Management, Monitoring, and Restoring Urban Streams

Transcription

1 Management, Monitoring, and Restoring Urban Streams Derek B. Booth, PhD PG PE S T I L L W A T E R S C I E N C E S (President & Senior Geologist) U N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N (Affiliate Professor) Stephen C. Ralph, MS S T I L L W A T E R S C I E N C E S (Senior Aquatic Ecologist)

2 P R E S E N T A T I O N OV E R V I E W 1. Urban streams express the condition of their contributing watershed symptomatic solutions to systemic problems are rarely successful, long term. 2. Urban stream ecosystems are complex, with diverse stressors and constantly changing conditions. Information to fully inform management decisions is not (and may never be) available. 3. Adaptive Management is a robust, well-developed framework to address this conundrum of management needs within a context of scientific uncertainty 4. or is it?

3 P R E S E N T A T I O N OV E R V I E W 1. Urban streams express the condition of their contributing watershed symptomatic solutions to systemic problems are rarely successful, long term. 2. Urban stream ecosystems are complex, with diverse stressors and constantly changing conditions. Information to fully inform management decisions is not (and may never be) available. 3. Adaptive Management is a robust, well-developed framework to address this conundrum of management needs within a context of scientific uncertainty 4. or is it?

4 Autumn 1989

5 Winter 1990

6 Thornton Creek BIBI = 12 (v. poor)

7

8 Miller Creek BIBI = 12 (v. poor)

9

10 Short-Term Actions: Riparian planting Water-quality source control Fish passage Selective instream structures Social amenities (note: no watershed-scale treatments on this list)

11 Long-Term Actions: Land-use planning Preserves Zoning Retention/detention Road crossings Upland hydrologic rehabilitation Riparian-zone vegetation communities Floodplain connectivity Stewardship

12 Long-Term Actions: Land-use planning Preserves Zoning Retention/detention Road crossings Upland hydrologic rehabilitation Riparian-zone vegetation communities Floodplain connectivity Stewardship

13 Land-use planning (preserves)

14 Long-Term Actions: Land-use planning Preserves Zoning Retention/detention Road crossings Upland hydrologic rehabilitation Riparian-zone vegetation communities Floodplain connectivity Stewardship

15 UW Bothell North Creek stream/wetland restoration (1999) Riparian-zone vegetation communities

16 UW Bothell North Creek stream/wetland restoration (2007) Riparian-zone vegetation communities

17 July 2004

18 P R E S E N T A T I O N OV E R V I E W 1. Urban streams express the condition of their contributing watershed symptomatic solutions to systemic problems are rarely successful, long term. 2. Urban stream ecosystems are complex, with diverse stressors and constantly changing conditions. Information to fully inform management decisions is not (and may never be) available. 3. Adaptive Management is a robust, well-developed framework to address this conundrum of management needs within a context of scientific uncertainty 4. or is it?

19 Biological Response to Increasing Levels of Stress WORSE BIOLOGY MORE URBANIZATION Modified from Davies and Jackson (2006) by EPA

20 Stream Health (BIBI score) Biological Integrity of Puget Lowland Streams Note: no threshold of effects Data from Sarah Morley, Univ. of WA Urban Development (TIA in watershed) Data from S. Morley, UW

21 Stream Health (BIBI score) Biological Integrity of Puget Lowland Streams ? Data from Sarah Morley, Univ. of WA Urban Development (TIA in watershed) Data from S. Morley, UW

22 What are the causal relationships? What s the conceptual model? Even if we could diagram the relationships, can we quantify the linkages? Can we make predictions from them?

23 From CP Konrad, USGS

24 Waiting until that information is available, however, is not an option

25 P R E S E N T A T I O N OV E R V I E W 1. Urban streams express the condition of their contributing watershed symptomatic solutions to systemic problems are rarely successful, long term. 2. Urban stream ecosystems are complex, with diverse stressors and constantly changing conditions. Information to fully inform management decisions is not (and may never be) available. 3. Adaptive Management is a robust, well-developed framework to address this conundrum of management needs within a context of scientific uncertainty 4. or is it?

26 MONITORING FOR A PURPOSE > Status and trends in key natural resource indicators; > Evaluate outcomes of land management or ecosystem treatments > Test key assumptions ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

27 WHAT IS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT? > Management actions are viewed as experimental treatments; > Results are systematically evaluated; > Uncertainty and risk are acknowledged; > Contingency plan(s) are included.

28 TWO FLAVORS OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 1. Holling s Adaptive Management 2. Socio-political Adaptive Management

29 Holling s Adaptive Management (Holling, CS, 1978, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, John Wiley, NY) Treats decisions as discrete manipulations subject to experimental evaluation (a.k.a. monitoring). In other words, the management action is the first step of an experiment.

30 Holling s Adaptive Management an integrated, multidisciplinary and systematic approach to improving management and accommodating change by learning from the outcomes of management policies and practices (Holling, 1978) if human understanding of nature is imperfect, then human interactions with nature should be experimental. (Lee, 1993)

31 Socio-Political Adaptive Management Monitoring of past management actions are anticipated to catalyze adaptive improvements in future management actions. In other words, an action is taken; then (and only then) do we try to learn from it.

32 Does true Adaptive Management ever happen? > As outlined: actually, very rarely. > Next best outcome: monitoring occurs after-the-fact, but the results really do make a difference. > More common: measurements are made but management is slow to adjust. > Most common: nothing is measured, nothing is changed. WHY IS THIS SO?

33 Urban Stormwater Management in the United States Water Science and Technology Board National Research Council

34 Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution Claire Welty, Chair, University of Maryland, Baltimore County Lawrence E. Band, University of North Carolina Roger Bannerman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Derek B. Booth, Stillwater Sciences, Inc. Richard R. Horner, University of Washington Charles R. O Melia (NAE), Johns Hopkins University Robert E. Pitt, University of Alabama Edward T. Rankin, Midwest Biodiversity Institute Thomas R. Schueler, Center for Watershed Protection Kurt Stephenson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Xavier Swamikannu, CalEPA, Los Angeles Regional Water Board Robert G. Traver, Villanova University Wendy Wagner, University of Texas School of Law William E. Wenk, Wenk Associates, Inc.

35 Monitoring and Modeling (Chapter 4) Watershed models are useful tools for predicting some downstream impacts from urbanization and designing mitigation to reduce those impacts. It is difficult to assign a specific contribution to impairment to a source, because of the uncertainty in the modeling and the data, the scale of the problems, and the presence of multiple stressors. Monitoring requirements are variable and sparse. MS4s and (particularly) industrial dischargers suffer from a paucity of data and from requirements that are difficult to relate to compliance.

36

37 The Stormwater Work Group's goal is to develop a sustainable, cooperative monitoring and assessment framework that provides meaningful management data; promotes greater understanding of stormwater and other surface water pollution source issues; and supports a larger, integrated effort to protect and restore the Puget Sound ecosystem by enabling us to know whether we are reducing harm caused to Puget Sound by stormwater and other surface water sources. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT?

38 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE 1. Adaptive Management is not for everyone. Without institutional support for embracing uncertainty, don t bother.

39 1. Adaptive Management is not for everyone. We suggest that watershed-scale adaptive management must be recognized as a radical departure from established ways of managing natural resources if it is to achieve its promise... Adaptive management encourages scrutiny of prevailing social and organizational norms and this is unlikely to occur without a change in the culture of natural resource management and research. Allan et al (JAWRA 44(1): ).

40

41 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE 1. Adaptive Management is not for everyone. Without institutional support for embracing uncertainty, don t bother. 2. Institutional support isn t enough the structure to make use of monitoring results in the management process must exist, too.

42 2. Institutional support isn t enough From Robert Pitt s review of the Puget Sound monitoring strategy document: [The report] describes the local implementation of adaptive management for stormwater management in the area. Stormwater is an excellent example where this approach is necessary. Our assumed outcomes in many cases will not occur as expected, and only through assessment of the outcomes can this be known. With this learning cycle, future improvements can be more effectively implemented. One of the drawbacks is that the regulatory framework seldom can be easily adjusted, or in the same time frame.

43 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE 1. Adaptive Management is not for everyone. Without institutional support for embracing uncertainty, don t bother. 2. Institutional support isn t enough the structure to make use of monitoring results in the management process must exist, too. 3. Even with support and structure, not every environmental measurement can be (or should be) an exercise in adaptive management.

44 Not every environmental measurement = A.M. Puget Sound report recommends 3 types of monitoring: 1. Status-and-trends demonstrating progress (or lack thereof) 2. Source identification regulatory compliance 3. Effectiveness improving stormwater management

45 STATUS-AND- TRENDS

46 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

47 EFFECTIVENESS City of Seattle SEA Streets project (after)

48 S U M M A R Y In other words. > It s complicated out there, but paralysis is not an effective management strategy. > Monitoring should be a key element of stormwater management and stormwater regulation. > Adaptive Management is particularly well-suited to solve many challenges in natural resource conservation. But not necessarily every one

49