What’s All the Fuss about Ecosystem Based
Management?
Successful Regional
EBM Efforts around
the Country: Models
for Action
April 14, 2008
Portrait of an Ecosystem
Ecosystem-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 Consider
Regional (e.g., Outer Continental Shelf energy siting)
Ecosystem
Issue &
Scale
Coarse (e.g., harmful algal blooms)
Intermediate (e.g., invasive species establishment and spread)
Local (e.g., post-rain elevated bacterial count at local beaches)
LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL SCALE
Local
Laws &
Land-use
Regulations laws,
ordinances,
zoning,
plans, critical
areas…
State
Multi-State
Federal
Multi-Lateral
State ESAs,
NEPAs,
CZMs,
plans,
fisheries,
land-use
mgmt
Inter-State
compacts,
agreements,
fishery
councils. . .
CWA, MSA,
CZMA,
ESA…
International
treaties,
multi-lateral
treaties, softlaw
documents,
regional
initiatives…
Defined by
agreements
Scientific
Provisions
and
Standards
Defined by
state and
local law
Permit
requirements
designated
uses…
TMDLs,
sustainable
use, basin
requirements
BMPs,
BATs, MSY,
EFH…
Institutions
& Actors
Mayors, city
boards,
developers,
planners,
Governors,
legislatures,
state
agencies…
Commission,
Councils,
regional
bodies…
NMFS,
EPA, CZM,
NERR…
Commission,
Councils…
EBM 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 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 Cooperation
California Ocean Protection Council
California Ocean Protection Act (2005), California Ocean Resources Management Act of 1990
Chesapeake Bay Program
1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake 2000
Gulf of Maine Council
Governors’ 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 Alliance
Accord of the States of the Gulf of Mexico (1995), Governors' Action Plan for Healthy and
Resilient Coasts
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Basin Compact, Declaration of Partnership
North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan
Fisheries Reform Act (1997)
Puget Sound Partnership
Governor-appointed partnership
San Luis Obispo Science and Ecosystem Alliance
Non-governmental organization- and academic-driven initiative
Coordination and Cooperation
WHAT INSTITUTIONS ARE INVOLVED?
Federal Agencies
State Agencies
Municipalities
Private Sector
Environmental Organizations
Citizen Groups
Coordination and Cooperation
Chesapeake Bay Program: An Example
Signatories to the Agreement
Chesapeake Bay Commission, PA, VA,
DC, MD, EPA
Headwater States
DE, NY, WV
Federal Agencies
Chesapeake 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
Academic Institutions
Academy 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
Others
Alliance 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
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
• 64,000 square
miles
• 150 major rivers
and streams
New York
Pennsylvania
• ~ 16 million people
Maryland
Delaware
West Virginia
District of
Columbia
Virginia
Key Problems
1. Human Population/Land Use Change
2. Water Quality Problems
3. Habitat
Degradation
4. Living Resources Decline
5. Toxics/Sediments
The Program Partnership
Governor of MD
Governor of VA
Governor of PA
Mayor of DC
EPA Administrator
Executive Council
Chair of
Chesapeake
Bay
Commission
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement
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
Implementation Categories
Water Quality and Quantity
Habitat Conservation, Preservation and Restoration
Aquatic Living Resources
Land Use
Marine Activities
Human Health and Well-Being
Implementation Categories
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.
Implementation Categories
Habitat Conservation,
Preservation and Restoration
Description. 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.
Implementation Categories
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.
Implementation Categories
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.
Implementation Categories
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.
Implementation Categories
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.
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Activities
Habitat
• Oysters
Fisheries
Education
• Blue Crabs
• Student Bay
Experiences
Coastal
Observations
• Winds, waves,
tides, currents,
air quality
• Remote
Sensing
• Submerged
Bay Grasses
• Community
Projects
• Non-native
Oyster
Research
• Multi-species
Management
• Teacher
Training
• Workshops
• Interpretive
Buoys
Fisheries Ecosystem Planning
 Collaborative effort to
develop guidance for
Ecosystem-based
Approaches to Fisheries
Management
 FEP for Chesapeake Bay
adopted as regional
guidance for EBFM
Integrated/Ecosystem Approach
Future Management Process
Current Management Process
Striped Bass
Striped Bass
Menhaden
Menhaden
Weakfish
Weakfish
Bluefish
Bluefish
Spot/Croaker
Bay Anchovy
Zooplankton
Ecosystem 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
Ecocheck
• Scientific communication newsletters on timely/topical issues
• Chesapeake Bay Report Card and Health Assessment