Setting Four Conservation
Priorities in a Changing World: Site Guide
Report to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation April 16, 2018 Grant Ballard, Liz Chamberlin, Meredith Elliott, Catherine Hickey, Jaime Jahncke, Matt Reiter, Annie Schmidt, Sam Veloz, Marian
Vernon and Pete Warzybok
Setting Four Conservation Priorities in a Changing World: Site Guide
April 16, 2018, Version 1
Point Blue Conservation Science
Grant Ballard, Liz Chamberlin, Meredith Elliott, Catherine Hickey, Jaime Jahncke, Matt Reiter, Annie Schmidt, Sam Veloz, Marian Vernon and Pete Warzybok
Acknowledgements
This project was made possible by support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Point Blue Conservation Science – Point Blue’s 160 staff and seasonal scientists conserve birds, other wildlife and their ecosystems through scientific research and outreach. At the core of our work is ecosystem science, studying birds and other indicators of nature’s health. Visit Point Blue on the web at www.pointblue.org.
Table of Contents
Priority Site 1: Ross Sea, Antarctica ...... 1 Geographical location ...... 1 Global significance ...... 1 Baseline for studying climate change ...... 2 Other classification ...... 3 Evidence of intactness/naturalness ...... 3 Evidence of climate resilience ...... 3 Evidence of conservation readiness ...... 4 Most important threats and drivers of threats ...... 5 Priority Site 2: Sierra Nevada Meadows ...... 6 Geographical location ...... 6 Global significance ...... 6 Evidence of intactness/naturalness ...... 8 Evidence of climate resilience ...... 9 Evidence of conservation readiness ...... 11 Most important threats and drivers of threats ...... 13 Priority Site 3: Pacific Americas Flyway - Maintaining a Network of Sites ...... 15 Geographical Location ...... 15 Global significance ...... 15 Evidence of intactness/naturalness ...... 16 Evidence of conservation readiness ...... 16 Most important threats and drivers of threats ...... 18 Evidence of climate resilience ...... 18 Specific flyway site descriptions ...... 19 Yukon Delta, Alaska, USA ...... 19 Copper River Delta, Alaska, USA ...... 19 Tofino mudflats, British Columbia, Canada ...... 19 Willipa Bay/Grays Harbor, Washington, USA ...... 20 Complejo Lagunar San Quintín, Baja, Mexico ...... 20 Ojo de Liebre, Baja, Mexico ...... 21 Laguna San Ignacio, Baja, Mexico ...... 21 Marismas Nacionales, Nayarit and Sinaloa, Mexico ...... 22 Delta del Rio Iscuande, Nariño, Colombia ...... 22 Bahia de Paracas, Ica, Peru ...... 22 Humedales Orientales de Chiloé, Chile ...... 23 Priority Site 4: Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region, Central California ...... 24 Geographical location ...... 24 Global significance ...... 25 Farallon Islands complex: ...... 26 Evidence of intactness/naturalness ...... 27 Evidence of climate resilience ...... 27 Evidence of conservation readiness ...... 28 Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region: Fisheries management ...... 29 Farallon Island restoration: Mouse eradication ...... 30 Farallon Island restoration: Control/eradication of non-native vegetation ...... 30 Most important threats and drivers of threats ...... 31 Literature Cited ...... 33 Ross Sea ...... 33 Sierra Nevada Meadows ...... 34 Pacific Americas Flyway ...... 37 Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region ...... 37
P a g e | 1
Priority Site 1: Ross Sea, Antarctica
Geographical location The Ross Sea, south of New Zealand in the Pacific sector of the Southern (Antarctic) ocean, comprises 1.9 million square miles overlying the continental shelf and slope, from Cape Adare, Victoria Land (71° 17’S, 170° 14’E), to Cape Colbeck, Marie Byrd Land (77° 07’S, 157° 54’W); (Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller 2010; Figure 1). Nearly half of the Ross Sea is covered by the Ross Ice Shelf, the largest ice shelf in Antarctica (Rignot et al. 2013); (Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller 2010). The Ross Sea shelf slopes upward from south to north and is the only shallow shelf in Antarctica that is comparable to continental shelves bordering other continents (e.g. Hudson Bay, the North Sea George’s Bank (Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller 2010).
Figure 1. Boundary of the Ross Sea and the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area. Global significance The Ross Sea is the largest continental shelf ecosystem south of the Antarctic polar front and comprises just 2% of the Southern Ocean, but at the same time encompasses the most productive waters in the Antarctic. Recent estimates suggest annual net primary productivity in the Ross Sea sector of the Southern Ocean accounts for as much as one-third of the annual P a g e | 2 productivity of the entire Southern Ocean (Arrigo et al. 2008a), and the Ross Sea continental shelf alone accounts for more than 25% of the total CO2 uptake of the Southern Ocean (Arrigo et al. 2008b). The rich spring phytoplankton bloom contributes to the Ross Sea’s outsize role in mitigating global warming: it is responsible for 11% of all the atmospheric carbon sequestration by the world’s oceans (Arrigo et al. 2008b). This high annual production also supports globally significant populations of apex predators--it is home to an estimated 38% of the world population of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae), including several of the largest colonies in the world, (Lynch and LaRue 2014), 26% of the world population of emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri), 30% of the world population of Antarctic petrels (Thalassoica antarctica), 50% of the world population of South polar skuas (Stercorarius maccormicki; (Wilson et al. 2017)), 6% of the world population of Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), 50% of the Ross Sea killer whales (Orcinus orca but likely a separate species), (Morin et al. 2010), and 45% of the South Pacific Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii) population (Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller 2010, Wilson et al. 2017).
Many of these important upper trophic level animals utilize the entire Ross Sea shelf and slope over the course of their annual breeding and migration cycle. For example, Adélie penguin breeding colonies are concentrated along the western Ross Sea in Victoria Land, but after breeding, Adélie penguins utilize the Antarctic slope front in the eastern Ross Sea while molting and preparing for the winter (Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller 2010, Ballard et al. 2010). Weddell seals, which feed little during the spring breeding haul-out, require the entire shelf and slope to recover condition and fatten for the next pupping and breeding season (Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller 2010, Wilson et al. 2017).
The biodiversity of the Ross Sea extends beyond birds and mammals. Seven species of fish are found nowhere else (Gon and Heemstra 1990), and benthic communities are among the most diverse in the Southern Ocean (Smith et al. 2014), promoted by variety in water depth and currents (Barry et al. 2003). At least 40 invertebrates are endemic to the Ross Sea (Clarke and Johnston 2003).
Beyond the biota, the ice shelf and ocean currents of the Ross Sea have global impacts. Ice shelves, of which the Ross Ice Shelf is the largest in the world, play an important role in global climate regulation and sea level rise through their influence glacier stability, ocean stratification and bottom water formation (Rignot et al. 2013).
Baseline for studying climate change The unusually intact ecosystem of the Ross Sea provides a unique laboratory for studying the ecology and ecosystem function of polar regions. Several of the longest biological time series in the Antarctic have been collected in the Ross Sea, including studies of benthic community change that began in McMurdo Sound the late 1960s, a 35-year study of Antarctic toothfish P a g e | 3
(Dissostichus mawsoni), and ongoing studies of Weddell Seals and Adelie penguins that began in the 1960s (Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller 2010). These long-time series data provide a unique baseline for distinguishing “normal” year-to-year variability from long-term trends driven by climate change.
Other classification In 2007 the Ross Sea was selected by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) for special consideration as a potential Marine Protected Area by a ‘‘bioregionalization’’ process using mostly physical measures of habitat heterogeneity (CCAMLR, 2007, 2008; Ballard et al. 2012). In 2016, the largest marine protected area in the world was designated in the Ross Sea (see below).
Evidence of intactness/naturalness The Ross Sea is known as the "Last Ocean" because it is perhaps the last remaining large, intact marine ecosystem. Largely untouched by humans, it is the least anthropogenically affected continental shelf system on Earth. Over 40% of the world’s oceans experience medium to very high impact human impact, with only 3.7% (including the Ross Sea) categorized as experiencing low impact (Halpern et al. 2008). The remoteness of the Ross Sea has protected it from human impacts and contributed to the ecosystem remaining relatively intact. Coastal habitat is protected by the Antarctic Treaty and, until recently, the area had experienced little fishing (Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller 2010, Ballard et al. 2012, Ainley and Pauly 2013). Large populations of apex and mesopredators (mentioned above) still exist in large numbers, suggesting a healthy, relatively intact, ecosystem.
Evidence of climate resilience Variability in annual production of phytoplankton is closely tied to changes in sea ice cover and sea surface temperature, which in turn are influenced by large-scale variability in climate (Smith et al. 2014). In contrast to the Arctic and the Western Antarctic Peninsula, annual sea ice extent and duration of sea ice growth have been increasing in the Ross Sea (Comiso and Nishio 2008, Stammerjohn et al. 2012). The increase in ice concentration observed in the Ross Sea is largely responsible for the net increase in sea ice observed in the entire Southern Ocean (Smith et al. 2014). Populations of the sea ice obligate, Adélie penguin, have been growing (Lyver et al. 2014), compared to declines observed in populations along the Antarctic Peninsula. Although the growth in sea ice is not expected to continue indefinitely, the Ross Sea is expected to experience less sea ice loss as climate warms and may act as an important climate refugia for ice-dependent species (Ainley et al. 2010, Smith et al. 2014).
P a g e | 4
Evidence of conservation readiness In 2003, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development adopted a recommendation calling for the establishment of MPAs to protect biodiversity and ecosystem processes throughout the world’s oceans. Nearly a decade later, in 2012, the first proposal for a Ross Sea MPA was officially considered by CCAMLR. It took another four years and the addition of a sunset clause, and a krill research zone, before all signatories of the Antarctic Treaty would support the proposal. In October 2016, based in part on Point Blue scientific research, 598,000 square miles of the Ross Sea region was designated as a marine protected area. It is the largest marine protected area in the world.
There was rapid expansion of penguin populations on Ross Island during the 1980’s and also during the past 10 years. Sea ice, which is the primary habitat of Adélie penguins, has been expanding in the region, in stark contrast with the trends in sea ice elsewhere on the planet (Parkinson 2014). Perhaps the penguin populations are growing in accord, but if so, are they at risk once climate change starts reversing the sea ice trend even in this last ice stronghold? This has been the subject of intensive study (Ainley et al. 2010, Lyver et al. 2014). For example, during the 1970’s and 80’s in particular many hundreds of minke whales were killed every year in the Ross Island penguins’ wintering area (Ainley 2009, Ballard et al. 2012), and Minke whales eat the same things that the penguins eat (Ainley 2009, Ballard et al. 2012). This whaling continues at a lower level today. Subsequently, while whaling has slowed, fishing for another penguin competitors has begun. Beginning with a lone fishing vessel in 1997 doing some “exploratory fishing,” there are now approximately 3000 metric tons of Antarctic toothfish removed from the Ross Sea region annually (Ainley et al. 2017). The depletion of fisheries elsewhere on the planet have left fishers with few options, and what would have seemed impossibly dangerous 30 years ago has now become the new normal – braving some of the most dangerous sea conditions on earth to fish. Advances in technology, future reductions in sea ice due to climate change, and increasing pressure to feed earth’s citizenry will further reduce Antarctica’s de facto protections.
While the MPA provides that certain human activities, like commercial fishing, will be prohibited across a vast area in order to meet a set of conservation and wildlife habitat protection goals, important concessions were made. For example, commercial fishing interests will be allowed to continue fishing for Antarctic toothfish within a designated fishing zone. Also, many had sought for this agreement to be for perpetuity, but a 35-year “sunset clause” allows it to be reviewed. Additionally, enforcement of the MPA restrictions from illegal fishing activities will remain a challenge. Extensive research and monitoring will need to be undertaken to ensure that the Ross Sea MPA delivers on its mandate to ensure that its ecosystem structure and function remain intact, and to ensure that the protections for this area will extend beyond the 35-year sunset. P a g e | 5
Most important threats and drivers of threats The main threats to the Ross Sea are fishing (primarily for toothfish and krill, including illegal fishing), climate change (changes in sea ice cover, habitat suitability for reproduction and survival), and tourism (disturbance to breeding colonies and potential for oil spills due to ship collisions with icebergs). Additionally, new scientific bases are planned in the region, with some in close proximity to penguin breeding populations and other sensitive areas. The fact that the consensus of all CCAMLR party nations is required to ensure the continuation of the protections afforded by the MPA beyond the 35 year timeline that has been imposed is another threat. CCAMLR seeks to use the best available science and a precautionary approach for managing living resources in the Southern Ocean, and as such it will be critical to provide ongoing scientific input to the decision-making process.
In particular, several important knowledge gaps have been prioritized as part of the effort to reach consensus on a research and monitoring plan for the Ross Sea. These include:
1. The life history, distribution, movement, abundance and productivity of Antarctic toothfish and its ecological relationships with other species in the Ross Sea region are not known sufficiently to provide confidence that management of the fishery is appropriately precautionary with respect to the CAMLR’s Convention Article II(3) principles of conservation. 2. The distribution, abundance and productivity of Antarctic krill in the Ross Sea region and its ecological relationships with other species and the oceanic environment are not well enough known to determine the level of harvesting that can be sustained without having effects contrary to the Article II(3) principles of conservation. 3. Although the effects of climate change on sea ice, atmospheric, and oceanographic conditions are being assessed and monitored, nothing is being done to: (a) differentiate the effects of climate change from the effects of the toothfish fishery and the possible krill fishery on the target resources and dependent and related species and populations; or (b) assess how management of the fisheries may need to be altered to account for the effects of climate change.
P a g e | 6
Priority Site 2: Sierra Nevada Meadows
Geographical Location The Sierra Nevada ecoregion, as defined by The Nature Conservancy (Mayer et al. 1999), encompasses the northwest trending mountain range that runs along the eastern edge of California, extending 400 miles from Lake Almanor, CA in the north (40.270329, -121.184606) to Tehachapi Pass near Bakersfield, CA in the south (35.248150, - 118.316649; Fig. 2). The ecoregion is 50 to 80 miles wide and is generally bounded by the 3,000 foot elevation on the west and the 5,000 foot elevation on the east. Of the 12 million acres that this ecoregion encompasses, about 83% is owned and managed by public agencies in eight national forests, three national parks, and numerous state and local lands, contributing to the ecoregion’s ecological intactness and connectivity (Mayer et al. 1999). The ecoregion is composed of diverse ecosystems, including mountains, coniferous forests, foothill woodlands, and meadows (Mayer et al. 1999).
Global Significance The Sierra Nevada ecoregion is widely recognized as a high priority for conservation both Figure 2. Sierra Nevada ecoregion with public land ownerships and distribution of Sierra meadows. nationally and globally (e.g., Brooks et al. 2006; Olson & Dinerstein 1998). California’s Mediterranean-type ecosystems confer a high degree of P a g e | 7 vulnerability, irreplaceability, and endemism to the Sierra Nevada (Brooks et al. 2006), which features Mediterranean climate below around 7,000 feet and a boreal climate in the high Sierra peaks. The Sierra Nevada fall into several global conservation prioritization schemes that account for the conservation value of its ecosystems as well as its inclusion in the broader California region. These designations include critically endangered crisis ecoregion (Hoekstra et al. 2005), biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al. 2000), endemic bird area (Stattersfield et al. 1998), and global 200 ecoregion (Olson and Dinerstein 1998). On a more local scale, the Sierra Nevada’s diverse ecosystems support 50% of California’s plant species, 66% of California’s bird and mammal species, and 50% of California’s reptiles and amphibians; the Sierra Nevada is also the source area for more than 60% of California’s developed water supply, despite the fact that the ecoregion only occupies a quarter of California’s total land area (Drew et al. 2016).
Of special significance to the Sierra Nevada are its montane meadows, the conservation value of which far outweighs the 2% of the ecoregion that they occupy. Montane meadow ecosystems are defined as the presence of shallow groundwater (<1 m depth), fine-textured surficial soils, and the dominance of herbaceous vegetation (Viers et al. 2013). This rare but important ecosystem in the Sierra Nevada is in urgent need of conservation action to protect and restore the vital ecological services they provide, including habitat for diverse avian, aquatic, and terrestrial species; carbon storage; groundwater recharge; flood attenuation; and water quality improvements.
In an ecoregion already recognized for its rich biodiversity, meadows are biodiversity hotspots in their own right. Meadows support several rare and declining species, including Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierra), Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), Greater sandhill crane (Grus Canadensis tabida), Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia henshawi), Little Kern golden trout (Onchorynhcus mykiss whitei), and Paiute cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii seleniris). Meadows are a key habitat for birds, with virtually every bird species that breeds in or migrates through the Sierra Nevada using meadows at some point in their annual cycle. During summer, montane meadows may be the single most important habitat in the Sierra Nevada for birds that breed elsewhere (Mayer et al. 1999).
Meadows’ unique hydrologic and ecological functioning contribute to their important role in watershed health. Meadows are able to store water from a variety of sources, including snowpack, surface water runoff, and groundwater. As headwater ecosystems, meadows provide cold, clean water to streams and rivers lower in the watershed (Viers et al. 2013; Drew et al. 2016). Meadows also filter out sediment and pollutants and release cold, clean water into streams, improving downstream water quality. Meadows are able to attenuate flood flows during the wet winters and sustain base flows in streams late into the dry summer season, P a g e | 8 benefiting plants, animals, and downstream human communities (Viers et al. 2013; Drew et al. 2016). Meadows also play important roles in carbon sequestration, contributing to climate change mitigation. Some meadows feature unique and irreplaceable peat soils that have developed and stored carbon over millennia, but which are at risk of sudden and irreversible loss (Drew et al. 2016).
Evidence of intactness/naturalness Although the Sierra Nevada is recovering from over a century of human use of its resources (including logging, grazing, railroad grading, road construction, and mining), the ecoregion remains largely intact with a high degree of naturalness and ecological integrity. As a global 200 hotspot, the Sierra Nevada is characterized as containing high biodiversity value and intact habitats and biotas based on assessments of its conservation status (Olson and Dinerstein 1998). The Sierra Nevada’s diverse ecosystems support 50% of the state’s plant species and 60% of its animal species (Drew et al. 2016), including remnant populations of large ungulates such as elk, pronghorn, and mule deer. While the distribution of forest carnivores has been altered by loss of mature forests as a result of legacy and present-day logging impacts, the region still supports populations of marten (Martes americana) and fisher (Pekania pennanti; Zielinski et al. 2005) and conservation efforts are underway to increase their populations and distribution. Wolves have also begun to recolonize the northern Sierras.
In addition to the ecoregion’s rich biodiversity, the Sierra Nevada retains ecological intactness and low levels of fragmentation, making it a priority for proactive conservation efforts. An ecoregional conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada developed by The Nature Conservancy (Mayer et al. 1999) identified 38% of the Sierra Nevada as portfolio sites for conservation, defined as biologically outstanding sites that fully represent the natural communities and species of the ecoregion. The majority of the sites identified as conservation priorities in this assessment are functionally contiguous and inherently large, with a high degree of intactness; therefore with the greatest potential to conserve biodiversity (Mayer et al. 1999). Within the Lake Tahoe basin, which has experienced urban development, remnant native forest still retains much of its compositional and structural character along a gradient of urban development (Heckmann and Schlesinger 2008). An analysis of the biotic integrity used to evaluate the biological health of 100 watersheds in the Sierra Nevada found that 36 watersheds were in good or very good condition and 7 were in excellent condition; these watershed index scores were based on various measures of disturbance and abundance of native frogs and fishes (Moyle and Randall 2008).
The Sierra Nevada’s ecological intactness and naturalness can be attributed in part to the fact that 83% of the Sierra Nevada is owned and managed by public agencies in eight national forests, three national parks, and numerous other state and local lands (Mayer et al. 1999). The P a g e | 9
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the largest landowner in the Sierra, is responsible for managing nearly 43% of the land base and therefore has the greatest influence on management of the system. In the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service, leadership intent around ecological restoration is to retain and restore ecological resilience of national forest lands to achieve sustainable ecosystems that provide a broad range of services to humans and other organisms (USDA Forest Service 2014). In recent years, the USFS’s policy for management of its lands has shifted away from resource exploitation to ecosystem-based management, of which meadow restoration and conservation is a key strategy.
A large majority of the meadows in the Sierra Nevada fall under public ownership, with the USFS as the largest landowner of Sierra meadows. Meadows may be present in intact watersheds and within a mosaic of intact forest stands, but vary in their ecological condition depending on past and present land uses, land management, and ownership. Subalpine and alpine meadows are believed to be in good condition because they generally occur on designated wilderness lands, while middle and lower elevation montane meadows are vulnerable to grazing, recreational use, and development (Mayer et al. 1999). Specifically, around 40-60% of meadows in the ecoregion have been degraded through past land uses, including livestock grazing, railroad grades, road construction, alterations to hydrology (e.g., water diversions), and present-day impacts, including fire suppression in adjacent forest lands, and, increasingly, climate change (Drew et al. 2016). Restoration of meadow hydrology is often sufficient to reverse the positive feedback loop that maintains the degraded state, and promote the recolonization of meadows by meadow associated plants and animals. Meadow restoration is a priority for the USFS because of the disproportionate ecosystem services provided by meadows relative to their distribution across the broader landscape.
Evidence of climate resilience
The Sierra Nevada is already experiencing the effects of climate change, including prolonged drought, tree mortality, and severe wildfires. Climate projections for this ecoregion suggest that more winter precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow and temperatures will increase, resulting in earlier snowmelt, reduced late-season snowpack, reduced snowmelt runoff in the spring, and longer periods of low-flow duration in the dry summer months. Droughts will become longer, hotter, and more severe, stressing vegetation and animals, and there will be an increased probability of high severity wildfires (Garfin et al. 2013; Viers et al. 2013; Mote et al. 2018; UCLA 2018). Nevertheless, the resilience of the Sierra Nevada’s ecosystems to climate change-associated disturbances can be maintained and enhanced through protection, management, and restoration. P a g e | 10
Sierra Nevada forests have evolved alongside disturbances such as forest fire, droughts, interannual variability in precipitation, and pest outbreaks, all of which are projected to increase under climate change. Indeed, fire is a key ecosystem process in the Sierra Nevada. Large fires with a variety of severities can generate complex forest stand structures and landscape heterogeneity that in turn contribute to high levels of biodiversity and facilitate ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling and soil nutrient exchange (DellaSala et al. 2017). These outcomes demonstrate that Sierra Nevada forests are resilient to disturbances and are able to reorganize in ways that enhance ecosystem functions and biodiversity. The policy of fire suppression that has guided management of national forests for decades is being increasingly recognized by land managers as detrimental to forest health. The 2014 Planning Rule and the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (USDI and USDA 2014) offer opportunities for the USFS to reintroduce fire on the landscape through prescribed burning or management of wildfires (Collins et al. 2017; DellaSala et al. 2017).
Sierra meadows, especially those that are currently degraded or under stress from human land uses, are vulnerable to several climate change impacts. Changes in the timing and amount of precipitation as well as increasing temperatures may lead to the loss of native wetland- associated plants, encroachment of dry-tolerant conifers and upland plants, lack of late season flow and surface water, and increased rain on snow events leading to flashy floods and degradation of stream channels. Restoration of Sierra meadows using climate-smart restoration principles can help increase resilience of these ecosystems in the face of these emerging vulnerabilities. For example, use of beaver dam analogs can help activate the meadow floodplain and develop a braided stream channel system that can better accommodate high flows from flood events. Diversifying riparian shrub and sedge mat plantings with species that are tolerant to a variety of different temperature and precipitation gradients can confer resilience to the meadow by retaining different structural components and preventing encroachment on the site by conifers and other upland species. In addition, several studies have assessed and identified well-connected Sierra meadows that may serve as climate refugia for climate-sensitive species, such as the Belding’s ground squirrel (Urocitellus beldingi), providing a roadmap for protection of meadows that may be buffered from the effects of climate change (Moritz et al. 2013; Mayer et al. 2017; Morelli et al. 2017). Nevertheless, climate change is projected to reduce the number of refugial meadows (Maher et al. 2017), requiring additional management and restoration actions. Protection and enhancement well-connected refugial meadows as well as restoration of degraded meadows using climate-smart restoration principles can maintain and enhance meadow resilience and ensure that their vital ecological functions are retained under future climate change. P a g e | 11
Evidence of conservation readiness The conservation community in California is aligned on the importance of protecting, restoring, and conserving Sierra Meadows. Protection and restoration of Sierra Nevada meadows is widely recognized by state agencies, foundations, and conservation organizations as a priority for conservation in California because of far-reaching benefits, including habitat for special status species, carbon storage, and improved water quantity and quality (e.g., National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 2010; California Natural Resources Agency et al. 2014; USDA Forest Service 2015; Drew et al. 2016; Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2018).
The ecosystem services provided by meadows are becoming increasingly important in the face of climate change, as restoration of degraded meadows can confer increased resilience to the ecoregion as a whole. The Sierra Nevada is already experiencing the effects of climate change, including declines in snowpack with implications for water supply throughout the state (Mote et al. 2018; UCLA Center for Climate Change 2018). Meadow restoration can help increase groundwater infiltration of rain and snowmelt and release cold, clean water during the dry summer months into stream channels, thus playing an important role in the state’s water supply. Meadows also sequester carbon and provide habitat for birds and other wildlife, including several listed species. Conservation action now, including restoration of degraded meadows and protection of high quality meadows on private lands, can confer increased resilience to the Sierra Nevada and provide multiple benefits to water, carbon sequestration, and wildlife.
California’s conservation community is poised to increase the pace and scale of meadow restoration and protection in the Sierra Nevada (Drew et al. 2016). Of significance is the formation of the Sierra Meadows Partnership (SMP) in 2016 to foster expansion of and more effective collaboration among partners currently engaged in meadow conservation in the Sierra Nevada to increase the pace, scale, and efficacy of meadow restoration and protection for the benefit of people and ecosystems (Drew et al. 2016). This partnership includes private, state, and federal land managers, advocacy groups, restoration practitioners, land trusts, and research institutions.
To date, the SMP has restored approximately 10,000 acres of Sierra meadows, with the goal to restore and/or protect an additional 30,000 acres of meadows on all lands across the Sierra Nevada by 2030. The strategy to achieve this goal is laid out in the SMP’s strategic plan (Drew et al. 2016), which includes three main approaches: (1) restore and/or protect meadows to achieve desired conditions, (2) enhance regulatory and institutional funding capacity and coordination, and (3) increase and diversify institutional and partnership capacity for meadow restoration and/or protection in the greater Sierra. Implementation of the Strategy and the three approaches is currently underway, with several workgroups charged with advancing the P a g e | 12 following strategic priorities to increase the pace, scale, and efficacy of meadow restoration and protection:
● Develop a meadow prioritization framework to inform strategic decision-making and achieve conservation targets of biodiversity, water, and carbon storage, ● Work with agencies to streamline the permitting process to increase the pace of restoration projects, ● Develop standardized methods for data collection and monitoring of meadow restoration sites to evaluate effectiveness of meadow restoration efforts, ● Develop consistent, integrated assessment and design standards for meadow restoration projects, and ● Develop and implement a communications and outreach strategy for the Partnership to increase public exposure to the importance of meadow restoration and protection and increase resources available to restoration practitioners, funders, and the public.
The two largest landowners of meadows in the Sierra Nevada (the USFS and the National Park Service), are both members of and actively engaged in the SMP, creating conditions for success. Because the majority of Sierra meadows fall under public ownership and are already protected, conservation actions can focus on enhancing and restoring meadows and changing management practices to prevent further degradation (e.g., management of livestock grazing).
Meadow restoration and protection in the Sierra Nevada are also state and national priorities with widespread social and political support. The Sierra Meadows Strategy (Drew et al. 2016) aligns with the California State Water Action Plan (California Natural Resources Agency et al. 2014), Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program Regional Strategy (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2018), National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)’s Sierra Meadows Restoration Business Plan (NFWF 2010), and the USDA Forest Service Region 5 Ecological Restoration Leadership Intent (USDA Forest Service 2015).
Meadow restoration is also part of larger efforts to increase the resilience of the Sierra Nevada’s watersheds and forests in the face of climate change and ensure that this ecoregion retains its intactness, biological integrity, and rich biodiversity. For example, the Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2018) is a coordinated, integrated, collaborative program to restore the health of the Sierra Nevada’s watersheds through increased investment, needed policy changes, and increased infrastructure to address watershed-scale threats including drought, tree mortality, and increased risk of catastrophic wildfire, all of which are projected to increase with climate change. This comprehensive effort is P a g e | 13 being organized and coordinated by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy and the USFS in close partnership with other federal, state, and local agencies as well as diverse stakeholders, and aims to increase the pace and scale of restoration in the Sierra Nevada ecoregion (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2018).
Most important threats and drivers of threats The most significant threats to Sierra meadows include legacy impacts from past land uses, present-day unsustainable livestock grazing, conversion to other land uses, and climate change. Meadow restoration focuses on addressing degradation from past land uses and removing or otherwise addressing present-day stressors, including vulnerabilities posed by climate change.
Legacy impacts to meadows from past land uses include heavy livestock grazing, railroad grades, road construction, and alterations to hydrology (e.g, water diversions, dams). Heavy livestock grazing during the late 19th century contributed to the widespread meadow degradation. Changes to meadows attributed to legacy overgrazing include gullying, desiccation, conifer encroachment, and resulting changes in plant species composition, structure, and diversity (Drew et al. 2016). Livestock grazing can compact meadow soils, leading to loss of soil organic carbon and reduced infiltration of water into the groundwater table. Grazing along the stream channels in riparian meadows can contribute to erosion of stream banks and increased sedimentation, leading to poor water quality with impacts to aquatic species (Mayer et al. 1999). Today, conditions and grazing-use patterns are improving; however, in some cases impacts from grazing are still occurring (Drew et al. 2016). Grazing allotments on meadows exist on USFS land and grazing also occurs on lower elevation meadows in Sierra foothills, which tend to fall under private ownership.
The development of railroads and roads through meadows at the turn of the 20th century also contributed to meadow degradation and legacy impacts. Railroad grades and roads divert surface water from streams and capture surface water flowing through the meadow, thus altering meadow hydrology. This is typically characterized by incision of the stream channel in riparian meadows or gully creation in a meadow without an existing stream channel, which leads to dewatering of the meadow as groundwater drains through the incised channel or gully. Livestock grazing also contributes to gullying and dewatering of meadows. These hydrologic alterations result in concomitant impacts to the rest of the meadow ecosystem, including a shift in plant community composition towards dry-tolerant species such as shrubs and conifers and loss of meadow- and riparian-associated plants such as willows, aspen, sedges, grasses, and rushes. This ultimately leads to the elimination of habitat suitable for meadow-dependent species and decline of rare taxa restricted to meadow and riparian environments (Mayer et al. 1999). These alterations of meadow hydrology can result in a positive feedback loop that P a g e | 14 captures the meadow in a degraded state that continues even if the stressors are removed, thus requiring human intervention through restoration to turn the meadow back into a stable, functional state that produces desired ecosystem services. Today, meadow restoration is focused on addressing legacy impacts from past degradation and addressing existing stressors to meadows, such as livestock grazing and climate change.
Climate change, driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is a significant threat to both healthy and degraded Sierra Nevada meadows. Projected climate impacts for the Sierra Nevada include more winter precipitation falling as rain than snow and increased temperatures, which will result in earlier snowmelt, reduced late-season snowpack, reduced snowmelt runoff in the spring, and longer periods of low-flow duration in the dry summer months. Droughts will become longer, hotter, and more severe, stressing vegetation and animals (Garfin et al. 2013; Viers et al. 2013; Mote et al. 2018; UCLA 2018). These climate change impacts may result in changes to meadow vegetation structure and plant communities, increased flood events with large sediment loads, and changes to hydrology, all of which can alter meadow ecological functions and contribute to meadow degradation.
Meadow restoration must address existing and legacy stressors as well as future stressors from climate change and other land uses in order to increase meadow resilience. Climate-smart meadow restoration is an approach to enhance ecological function of degraded or destroyed meadows in a manner that prepares them for the consequences of climate change. Point Blue Conservation Science has piloted this approach with several member organizations of the SMP for their meadow restoration projects, and efforts are underway to develop a climate-smart meadow restoration framework that can be widely disseminated throughout the SMP and beyond to guide meadow restoration efforts and increase meadow resilience.
P a g e | 15
Priority Site 3: Pacific Americas Flyway - Maintaining a Network of Sites
Geographical location The Pacific Americas Flyway spans 120 degrees of latitude and stretches more than 16,000 kilometers along the Pacific Coast between northwestern Alaska and southern Chile. Each year, millions of shorebirds traverse the coastlines and open ocean of the Flyway, moving between breeding and nonbreeding grounds and back again. Along their journeys, long-distance migrants use a series of critical stopovers in at least 14 countries to rest, refuel and transition between Arctic tundra, temperate rainforest mudflats and estuaries, coastlines, mid-latitude desert and tropical mangrove forest habitats.
Figure 3. Map of the priority Pacific Americas Flyway network sites.
Global significance Globally, coastal wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems on Earth, supporting high biodiversity and providing substantial ecosystem services to people. These coastal wetlands not only provide habitat for birds and other species, but also sequester carbon, provision food for local communities, and protect against sea-level rise and storm surges. Loss of these essential sites would both reduce the resiliency of the migratory network and reduce P a g e | 16 resiliency of the local communities to climate change. Schuyt and Brander (2004) estimated that wetlands globally provide between $3.4 to $70 billion annually in ecosystem services such as flood control, nutrient cycling, food provisioning, carbon sequestration and recreation.
Evidence of intactness/naturalness The Pacific Americas Flyway, a critical network of coastal wetlands for migratory birds is, overall, an intact system that must be sustained for the benefits of wildlife and human communities. The intact flyway is maintained by an essential set of coastal wetland sites. Some of the very large and important sites are already highly altered from a natural state. However, many sites are still naturally intact but are threatened by habitat loss, degradation and climate change.
Evidence of conservation readiness All sites described below are linked to engaged networks of NGOs, agencies, academics, and local communities proactively agreeing to prioritize conservation at the sites, as recognized through international designations and collaboratives such as:
The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention; http://www.ramsar.org/). An intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. Ramsar recognizes the fundamental ecological functions of wetlands and their economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value and establishes that "wetlands should be selected for the list on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology."
The UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/). The network covers internationally designated protected areas, each known as biosphere reserves, that are meant to demonstrate a balanced relationship between people and nature (e.g. encourage sustainable development). The World Network of Biosphere Reserves works to foster the harmonious integration of people and nature for sustainable development through participatory dialogue, knowledge sharing, poverty reduction, human well-being improvements, respect for cultural values and by improving society’s ability to cope with climate change. It promotes North-South and South-South collaboration and represents a unique tool for international cooperation through the exchange of experiences and know-how, capacity-building and the promotion of best practices.
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN; https://www.whsrn.org/). WHSRN’s mission is to conserve shorebirds and their habitats through a network of key sites across the Americas. WHSRN works to build a strong system of international sites used by shorebirds P a g e | 17 throughout their migratory ranges; develop science and management tools that expand the scope and pace of habitat conservation at each site within the Network; establish recognition for regional, international, and hemispheric sites and landscapes, raising new public awareness and generating conservation funding opportunities; and serve as an international resource, convener, and strategist for issues related to shorebird and habitat conservation. Designation as a WHSRN site requires commitment by the landowners to prioritize conservation of the site. To date, WHSRN site partners are conserving 38 million acres (15 million hectares) of shorebird habitat in 16 countries.
Migratory Shorebird Project – This is an international collaborative conservation science network throughout the Pacific Coast of the Americas led by Point Blue Conservation Science. The Project aims to assess the status of important wetland sites as well as build a network of engaged scientists and informed conservation organizations and agencies to protect and manage the network of wetlands in a way that helps them thrive and be resilient to change over time.
Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation Strategy - The Strategy was developed by partners across 15 countries and 53 unique institutions. The Strategy vision includes partners working together throughout the Pacific Americas to sustain shorebird populations for present and future generations. The Strategy identifies priority threats, effective conservation actions and coordinated approaches necessary to maintain and restore populations of shorebirds and their habitats in the Flyway. The biological goal is to maintain and restore self-sustaining populations of shorebird species across the Flyway; the human wellbeing goal is to enhance resiliency to a changing climate and sustain ecosystems that support both people and shorebirds.
We have selected 11 sites we believe meet the Foundation’s criteria and are essential to maintaining an intact Pacific Americas Flyway for generations to come (see Figure 3). Our logic in choosing sites included evaluation from a migratory bird perspective (e.g. Important Bird Area, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Site) and site intactness as well as associated international recognition for other wetland resources (e.g. Ramsar or Biosphere Reserve). Sites vary from large and hemispherically important, to smaller with significant regional importance. Sites also vary from lush mangrove communities that help sequester carbon and to sites embedded within desert landscapes that provide life-sustaining resources for biodiversity and human communities. Geographically, sites range from near the border of Russia and the U.S. in the Artic to the coast of Chile in South America. It is maintenance of this diversity of sites and values that will keep the Flyway resilient to change (Senner et al. 2016).
While we highlight 11 sites within the Pacific Americas Flyway that meet Foundation criteria, many more sites, including ones recognized as of Hemispheric or International Importance to WHSRN and International Ramsar sites, are essential for life along the Pacific Coast of the P a g e | 18
Americas, but have been highly altered. These sites include: Fraser River Delta, British Columbia, Canada; San Francisco Bay, California, USA; Colorado River Delta, Baja California and Sonora, Mexico; Bahia Santa Maria, Sinaloa, Mexico; and Upper Bay of Panama, Panama. We are happy to provide additional information on conservation needs at these sites of Hemispheric Importance or any other important wetland sites recognized as of international or regional importance in the Western Hemisphere if requested.
Most important threats and drivers of threats Shorebirds are one of the most mobile groups of animals on the planet. Their unique natural history attracts and inspires, but at the same time makes these species vulnerable to natural and human-caused perturbations because of the vast territory they travel, which therefore significantly increases the types of risks and threats migrants are exposed to along the route. Recent and future changes to wetland, grassland, beach and tundra habitats require us to act now in order to conserve the Flyway along its entirety. Additionally, shorebirds are a visible component of fully functioning ecosystems, which can positively affect human health, and shorebirds serve as sentinels to changes in the environment—changes that will ultimately affect human lives.
Coastal development historically been one of the major threats to coastal wetlands. In particular, development in Latin America to support developing economies threatens the persistence of important Pacific Flyway sites. In addition, a majority of the population in Latin America occurs within 100 – 200 km of the coast, a pattern that is likely to increase as populations grow (Simpson et al. 2012). Some of these sites are already protected, but require ongoing vigilance to ensure appropriate management and sustained conservation.
Invasive species also pose a significant threat to coastal wetland habitats throughout the Pacific Flyway. Some of these species have been unintentionally moved around the globe through shipping ballast while other species were intentionally introduced. In many cases, invasive species outcompete native species resulting in some cases in a major modification in habitat structure and species diversity (Stralberg et al. 2004).
Evidence of climate resilience As coastal communities begin to plan for rising seas, there is a growing recognition that coastal wetlands provide substantial protection from flooding and erosion, with some studies indicating that human community losses from future sea level rise could be decreased by half if coastal habitats are protected (Arkema et al. 2013). Intact Pacific Coast habitats themselves are relatively resilient to sea level rise; for example, tidal marshes on the Pacific Coast of the United States were found to be relatively resilient to sea level rise in comparison to tidal marshes on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (Raposa et al. 2016). Conserving Pacific Coastal habitats thus P a g e | 19 maintains resilient coastal habitat that will continue to provide substantial benefits to wildlife and people along the Pacific Americas Flyway
Specific flyway site descriptions
Yukon Delta, Alaska, USA (Latitude = 61.00; Longitude = -163.00) The delta was created by the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers and their tributaries. This immense wilderness includes eight million hectares of low tundra communities, 310,000 hectares of unvegetated intertidal mud and sand flats, and 4,100 km of shoreline broken by 22 large river mouths and 13 bays. The extensive intertidal flats are adjacent to about 920,000 hectares of wet, sedge-grass meadows that lie between the average high-tide line and the storm-tide line. Coastal meadows and heath tundra are dotted with numerous lakes and ponds. Some 70% of the refuge is under 100 feet in elevation. The Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge is recognized as a WHSRN site of Hemispheric Importance.
Copper River Delta, Alaska, USA (Latitude = 60.38; Longitude = -143.50) The Copper River Delta Shorebird Reserve Unit near Cordova, Alaska, is an area of great diversity that offers essential habitats for shorebirds and other wildlife from early spring through late fall. The site comprises tidal and submerged lands in Orca Inlet and extensive intertidal and freshwater wetlands, extensive marsh adjacent to tidal channels, and delta and barrier islands near the mouth of the Copper River. Wetland habitats extend from the foot of the Chugach Mountains to the tidal flats inside the barrier islands. Between the mountains and the estuarine area is a belt of sedge meadows, ponds, willow and sweetgale shrubs, and vegetated wetlands bordered with alder and cottonwood along streams. The site consistently supports millions of migrating birds each year, with 95% of some migratory bird populations utilizing the area each year. A large salmon fishery in the Copper River Delta provides evidence of an intact ecosystem.
A large portion of the site is owned by the US Forest Service (Chugach National Forest) which limits development. The US Forest Service leads an international conservation collaborative called the Copper River International Migratory Bird Initiative, which engages 10 countries in conservation and outreach efforts along the Pacific Americas Flyway. Additionally, the Copper River Delta is recognized as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of Hemispheric Importance and a Global Important Bird Area (BirdLife International Criteria).
Tofino mudflats, British Columbia, Canada (Latitude = 49.12; Longitude = -125.83) The Tofino Wah-nah-jus Hilth-hoo-is Mudflats are located near the town of Tofino, British Columbia, and are comprised of six tidal sand and mud flats as well as two beaches located on the west side of the Esowista Peninsula. Ownership of the area includes BC Ministry of P a g e | 20
Environment, Parks Canada, District of Tofino, and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations. The area contains a diverse collection of habitats including tidal flats, gravel beaches, marshes, tidal channels, streams, riparian areas, and dense coastal temperate rainforest. The mudflats with rich nutrients and organic sediment host the marine worms, clams, crabs, and ghost shrimp that make the site a critical stopover site for migrating shorebirds. Rocky islands and wave-washed sand beaches with piles of driftwood along the upper tide line also provide important foraging and roosting habitat for shorebirds.
The Tofino Wah-nah-jus Hilth-hoo-is Mudflats are recognized as Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of Regional Importance and a Global IBA (BirdLife International Criteria). A portion of the area is protected and managed as the Tofino Mudflats Wildlife Management Area; there is limited to no shoreline development there as of yet.
Willipa Bay/Grays Harbor, Washington, USA (Wilipa Bay Latitude = 46.57; Longitude = -123.95; Grays Harbor: Latitude = 49.94; Longitude = -124.06) Grays Harbor Estuary is a relatively undisturbed estuary which lies at the mouth of the Chehalis River and is the second largest watershed in the state of Washington. This site includes subtidal (open water), intertidal (mudflat), rocky shore (harbor mouth), intertidal emergent (salt marsh), intertidal emergent (scrub/shrub), palustrine forested (forested wetland/willow), palustrine emergent (common reed), and palustrine emergent spoil (fill) habitats. There is limited shoreline development within the site, particularly at Willapa Bay.
Grays Harbor is a WHSRN site of Hemispheric Importance and Willipa Bay is a WHSRN site of International Importance. Both are National Audubon Important Bird Areas. National Wildlife Refuges and wildlife areas are already designated for portions of both sites.
Complejo Lagunar San Quintín, Baja, Mexico (Latitude = 30.4657; Latitude = -115.9790) Complejo Lagunar San Quintín is located on the Pacific Coast of northwestern Baja California, about 300 km south of the Mexico-USA border, in the Municipality of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. It is the largest and the most important coastal wetland of the state of Baja California, the largest Mediterranean coastal wetlands in México and includes the most unaltered coastal salt marshes in the Californian region. It covers more than 10,000 acres and is dominated by eelgrass (Zostera marina). Marine habitats also include salt marshes, channels, sand dunes, barrier beaches, and mudflats. The bay habitats are surrounded by coastal sage scrub mixed with desert scrub, and agricultural fields. Aquaculture of bivalve mollusks (especially Japanese oyster [Crassostrea gigas]) has been the main economic activity onsite since 1976. Other activities include: extraction of volcanic rock from the cinder cones; saltworks, sport, and artisanal fishing, and Black Brant hunting. These are allowed and regulated in the area. There is also intensive agriculture in the adjacent deltas and coastal plains. P a g e | 21
Bahía de San Quintín is designated a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention and the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network and is a national Important Bird Area. The Mexican government provided contracts to local organizations to help manage habitats to enhance wildlife. However, there is currently a low level of protection for the site. Largely undeveloped coast and low gradient of surrounding landscape should allow migration of habitat with sea-level rise. Surrounding landscape consists of native vegetation and limited development or water diversion for agriculture. Therefore there should be limited conflicts between future inundation and human assets thus enabling habitat transgression as sea level rises.
Ojo de Liebre, Baja, Mexico (Latitude = 27.74; Longitude = -114.5) Complejo Lagunar Ojo de Liebre - Guerrero Negro is located in the community of Guerrero Negro, Municipality of Mulegé, in the state of Baja California Sur. The lagoon is within the Vizcaíno Biosphere Reserve UNESCO World Heritage Site, is a Ramsar wetlands site and is recognized as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of International Importance. It also is the site of the biggest commercial saltworks plant in the world. It is an important habitat for the reproduction and wintering of the Eastern North Pacific gray whale and harbor seal, as well as other marine mammals including the California sea lion, northern elephant seal and blue whale. Four species of endangered marine turtles reproduce there. It is an important refuge for waterfowl in the winter. Tourism, now closely controlled, was formerly a threat to the gray whales. According to a study by the US Department of Agriculture, biodiversity conservation and productive activities in this coastal zone are “totally compatible.”
Laguna San Ignacio, Baja, Mexico (Latitude = 26.78; Longitude = -113.17) Complejo San Ignacio is located in the community of San Ignacio, Municipality of Mulegé, in the State of Baja California Sur. The complex includes the lagoons of San Ignacio, El Coyote, and La Bocana and is an important wintering area for the gray whale population.
Laguna San Ignacio is internationally recognized as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of International Importance, Ramsar wetland, Biosphere Reserve, and UNESCO world heritage site as well as a National Protected Area. Site partners include the El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve; National Commission of Protected Natural Areas (CONANP); Autonomous University of Baja California Sur; and Pronatura Noroeste. Management plans have been developed by NGOS for conservation. The Ocean Foundation supports the Laguna San Ignacio Science Program which encourages social awareness, education and community participation in the conservation of this marine protected area, promotes human activities and alternatives that are in balance with the natural components of the region, and that recognize the needs of the local community. P a g e | 22
Marismas Nacionales, Nayarit and Sinaloa, Mexico (Latitude = 22.20; Longitude = -105.52) Marismas Nacionales is located in the north-western Pacific Coast of Mexico and contains a large complex of brine coastal lagoons, mangroves, muddy bogs or swamps, and ravines. Indeed, it is the largest mangrove forest on Mexico’s Pacific Coast and is believed to constitute one of the most productive environments in Northwest Mexico.
This is a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of International Importance, Ramsar wetland and Biosphere Reserve. Although mangroves in Mexico are being lost to development at relative high rates, the mangroves at Marismas Nacionales are relatively intact (Akker et al. 2012). Extensive mangroves also sequester carbon and reduce storm surges (Arkema et al. 2013).
Delta del Rio Iscuande, Nariño, Colombia (Latitude = 2.6276; Longitude =-76.0608) The Delta del Río Iscuandé is located in the northwestern Pacific Coast of Colombia, Nariño Department, on the border with the Cauca Department. Several islands that formed through the siltation process of the Iscuandé River constitute the area. Coastal environments such as sandy beaches, muddy plains, and mangroves are representative of the area. Most of these ecosystems are important for waterbirds, especially seabirds and shorebirds that use them as resting and breeding grounds. The site is partially included within the Sanquianga National Park and is located in the Sanquianga coastal system south of the Pacific Coast region. This site includes the area of mangroves and intertidal flats in the lower Esfuerzo Pescador Community Council, as well as a series of barrier islands off the coast. The Mouth of the river Iscuandé is dominated by mudflats with river sediment deposition.
This is a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of Regional Importance with partners working with local communities and fishermen to manage habitat to support humans and wildlife resources. It is also part of Sanquianga National Park. Nearly all mangroves, intertidal mudflats and sandy beaches are intact, which support large numbers of all waterbirds (not just shorebirds). Local communities still able to subsist on natural resources from the site. Largely intact mangroves sequester carbon and mitigate against sea-level rise and storm surges.
Bahia de Paracas, Ica, Peru (Latitude = -14.0208; Longitude = -76.2329)
The site is a desert coast along a very productive ocean. The area contains sandy beaches, rocky intertidal zones, and rocky cliffs. The Reserva Nacional de Paracas is considered one of the most important in Peru by Peruvian authorities and non-governmental organizations. With this protection, there is limited habitat disturbance.
This is a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of Regional Importance, Peruvian National Reserve, a Ramsar wetland and Global IBA (Birdlife). It is a largely undeveloped coast; the low gradient of surrounding landscape should allow migration of habitat with sea-level rise. P a g e | 23
Humedales Orientales de Chiloé, Chile (Latitude = -42.62; Longitude = 73.92)
This wetland system is located in the Lake Region of Chiloé Province, and includes the Municipalities of Dalcahue, Quinchao, Curaco de Velez, and Castro. The island of Chiloé occurs at a latitude that is characterized throughout the world by a great amount of rainfall, allowing for an environment that is favorable for the existence of ecosystems that are rich and diverse in primary resources and are able to sustain a wide variety of animal species. One of the main characteristics of the Chiloe is the inner sea. This is an area of wide intertidal shorelines that leave extensive mudflats which correspond to areas of concentrations of shorebirds and marine invertebrates. The area contains 10 wetlands: Curacao, Pullao, Chullec, Rilán, San Juan, Castro, Putemún, Teguel, Nercón and Quinchao.
This is a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of Hemispheric Importance with a Conservation Plan in place (Delgado et al. 2010). The planning area, which corresponds to part of the coastal wetlands of the island of Chiloé, is located in the Chiloense Marine Ecoregion, a vast area with particular biogeographical characteristics that was proposed by Sullivan y Bustamante (1999) as one of the first locations designated for the identification of the biogeographical zones in Latin America and the Caribbean. In this location, five marine ecoregions were identified for Chile based on literature review and consultations with experts. The Chiloé ecoregion extends from Chacao (41ºS) and Taitao Peninsula (47ºS), and is characterized by an intricate network of channels, fjords and archipelagos that spans 10.700 km of coast. This ecoregion is rich in biodiversity; it holds one of the richest areas of Rhodophyta algae, and the largest colony of Shearwaters on the coasts of South America (located on Guafo Island). Recent records also show groups of blue whales in the Gulf of Corcovado, multiple species of dolphins (Chilean, Peale’s, and more), marine otters, the largest colonies of feeding and resting of Whimbrels in Chilean coasts, cold water corals, and an important number of shorebird species (resident and migratory), which are being considered targets relevant for conservation at a the ecoregional scale. The largely agricultural coast and low gradient of surrounding landscape should allow migration of habitat with sea- level rise.
P a g e | 24
Priority Site 4: Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region, Central California
Geographical location This location is bounded by Point Arena in the north (latitude 39° North, a few miles north of the Point Arena Lighthouse in Mendocino County) to Año Nuevo Island in the south (latitude 37.10° North, near the border of San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties); the western boundary is ~40-50 miles from the shoreline, which is beyond the continental shelf break. This area includes two National Marine Sanctuaries (Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank), as well as the northern part of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (NMS). This location incorporates important features, such as the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Cordell Bank (an underwater seamount), and 27 State Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
The Farallon Islands National
Figure 3. Map of the Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region. Wildlife Refuge comprises four island groups located within the boundaries of San Francisco City and County. These groups are Noonday Rock, the North Farallones, Middle Farallon, and the South Farallon Islands (SFI). SFI, the largest of the four groups, is the closest to the mainland, approximately 42 km west of the Golden Gate Bridge and consists of Southeast Farallon Island (SEFI), West End, and adjacent outcrops and islets. SEFI (37.7° N, 123° W) supports a year-round field station that has been continuously attended by staff from Point Blue Conservation Science since April 1968. P a g e | 25
Global significance This area is located within the California Current, which is one of only four eastern boundary currents in the world. The California Current spans the West Coast of North America (from British Columbia to Baja California) and is one of the most biologically productive regions in the world. Upwelling, a wind-driven process by which cold, nutrient-rich waters are brought to the surface, fuels high primary production in the spring and summer and supports a vital feeding region for many ecologically and commercially important species.
In addition, the United States recognized the value of these (and other) coastal waters by creating the National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) Act in 1972 to designate and protect areas of the marine environment “due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational or esthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries” (https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/legislation/). The Gulf of the Farallones NMS was established in 1981, and Cordell Bank NMS was established in 1989. Both sanctuaries were expanded in 2015, and the Gulf of the Farallones was renamed Greater Farallones NMS. Greater Farallones NMS provides food and breeding habitat to at least 25 endangered or threatened species, 36 mammal species, over 500,000 breeding seabirds, and the largest feeding grounds for great white sharks (https://farallones.noaa.gov/about/welcome.html; http://farallones.org/#sanctuary). The unique undersea topography created by the Cordell Bank results in a rich, diverse marine community of fishes, invertebrates, marine mammals, and seabirds (https://cordellbank.noaa.gov/about/).
The Golden Gate Biosphere was designated 1988 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB). The Golden Gate Biosphere encompasses the Greater Farallones NMS, Cordell Bank NMS, the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, several California MPAs as well as other multi-use managed areas including terrestrial ecosystems ranging from evergreen forests (including the iconic and endemic Coast Redwood), oak woodlands, chaparral, coastal scrub and prairies, rare serpentine grasslands, as well as coastal and offshore islands.
The California Current Conservation Complex has been nominated as a candidate for recognition as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and currently sits on the tentative list.
The Complex includes a contiguous group of federally-designated MPAs along the Central California coast: Greater Farallones, Cordell Bank, and Monterey Bay NMSs; marine waters and certain coastal areas of Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area; Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge; California Coastal National Monument; and a network of MPAs designated by the State of California. This upwelling system supports a highly productive and diverse ecosystem with a broad mosaic of marine and coastal habitats: offshore P a g e | 26 canyons, banks, seamounts and islands, rocky shorelines, kelp forests and more (UNESCO 2017; https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6237/).
Several large areas of the region have been designated by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for the Endangered Eastern North Pacific populations of blue and humpback whales (Calambokidis 2015; https://cetsound.noaa.gov/important). These regions near Cordell Bank and offshore of Monterey Bay comprise critical feeding habitat where these large baleen whales are consistently found in significant numbers during their northward migration and feeding period from May through November.
Farallon Islands complex: The Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge is globally recognized as an extremely important wildlife conservation area. The islands host the largest seabird breeding colony in the contiguous United States with more than half a million breeding birds of 13 species, accounting for approximately 30 percent of California’s nesting seabirds. The Farallones are home to an estimated 50 percent of the global population of ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa), a species of special concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008) and considered threatened by the IUCN (Birdlife International 2016). The Farallones also contain globally significant breeding populations for Brandt’s cormorants (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) and western gulls (Larus occidentalis) and smaller populations for Cassin’s auklets (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) and tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata), both also considered species of concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008). The Farallon Islands and the pelagic waters off of the Mendocino, Sonoma, and San Mateo County coasts are formally recognized by Audubon and the American Bird Conservancy as a Globally Important Bird Area because they support an astounding number and diversity of breeding and migratory seabirds (e.g. sooty shearwater (Ardenna grisea)) and the islands provide an important stopover location for many migrant songbirds and a refuge for vagrant species. The Farallon Islands are designated as a California state ecological reserve.
In addition, five species of marine mammals breed or haul-out on the Refuge, including northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). Historic accounts suggest that pinnipeds numbered in the tens to hundreds of thousands or more prior to human occupation before being heavily hunted on the island by Americans and Russians in the early 1800s. Fur seals and elephant seals were completely extirpated but recolonized the islands after they became a Refuge. P a g e | 27
Evidence of intactness/naturalness The Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region is a contiguous conservation zone from Point Arena in the north to Point Piedras Blancas in the south. Intact ecological habitat and biological communities blend from north to south, from the coastline to offshore, and from the ocean’s surface to the deep abyssal plain. Moreover, the interwoven management regimes of the NMSs, other federal protections, and state conservation actions provide integrated marine management and conservation, while allowing numerous human uses. The area includes several marine reserves managed by the State of California that prohibit all extractive uses to provide the highest level of resource protection. The area includes diverse ecological communities and habitat areas, many in near-pristine condition. These waters protect and provide critical foraging habitat for almost a dozen different cetacean species as well as pinnipeds and sea turtles. Subtidal reefs are essential to the survival and recovery of marine fishes including commercially important predatory fishes such as salmon and tuna, as well as several species of forage fishes (e.g. anchovy, juvenile rockfishes, herring) which are a vital component of this productive ecosystem. Other ecologically important species abundant in the area include the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and California sea otter (Enhydra lutris). Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), endangered and also renowned as the largest animal to ever live, regularly visit the area to feed on high density krill aggregations. The area also supports large and thriving seabird populations. The Complex demonstrates how sound resource management supports human use and enjoyment (see UNESCO; https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6237/).
Protection of the Farallon islands and surrounding waters has led to the recovery of several populations. Elephant seals recolonized the islands in the early 1970s and have spread to coastal beaches over the last 30 years. Fur seals returned in the 1990s and have been experiencing exponential growth over the last 20 years, including more than 1000 pups born in 2016. The common murre (Uria aalge) populations, which had been reduced to only a few thousand birds now number over 300,000 thanks to reduced disturbance and improved regulation of oil pollution and fishing. Populations of tufted puffins, pigeon guillemots (Cepphus columba), and rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata) have likewise grown steadily thanks to the removal of invasive species (rabbits) and restoration of habitat.
Evidence of climate resilience Some of the best evidence of climate resilience of the region is that while climate change is expected to increase ocean stratification, decreasing nutrient input and overall productivity, increasing winds along the coast of California are likely to increase upwelling counteracting to some degree the impacts of climate change (Largier et al. 2010). P a g e | 28
Climate change impacts the global and regional ocean environment, as well as land- and marine-based human activities that impose additional stress to habitats, species and ecological communities. Multiple stressors can interact to produce unexpectedly severe impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem health. Climate resilience can be strengthened by reducing additional local stressors given that reducing the threats of climate change is a large and global challenge. Additional stressors include pollution, invasive species, fishing, disease, habitat modification, wildlife disturbance, and development of infrastructure along the coast and at sea. NOAA has been working with universities and research institutions to prioritize additional stressors to manage and increase ocean resilience in the region. Recommendations from the stakeholder groups involved have been shared at the federal, state, county and city managers to help mitigate human impacts and build resilience in the marine ecosystem.
Marine ecosystems are more resilient to human related activities like fishing (pelagic, both low and high bycatch), aquarium fishing, ocean mining, and ozone/UV as compared to other threats (Halpern et al. 2007). While these threats were identified on a global level, most of these apply to our region (e.g. pelagic fishing) while some may not (e.g. aquarium fishing). Threats specific to climate change (sea level, sea temperature, and acidification) were identified as threats to which ecosystems were less resilient and would not recover from as quickly as other human- related threats. However, dynamic processes not generally considered in ocean resilience studies can change a stressor’s impact (Halpern et al. 2009). For example, the Monterey Bay was shown to have areas of high impact from land-based stressors, yet natural upwelling processes likely disperse and dilute these and the impact is reduced. Oceanographic currents, annual variation in vegetated ecosystems, and dispersal and migration were identified as dynamic processes that could help provide a more realistic picture of an ecosystem’s ability to reduce the impact of stressors.
Evidence of conservation readiness Federal and state agencies, along with academic and other research organizations, are working together to maintain and improve the conservation of the marine ecosystem in the Greater Gulf of the Farallones. There are MPAs closed to fisheries to help coastal rockfish species recover, and several benthic offshore areas have been recognized as ‘Essential Fish Habitat’ and are closed to fishing to maintain and recover overall rockfish and groundfish species. Stakeholders are working together to reduce whale mortality by ship strikes and decrease disturbance to wildlife at seabird colonies and main foraging areas. NOAA has led several efforts to identify impacts from climate change and is working with multiple user groups to decrease additional human stressors as a way to build overall resilience in the marine ecosystem. P a g e | 29
Depending on the conservation resources available, actions can be taken to maintain and improve ecosystem integrity. Large-scale threats such as climate change require changes at the regional and global spatial scales, thereby making these threats more challenging to address. However, other threats such as coastal development require local management action and may be easier to implement. Ecosystems that are relatively easy to manage (e.g., deep seamounts, beaches) are the low-hanging fruit that produce a more substantial return on an investment due to the few key threats that can be targeted. However, habitats and ecosystems that are difficult to manage require more investment and produce similar results.
Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region: Fisheries management Northern anchovy and young of the year (YOY) rockfish are commercially harvested in central California, and are important forage species for marine birds and mammals. Ocean ecosystem change and fisheries harvest are likely to impact these critical forage resources, leading to demographic consequences for marine predators. Anchovy biomass in this region was severely reduced in the early 1990’s, falling below the 300,000 mt threshold identified in the northern anchovy fishery management plan, leading to a restriction in total catches of 25,000 mt per year. Since then, anchovy biomass has fluctuated, reaching a low of less than 25,000 mt in recent years (MacCall et al. 2016). During this same period, populations of seabirds and other top predators (e.g., salmon and whales) have dramatically increased. Yet the catch limit is unchanged and the anchovy fishery is not currently actively managed to adapt to increased predation pressure on these already reduced stocks.
Given that climate change is predicted to lead to increasing water temperatures, changes in the strength and timing of upwelling, altered circulation patterns, and increased frequency of El Niño and extreme warm ocean events (e.g., the Blob), it is likely that forage fish stocks will be under even greater stress (Ainley et al. 2014, IPCC 2014). These compounding effects will likely impact the breeding success and abundance of predators dependent on anchovy and rockfish, like seabirds. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council adopted a “Fisheries Ecosystem Plan” that is intended to enable managers to take ecosystem interactions into account when considering management measures as well as to coordinate information across fisheries management plans for decision-making purposes (Pacific Fisheries Management Council, 2013). Action taken to understand these complex interactions will better inform fishery managers on the predator-prey dynamic and the role of managed stocks in supporting ecosystem health while also providing information needed to develop updated management plans to allows harvest while preserving sufficient forage for predators and healthy fish stocks under differing future ecosystem scenarios.
P a g e | 30
Farallon Island restoration: Mouse eradication The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS) is proposing to eradicate introduced, invasive house mice (Mus musculus) from the South Farallon Islands (or South Farallones) within the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), California. Eradicating invasive mice is expected to benefit native seabirds, plants, amphibians, and terrestrial invertebrates and will help restore natural ecosystem processes on the islands. Eradicating house mice would eliminate the last remaining invasive vertebrate species on the Refuge, enhancing the recovery of sensitive seabird populations on the islands. The benefits of house mouse eradication would be greatest to two seabird species that are impacted by the presence of invasive mice: the ashy storm- petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa) and the Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). However, other rare native species such as the endemic Farallon arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris farallonensis), the endemic Farallon camel cricket (Farallonophilus cavernicolus), and the maritime goldfield (Lasthenia maritima) are also likely to benefit. Historically, removal of invasive species including rabbits and cats, has had a significantly positive impact on native populations, including recolonization after extirpation. Removal of the remaining invasive species (house mice) is expected to have similar benefits. A recent study demonstrated how the removal of house mice will improve the trajectory of ASSP population decline and maintain the integrity of this globally significant population.
Farallon Island restoration: Control/eradication of non-native vegetation Invasive non-native plant species have become an increasing threat to biodiversity worldwide. Non-native plant invasion on islands have been correlated with a decline in habitat for seabirds (Harris et al. 2003, Lawley et al. 2005, Feenstra and Clements 2008). On the Farallones, grasses and Malva species grow in dense clusters and have substantial root structures, while spinach spreads across the surface to form large, impenetrable mats of vegetation. These characteristics reduce available nesting area, inhibit excavation of natural burrows, or block access to natural crevices. For burrow-nesting marine birds, the impact of invasive species may limit populations or reduce reproductive success if birds are relegated to lower quality habitat (Van Der Wall et al. 2008). This may be vitally important for species such as Cassin’s auklet and ashy storm-petrel, which have suffered from large population declines over the last several decades. Control and eventual eradication of invasive vegetation will have a significant positive impact on restoring seabird nesting habitat. Well-informed, data-driven management actions will increase efficacy of invasive vegetation removal from the Farallones and restore an altered landscape to conditions more favorable for burrow/crevice nesting seabirds, thereby helping to maintain or improve ecosystem integrity.
P a g e | 31
Most important threats and drivers of threats Historically, human activities on and around the Farallon Islands had detrimental impacts on breeding populations of seabirds and marine mammals. Prior to the protection of the islands, human actions led to the localized extirpation of fur and elephant seals due to hunting, severe reductions in seabird populations due to harvesting of common murre eggs, large scale habitat alteration, introduction of non-native species, and mortality from oil spills and gill netting.
Current threats to the Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region include climate change, ocean acidification, pollution, invasive species, disease, and wildlife disturbance. In addition, California’s marine environment hosts a variety of industrial coastal and marine uses, such as shipping, fishing, offshore oil production, power plants, and aquaculture. Both climate change and human impacts alter the structure and dynamics of the marine food web, with often dramatic consequences for many marine species, including commercially important fish stocks and dependent species such as marine birds and mammals. New emerging industrial uses of the ocean are being proposed, including marine renewable energy development, desalination, and offshore aquaculture.
California’s marine waters also host noncommercial uses that are important to society and significant contributors to the state’s economy, such as military training and research, surfing, boating, fishing, wildlife tourism, and swimming. The demand for the use of California’s marine environment is increasing, and there is a need to balance the existing uses of our ocean environment with potential new uses and to manage all uses to both benefit our economy and preserve healthy ocean ecosystems.
Climate change has led to a notable increase in sea surface temperature (SST) in the Pacific over the past several decades, a trend projected to continue in future years (IPCC 2013). Increased SST increases stratification of the water column, reducing transport of nutrients essential for biotic production to the surface. In addition to stratification, shifting weather patterns produce stronger winds and turbulent surface waters, which further decrease primary production. A bottom-up ecological response to these phenomena is already in effect, as seabird abundance has been on the decline in the North Pacific since the mid-1980s. Warming air temperatures may also pose a threat to nesting seabirds. Maximum annual air temperatures have significantly increased by over 4oC on SEFI over the last 45 years and the number of “extreme heat events” during the seabird breeding season has also increased.
Pollution by excess nitrogen from the 37 major wastewater treatment plants that discharge into the San Francisco Bay and into the Gulf of the Farallones can lead to dead zones. Sewage is full of ammonia which straight through most treatment plants. Excess nitrogen leads to blooms of algae that produce toxins, killing fish and other aquatic life directly. In addition to excess P a g e | 32 nutrients, pollution by plastics including microplastics and microfibers is likely to impact the marine ecosystem.
Commercial shipping leads to whale strikes, wildlife disturbance and increases the risk of oil spills. The U.S. West Coast hosts three major shipping ports: Los Angeles/Long Beach, Oakland and Seattle that process half the shipped goods in the United States with about 3,534 vessel calls per year coming to the Bay Area ports. Vessel traffic has been growing steadily for decades, both in terms of the number and size of vessels traveling West Coast waters. Shipping kills approximately 80 whales per year along the west coast, several times above the potential biological removal for both blue and humpback whales. The position of the Farallon Islands in relation to three heavily trafficked shipping lanes leading into the San Francisco Bay puts all wildlife at risk of oil spills during the summer breeding months.
Commercial fishing has been identified as a top stressor in most offshore ecosystems, although pelagic fishing was judged to have little or no impact on many ecosystems (Teck et al 2010); however, it should be noted most studies do not take into account historical stressors (i.e. overfishing from the past).
Offshore oil production within the Greater Gulf of the Farallones is regulated by the Sanctuary Act which protects these areas from oil and gas exploratory drilling. These protections are currently being challenged by the federal administration and thus oil spills and impacts from exploration and construction may soon be of major concern in the region.
Some activities are not common in our study region now, but they are potential threats into the future. Marine Renewable Energy projects (e.g. wave, tidal, offshore wind, and ocean thermal energy), as well as the permitting and regulations, are still being developed in California. However, interest in this budding industry remains strong among manufacturers and developers.
For water-strapped California, desalination has been proposed to help meet the state’s water demands where it is economically and environmentally appropriate. As climate change will likely bring more drought conditions to California, desalination may become more relevant in future years.
While offshore aquaculture promises to help augment food supplies, promote economic activity, and increase native fish stocks, proper siting and best management practices need to be established and followed in order to avoid or minimize impacts to fishing, public trust values, and the marine environment.
P a g e | 33
Literature Cited Ross Sea
Ainley, D. G. 2009. A history of the exploitation of the Ross Sea, Antarctica. The Polar record 46:233–243.
Ainley, D. G., E. L. Crockett, J. T. Eastman, W. R. Fraser, N. Nur, K. O’Brien, L. A. Salas, and D. B. Siniff. 2017. How overfishing a large piscine mesopredator explains growth in Ross Sea penguin populations: A framework to better understand impacts of a controversial fishery. Ecological modelling 349:69–75.
Ainley, D G, G Ballard, J Weller. 2010. Part I: Validation of the 2007 CCAMLR Bioregionalization Workshop Results Towards Including the Ross Sea in a Representative Network of Marine Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean.
Ainley, D. G., and D. Pauly. 2013. Fishing down the food web of the Antarctic continental shelf and slope. The Polar record 50:92–107.
Ainley, D., J. Russell, S. Jenouvrier, E. Woehler, P. O. Lyver, W. R. Fraser, and G. L. Kooyman. 2010. Antarctic penguin response to habitat change as Earth’s troposphere reaches 2°C above preindustrial levels. Ecological monographs 80:49–66.
Arrigo, K. R., G. L. van Dijken, and S. Bushinsky. 2008a. Primary production in the Southern Ocean, 1997–2006. Journal of geophysical research 113:609.
Arrigo, K. R., G. van Dijken, and M. Long. 2008b. Coastal Southern Ocean: A strong anthropogenic CO2sink. Geophysical research letters 35.
Ballard, G., D. Jongsomjit, S. D. Veloz, and D. G. Ainley. 2012. Coexistence of mesopredators in an intact polar ocean ecosystem: The basis for defining a Ross Sea marine protected area. Biological conservation 156:72–82.
Ballard, G., V. Toniolo, D. G. Ainley, C. L. Parkinson, K. R. Arrigo, and P. N. Trathan. 2010. Responding to climate change: Adélie Penguins confront astronomical and ocean boundaries. Ecology 91:2056–2069.
Barry, J. P., J. M. Grebmeier, J. Smith, and R. B. Dunbar. 2003. Oceanographic versus seafloor- habitat control of benthic megafaunal communities in the S.W. Ross Sea, Antarctica. Pages 327–353 Antarctic Research Series.
CCAMLR. 2007. Workshop on Bioregionalisation of the Southern Ocean. SC-CAMLR-XXVI/11. Brussels, Belgium, 13 to 17 August 2007.
CCAMLR, 2008. XXVII Annual Meeting, Final Report, Paragraph 7.2 (vi). Hobart, Australia.
Clarke, A., and N. M. Johnston. 2003. Antarctic marine benthic diversity. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 41:47–114. P a g e | 34
Comiso, J. C., and F. Nishio. 2008. Trends in the sea ice cover using enhanced and compatible AMSR-E, SSM/I, and SMMR data. Journal of geophysical research 113.
Gon, O., and P. C. Heemstra. 1990. Fishes of the Southern Ocean.
Halpern, B. S., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D’Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, K. S. Casey, C. Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madin, M. T. Perry, E. R. Selig, M. Spalding, R. Steneck, and R. Watson. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319:948–952.
Lynch, H. J., and M. A. LaRue. 2014. First global census of the Adélie Penguin. The Auk 131:457– 466.
Lyver, P. O., M. Barron, K. J. Barton, D. G. Ainley, A. Pollard, S. Gordon, S. McNeill, G. Ballard, and P. R. Wilson. 2014. Trends in the Breeding Population of Adélie Penguins in the Ross Sea, 1981–2012: A Coincidence of Climate and Resource Extraction Effects. PloS one 9:e91188.
Morin, P. A., F. I. Archer, A. D. Foote, J. Vilstrup, E. E. Allen, P. Wade, J. Durban, K. Parsons, R. Pitman, L. Li, P. Bouffard, S. C. Abel Nielsen, M. Rasmussen, E. Willerslev, M. T. P. Gilbert, and T. Harkins. 2010. Complete mitochondrial genome phylogeographic analysis of killer whales (Orcinus orca) indicates multiple species. Genome research 20:908–916.
Parkinson, C. L. 2014. Global Sea Ice Coverage from Satellite Data: Annual Cycle and 35-Yr Trends. Journal of climate 27:9377–9382.
Rignot, E., S. Jacobs, J. Mouginot, and B. Scheuchl. 2013. Ice-shelf melting around Antarctica. Science 341:266–270.
Smith, W. O., Jr, D. G. Ainley, K. R. Arrigo, and M. S. Dinniman. 2014. The oceanography and ecology of the Ross Sea. Annual review of marine science 6:469–487.
Stammerjohn, S., R. Massom, D. Rind, and D. Martinson. 2012. Regions of rapid sea ice change: An inter-hemispheric seasonal comparison. Geophysical research letters 39.
Wilson, D. J., P. O. Lyver, T. C. Greene, A. L. Whitehead, K. M. Dugger, B. J. Karl, J. R. F. Barringer, R. McGarry, A. M. Pollard, and D. G. Ainley. 2017. South Polar Skua breeding populations in the Ross Sea assessed from demonstrated relationship with Adélie Penguin numbers. Polar biology 40:577–592.
Sierra Nevada Meadows Brooks, T. M., R. A. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffman, J. F. Lamoreux, C. G. Mittermeier, J. D. Pilgrim, and A. S. L. Rodrigues. 2006. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313(5783), 58-61. P a g e | 35
California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture and California Environmental Protection Agency 2014. California Water Action Plan. Sacramento, CA.
Collins, B. M., R. G. Everett, and S. L. Stephens. 2011. Impacts of fire exclusion and recent managed fire on forest structure in old growth Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Ecosphere 2(4):art51. doi:10.1890/ES11-00026.1
DellaSala, D.A., R. L. Hutto, C. T. Hanson, M. L. Bond, T. Ingalsbee, D. Odion, and W. L. Baker. 2017. Accommodating Mixed-Severity Fire to Restore and Maintain Ecosystem Integrity with a Focus on the Sierra Nevada of California, USA. Fire Ecology 13, 148–171.
Drew, W. M., N. Hempill, L. Keszey, A. Merrill, L. Hunt, J. Fair, S. Yarnell, J. Drexler, R. Henery, J. Wilcox, R. Burnett, K. Podolak, R. Kelley, H. Loffland, R. Westmoreland, and K. Pope. 2016. Sierra Meadows Strategy. Sierra Meadows Partnership Paper 1: 40 pp.
Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, eds. 2013. Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Heckmann, K. E. and M. D. Schlesinger. 2008. Ecological integrity of remnant montane forest along an urban gradient in the Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Management, 255(7), 2453-2466.
Hoekstra, J. M., T. M. Boucher, T. H. Ricketts, and C. Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters 8, 23-29.
Maher, S.P., T. L. Morelli, M. Hershey, A. L. Flint, L. E. Flint, C. Moritz, and S. R. Beissinger. 2017. Erosion of refugia in the Sierra Nevada meadows network with climate change. Ecosphere 8, n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1673
Mayer, C., P. Weiant, L. Serpa, C. Tam, R. Cox, and J. Gaither. 1999. Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan. The Nature Conservancy: San Francisco.
Morelli, T.L., S. P. Maher, M. C. W. Lim, C. Kastely, L. M. Eastman, L. E. Flint, A. L. Flint, S. R. Beissinger, and C. Moritz. 2017. Climate change refugia and habitat connectivity promote species persistence. Climate Change Responses 4, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40665-017-0036-5
Moritz, C., S. R. Beissinger, S. P. Maher, and T. L. Morelli. 2013. Determining landscape connectivity and climate change across the Sierra Nevada. Final Report to the California Landscape Conservation Cooperative in fulfillment of FWS Agreement No. 80250-BJ127. P a g e | 36
Mote, P.W., S. Li, D. P. Lettenmaier, M. Xiao, and R. Engel. 2018. Dramatic declines in snowpack in the western US. Climate and Atmospheric Science 1, 2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0012-1
Moyle, P. B. and P. J. Randall. 2008. Evaluating the biotic integrity of watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, California. Conservation Biology 12(6), 1318-1326.
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853-858.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 2010. Sierra Nevada Meadow Restoration Business Plan. Available online at http://www.nfwf.org/sierranevada/Documents/Sierra_Meadow_Restoration_business_ plan.pdf.
Olson, D. M. and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The global 200: A representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12:502-515.
Sierra Nevada Conservancy. 2018. Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program Regional Strategy. Auburn, CA.
Stattersfield, A. J., M. J. Crosby, A. J. Long, and D. C. Wege. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series 7. Cambridge: BirdLife International.
Stein, B. A., P. Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt. 2014. Climate-smart conservation: putting adaptation principles into practice. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 262 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2014. Final Sierra Nevada Bio-Regional Assessment. Document number R5-MB-268. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. February 2014. 201p.
USDA Forest Service. 2015. Region 5 Ecological Restoration Leadership Intent. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. R5-MR-048.
Viers, J. H., S. E. Purdy, R. A. Peek, A. Fryjoff-Hung, N. R. Santos, J. V. E. Katz, J. D. Emmons, D. V. Dolan, and S. M. Yarnell. 2013. Montane meadows in the Sierra Nevada: Changing hydroclimatic conditions and concepts for vulnerability assessment. Center for Watershed Sciences Technical Report (CWS-2013-01), University of California, Davis. 63 pp. P a g e | 37
Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, F. V. Schlexer, L. A. Campbell, and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography, 32: 1385-1407.
Pacific Americas Flyway Akker, I., M. Corona, S. Lummis, H. Wong, and C. Zabel. 2012. Marismas Nacionales Conservation & Carbon Sequestration Study. Arkema, K. K., G. Guannel, G. Verutes, S. a. Wood, A. Guerry, M. Ruckelshaus, P. Kareiva, M. Lacayo, and J. M. Silver. 2013. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nature Climate Change 3:913–918. Delgado, C., M. Sepulveda, and R. Alvarez. 2010. Conservation Plan for migratory shorebirds in Chiloe. Valdivia. Raposa, K. B., K. Wasson, E. Smith, J. A. Crooks, P. Delgado, S. H. Fernald, M. C. Ferner, A. Helms, L. A. Hice, J. W. Mora, B. Puckett, D. Sanger, S. Shull, L. Spurrier, R. Stevens, and S. Lerberg. 2016. Assessing tidal marsh resilience to sea-level rise at broad geographic scales with multi-metric indices. Biological Conservation 204:263–275. Schuyt, K., and L. Brander. 2004. Living Waters: Conserving the Source of Life – The Economic Values of the World’s Wetlands. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Senner, S. E., B. A. Andres, and H. R. Gates (Eds.). 2016. Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation Strategy. New York, USA. Simpson, M. C., C. S. L. M. Clarke, J. D. Clarke, D. Scott, and A. Clarke. 2012. Coastal setbacks in Latin America and the Caribbean: a study of emerging issues and trends that inform guidlines for coastal planning and developmetn. Washington D.C., United States of America. Stralberg, D., V. Toniolo, G. Page, and L. Stenzel. 2004. Bay, Potential impacts of non-native Sparina spread on shorebird populations in South San Francisco. Stinson Beasch, CA.
Greater Gulf of the Farallones Region Ainley, D. G., Adams, P. B., & Jahncke, J. 2014. Towards ecosystem based-fishery management in the California Current System – Predators and the preyscape: a workshop. Unpublished report to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Point Blue Conservation Science, Petaluma, California. Point Blue contribution number 1979. Retrieved December 2016, from http://www.pointblue.org/uploads/assets/calcurrent/REPORT_Forage_Fish_Workshop_F INAL.pdf
BirdLife International. 2016. Hydrobates homochroa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016. doi:/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22698562A93689680.en. Downloaded on 11 April 2018. P a g e | 38
Calambokidis, J, GH Steiger, C Curtice, J Harrison, MC Ferguson, E Becker, M DeAngelis, and SM Van Parijs. 2015. Biologically Important Areas for Selected Cetaceans Within U.S. Waters – West Coast Region. Aquatic Mammals 41(1), 39-53. DOI 10.1578/AM.41.1.2015.39
Feenstra, K.F. and D.R. Clements. 2008. Biology and Impacts of Pacific Islands Invasive Species. 4. Verbesina encelioides, Golden Crownbeard (Magnoliopsida: Asteraceae). Pacific Science, 62 (2): pp 161-176.
Halpern, B.S., K.A. Selkoe, F. Micheli, and C.V. Kappel. 2007. Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conservation Biology 21(5); 1301-1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00752.x
Halpern, B.S., C.V. Kappel, K.A. Selkoe, F. Micheli, C.M. Ebert, C. Kontgis, C.M. Crain, R.G. Martone, C. Shearer, and S.J. Teck. 2009. Mapping cumulative human impacts to California Current marine ecosystems. Conservation Letters 2: 138-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00058.x
Harris, M.P.; Wanless, Sarah; Murray, Stuart; Leitch, Alan; Wilson, Linda J. 2003. Counts of Atlantic Puffins Fratercula arctica in the Firth of Forth, south-east Scotland in 2003. Atlantic Seabirds, 5: pp 101-110.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
Largier, J.L., B.S. Cheng, and K.D. Higgason, editors. 2010. Climate Change Impacts: Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. Report of a Joint Working Group of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Advisory Councils. 121pp.
Lawley EF, Lawley JJ, Page B (2005) Effects of African boxthorn removal on native vegetation and burrowing of short-tailed shearwaters on Allthorpe Island, South Australia. Trans R Soc S Aust 129:111–115. P a g e | 39
MacCall, A.D., W.J. Sydeman, P.C. Davidson, and J.A. Thayer. 2016. Recent collapse of northern anchovy biomass off California. Fisheries Research 175: 87-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.11.013
Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Teck, S.J., B.S. Halpern, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, K.A. Selkoe, C.M. Crain, R. Martone, C. Shearer, J. Arval, B. Fischhoff, G. Murray, R. Neslo, and R. Cooke. 2010. Using expert judgment to estimate marine ecosystem vulnerability in the California Current. Ecological Applications 20(5): 1402-1416. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1173.1
Van der Wall, R., A. Truscott, S.K. Imogen, S.K. Pearce, L. Cole, M.P. Harris and S. Wanless. 2008. Multiple anthropogenic changes cause biodiversity loss through plant invasion. Global Change Biology 14: 1428–1436.