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