A Landscape Conservation Design for the Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands Landscape Conservation Cooperative

Transcription

1 A Landscape Conservation Design for the Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands Landscape Conservation Cooperative Contacts: Aaron Poe ABSI LCC Science Coordinator Douglas Burn ABSI LCC Coordinator The Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands (ABSI) region supports a number of species identified by FWS as priorities, including all three of the Service s marine mammal trust species and a large percentage of the breeding seabirds in the U.S. The incredible biological productivity of this region is also reflected in the prolific commercial fisheries which account for 50% of the total U.S. seafood landings. This ecosystem is also vital to the subsistence lifestyles of some of Alaska s most isolated communities. The remoteness of this region has not spared it from widespread conservation threats related to climate change and other environmental stressors. Threats include direct and devastating impacts to seabird populations from invasive and introduced species. Threats also come in the form of potentially catastrophic oil spills from vessels transiting some of the world s busiest shipping routes, including the currently expanding Northern Sea Route into the Arctic Ocean. Wide-ranging and cascading effects on food webs have already been observed and linked to abrupt changes in climate, while managers of commercial fisheries invest millions of dollars to monitor and adapt to further ecosystem perturbations. The global transport of bio-accumulating contaminants as well as a legacy of former military sites further threatens top level predators like seabirds and marine mammals as well as the region s remote communities dependent on subsistence harvest. Agencies including the FWS and numerous local, state, national and international organizations are racing to understand these threats with substantial research investments. These efforts contribute new data and information to advance our understanding of the ecosystem, but there is a profound need for integrated management efforts focused on threats to fish and wildlife from landscapescale stressors that cross multiple jurisdictions. The proposed Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) is an approach for the FWS to work with other managers to put conservation priorities into action within the ABSI region. Proposed Approach The Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands Landscape Conservation Cooperative (ABSI LCC) has developed a Strategic Science Plan to guide our applied science investments for the next five years. The plan is organized around six landscape-scale stressors of importance within the ABSI region. Climate variability and change is identified as our primary focus, with marine vessel traffic; invasive and introduced species; and contaminants and pollutants identified as secondary foci. The remaining two stressors, commercial fishing and ocean acidification, have initially been given a tertiary focus, in large part due to the ongoing efforts of other Federal and State partners on these issues. The ABSI LCC is in the process of conducting vulnerability assessments for each of our primary and secondary landscape-scale stressors in the ABSI region, with results expected in These vulnerability assessments will be powered by a suite of identified information needs and will be based on spatially-explicit data that identifies the where and when relative to the effects of 1

2 each stressor. Ultimately each vulnerability assessment will provide two essential contributions to adaptation planning (Glick et al ) including help in: Identifying which species or systems are likely to be the most strongly affected by projected changes relative to each stressor ; and Understanding why these resources are likely to be vulnerable, including interaction between multiple stressors. By addressing specific stressors we can focus our science investments, refine biological planning efforts within the region (e.g., FWS priority species in Alaska), and begin targeted discussions with managers and stakeholders. Further, determining which fish and wildlife resources are most vulnerable enables managers to better set priorities for conservation action, while understanding why they are vulnerable provides a basis for developing the appropriate management and conservation responses. After development of individual vulnerability assessments, the ABSI LCC intends to conduct a synthesis in 2015 that will integrate the results of each to address compounding effects to resources as well as evaluate potential interactions between stressors. For example, reductions in summer sea ice resulting from climate change may increase fish and wildlife vulnerabilities to spills as commercial vessel traffic increases. Assessing these integrated vulnerabilities will inform the development of management strategies and actions as well as improvements to industry and stakeholder practices that minimize further impacts to fish and wildlife resources and promote adaptation strategies. The diversity of approaches that might be taken by managers, industry, or stakeholders is collectively referred to as design elements. Some design elements (e.g., improvements to vessel routing or the positioning of spill response equipment) will be readily apparent based on the results of the vulnerability assessments alone. Others may require further information or planning efforts to help managers and stakeholders develop and prioritize individual design elements. For example, if expansion of introduced ungulate populations will increase vulnerabilities of seabirds due to habitat degradation, yet stakeholders can t agree on actions to be taken, the LCC could initiate a collaborative planning process to identify mutually agreeable design elements. Clearly partners in the region will be central to any effective LCD and convening efforts such as this would be a key area of contribution for the ABSI LCC. An Example Based on our current efforts assessing resource vulnerabilities related to marine vessel traffic we have identified a number of information needs are readily identifiable, including existing vessel routes and environmental factors such as surface winds and currents, and sea ice distribution (Figure 1). Together, these data layers can be combined to model the risk of exposure to oil spills from vessel groundings. Combining the risk of exposure with priority resources and ecosystem 1 Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson, editors Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A guide to Climate Change. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC. 2

3 services (such as seabirds, marine mammals, and subsistence uses), along with an understanding of spill response capabilities, leads to an overall vulnerability assessment for this stressor. Having identified which fish and wildlife resources, as well as where, when, and why they are vulnerable, allows the creation of specific design elements such as geographic spill response strategies, recommended vessel routes, or locations for optimal placement of response vessels with the capability to tow derelict vessels to safety. Certainly design elements to address marine vessel traffic would require consultation and sustained engagement with industry and regulatory management agencies. The partners arrayed around the ABSI LCC, including agencies and NGOs working on vessel traffic, would be tapped to facilitate this engagement. Figure 1. A conceptual model of marine vessel traffic information needs, feeding into a vulnerability assessment and resulting in design elements that would be one component of an overall LCD for the ABSI region. Priority resources and ecosystem services are at risk from multiple landscape-scale stressors. In many cases, there are important interactions between them. Some examples include: Diminished Arctic sea ice due to climate change is opening up new marine shipping routes through the Bering Strait; Invasive species may be transported in vessel ballast water; 3

4 Changes in atmospheric circulation patterns may alter global transport of contaminants and pollutants. By compiling the necessary base data layers, we can model these interactions and develop appropriate design elements for each landscape-scale stressors. These together then collectively result in an LCD for the region where partners are engaged in contributing to the overall conservation design (Figure 2). Landscape Conservation Design Marine Vessel Traffic (MVT) Information Needs MVT MVT Design Elements Invasive & Introduced Species (IIS) Information Needs IIS IIS Design Elements Contaminants & Pollutants (CP) Information Needs CP CP Design Elements Climate Vulnerability & Change (CVC) Information Needs CVC CVC Design Elements Figure 2. Integration of multiple vulnerability assessments within the ABSI region results in an overall Landscape Conservation Design. Clearly this collaboration with the managers and stakeholders most capable of implementing the resulting design elements is critical to the effectiveness of the overall LCD. This step is especially important when operating at landscape scales where managers assess the effects of stressors that cross multiple jurisdictions. It is important to note that individual design elements are modular actions that can be implemented as soon as elements are agreed to, rather than awaiting completion of the overall LCD. This approach of an emerging, ground-up conservation design is in contrast to more open-ended planning efforts that attempt to create an allencompassing plan before implementation may begin. Such plans are inherently difficult to enact in their entirety especially in situations where dozens of entities must come to agreement. 4

5 Again, the ABSI LCC would be instrumental in convening the appropriate group of managers and properly framing discussions around proposed design elements. As with any adaptive management regime, monitoring is an essential component of an LCD. First and foremost, monitoring the effectiveness of design elements will ensure that they are being implemented properly and are delivering the intended conservation benefits. For example, assuming new vessel routes are established as design elements it becomes vital to know if vessels are following the new routes so that expected impacts to priority species are minimized. A second component involves monitoring the status of the landscape-scape stressors themselves. Vulnerability assessments are conducted based on the current understanding of each stressor. These underlying stressors, and/or our understanding of them, will undoubtedly change over time. Therefore, vulnerability assessments require periodic validation. For example, assuming design elements are created to address threats from terrestrial invasive species it may still be necessary to be vigilant for possible impacts from invasive aquatic species. FWS 2 Partner Roles, Responsibilities, and Benefits Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Brings a four decade history of landscape-scale monitoring that uses seabirds as surrogate species to indicate the health of the islands and ocean. This has been accomplished through diverse connections with ecosystem scientists and made possible by their designation as a demonstration refuge for of natural resource science. These data are currently being used by a diversity of researchers to evaluate effects of two landscape-scale stressors: climate variability and change as well as the ecosystem effects of commercial fishing. Manages more than 50% of the land in the LCC and has made substantial programmatic investments in directly addressing two stressors identified by ABSI LCC: invasive and introduced species as well as contaminants and pollutants, and has a profound interest in potential threats from marine vessel traffic. Has been instrumental in identifying landscape scale stressors for ABSI LCC through their participation on Steering Committee and the early efforts of their veteran Supervisory Biologist, Vernon Byrd whose synthesis efforts helped establish the current science agenda of the LCC. Refuges Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Has identified inventory and monitoring priorities for the refuge through their recent I&M needs assessment and is working with the Alaska Maritime Refuge to draft an I&M plan in preparation for a future Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) revision. Has been asked to support a workshop/peer review effort and synthesis project to refining current seabird monitoring program to ensure that it clearly informs 2 This evaluation focusses specifically on FWS roles and contributions for the proposed LCD. Clearly a broad array of managers, industry, and other stakeholders would make key contributions and have compelling reasons to support the proposed effort. 5

6 management priorities and will be useful in illuminating landscape level threats though a formalized review/analysis process. Has been asked to support a workshop/review of invasive species inventory and monitoring techniques to improve the effectiveness of eradication and abatement programs through the development of new pre and post treatment monitoring. Other Key FWS Programs The Migratory Bird Management Office has substantial investments in monitoring seabird species in the region and together with the Alaska Maritime Refuge and the ABSI LCC is assessing vulnerabilities associated with vessel traffic and climate change. The Marine Mammals Management Office has management authority for three trust species of marine mammals (northern sea otter, polar bear, and Pacific walrus), threatened by landscape-scale stressor within the ABSI region. The Fisheries and Ecological Services Division oversees implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Of the few Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species in Alaska, most occur within the ABSI region including Spectacled and Steller s eiders, short-tailed albatross which like the mammals above are threatened by these stressors. ABSI LCC Has a program of work framed around completing an integrated vulnerability assessment of four landscape scale stressors identified in its Strategic Science Plan (climate variability and change, invasive and introduced species, marine vessel traffic, and contaminants and pollutants) that would establish the spatial and temporal framework (the what, when, where and why) of fish and wildlife vulnerabilities. Has capacity in its agency, Alaska Native and NGO partners to bring additional land and resource managers as well as stakeholders from the ABSI region to the table to discuss management implications relative to these vulnerabilities and collaboratively develop a suite of design elements targeted on key fish and wildlife vulnerabilities. Can draw on the strengths of the National Network of LCCs, including a community practicing landscape conservation design, as well as colleagues attempting to develop landscape level strategies for other Island-based LCCs. The ABSI region includes the Alaska Maritime Refuge s Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea units which are the majority of the refuge s land mass, leading to a natural partnership. Near-term Actions (FY ) Actions Timeframe Budget support Marine vessel traffic vulnerability assessment (spatial analysis of key species and areas) Months 1-10 ABSI and NGO partners Climate change vulnerability assessment ABSI and Alaska Climate Months 1-10 Science Center Vessel traffic simulation and drift/trajectory modelling to improve precision of vessel traffic Months 6-12 $100,000 vulnerability and assess response capabilities Convene an expert review effort for terrestrial invasive species inventory, monitoring efforts that Months 6-12 $40,000 6

7 have been led by the Maritime Refuge and partners Invasive/introduced species vulnerability assessment Month 6-18 ABSI and partners Pollutants/contaminants vulnerability assessment Month 6-18 ABSI and partners Convene an expert review effort over the 4 decades of seabird inventory and monitoring efforts that have been led by the Maritime Refuge and Migratory Birds Targeted engagement sessions with industry and oversight agencies to explore feasibility of collective action on landscape stressors linked to regional management practices for vessel traffic, invasive/introduce species and commercial fishing Integrated assessment of vulnerabilities to identify key species and areas of focus Development of interactive database portraying vulnerabilities developed to engage managers, stakeholders, and industry Months 6-18 $80,000 Months $30,000 Months ABSI investment Months $40,000 TOTAL $290,000 Longer Term (FY ) By the close of FY2015 we will have completed an integrated vulnerability assessment and established the partner relationships and data interface necessary for the development of design elements. This process will involve a series of focused discussions and is expected to take approximately one year, after which time those design elements pertinent to the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge could be incorporated into management actions. Further, by leading this LCD effort the ABSI LCC can ensure that the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and FWS programmatic priorities are systematically addressed at a landscape scale. The range of potential design elements where other managers, industry or stakeholders are the logical lead could similarly be launched in Those efforts will ideally inspire others focused on collaborative assessment of vulnerabilities and further contributions of elements to a broader design for region. Assessing resource vulnerabilities related to commercial fishing is one logical extension of an LCD for the ABSI region. Though the FWS wouldn t lead such an effort, sharing this framework for collaboration with fisheries managers and industry could result in additional capacity for the FWS to meet its species conservation objectives as well as address concerns of others about the sustainability of this vital fishery. Conclusion In a broad sense, an LCD identifies desired future conditions for fish and wildlife resources relative to landscape-scale threats, and creates integrated strategies for managers and stakeholders to achieve those conditions. This document outlines an LCD approach for the ABSI region that: 1) identifies specific fish and wildlife resource vulnerabilities resulting from landscape-scale threats; 2) identifies focused science needs in response to those threats as well as the landscape planning tools necessary to address them and; 3) creates a process where the ABSI LCC can facilitate development of an LCD that integrates contributions of multiple agencies and stakeholders to address landscape-scale threats in the ABSI region. 7