Ch 19 Ecosystem-Watershed Management

8/3/2019 Ch 19 Ecosystem-Watershed Management

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ch-19-ecosystem-watershed-management 1/43

Ecosystem andWatershed Management



Ecosystem and watershed management share some

common themes. They both aim to:

• integrate science and politics,• consider variable scales, zooming out to landscapes andzooming in to sites,

• have a long-term time perspective,

• be scientifically based, using the “best science” andscientific learning,

• focus on ecological integrity along with social and

economic objectives,• consider a wide range of integrated solutions,

• engage stakeholders to tap local knowledge and values

• use monitoring and adaptive management to learn and

fine-tune strategies.



Ecosystem and Watershed

Management both operateat a multiple scales



Ecosystem Management Criteria

• Ecological Orientation

• Time and Spatial Scale

• Scientific Basis• Role of Humans and Society:

Collaborative decisionmaking

• Management Actions: Adaptive and Integrative solutions



Adaptive Management

• Passive Adaptive Management:

– managers use historical or comparative analysis to determine a “best

guess” hypothesis of outcomes from a preferred action, and then

monitor real outcomes the results of which are then used to revise the

hypothesis and management action.• Active Adaptive Management:

– managers generally define competing hypotheses of outcomes and then

design experiments to test them.

• With multiple experiments, active AM can provide moremeaning data on outcomes in a shorter time frame than passive

AM, but it is generally more costly to implement.



Adaptive Management

Appropriate whensituation has highuncertainty and

high controllability



Applicability of Active & Passive

Adaptive Management

Applicability Criteria:

• Spatial & temporal scale• Dimensions of uncertainty

• Evaluation of costs, benefits, risks

• Institutional/stakeholder support

Hypothetical Ecosystem

Management Cases:

• Field test of tree-fertilizer options

• Alternative river restoration plans

for endangered salmon• Efficacy of forest management

treatments in urban wildfire

• Effect of climate change on landuse designations in regional plan



U.S. Department of Interior’s

Guide to Adaptive Management (2009)

1. Is some kind of management decision to be made? YES

• Decision analysis and monitoring are unnecessary when no decision options exist.

2. Can stakeholders be engaged? YES

• Without active stakeholder involvement an adaptive management process is unlikely to be effective.

3. Can management objective(s) be stated explicitly? YES

• Adaptive management is not possible if objectives are not identified.

4. Is decision making confounded by uncertainty about potential management impacts? YES

• In the absence of uncertainty adaptive management is not needed.

5. Can resource relationships and management impacts be represented in models? YES

• Adaptive management cannot proceed without the predictions generated by models.

6. Can monitoring be designed to inform decision making? YES

• In the absence of targeted monitoring it is not possible to reduce uncertainty and improve management.

7. Can progress be measured in achieving management objectives? YES• Adaptive management is not feasible if progress in understanding and improving management is

unrecognizable.

8. Can management actions be adjusted in response to what has been learned? YES

• Adaptive management is not possible without the flexibility to adjust management strategies.

9. Does the whole process fit within the appropriate legal framework? YES



Major Ecosystem Management

Programs• Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Project

• Chesapeake Bay Program

• Sacramento Delta• Upper Mississippi

• others



Everglades Restoration Project



CERP

• Re-establish pre-drainage hydrologicpatterns

• Increase water storage

• Reduce water loss

• Apply 44,000 stormwater treatment areas



Chesapeake Bay Program



Chesapeake Bay Restoration Progress:

views of CBP and CBF



Chesapeake Bay TMDL:“pollution diet”



The Nature Conservancy’s

Ecoregional Planning and Management

• Set priorities through ecoregional planning

• Develop conservation strategies for

conservation targets • Take direct conservation action in functional

“landscape platforms”

• Measure conservation success through

monitoring



Basic Concepts in Watershed Planning

1. The Tiered Approach: Nest your watersheds

Think Globally (Basin), Act Locally (Catchment)

2. Classify your sub-watershed

3. Take care of precious Headwaters4. Employ eight watershed management tools

5. Focus on impervious cover in urban watersheds

6. Make technical choices about mapping, modeling,

monitoring, and management measures

7. Reach broad consensus among stakeholders

8. Focus on action: implement your watershed plan

9. Monitor and Evaluate your watershed program

N t d



Nested

Watersheds

from

catchments

to river

basins



Powhatan Creek Watershed



WatershedManagementFor PowhatanCreek



Building A Cleaner James RiverGreater Richmond Convention Center

April 21, 2006



VT UVA

VCU



Vulnerable DevelopingRockbridge CountyCOW: 29 + 22005 Pop: 21,500

2020 Pop: 22,700 (+6%)



Upper James: Vulnerable Developing 42

37 35

25

40

18

29

118 7

2

85

2

0

5

10

1520

25

30

3540

45

A l l e

g h a n y

A m h e

r s t

A u g u

s t a

B e d f o r d

B o t e t o u r t

C a m p b

e l l

R o c k b r i d

g e

COW score Addendum scoreCOW Based on 100 point scale

Addendum A based on 20 point scale



Vulnerable ImpactedLynchburg

COW: 46 + 112005 Pop: 68,000

2020 Pop: 65,300 (-4%)



Upper James: Vulnerable Impacted

21

56

46

1 2

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Buena Vista Lexington Lynchburg

COW score Addendum scoreCOW Based on 100 point scale




Middle James: Vulnerable Developing

COW Based on 100 point scale


66

45

66

1912

7 6 20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Albermarle

County

Greene

County

Amelia

County

Prince

EdwardCounty

COW Score Addendum Score



Middle James: Vulnerable Developing Rapidly

43 42

32

95 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Goochland Fluvanna Powhatan

COW Score Addendum Score

COW Based on 100 point scale


Middl J



General Description

• Adjacent to developed areas: Richmond Metropolitan Area (Goochland and Powhatan) and Charlottesville

(Fluvanna)• Few remaining working farms

• Portions of each county are experiencing rapid

growth while other areasare largely rural andunprotected

Middle James: Vulnerable Developing Rapidly

Goochland County Courthouse

Middl J



Middle James:

Vulnerable Developing Rapidly Challenges

• Rural lands vulnerable to residential and commercialdevelopment

• Codes and ordinances do not adequately address waterquality impacts of projected growth

• Subdivision ordinances lack Low Impact Development(LID) provisions

• Rural land preservation programs limited in Powhatanand Fluvanna County

• Cluster developments allowed but not fully implemented in Powhatan and Fluvanna County

Middl J



Middle James:

Vulnerable Developing Rapidly Opportunities

• Protection of existing rural lands

• Early stages of rapid growth

• Ability to codify water quality best managementpractices before stream degradation occurs

• Preservation of existing

stream buffers

Healthy Stream Buffer

Middl J



Middle James:

Vulnerable Developing Rapidly Strategies

• Expand portfolio of rural land conservation tools

• Adopt LID-themed stormwater management plan

• Revise subdivision ordinance to reduce street width andparking space requirements

• Incorporate Geographical Information System planning

to track land use and impervious surface changes• Revise site plan review process to limit clearing and

grading and preserve existing vegetation

Ch 19 Ecosystem-Watershed Management

Documents

Transcript of Ch 19 Ecosystem-Watershed Management