Overview of Ecosystem Planning
& Management
Lecture # 1
Dr. Samuel Brody, TX, A&M University
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).
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).
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.
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.
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).
Major Themes of Ecosystem
Planning & 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
Chesapeake Bay Case Study
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
New York
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Delaware
West Virginia
District of
Columbia
Virginia
Value of the Bay
Sources of Pollutants to the Bay
Nonpoint •Run-off from farmland
Sources •Run-off from lawns and paved areas
Point •Industry
Sources •Wastewater Treatment Plants
Stormwater and groundwater carry nutrients into rivers and
the Bay from a variety of nonpoint sources.
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
Bay Cleanup Has Citizen Involvement
CHESAPEAKE
BAY PROGRAM
Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee
ALLIANCE FOR
THE
CHESAPEAKE
BAY
CHESAPEAKE
BAY
FOUNDATION
CHESAPEAKE
WATERSHED
ORGANIZATIONS
BAY
LAND TRUSTS
CLEANUP
CONSERVATION
GROUPS
Citizen Advisory
Committee
representing the interests of:
Business, Industry,
Environment,
Agriculture, Fisheries,
Local Governments,
Developers, etc.
Goal:
40% Reduction in
Nutrient Pollution
by the Year 2000
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
350
25
Phosphorus
Goal
20
15
10
5
Nitrogen Loads (millions of lbs/yr)
Phosphorus Loads (millions of lbs/yr)
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Goal
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
1985
2000
Estimate
1985
2000
Estimate
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.
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.
Phosphorus Levels Declining
in 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
Nitrogen Levels Declining
in 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
Percentage of Watershed Forested
Forest Acreage Declining
Forests provide critical
habitat and help
prevent pollutants and
sediment from
reaching the Bay and
rivers.
100
80
60
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
40
Early
Colonies
Land
cleared for
agriculture
and timber
20
0
1650
1700
Land
abandoned
afte r Civil
War and
De pre ssion
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
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
2000 represent permanent
conversions.
Wetland Loss Continues
In the 1980s we were still losing
estuarine wetlands, like tidal marshes,
but loss rates were significantly reduced.
Loss rates were down from
547 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 from
2,373 acres/year during the 1950s - 1970s,
to 2,807 acres/year during the 1980s.
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.
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.
Bay 2000 Agreement
• By 2010, develop and implement locally
supported watershed management plans in twothirds 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.
Bay 2000 Agreement (Cont.)
• By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sedimentrelated 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.
Acres of Bay Grasses
Bay Grasses (x 1,000 acres)
180
GOAL: 185,000 acres by 2010.
Restoration Goal (185,000 acres by 2010)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
*Note – Hatched area of bar includes estimated additional acreage. No survey in 1988.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program.
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.
Wetlands Protection, Restoration, and
Enhancement
Wetlands Restoration Program Achievement
PA Goal: 4,000 acres
Restored: 930 acres
Percent Achievement: 23%
MD Goal: 15,000 acres
Restored: 12,593 acres
Percent Achievement: 84%
Total
Remaining
43%
Total
Restored
57%
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 nontidal wetlands in the Wetlands Restoration Program
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.
2000
1800
1600
1400
2003 Goal (1,357 miles)
1200
1000
800
1998 Goal (731 miles)
600
Opened, but not yet to M igratory Fish
400
Opened to M igratory Fish
200
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Cumulative Miles of River Habitat Opened
Stream Miles Opened to Migratory
Fish
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office
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.
VA Striped Bass Juvenile Index MD Striped Bass Juvenile Index
Trends in Finfish: Striped Bass
18
16
14
12
Maryland
Moratorium
1985 - 1990
GOAL: Sustain the
fishery.
10
8
6
4
2
0
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Virginia
Moratorium
1989 - 1990
Source for Maryland index data: Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Source for Virginia index data: Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.
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.
45
Baywide Female Spawning Stock Biomass
40
35
30
25
Fishing moratoria:
MD & DE: 1985-1990
VA: 1989-1990
20
15
10
5
0
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
SSB (females ages 4+yrs, millions of lbs)
Striped Bass Spawning Stock
Source: Advisory and Summary Reports on the Status of the Atlantic Striped Bass,
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Striped Bass Technical Committee
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 of
January 1, 1995.
American Shad: Population Trends
2
GOAL: Restore shad
populations in the upper
Chesapeake Bay.
1.75
1.5
180000
1.25
Shad Counted at Conowingo
Fish Lift
Three Year Average
150000
120000
60000
30000
0.25
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
0
Source: PA Fish and Boat Commission
2002-04
1999-01
1996-98
1993-95
0.5
1990-92
0
1987-89
0.75
90000
1984-86
1
1981-83
Shad Counted at Conowingo Fish Lift (millions)
Susquehanna River Restoration
Program Goal
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 20022004.
In 2004, 109,360 shad
returned. In spite of these
improvements, Susquehanna
populations are far below the
restoration program goal of 2
million fish.
Trends in Blue Crab: Commercial
Harvest
Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Landings
GOAL: Manage blue
crabs to conserve the
Baywide stock, protect
its ecological value
and optimize the longterm use of the
resource.
Landings (millon pounds)
120
100
80
60
40
20
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
1971
1968
1965
1962
1959
1956
0
Average Fishing Mortality Rate
2
1.8
Length-Based F
1.6
Threshold: Not to be exceeded
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Target: Safe Harvest Level
0.2
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
1971
1968
1965
1962
1959
1956
0
Sources: Landings - National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.. Fishing Mortality Rate - Chesapeake
Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC), unweighted average of 4 surveys.
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.
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.
Spawning Stock Abundance
2
1
0.5
0
Average
-1
Sources: MD Department of Natural Resources, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Academy of Natural Science, NOAA CBSAC.
2001
1998
1995
1989
1977
1974
1971
1968
-2
1986
VIMS Trawl,
Calvert Cliffs &
MD Trawl
VIMS Trawl &
Calvert Cliffs
1983
-1.5
VIMS Trawl,
Calvert Cliffs,
MD Trawl &
Winter Dredge
1992
-0.5
1980
Spawning Female Index
1.5
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.
Trends in Shellfish: Oyster Harvest
Maryland and Virginia Commercial Landings
Commercial Landings (million lbs)
40
16
35
14
Recent Trends
12
(millions of lbs.)
10
30
8
Oyster harvests in the
Bay have declined due to
overharvesting, disease,
pollution and loss of
oyster reef habitat.
6
25
4
2
0
20
85
91
97
15
10
5
0
53
58
63
68
73
78
83
Source: NMFS Fisheries Statistics of the U.S.; calendar year data.
88
93
98
Two diseases,
discovered in the 1950s
2003
and caused by the
AV parasites MSX and
Dermo, have been a
DM major cause of the
oyster’s decline during
2003 recent times.
Trends in Shellfish: Oyster Spat
GOAL: Enhance
production of oysters by
restoring habitat,
controlling fishing
mortality, promoting
aquaculture and
continuing repletion
programs.
Maryland Spat Set
Average Based on 53 Key Bars in MD
350
300
Spat/bushel
250
200
150
100
Source: MD Department of Natural Resources.
1999
1989
1979
1969
1959
1949
1939
0
2003
50
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.
900
Actions to control
chemical
contaminants have
led to improved
conditions in the Bay.
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Young
Active Nests
0
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
Chesapeake Basin Bald Eagle Population Count
Bald Eagle Populations on the Rebound!
Bald eagles are no
longer endangered
due to the ban on the
pesticide DDT and
subsequent habitat
improvements.
Winter Count in Thousands
Trends in Waterfowl: Black Duck and
Black Duck
Mallard
GOAL: Restore
populations and habitats
to 1970s levels by the
year 2000.
160
140
120
100
80
goal
60
STATUS: The goal for
black ducks has not been
reached, while the goal
for mallards has been
achieved.
40
20
1999
1993
1987
1981
Winter Count in Thousands
1975
1969
1963
1957
0
Mallard
120
100
80
60
goal
40
20
1999
1993
1987
1981
1975
1969
1963
Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
1957
0
Canvasbacks
160
Winter Count in Thousands
140
120
100
goal
80
60
40
20
GOAL: Restore
populations and
habitats to 1970s
levels by the
year 2000.
60
50
40
30
20
goal
10
250
200
150
100
goal
50
0
Winter Count in Thousands
(*Scaup, Ring-necked Ducks,
Common Goldeneye, Bufflehead,
Ruddy Duck)
300
1999
1993
1987
1981
1975
1969
1957
1999
1993
1987
1981
1975
1969
1963
1957
Other Diving Ducks*
350
1963
0
0
Total Diving Ducks
400
350
300
250
200
150
goal
100
50
Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
1999
1993
1987
1981
1975
1969
1999
1993
1987
1981
1975
1969
1963
1957
0
1963
Winter Count in Thousands
Redheads
70
1957
Winter Count in Thousands
Trends in Diving Ducks
STATUS:
Overall, diving
ducks are doing
well, however,
redheads and
canvasbacks are
below goal
levels.
For More Information
• www.chesapeakebay.net
• www.cbf.org