Protecting Climate Refugia Areas: The case of the Gaviota coast in southern California

[forthcoming in Endangered Species Update]

Abstract

The designation of “climate refuge areas” should be an important part of a more integrated, ecosystem-based approach to protect endangered species. Identifying “climate refugia” areas should be a priority as resource managers begin to develop adaptive policies. This article describes policy innovation in California that includes important strategic elements and goals that can support the identification and protection of climate refugia for special status species, and offers a case study of the Gaviota coast in southern California. The essay concludes with general recommendations for planning and policy development to support better protection of endangered species, and emphasizes the importance of better local land-use planning.

The Importance of Climate Refugia

This article describes recent policy innovation in California to develop an ecosystem-based approach to endangered species protection, with particular emphasis on the importance of identifying and protecting climate refugia in areas that are known as hot spots for threatened biodiversity. Scientists have begun to describe the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of resources, and show that these impacts will likely exacerbate an ecosystem’s ability to adapt to climate disturbance (Worm et al. 2006; Halpern et al. 2009). Large-scale climate disturbance will interact with and accelerate the existing anthropogenic pressures to endangered species. Indeed, scientists show that there are synergies among extinction drivers under global climate change that reflect the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of resources and climate disturbance (Brook et al. 2008). Policy innovation is needed to begin to foster large-scale, ecosystem-based adaptive conservation strategies that can better protect endangered species in an era of climate change.

The scholarly literature has expressed concern over the lack of region- or ecosystem-specific adaptation policy that can enable ecological resilience of threatened biodiversity with respect to climate disturbance. Current strategies include prescriptions at the state and federal government levels that support principles of ecosystem-based planning, and the establishment of habitat reserves that support connectivity or migration corridors, habitat buffer zones, ecological core areas, the control of non-native invasive species, and collaboration across administrative, economic and political jurisdictions (Yaffee et al. 1996). Local land use planning and policy can play a fundamental role in the protection of sensitive habitat areas and ecosystems (Brody 2004).

This article describes recent policy innovation in California that focuses on the need to develop adaptive policy at the regional and local levels to protect climate refugia throughout the state. Resource managers increasingly recognize that adaptive policy must occur at regional levels with local land use decisions and management actions that can protect endangered species that depend on climate refugia. Protecting endangered species and their habitats on private and public lands will become increasingly difficult as plants, animals and insects adjust their ranges in response to climate change. This article offers a number of preliminary strategies that should be developed at regional levels to begin to protect endangered species and climate refugia areas. Extra conservation effort is needed today to protect endangered species in parts of their habitat range that are relatively stable “climate refugia” – areas that function as important source areas from which species can expand given climate disturbance. Among the most recent recommendations in the scientific literature is the need to identify and protect climate refugia across a rapidly changing landscape and seascape (Barnosky 2007). Evidence is accumulating that emphasizes the importance of climate refugia that have historically supported ecological resilience during periods of dramatic climate disturbance, such as long term changes in environmental conditions.

Case Study: California’s Mediterranean-type Ecosystem

Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) have a rich natural history that includes long periods of ecosystem and climate-related disturbance events, such as changes in oceanographic and climate regimes. Species adapt to these changing environmental conditions by often relying on climate refugia areas. Human impacts on California’s MTE have led to the degradation of a range of habitats that serve the needs of endangered species: 55% of the State listed animals and 25% of the threatened plants depend on wetlands; 43% of the Federally listed species rely directly on wetlands for survival; estuarine wetlands have decline by 75-90%; riparian communities have declined by 90-95%; and vernal pools have declined by 90% (Noss et al. 1995; McGinnis 2009). The multiple impacts of human activities will likely exacerbate the ability of endangered species to adapt to climate change in California (California Resources Agency 2009; Halpern et al. 2009; Halpern et al. 2008). The native plants unique to California are very vulnerable to global climate change such that two-thirds of these "endemics" could suffer more than an 80 percent reduction in geographic range by the end of the century (Loarie et al. 2008). Loarie et al. (2008) point to the need for identification and better protection of existing climate refugia given the evidence of ecosystem disturbance across California’s MTE.

Adaptive Biodiversity Policy Innovation in California

California may be on the verge of establishing a new era of conservation policymaking that may influence how we can protect endangered species in the context of climate disturbance. However, policy innovation and local initiative and leadership will be needed if endangered species protection can reflect the major threats and pressures that exist today in light of recent evidence of climate disturbance. California policy requires that the public and private sectors participate in reducing California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, the existing California policy framework includes Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 375, SB 97, as well as a host of additional topic-specific bills. The California policy framework presents various obligations and opportunities for each county and city to participate in this emerging State directive. In addition, the California policy framework requires that counties and cities develop Climate Action Strategies. In December 2008, the California Air Resources Board released the state’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, which describes a range of strategies that are necessary for the state to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. A move beyond a focus or emphasis in reducing GHG is required if endangered species can be protected.

In response to the California Governor’s Executive Order S-13-2008, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft [hereafter, Discussion Draft] (2009) outlines a wide range of strategic elements that include goals and objectives for protecting biodiversity and special status species in light of increasing pressures from climate change. While California is encouraging local governments to develop plans that support these adaptive strategies, there has been little if any formal policy developed by local governments that supports the protection of climate refugia for endangered species beyond the regulatory requirements set forth by the state and federal governments, such as the Endangered Species Act, that require critical habitat designation. However, one county in California may represent the first step toward protecting climate refugia that will likely be needed for endangered species.

Protecting Climate Refugia: the case of the Gaviota coast in south California

One consequence of climate disturbance in California will be a shift of biodiversity to the north (Loarie et al. 2008). Scientists from the US Geological Survey developed the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) to assess the physical vulnerability of the California coast. They found that from San Luis Obispo to the Mexico border, communities along this coastline have “high” or “very high” vulnerability to climate change. One area identified as climate refugia is the Gaviota coastal (GC), which is part of one of the most threatened “hot spots” for biodiversity in the world (McGinnis et al. 2009; National Park Service 2004; Stein et al. 2000). The GC extends from Coal Oil Point to Point Sal and includes the coastal watersheds and terrestrial foothill and mountain ecosystems associated with the transverse Santa Ynez Range. Map 1 depicts the GC and areas of high conservation value (Conception Coast Project 2004).

In 2004, the National Park Service (NPS) completed a feasibility study that included an evaluation of the GC as California’s second national seashore (the only national seashore is the Point Reyes National Seashore north of San Francisco). According to the NPS (2004), the GC includes two of the most biologically diverse ecoregions in the world, and some of the highest concentrations globally-important, rare species in the nation. Of the approximately 1,400 plant and animal species estimated to exist within GC, there are 24 federally- or state-listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species and another 60 considered rare or of special concern. The NPS concluded that the quality and scope of GC’s natural and cultural resources qualify it for inclusion in the National Park system. But because of the preponderance of private land in the area, the NPS found that it would not be feasible to add Gaviota to the National Park system at that time.

In March 2009, Santa Barbara County initiated the long-term development of a Climate Action Strategy (CAS) that would include or consider biodiversity concerns. In addition, the County Board of Supervisors voted to support a Gaviota Coast Rural Regional Planning (RRP) process, which may lead to the development of new policies in the County’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (LCP) that can protect endangered species. The County’s CAS and RRP processes are unusual insofar as they include biodiversity protection measures, and the local effort may represent the first local effort in California to consider climate change and endangered species protection.

While climate-related policy development will necessarily include broad spatial scales, decision makers increasingly recognize that implementation must occur at the local level with local land use decisions. With respect to the planning process for identifying and protection of climate refugia, Figure 1 depicts the ideal planning process to begin to address endangered species issues at the county level.

The following planning stages are recommended to begin to identify and protect climate refugia at the local level [see Figure above].

Stage 1 - Identification of Pressures. Climate change will have direct and indirect pressures and impacts on areas designated as critical habitat and environmental sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs). Existing protected areas, such as ecological reserves, wildlife areas, undesignated lands, mitigation sites, and easements will likely be impacted by climate change. A more comprehensive, ecosystem-based and cumulative assessment that includes the identification of multiple pressures or stressors on endangered species and their habitat needs should be included in local land use planning.

Stage 2 - A comprehensive vulnerability analysis should be conducted to establish the type and extent of potential climate changes (such as sea level rise, storm surges, and changing ocean conditions) and how these changes will impact natural habitats and endangered species. Smaller communities are particularly vulnerable as they lack many important resources for effective adaptation. A vulnerability analysis must include detailed mapping that contains “measures of physical risk,” identification of threatened habitats, among other factors. Coupled with an inventory, this analysis can determine the most successful places that exist for ensuring migration of sensitive habitat, such as coastal wetlands, and species.
The vulnerability analysis should be used as one foundation to develop adaptation strategies (both overarching and specific) to protect endangered species. As much as possible, each adaptive strategy should be accompanied by case studies that elucidate that strategy and guidance on how it should be implemented. For example, changes in creek, wetland, and coastal bluff buffer areas and other adaptive strategies that are needed to protect sensitive habitat areas should be incorporated in local plans. In addition, the vulnerability analysis should carefully depict and describe information gaps.

To assist in the regional vulnerability analysis, regional interagency and working groups representing government and non-governmental organizations, e.g. state parks, and the private sector may be needed to discuss and recommend adoption of policies to protect biodiversity. Such a working group could also include the use of a Scientific Advisory Panel to assist in the development of guiding principles to protect biodiversity.

Stage 3 - Identification of Climate Refugia. A number of guiding principles should be emphasized in the identification of climate refugia including the following goals:
o Maintain healthy, connected, genetically diverse populations
o Improve resiliency of existing habitats in order to maintain existing or new assemblages of species
o Reduce non-climate stressors on ecosystems (i.e. invasive species)
o Protect coastal wetlands and accommodate sea level rise
o Consider climate change models as well as historical data when making projections
o Employ monitoring and adaptive management
o Adopt adaptation approaches that reduce risks to species and habitats and provide time for species evolution and development.

With respect to the identification of climate refugia, the precautionary principle must be employed to buffer against scientific uncertainty. There are synergistic effects and positive feedback loops of human-induced climate change, other human impacts, and natural disturbances which make decisions about policy solutions difficult.

The identification of climate refugia should include priority management goals to preserve core habitat and migration corridors. Since climate disturbance will continue to cause plant communities and species’ ranges to shift, adaptive corridors of continuous habitat must be preserved to enable future shifts in ranges and resiliency in ecosystems. Routes containing viable native habitats for plant pollination vectors (wind and insect) and which connect existing and predicted future habitat areas can be mapped and protected. The identification of climate refugia should also include policy development that emphasizes a careful review and assessment of existing land use plans and policies, such as Local Coastal Plans, and other elements such as biological thresholds and environmental sensitive habitat areas.

Stages 4, 5 and 6 - Development of Adaptive Strategic Elements. City and county plans should be amended to include special conservation measures that can support the ecological resilience of endangered species and climate refugia. Amendment and revision of city and county general plans should support an integrated, ecosystem-based approach that includes resources that support long-term monitoring of climate refugia areas, and land use elements should be revised as new information becomes available.

Conclusion

The long-term impacts from climate change on special status species are likely to be dramatic. In the context of climate change, the goal of protecting special status species is exacerbated by the cumulative or synergistic impacts of the multiple-use of resources and the expected pressures from large-scale climate disturbance. This article reviewed recent policy development in California and offered a number of recommendations for cities and counties to begin to develop biodiversity conservation measures that can better protect endangered species and climate refugia. Policy innovation that moves beyond the emphasis in reducing greenhouse gases is needed today that supports the ecological resilience and adaptation of species that are essential to the maintenance of the ecosystem goods and services that are provided by healthy ecosystems.

REFERENCES

Barnosky, A.D. 2008. Climate change, refugia, and biodiversity: where do we go from here? An editorial comment. Climate Change 86: 29-32.
Brody, S.D. 2004. Implementing the Principles of Ecosystem Management Through Local Land Use Planning. Population & Environment 24, 6: 1573-1578.
California Resources Agency. August 4, 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/
Halpern, B.S. et al. 2009. Mapping cumulative human impacts to California Current. Conservation Letters. 1-11. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/GlobalMarine/impacts
Halpern, B.S., K.L. McLeod, A.A. Rosenberg, and L.B. Crowder. 2008. Understanding cumulative and interactive impacts as a basis for ecosystem-based management and ocean zoning. Ocean and Coastal Management 51:203-211.
Loarie, S.R., B.E. Carter, K. Hayhoe, S. McMahon, R. Moe. 2008. Climate Change and the Future of California's Endemic Flora. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002502
McGinnis, M.V., W. Su, A. Willsey, and J. Tiegs. 2009. Developing Adaptive Policy to Climate Disturbance in Santa Barbara County. Ocean and Coastal Policy Center White Paper. University of California Santa Barbara. Marine Science Institute. September.
Miller, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17: 2145-2151.
National Park Service. 2004. Final Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study. March 9. http://www.nps.gov/pwro/gaviota/
Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
Worm, B. et al. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314: 787-790.
Yaffee, S.L., A.F. Phillips, I.C. Frentz, P. Hardy, S. Maleki, and B.E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. Washington, DC: Island Press.