Mary Ruckelshaus

ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CANDIDATE SITES FOR MARINE RESERVES

Several schemes have been developed to help select the locations of marine reserves. All of them combine social, economic, and biological criteria, and few offer any guidance as to how to prioritize among the criteria identified. This can imply that the relative weights given to different criteria are unimportant. Where two sites are of equal value ecologically; then socioeconomic criteria should dominate the choice of which should be protected. However, in many cases, socioeconomic criteria are given equal or greater weight than ecological considerations in the choice of sites. This can lead to selection of reserves with little biological value that fail to meet many of the desired objectives. To avoid such a possibility, we develop a series of criteria that allow preliminary evaluation of candidate sites according to their relative biological values in advance of the application of socioeconomic criteria. We include criteria that,. while not strictly biological, have a strong influence on the species present or ecological processes. Out scheme enables sites to be assessed according to their biodiversity, the processes which underpin that diversity, and the processes that support fisheries and provide a spectrum of other services important to people. Criteria that capture biodiversity values include biogeographic representation, habitat representation and heterogeneity, and presence of species or populations of special interest (e.g., threatened species). Criteria that capture sustainability of biodiversity and fishery values include the size of reserves necessary to protect viable habitats, presence of exploitable species, vulnerable life stages, connectivity among reserves, links among ecosystems, and provision of ecosystem services to people. Criteria measuring human and natural threats enable candidate sites to be eliminated from consideration if risks are too great, but also help prioritize among sites where threats can be mitigated by protection. While our criteria can be applied to the design of reserve networks, they also enable choice of single reserves to be made in the context of the attributes of existing protected areas. The overall goal of our scheme is to promote the development of reserve networks that will maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning at large scales. The values of eco-system goods and services for people ultimately depend on meeting this objective.

Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning

The declining health of marine ecosystems around the world is evidence that current piecemeal governance is inadequate to successfully support healthy coastal and ocean ecosystems and sustain human uses of the ocean. One proposed solution to this problem is ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (MSP), which is a process that informs the spatial distribution of activities in the ocean so that existing and emerging uses can be maintained, use conflicts reduced, and ecosystem health and services protected and sustained for future generations. Because a key goal of ecosystem-based MSP is to maintain the delivery of ecosystem services that humans want and need, it must be based on ecological principles that articulate the scientifically recognized attributes of healthy, functioning ecosystems. These principles should be incorporated into a decision-making framework with clearly defined targets for these ecological attributes. This paper identifies ecological principles for MSP based on a synthesis of previously suggested and/or operationalized principles, along with recommendations generated by a group of twenty ecologists and marine scientists with diverse backgrounds and perspectives on MSP. The proposed four main ecological principles to guide MSP--maintaining or restoring: native species diversity, habitat diversity and heterogeneity, key species, and connectivity--and two additional guidelines, the need to account for context and uncertainty, must be explicitly taken into account in the planning process. When applied in concert with social, economic, and governance principles, these ecological principles can inform the designation and siting of ocean uses and the management of activities in the ocean to maintain or restore healthy ecosystems, allow delivery of marine ecosystem services, and ensure sustainable economic and social benefits.

Application of ecological criteria in selecting marine reserves and developing reserve networks

Marine reserves are being established worldwide in response to a growing recognition of the conservation crisis that is building in the oceans. However, designation of reserves has been largely opportunistic, or protective measures have been implemented (often overlapping and sometimes in conflict) by different entities seeking to achieve dif- ferent ends. This has created confusion among both users and enforcers, and the proliferation of different measures provides a false sense of protection where little is offered. This paper sets out a procedure grounded in current understanding of ecological processes, that allows the evaluation and selection of reserve sites in order to develop functional, interconnected networks of fully protected reserves that will fulfill multiple objectives. By fully protected we mean permanently closed to fishing and other resource extraction. We provide a frame- work that unifies the central aims of conservation and fishery management, while also meeting other human needs such as the provision of ecosystem services (e.g., maintenance of coastal water quality, shoreline protection, and recreational opportunities). In our scheme, candidate sites for reserves are evaluated against 12 criteria focused toward sustaining the biological integrity and productivity of marine systems at both local and regional scales. While a limited number of sites will be indispensable in a network, many will be of similar value as reserves, allowing the design of numerous alternative, biologically adequate net- works. Devising multiple network designs will help ensure that ecological functionality is preserved throughout the socioeconomic evaluation process. Too often, socioeconomic cri- teria have dominated the process of reserve selection, potentially undermining their efficacy. We argue that application of biological criteria must precede and inform socioeconomic evaluation, since maintenance of ecosystem functioning is essential for meeting all of the goals for reserves. It is critical that stakeholders are fully involved throughout this process. Application of the proposed criteria will lead to networks whose multifunctionality will help unite the objectives of different management entities, so accelerating progress toward improved stewardship of the oceans.

USING SITING ALGORITHMS IN THE DESIGN OF MARINE RESERVE NETWORKS

Using benthic habitat data from the Florida Keys (USA), we demonstrate how siting algorithms can help identify potential networks of marine reserves that com- prehensively represent target habitat types. We applied a flexible optimization tool—sim- ulated annealing—to represent a fixed proportion of different marine habitat types within a geographic area. We investigated the relative influence of spatial information, planning- unit size, detail of habitat classification, and magnitude of the overall conservation goal on the resulting network scenarios. With this method, we were able to identify many adequate reserve systems that met the conservation goals, e.g., representing at least 20% of each conservation target (i.e., habitat type) while fulfilling the overall aim of minimizing the system area and perimeter. One of the most useful types of information provided by this siting algorithm comes from an irreplaceability analysis, which is a count of the number of times unique planning units were included in reserve system scenarios. This analysis indicated that many different combinations of sites produced networks that met the conservation goals. While individual 1-km 2 areas were fairly interchangeable, the ir- replaceability analysis highlighted larger areas within the planning region that were chosen consistently to meet the goals incorporated into the algorithm. Additionally, we found that reserve systems designed with a high degree of spatial clustering tended to have consid- erably less perimeter and larger overall areas in reserve—a configuration that may be preferable particularly for sociopolitical reasons. This exercise illustrates the value of using the simulated annealing algorithm to help site marine reserves: the approach makes efficient use of available resources, can be used interactively by conservation decision makers, and offers biologically suitable alternative networks from which an effective system of marine reserves can be crafted.

Ecosystem Services as a Common Language for Coastal Ecosystem‐Based Management

Ecosystem-based management is logistically and politically challenging because ecosystems are inherently complex and management decisions affect a multitude of groups. Coastal ecosystems, which lie at the interface between marine and terrestrial ecosystems and provide an array of ecosystem services to different groups, aptly illustrate these challenges. Successful ecosystem-based management of coastal ecosystems requires incorporating scientific information and the knowledge and views of interested parties into the decision-making process. Estimating the provision of ecosystem services under alternative management schemes offers a systematic way to incorporate biogeophysical and socioeconomic information and the views of individuals and groups in the policy and management process. Employing ecosystem services as a common language to improve the process of ecosystem-based management presents both benefits and difficulties. Benefits include a transparent method for assessing trade-offs associated with management alternatives, a common set of facts and common currency on which to base negotiations, and improved communication among groups with competing interests or differing worldviews. Yet challenges to this approach remain, including predicting how human interventions will affect ecosystems, how such changes will affect the provision of ecosystem services, and how changes in service provision will affect the welfare of different groups in society. In a case study from Puget Sound, Washington, we illustrate the potential of applying ecosystem services as a common language for ecosystem-based management.

Climate Change, Ecosystem Impacts, and Management for Pacific Salmon

Abstract As climate change intensifies, there is increasing interest in developing models that reduce uncertainties in projections of global climate and refine these projections to finer spatial scales. Forecasts of climate impacts on ecosystems are far more challenging and their uncertainties even larger because of a limited understanding of physical controls on biological systems. Management and conservation plans that explicitly account for changing climate are rare and even those generally rely on retrospective analyses rather than future scenarios of climatic conditions and associated responses of specific ecosystems. Using past biophysical relationships as a guide to predicting the impacts of future climate change assumes that the observed relationships will remain constant. However, this assumption involves a long chain of uncertainty about future greenhouse gas emissions, climate sensitivity to changes in greenhouse gases, and the ecological consequences of climate change. These uncertainties in f...

INCORPORATING CATASTROPHIC RISK ASSESSMENTS INTO SETTING CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THREATENED PACIFIC SALMON

Catastrophic die-offs can have important consequences for vertebrate population growth and biodiversity, but catastrophic risks are not commonly incorporated into endangered-species recovery planning. Natural (e.g., landslides, floods) and anthropogenic (e.g., toxic leaks and spills) catastrophes pose a challenge for evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of Pacific salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act and teetering at precariously low population levels. To spread risks among Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, recovery strategies for ESU-wide viability recommend at least two viable populations of historical life-history types in each of five geographic regions. We explored the likelihood of Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU persistence by examining spatial patterns of catastrophic risk and testing ESU viability recommendations for 22 populations of the threatened Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU. We combined geospatial information about catastrophic risks and chinook salmon distribution in Puget Sound watersheds to categorize relative catastrophic risks for each population. We then analyzed similarities in risk scores among regions and compared risk distributions among strategies: (1) population groups selected using the ESU viability recommendations of having populations spread out geographically and including historical life-history diversity, and (2) population groups selected at random. Risks from individual catastrophes varied among populations, but overall risk from catastrophes was similar within geographic regions. Recovery strategies that called for two viable populations in each of five geographic regions had lower risk than random strategies; strategies that included life-history diversity had even lower risks. Geographically distributed populations have varying catastrophic-risks profiles, thus identifying and reinforcing the spatial and life-history diversity critical for populations to respond to environmental change or needed to rescue severely depleted or extirpated populations. Recovery planning can promote viability of Pacific salmon ESUs across the landscape by incorporating catastrophic risk assessments.

Reevaluating the Use of Models to Predict the Consequences of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation

Because habitat fragmentation is severe and widespread, it has become the focus of much conservation research. One particularly popular approach involves the development of spatially explicit population models (SEPMs) that are used to evaluate the consequences of different habitat arrangements. These landscape models typically emphasize the importance of habitat clustering to the viability of threatened species or the preservation of biodiversity in general. We caution that the data requirements of these models may often be prohibitive, and argue that alternative approaches should be explored. As examples, we use data sets involving the patterns of colonization and extinction among frog species inhabiting ponds in Michigan, and among ladybird beetles occupying patches of vegetation at Mount St. Helens. We conclude that more attention should be given to the inferences that might be obtained directly from simple monitoring data and to the possibility of alternative explanations that have little to do with fragmentation.

Misuse of Checklist Assessments in Endangered Species Recovery Efforts

ABSTRACT. Natural resource agencies worldwide must develop species recovery plans that specify threats, propose targets required for recovery, and evaluate the extent to which habitat alteration and restoration may influence species decline and recovery. To evaluate the impacts of proposed habitat alterations on species of conservation concern, standardized protocols may be adopted even when supporting data are scarce. For example, a habitat matrix was developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to guide consultations under the Endangered Species Act for actions that may affect the functioning of the freshwater habitat used by several federally listed salmonid species. The habitat matrix has also been advocated as a tool for recovery planning by agencies apart from the NMFS, who could use it to define the habitat conditions assumed to be necessary for salmonid population viability and hence recovery. This use of the habitat matrix in a recovery context has not been evaluated, and, despite its widespread use as a regulatory tool, the empirical relationships between many of the habitat matrix variables and salmonid populations remain unexplored. By amassing data on habitat assessments and trends in fish abundance, we empirically evaluate the relationship between habitat matrix scores and salmonid population metrics. We found that abundance trends for populations of three species of threatened and endangered salmonids (chinook, coho, and steelhead) were unrelated to these habitat matrix assessments. This study reveals the danger of assuming quantitative relationships between habitat and organism and cautions against co-opting protocols from the regulatory realm for recovery planning for endangered species.

Restoring Rivers in the Twenty-First Century: Science Challenges in a Management Context

Abstract Legal mandates force consideration of at least some level of river restoration in many developed nations (e.g., Clean Water and Endangered Species Act in the United States, or the Water Framework Directive in the European Union), but a lack of specifics in legislation compels decision-makers to ask three persistent management questions: (1) How much river restoration do we need? (2) How do we best achieve cost-effective river restoration? (3) How do we know we have restored enough? Moreover, the broader management context is permeated with tremendous inertia to continue development of rivers for societal and economic gain, continual application of small and fragmented restoration actions, and skepticism that river restoration can succeed in the face of climate change and steady population growth. It is in this context that we identify key science challenges for river restoration in the twenty-first century. We suggest that a fundamental shift toward restoring watershed and river processes (process-based restoration) is needed if scientists are to begin developing the tools needed to provide relevant policy answers. The basic conceptual framework of process-based restoration requires that we understand how habitat is formed and changes, how habitat changes alter biota, and how human actions alter both river habitats and the landscape processes that create river habitats. Restoration actions must then directly address human actions that caused habitat degradation, thereby addressing the root causes of biological impacts. Understanding this framework will allow scientists to better address key science challenges for advancing river restoration, including development of eco-system models to predict what kinds of and how much restoration is needed, an expanded suite of process-based restoration techniques for large river ecosystems, and comprehensive but cost-effective suites of metrics for monitoring river health.