakes CommissionGreat Lakes Basin Compact, Declaration of Partnership

North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection PlanFisheries Reform Act (1997)

Puget Sound PartnershipGovernor-appointed partnership

San Luis Obispo Science and Ecosystem AllianceNon-governmental organization- and academic-driven initiative

Coordination and CooperationCoordination and Cooperation

WHAT INSTITUTIONS ARE INVOLVED?

Federal Agencies

State Agencies

Municipalities

Private Sector

Environmental Organizations

Citizen Groups

Coordination and CooperationCoordination and Cooperation

Chesapeake Bay Program: An Example

Signatories to the AgreementChesapeake Bay Commission, PA, VA, DC, MD, EPA

Headwater StatesDE, NY, WV

Federal AgenciesChesapeake Bay Environmental Enforcement Coalition, USDA, Department of Commerce, DOD, Department of Education, DOI, US DOT, USPS, U.S. General Services Administration, NASA, National Capital Planning Commission

OthersAlliance for the Chesapeake Bay, American Forests, Anacostia Watershed Society, Center for Chesapeake Communities, Center for Watershed Protection, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Trust, Consortium for Int’l Earth Science Information Network, Ducks Unlimited, Ecosystem Solutions, Int’l City/County Management Association, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Low Impact Development Center, Metropolitan Washington Council of Government, Montgomery County Environmental Protection, Nat’l Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Potomac Conservancy, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper Susquehanna Coalition

Academic InstitutionsAcademy of Natural Sciences, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Cornell Cooperative Extensive, Old Dominion University, Penn State University, SERC, University of Delaware Cooperative Extension, University of MD, University of PA, UVA, Virginia Cooperative Extension Office, Virginia Tech, West Virginia University

Maryland

Delaware

New York

District of Columbia

Virginia

West Virginia

Pennsylvania

• 64,000 square miles

• 150 major rivers and streams

• ~ 16 million people

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

2. Water Quality Problems

3. Habitat Degradation

1. Human Population/Land Use Change

5. Toxics/Sediments

4. Living Resources Decline

Key Problems

Governor of MD Governor of VA Governor of PA

Executive Council

Mayor of DC

Chair of Chesapeake

Bay Commission

The Program Partnership

EPA Administrator

Five Major Areas:Five Major Areas:• LIVING RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

• VITAL HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

• WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

• SOUND LAND USE

• STEWARDSHIP AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Chesapeake 2000 Agreement

Implementation CategoriesImplementation Categories

Water Quality and Quantity

Habitat Conservation, Preservation and Restoration

Aquatic Living Resources

Land Use

Marine Activities

Human Health and Well-Being

Water Quality and Quantity

Description. Regulating or restricting activities that impact the marine and freshwater quality (including biological, physical, and chemical integrity) and freshwater quantity.

Ecological Scope. Headwaters to the pelagic marine environment.

Relationship to Other Categories. Water quality and quantity is closely linked with all of the categories described. Water quality and quantity affects habitats, living resources and human health and well-being. Water quantity can also affect land use and maritime activities. All categories can cause impacts to water quality.


Habitat Conservation, Preservation and RestorationDescription. Conserve, preserve, and restore habitat for the purpose of protecting biodiversity and important places.

Ecological Scope. Entire watershed (both terrestrial and freshwater environments) and the marine environment.

Relationship to Other Categories. Habitat conservation and preservation is directed at protecting a specific ecoregion for its ecological function and intrinsic value, including biodiversity. This category is closely linked to the land use; living resources categories; and human health and well-being objectives, especially culture and recreation. Habitat conservation, often has the added affect of protecting environments beyond the particular habitat conserved. Conflict may arise with other maritime and living resource objectives. Protection of terrestrial habitats may positively affect water quality and negatively interact with land use objectives.


Aquatic Living Resources

Description. Regulate or manage individual species or groups of species - extraction of target species and non-target species. This category does not include however, regulation of aquaculture or livestock, which are included in maritime activities and land use.

Ecological Scope. The ecological scope of this category includes all land and water within the EBM boundaries.

Relationship to Other Categories. Regulation of living resources has important links to habitat conservation. Also, regulation of living resources can affect water quality – e.g., healthy oyster beds provide a mechanism to maintain water quality. Water quality and quantity can impact the abundance and survival of living resources. Land use and maritime activities may interfere with living resources. Also, extraction of living resources has human health and well-being components, including offering recreational and cultural opportunities as well serving as an important economic resource.


Land Use

Description. Land uses are wide and varied, ranging from rural practices such as silviculture and agriculture to residential and industrial development to urban infrastructure. Laws and policies affect the uses of lands, development patterns, decisions to engage in, activities, and the practices employed on the lands.

Ecological Scope. The ecological scope of land use includes the entire terrestrial environment, as well as wetlands.

Relationship to Other Categories. Many land use regulations target protection of water quality, closely linking these two categories. Land use decisions may affect habitat conservation and living resources regulation. Also, land use decisions are tightly linked to human health and well-being.


Marine Activities

Description. Including shipping and navigation, non-living resource use or extraction – e.g., extractive industries such as oil and gas or sand mining, as well as non-living resource uses such as wind farm developments.

Ecological Scope. The ecological scope of maritime activities includes the marine environment from internal waters to offshore activities.

Relationship to Other Categories. Maritime activities may impact water quality and living resources. It is important for human health and well-being by providing important economic resources. It may also adversely affect recreational and cultural activities, as well as human health in some instances. While not directly impacting land use, the presence of maritime activities can affect the nature of surrounding land use, because maritime activities are linked to the land. For example, shipping and oil and gas production may require large land-based transportation infrastructures. Pipelines and cables may run from the terrestrial environment and into the marine environment.


Human Health and Well-Being

Description. This category specifically focuses on laws and institutions that directly target human health and well-being.

Ecological Scope. The ecological scope of human health and well being covers the entire EBM region.

Relationship to Other Categories. Human health and well-being is a category in and of itself as well as being a universal driver for activities that fall under the previous categories. Legal, regulatory and policy decisions regarding the above categories are often considered within the context of human health and well-being. Conflict may arise both within this category and among other categories. For example, activities that support economic well-being may conflict with those supporting cultural well-being or human health.


Habitat Fisheries EducationCoastal

Observations• Oysters

• Submerged Bay Grasses

• Community Projects

• Blue Crabs

• Non-native Oyster Research

• Multi-species Management

• Student Bay Experiences

• Teacher Training

• Workshops

• Winds, waves, tides, currents, air quality

• Remote Sensing

• Interpretive Buoys

NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Activities

Fisheries Ecosystem PlanningFisheries Ecosystem Planning

Collaborative effort to develop guidance for Ecosystem-based Approaches to Fisheries Management

FEP for Chesapeake Bay adopted as regional guidance for EBFM

Menhaden

Striped Bass

Bluefish

Weakfish

Bay Anchovy

Zooplankton

Spot/Croaker

Current Management Process Future Management Process

Striped Bass

Bluefish

Menhaden

Weakfish

Integrated/Ecosystem Approach

Ecosystem ModelingEcosystem Modeling

Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Ecosystem Model (CBFEM)

• Data sets from a variety of users (as drivers and validators)

• Community review of model

• Applications for multi-species interactions

EcocheckEcocheck

• Scientific communication newsletters on timely/topical issues

• Chesapeake Bay Report Card and Health Assessment

What’s All the Fuss about Ecosystem Based Management?

Documents

Transcript of What’s All the Fuss about Ecosystem Based Management?