Welcome

Paul Dest, of the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve ("NERR") , welcomes us to the conference. The purpose of NERR system is to conserve our estuarine resources through education, research and stewardship. This conference, focusing on ecosystem based management of coastal areas in Maine, is part of that effort. This condference is co-sponsored bythe Maine Coastal Program, the University of Maine Sea Grant, and the University of New England Center for Sustainable Communities.

Definition of ecosystem based management developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "recognizes the physical, biological, economic and social interactions among the affected components of the ecosystem and attempts to [an area] to achieve a stipulated spectrum of societal goals, some of which may be in competition." Ecosystem based management differs from traditional management in that seeks to manage ecosystems as a whole, rather than the individual components of the ecosystem.

Most of us agree that ecosystem based management is the best way to be managing our natural resources. The question is: how do we implement it? Implementation of such an approach is challenging particularly in a home rule state like Maine. In states like Maine decisions are made at the municipal level making it difficult to apply a management system that looks to manage resources, like watersheds, that straddle political boundaries. Today we are here to look at how some municipalities and organizations are taking a more holistic approach to resource management and the overcoming some of these challenges.

Recognizing Ecosystem Based Management

Ice Breaker

Dr. Chris Feurt of the Wells NERR and the University of New England thanks everyone for being here today. She explains that this conference has been in the works for about a year and that the purpose of this workshop is to increase the use of ecosystem based management tools and application of these tools.

One of the tools that is really affective is stakeholder engagement. To demonstrate this concept Chris has designed a Key Pad Polling ice breaker.

To get an idea of who is here and what interests are being represented Chris asks: How would you best characterize your organizational affiliation?

The result of this poll indicates that there is quite a diverse group of attendants: 6% from Municipal/Regional Gov, 34% State Government, 17% National Marine Fisheries 11% Other Federal Government Agencies, 17% University Affiliations, 3% Consultants, 6% NGO, and 3% Canada.

The Chris asks: How many years have you worked in land use and coastal management?

The results are interesting, folks are either fairly new to the field or have been doing this work for 20 plus years.

The polling results from the final question reveal that there is "almost a perfect bell curve" of levels of personal knowledge regarding coastal and land use management.

Introduction

Chris explains that they named this workshop the Practice and Potential of the Ecosystem-based Management because this Workshop is not about theory, it is about application. It is about being in the trenches. The Workshop is also designed to provide people with tangible examples of ecosystem based management. Thus, each of the presentations tell the story of ecosystem based management as it is being applied in Maine.

Chris proposes that ecosystem-based management has five elements:

1. A Collaboratively Developed Vision of Desired Future Outcomes
2. Indicators of Success and Mechanisms of for Tracking Progress
3. Interdisciplinary Science as a Measure of Ecosystem Sustainability
4. Identification and Engagement of Stakeholders
5. Place- the Scale of the Project as a Workable Geographic Boundary

Although the speakers are unaware of the five elements today's presentations are designed to give life to each of these elements. Chris asks to to think about these elements as each of the presenters speaks, think about who many of the elements are covered by each the approaches. Also, she wants us to think about projects we are involved in or would like to be involved in that incorporate one or more of these principles. We will revisit this at the end

On a lighter note

You know you are an ecosystem manager if you . . .

• had a meeting with someone outside you organization
• wrote a grant where 50% of the grant was dedicated to stakeholder engagement or social science
• spend more time talking then emailing
• you have had a breakfast meeting with someone outside of your agency/workplace in the past month
• everything is connect

Watershed Management, Land Use Regulation and Headwater Stream Conservation 

Steve Burns, Community Development Director, York Maine is here to talk about the steps that York is taking to protect their watershed. 

Steve introduces himself: "Hi my name is Steve and I am an ecosystem based manager."

Steve starts by letting the audience know that most of his presentation is going to be focused on policy, not science.  "I am not a scientist" he says I just use science to understand what policies need to be implemented to achieve our desired outcome.

In York we began to address water quality issues by addressing impervious surfaces.  We did this  for several reasons, imperious surface impacts a variety of different things, including: water quality; flooding; and retention of open space.  Things that the town of York felt were directly related to quality of life.  The plan that Steve has developed and is still trying to get approved by the town board is based on a statistic from the Center from Watershed Protection in Maryland.  The center has found that the amount of impervious surface in an area is directly related to water quality.  More specifically, if an area had 10% or less impervious surfaces there is a high likelihood that the watershed is healthy, however, if an area has 10% to 25% impervious surfaces it is likely that its watershed is impacted, and if it has 25% or more impervious surfaces than the watershed is at risk. 

The problems that York, and many other towns face, face when trying to regulate impervious surfaces is inconsistent definitions, and inconsistent application. To resolve these issues Steve's conceptual proposal, which was rejected, had a single definition and applied uniform imperious surface limitations to each land use zone.

So why was this proposal rejected? The town of selectmen said that although the plan simplified the system,  there did not seem to be a relationship between the proposals and the science.  The next step and what Steve has been doing for the past few years is trying to establish this link. However, he is not going out and doing scientific research, he are taking existing scientific data and trying to create policies based on this data.  

One of the reasons that there is so much uncertainty is that the tools that may towns do not meet the needs of the policy makers. For example, quad sheets, which are the maps that most towns are relying on, do not provide enough detail, are often old, and based on false contours. In addition, qua maps usually have two foot contours, which makes them grossly inaccurate.  For example, watershed boundaries  can be more than a mile off and quad sheets do not accurately reflect the direction that the water is flowing.

Recognizing this York has stop basing their policy on quad sheets, and instead uses GIS photos. GIS photos provide much more detail and give policy makers a realistic picture of the topography at issue.  In addition, York has developed impervious surface maps, based on the Center for Watershed Protection statistics to identify areas in the town that have already exceeded the risk percentage and areas in town where development can be regulated to keep the percentage below 10%.

Steve explains that York sees ecosystem based management as doing what is best for the ecosystem as a whole. Achieving this goal requires a holistic and cooperative approach to watershed management.  Thus, the town of York has been working with towns who share their watershed to purchase aerial photographs for new stream mapping. In addition, they are taking additional steps like developing new municipal ordinances and re-writing their shoreland zoning laws.

Information on management of impervious surfaces in you area can be found at this link.

Discussion:

Q: Do you ever uses the LIDAR radar?

A: GIS works better in York because we are such a wet town we do not get clear enough images from the LIDAR radar. 

Q: Your project does not seem to satisfy all the elements listed in Michigan's definition of Ecosystem based management.

A: Our goal is not ecosystem based management, rather it is to implement our comprehensive plan. Because our comprehensive plan includes conservation management and regulation of impervious surfaces we felt that we could employ some of the element of ecosystem management to protect out watershed and to create policy that considers the interconnectedness of the individual components of the ecosystem. 

Q: We need to stop water quality degradation by making sure that we stop at the 10% impervious surface, on the other hand we want to be engaging in smart growth and compact development. How do we reconcile this?

A: You need to allow areas that have already exceeded the 25% threshold to be developed. Since these areas are already at risk we will continue to allow development in those area and encourage cluster development.  However, all other areas need to protected and kept below 10%.

Q: What has been the town's response?

A: The voters in York have been very supportive of conservation. However, the more detail you get into and the more you try to regulate people the tougher it gets.

Q: Is there a link between impervious surfaces and water quality at Cape Neddick?

A: That is my theory. At least that is a piece of it. There is an area just above the headwaters that exceeds 25% impervious surfaces - also probably sewer overflow.

Q: It appears that lawns are acting like impervious surfaces, have you considered that?

A: No our definition of impervious surfaces includes roof, parking lots, etc.

Coastal Resiliency, Science, and Community Planning for Sea Level Rise and the Perfect Storm

Peter Slovinsky, Senior Geologist at the Maine Geologic Survey, is here to talk about the work that the Maine Geologic Survey has been doing to address coastal resilience. 

Coastal resilience is the ability of a system to face adversity and bounce back from it. Achieving this involves evaluating vulnerability, identifying problem areas, generating solutions, and then implementing them. Working along Saco Bay with the towns of Saco, Biddeford, Old Orchard Beach and Scarborough, the Maine Geologic Survey has developed a series of tools for these towns do just that.

Historically Maine has experienced huge fluctuations in sea level.  However, these fluctuations were the result of the earth surface rebounding as glaciers receded.  Now sea level change is the result of global sea level rise. In Maine we have decided to plan for two feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years. This is a middle of the road estimate of sea level rise that might have to be revisited.  

How is the rise in sea level going to affect the regulatory definition of coastal wetlands, that are defined by tidal elevations?  

The Maine Geologic Survey started by looking at the existing conditions of the Scarborough Marsh system.  Using  LIDAR data they were able to map the existing conditions of the marsh and used these conditions as a baseline to predict the impacts of sea level rise on the area. They found that in areas where high marshes are adjacent to low lying land, two feet of sea level rise meant that the high marshes would transgress into the undeveloped low lying lands.  Finding that this was really the only place for additional water to go the Survey suggested that the towns should begin preserving these undeveloped low lands as open space.

Such proactive measures are necessary given that the towns are already experiencing inundation problems. For example, there are areas where homes are located adjacent to low and high marshes "essentially mowing the marsh as there backyard." This means that these homes would be underwater in the event of a two  foot rise in sea levels.  By identifying areas where inundation may pose a problem towns can start thinking about relocating home, preserving open space for the high marshes to transgress without impacting infrastructure.

Things the Survey is encouraging the towns to be thinking about is: (1) what is going to happen in the future in terms of flood plains and (2) what is going to happen with regard to the health of our marsh systems. 

Pete mentions that town should not be afraid to establish flood zones above and beyond FEMA standards, because flood zones established by FEMA are usually not large enough and courts have upheld these expanded flood zones. 

So what needs to happen? Well, on the state level Pete says we need to redefine the definition of coastal marshes. While on the municipal level towns need to start setting aside lowlands adjacent to marshes as open space to allow for transgression of the marshes. Also, towns need to be adaptation to the Surveys findings by readdressing techniques for emergency access rerouting, stormwater improvements, building requirements, utility siting and by creating awareness (letting home owners know that they may be in a flood zone).

Finally what we are really focusing on is getting communities to think about future inundation and marsh transgression as a region, rather than as individual communities. Hazards, flood, etc do not follow geopolitical boundaries, so the long term goal should be to get communities to adopt regional plans. 

Q: The best available science is a bit of a moving target, how do you balance  starting to plan for sea level rise but also be able to adapt if the science changes?

A: My suggestion is that we revisit the science every ten, adapting our plan to any changes in available data.  

Q: Your maps only focus on the front side, what does the back side look like in the face of a two foot sea level rise.

A: Unfortunately, we do not have the tool to be mapping the frontside, however we are starting to work with NOAA on a project that looks at the overall impacts of sea level rise.  

Q: How have you been able to engage the communities?

A: This project started out with us sending out letters to the communities inviting them to participate, but also making it clear that in the end we expected them to make some policy changes.  Then we held public meeting where we presented some of this information to community members. The next phase is to sit down with the town decision makers.

Q: Is there similar analysis being done up North, in mid-coast?

A: No our LIDAR data, which is necessary for us to be developing these models, is limited in scale. You need  good topographical data and often where we get the photos from, NOAA and Army Corp, their interest tends to be the beaches.  What we are trying to do now is to get the state to fund statewide LIDAR mapping which would allow us to be doing this analysis for other parts of the state.

Community Viz and Municipal Conservation Planning

Judy Colby-George of Spatial Alternatives, is here to talk about how to engage the public by using GIS spatial tools.

It is important to tell the story behind GIS information, not necessarily the technical aspect of the process.  Thus, the Topsham plan, which was a similar process to the Sanford open space plan process, will be used to explain the importance of GIS information.

Community Viz is a GIS tool for spatial analysis. In Sanford inventories of town resources were compiled and maps were created of the resource locations. Resources inventoried include wetlands, soils, land cover, wildlife habitat. Maps were available at each public meeting and questions were encouraged. 

Somethings that the town learned was that keeping your models simple, when possible, is often beneficial for communication, even when it may involve leaving out some parts of the more complex picture. Also, in order for people to understand the model they need to be able to "play" with it. By interacting with the model people will come away with a better understanding. 

A resource inventory maps were combined in a model which showed areas of overlapping conservation value. These maps were used in a value voting exercise using fake money captured peoples priorities for conservation. The group values were then plugged into the resources model to show areas of priority for conservation. Keypad polling was used to capture demographic information on the group as well as their thoughts behind the way they voted on conservation values.

With all tools, whether GIS or keypad polling, it is important that they be evaluated for their application in a particular process.

Q: In your community meetings, was the information generated available at each successive meeting.

A: It was not.

Q: Did the meetings have repeat attendees.

A: One person attended two meetings.

Beginning with Habitat: Challenges and Tools for Statewide Biodiversity Conservation

Bethany Atkins, from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, was supposed to be presenting on the challenges and tools for protecting statewide biodiviersity.  However, she is not available for the presentation today, so Sarah will be substituting.

Beginning with Habitat is an effort of numerous agencies and organizations. Updates have been made to the toolbox portion of the website.

Q: Talk about the extent of the data that BwH has going into state waters

A: Recently as part of an effort with the Maine Coast Protection Areas BwH has been looking at new data sets from DMR and others and will be incorporating updates into their maps.

We are currently undertaking a grant to develop management recommendations for natural communities using best management practices.

A Model for Science, Stewardship and Adaptive Management in Tauton Bay, Maine

John Sowles, Marine Habitat and Aquaculture Division Director for the Maine Department of Marine Resources, is here today to talk about the model that was developed for science, stewardship and adaptive management in Tauton Bay, Maine.

The title should be "experiment" rather than "model", because the results are not in yet.

The plan evolved around concerns over an aquaculture facility, as well as a DOT project that had the potential to open the bay to dragger fishing boats. A citizens group came together to address these issues.

The advisory committee was comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders.

A benthic community study was conducted.

Fishing effort is being monitored with cooperation from the industry.

In order to keep the process moving aesthetics must be addressed because this is typically a major concern of the public.

A major key to the success was that the stakeholders agreed on the goals, endpoints, and strategies at the beginning of the process.

Q: Talk about the progress and success.

A: They will be putting together a newsletter to show the progress of the past year. The stakeholder group is somewhat polarized. The group has held community meetings where harvesters are attending and participating. It has been a demonstration that the state is adaptable. Water quality studies are being conducted. Proposals for work by university groups are appearing.

Q: What is the potential for scaling this type of work up to the state level.

A: Not likely at this point. It could be possible in a few locations at a fisheries scale, but not including as many components as this project

Q: You mentioned municipal involvement was lacking, elaborate.

A: It is crucial. There has not been a demonstration of the economic benefits, so the municipalities have not become engaged.

Q: Taunton Bay is unique because here you are opening a new fishery (with the condition of participation with data collection and monitoring), as opposed to closing an established area and except where monitoring conditions are met.

A: We actually did both, mussel dragging was opened and scallops and kelp were limited. They made a mistake by not doing an adequate notification effort, in part by not wanting to attract too much outside attention. This was a big source of criticism. Once the goal of increasing the TAC was explained people came on board.

Q: Clashes of fisheries seem to be occurring, if mussel dragging moves into an area how do the wormers feel?

A: This was taken into account, and conflicts were limited.

Q: With so many stakeholders did you have a independent moderator?

A: Yes, essential. They allowed the fisheries folks take care of portioning the fishing rights as long as the conservation goals were accomplished.

Facilitation is critical. The most important outcome is to get stakeholders talking to each other, and tools can be used to inform them so that they can identify their values and then start to compromise.

Stakeholder participation helped to correct data.

Collaborative Learning for Stateholder Engagement: Social Science and Ecosystem-based Management

Chris from NERR and UNE, who introduced the conference, is up again to present her work on collaborative learning for stakeholder engagement. She has been working on developing a series of social science tools to address the barriers to watershed management plan implementation, as well as, ways to ensure that science is applied to policy and management, and that governments and municipalities are adopting best management practice.

Her project was developed in response to a finding an obstacle to implementing ecosystem based management is getting policy makers to adopt the products that NGO and think tanks were developing. For example, NERR creates products based on science to be put to use in land and coastal management.  However, because of the disconnect between NGOs and agencies and the different way they approach problem solving, governments and municipalities were not adopting these products.  To create a "bridge" between these two entities Chris developed the Coastal Training Program. The Program, designed to facilitate collaboration between the private and public entities, included an assessment, collaborative activity, implementation and evaluation phase. 

The first step in the assessment phase was to determine: (1) who the target audience was; and (2) what issues need to be address. Ultimately, Chris decided that water quality was the issue that she wanted to focus on and that municipal officials were the target audience.

 

Chris notes that her research was action research, i.e. research driven by a need or desire to solve a problem, rather than the scientific method. 

To get an understanding of what perspectives and values each participant associated with water Chris spent hours interviewing stakeholders.  These interviews produced some interesting results. For example, the interviews revealed that there are six core values shared by all stakeholder:

1. water is the basis of life

2. nature "makes" water

3. water is landscape

4. water is a resource to use

5. water is a commodity 

6. depend on water to take away societies waste

In addition, Chris found that everyone from scientists to municipal officials to citizens understood the threats to water and framed these threats to water in terms of loss. 

Chris explains that the information from the interview played an important role in the next step in the process: designing and implementing a water management plan (Save Our Children's Water).  Because there needed to be a wide variety of people with varying expertise at the table identifying the stakeholders common goals allowed stakeholders with varying interests to engage in a collaborative effort.  Putting these common goals to use Chris' plan included a vision and mission that was the same mission as most comprehensive plans and used the common values to identify issues that stakeholders could come to a consensus on. In addition, successful collaboration required making conflicts explicit through dialogue and deliberation, developing a uniform vocabulary, and identifying and addressing the economic consequences of land use. 

Chris asks everyone to think about the speakers we have heard to day and think about whether or not the elements of ecosystem management had been incorporated into the projects?

What was the goal of your project?

Steve Burns, York Community Development Director:  The goal that drove my work was protecting clean water.

Pete Solovinsky, Maine Geologic Society: coastal resiliency, tying together ecological, economic, and social issues. We are starting to work with the Muskie School to incorporate economics into our research. 

Chris says Lindwood Pendalton is an an economist who may be coming to Maine to do project to help us develop an understanding of how ecosystem management impacts economics

 

How frequently does economics come up when you are doing conservation planning with municipalities?

Judy Colby-George, Spatial Alternatives: It is always in the background.  People do not want to save everything because it is not economically feasible.

With Save Our Children's Water we are gauging our progress based on getting certain things done, not the ultimate water quality. We need to be developing a link to the end environmental benefit. Right now NERR has a water quality monitoring project, but it is not linked to the Save our Children's Water Project. So right now we are building the collaborative potential, but are missing the links as of now. 

What environmental outcomes do you have?

Pete Sloivinsky, Maine Geologic Society: Protect private property and the integrity of the wetland ecosystem

John Sowles, Dept. of Natural Resource: What we need to work on is getting the municipalities involved and maybe incorporating the states water quality standards into the outcome goal. Right now we have measurable goals based on historic data.

Talk about the process of agreeing to the numbers

John Sowles, Dept. Of Marine Resources: We came up with the numbers with an advisory group, we have not yet gone to the public. It was dialogue- a consensus type of thing and it is flexible. We did have base standards, we were lucky enough to have historical data that created a base for us to work with.  

It is important to set attainable goals, but these goals should also be flexible-able to adapt to changes in the environment.

Facilitated Discussion

Kristen from the Maine Sea Grant is here to facilitate the final discussion.  She asks the group if any one has applied the elements of ecosystem based management to a project that they have participated in or if there is a project that anyone has been thinking about that they would like to apply these elements to?

Kristen gets the discussion started by asking: Are there any areas that you feel like you are having success in?

Pete Solvinsky, Maine Geologic Society: We have done well with the collaboration element. Development of our project involved a lot of collaboration between state agencies, NGOs and communities. However, when it came time to approached the communities we did so with a carrot stick approach. I kind of wish that all stakeholder had been involved in the development phase. 

 

Stewart, FWS: We also experienced a lot of success with the collaboration element.  We started with a vision to protected sea bird nesting islands. We held public meetings to gage municipal and landowner interest. Once we found out that we would have public support we went and identified what islands needed to be protected. We went to the stakeholder because we knew we could not accomplish what we wanted to with out buy in from the public.

Q: How did you determine what habitat to protect

A: We did an economic analysis to determine what the value of sea bird habitat is. It is difficult because there is no market for sea birds.  However, we used a variety of sources to value the birds habitat, including dues to non-profits like Audubon, studies on the intrinsic value of sea birds, and the profits of businesses that conduct sea bird tours.  I am not sure if economists would find our method of valuation to be based in solid science, but sometimes you have to take what you have and go with it. "We should not sacrifice the possible for the perfect." 

Massachusetts is funding a study to develop a valuation system for non-market resources as a way to address the lack of economic indicators. Also there is a document out now on the economic value that is contributing to well functioning estuaries in the US.

FYI: FWS yesterday came out with an analysis of the recovery cost for the links, look for it in the news

Besides valuation what are some other problems you have been facing?

A: I work on a lot of projects that do a good job of tracking progress, but there is often a disconnect between tracking progress and outcomes. The piece that is missing is the long term monitoring.

Q: How would you like to see that played out?

A: If the goal is to have a landscape that supports all of our native plants and animals, you need to have measures to get there and meetings with towns is not going to accomplish this.

Judy Colby-George, spatial alternatives: In my experience it has been really hard to write plans that loop back, we write plans that include check lists. Now we have started creating plans that have measurable goals. The next step is to include provision that say if we do not meet this goal we will go back and revisit the plan and implement policies that will allow us to accomplish our original goal. 

Stewart, FWS: Our goal is population objectives-we count the acres of wetlands we have restored or protected, but we can not say tell you exactly how many black ducks have been saved because those acres of wetland have been saved. 

Working on the New England cottontail project, the problem is that our grants do not fund the long term tracking, so how do you fund the on-going monitoring. 

It might be that all the organizations working together might be accomplishing the long-term monitoring even if it is not done by your organization.  

That might be the case but there needs to be some uniformity.

One of the biggest challenges with ecosystem based management is that you are working with a lot of different elements, which makes base lines problematic. As a scientist it seems to me that it would be very difficult to embark on one of these projects without  base lines.

One way we try and address this problem is through collaboration, the more people the wider the variety of knowledge. However, we need acknowledge that we do not have perfect knowledge and account for this by practicing adaptive management.

John Sowles, Maine Department of Marine Resources had expressed a concern about the scale of the project at Tauton Bay.  This might be an example of a project that might be more effective if it is scaled down. 

It is important to create a project that can be supported by the available funding. For example, you may be able to accomplish more by limiting your project to a specific topic, i.e. fisheries, New England cottontail, or limiting the geographical boundaries. Even though single species management is passe we still need to do it in some instances. Also even when you are engaging in single species studies theses species are interconnected and you end up looking at a number of different species even if only one is the focus of your research.

Seems as if the scale issue is also a social problem, i.e. it has been very difficult to engage communities in issues facing the whole Gulf of Maine as opposed to the area of Gulf that they live on. With each project we need to ask: what is the appropriate scale for achieving effective ecosystem management and trying to strike a balance between what is the appropriate scale at an ecosystem level and also at a human level. 

It is interesting to note that there are projects, for example the Yukon to Yellowstone that are trying to employ an ecosystem approach on a large scale, at least for terrestrial resources. However, this is much more difficult for marine areas. 

I work in the non-point source management field and a lot of our outcomes have come down from Washington.  In addition, to outcome goals imposed by EPA  Maine has develop intercept and social surveys prior to project to try understand the public's perspective of the problem. One success story is the volunteer lakes project that has been collecting data for 30 years, data that allows us to scientifically verify our progress. We need the data of these nonprofits identify whether or not out goals are being met. 

Can you think of something that by October 2009 you would like to do that might address the need for indicators of progress? 

Chris Feurt, NERR and UNE: An example is low impact development. It is something that the towns of Well, Kennebunk, Sanford want to engage in. I also know that there is a link between low impact development and water quality. By encouraging the town to adopt low impact development ordinances I can accomplish something I want (protection of water quality) without additional funds. In addition we do not need to provide an incentive because we know that the interest is there and it does not have a negative economic impact.  

Problem is in Freeport low impact developments are not selling, while the standard subdivisions are selling. Those ordinances assume that there is market demand for low impact development.

Steve Burns, Community Development Director: My goal is to invite Pete to York for dinner to talk about doing  sea level change work in York.

Trying to quantify the increase in the value associated with the acres protected. As a land trust we need to develop indicators for the positive impact that conservation of land is having on water quality, species preservation, etc.

What are towns interested in now?

How do we create a way for people to visualize the impact of regulatory changes to help people conceptualize the impact and enter into the discussion.

How do we start collaborating?

There was a legislative mandate that the we look at an ecosystem based management approach to bay management. As a result the marine community is developing a centralized organization. We are in a trust building phase where groups are getting together once every few month to share experiences and develop relationships so that when a project comes up we will be able to mobilize, we will have a foundation for working together.

Matt Nixon is Dept. of Marine Resources' new coastal fellow and he going to be working on ways to better coordinate overlapping agencies and facilitate data sharing.  

Just having a dialogue like we are having today is a start. Our goal for today was to look at some of the deficiencies identified in the survey. Specifically, we wanted to provide examples from the state so that folks can recognize and have a better understanding of ecosystem management. It seems as if we have accomplished our goal. The final key pad polling exercise indicates that people learned a lot and were satisfied with the material and format of the conference.