Climate Change, Biodiversity, Southern CA

2010-01-14T13:09:00.000-08:00

The Importance of Gaviota Coast in an Era of Climate Change

2010-01-14T12:51:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity loss in an era of climate change ultimately is a consequence of the globalizing force of economic trade (in this case, the exchange of coastal and marine resources) and anthropogenic climate change. To begin to address the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of coastal marine resources and to mitigate the expected impacts from climate change, this paper’s focus is on the development of coastal marine ecosystem-based planning activities in the Euro-Mediterranean, the United States, and California. Coastal marine ecosystem-based policy is one valuable tool to protect biodiversity in an era of climate change.

The Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) of the world are unique biomes that share a common natural history – people in this areas have had to adapt to major climate events such as flooding, earthquakes, fire, and changes in the available of water and food. The question is whether the contemporary cultures can adapt to anthropogenic climate change, and the synergistic impacts of coastal marine resource use. While the issue of biodiversity loss may seem an “ephemeral” issue in today’s climate change debate, the consequences of biodiversity loss will have dramatic consequences of various peoples and places.

Ultimately, new social alliances and partnerships that combine scientists, policymakers and non-governmental organizations that support the protection of important coastal and marine are needed to address coastal marine biodiversity loss in an age of climate change.

CLIMATE DISTURBANCE AND COASTAL MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

Mediterranean cultures have changed their landscapes and their landscapes have changed society; in many ways natural history of Mediterranean culture reflect adaptations to a turbulent climate (Grove and Racknam 2001; Fagan 2004). Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) are far from homeostatic or stable systems (Blondel and Aronson 1999). Natural history reveals that the cultures of the Mediterranean have adapted to dramatic long-term change in climate. Brian Fagan, a former Guggenheim Fellow, in his most recent book, The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization, (2004) shows that fluctuations in climate dramatically affect human behavior, technology and culture. The diverse Chumash peoples of south-central coastal California faced dramatic climate events, and developed ways of adapting to changes in water availability, food supply, and dramatic weather events, including long-term, intergenerational change in the climate (Raab and Jones 2004). Mediterranean societies adapted to historic periods of drought, famine, flooding and catastrophic fire.

The five MTEs in the world are characterized by mild, rainy winters and hot, dry summers are extraordinarily rich in biodiversity, covering only 2.25 percent of the earth’s land surface. The MTEs contain 20 percent of its named vascular plant species (Rundel et al. 1998; Blondel and Aronson 1999). The five regions are:

• The southern parts of the states of South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia;
• All of California excluding desert and steppe, reaching into small parts of the state of Oregon and the Mexican state of Baja California;
• Central Chile;
• Parts of South Africa; and
• The Mediterranean region which covers all or part of thirty countries.

MTEs share many problems related to their climate, including sensitivity to climate disturbance, desertification, air and water pollution, overdrawing of groundwater, degradation of fresh water ecosystems, coastal marine habitat loss, overfishing, and urbanization. Rundel et al. (1998) note that MTEs are not steady-state ecosystems. For example, the Los Angeles River in southern California can increase its flow 3,000 fold in a 24-hour period (Davis 1998). California has experienced significant long-term droughts or extreme hydrological shifts: 892-1112 (220 years) and 1209-1350 (141 years). The longest drought of the 20th Century lasted 6 years during 1987-1992. During the last 60 years, urban development has taken place during what California Institute of Technology scientists call an “earthquake deficit” while major flooding events have been rather calm compared to the historical evidence of climate disturbance. Davis (1998) writes, “The urbanization of southern California seems to have taken place during one of the most unusual episodes of climatic and seismic benignity since the inception of the Holocene” [emphasis added]. The urban-industrial infrastructure of coastal California has changed the character and future of the region. In hope of preventing major flood events, the Los Angeles (LA) River was paved and channelized. Forty-eight percent of the LA Basin is developed, a 5% of the historical coastal wetland remain. California includes over 1200 irrigation systems that feed coastal development, agriculture, and industry. The irrigation network is a significant contributor to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The Need to protect biodiversity

Recent policy development in California represents a preliminary step to address the climate-related pressures on coastal marine biodiversity. The designation of Marine Protected Areas of MPAs represents one regulatory tool in support of an ecosystem-based approach to protect coastal marine biodiversity by limited use of marine areas. MPA network design and policy development should be linked to climate-related pressures, and should not be limited in terms of sector-based priorities, such as fisheries management.

Similar protective measures should be adopted at the regional level in coastal California.

California has also begun to assess the pressures and potential policy responses to coastal marine biodiversity loss. Over the last six years the California Climate Change Center, a state program conducting climate change research relevant to the state, has begun to characterize the expected impacts on key state resources. 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. Executive Order S-3-05, signed in 2005 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, requires both mitigation plans and adaptation strategies to manage climate-related impacts. California policy requires that the public and private sectors participate in reducing California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

While AB 32 sets a framework and process for these achieving goals of greenhouse emission reductions, it does not operationalize them. To begin executing the intended actions, the State legislature has thus far adopted thirteen bills and the Governor has signed four executive orders to provide GHG producers and regulators with additional direction regarding implementation activities. This includes the passage of SB 97, on August 24, 2007, which provides guidance on how GHG emissions are to be addressed through CEQA analysis, as well as the recent passage of the closely watched SB 375. Signed on September 30, 2008, SB 375 aligns the State’s housing mandate with regional transportation plans to effectuate a reduction in vehicle trips. Under SB 375, each of the California’s 18 Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO), is required to develop an aligned transportation and housing plan for adoption by 2013.

In addition to these topic-specific bills, AB 32 charged the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop a Scoping Plan outlining the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG goals. The Scoping Plan proposes 18 emission reduction measures, which are expected to be adopted in December 2009, with final reduction measures expected to be adopted by January 2011. These measures seek to implement AB 32’s goal of framing a new statewide policy paradigm by outlining specific strategies and actions, including those related to energy conservation and efficiency, improvements to the state’s infrastructure, regionally coordinated transportation planning practices, and market-mechanisms such as an emissions cap-and-trade program. These measures will be legally enforceable at the beginning of 2012, in order to reach the statewide emissions reduction target by 2020. The pending regulatory environment, however, does not necessarily undermine local control.

With the passage and implementation of the AB 32, California is currently investigating the various policy tools that may be needed to mitigate the expected impacts from climate change through reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In concert with these efforts, the California Resources Agency has undertaken the complicated task of developing California's first comprehensive Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS). California’s efforts include the development of a matrix of policy responses to impacts to coastal areas of the state. The CAS will have six different Climate Adaptation Working Groups that will identify and prioritize climate adaptation strategies on a per-sector basis, including:

• Biodiversity and Habitat
• Infrastructure (roads, levees, buildings, etc.)
• Oceans and Coastal Resources
• Public Health
• Water
• Working Landscapes (forestry and agriculture)

California’s Ocean and Coastal Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy will be produced by the Oceans and Coastal Resources Working Group. As of March 2009, this working group is completing an analysis for state-wide strategy that includes: 1) a vulnerability assessment will 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 infrastructure and development, human populations, economy, and natural habitats and species; and 2) coastal adaptation strategies (both overarching and specific) will address these impacts.

Santa Barbara County has begun to develop their required Climate Action Plan and has also begun the planning process to update their Gaviota Coastal Plan. This webpage focuses on the biodiversity conservation measures that are needed for both of these County plans.

Gaviota coast presentation

2009-12-29T11:33:00.000-08:00

Dr. McGinnis gave a presentation on the ecology of the Gaviota Coast at the Gaviota Coast Rural Planning Advisory Committee meeting on January 6, 2010 at 6:30pm. Information on the meeting can be found at:
http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/gaviota.php

2009-12-29T11:32:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-29T11:27:00.000-08:00

[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.

NEW PROJECT FOCUSES ON SANTA BARBARA COUNTY'S GAVIOTA COAST

2009-12-28T21:49:00.000-08:00

Background

Under Santa Barbara County’s current zoning there is significant potential for new development on the GAVIOTA COAST (GC), which will result in a significant loss of open space and inevitably of the biodiversity which distinguishes this region. The Naples (Santa Barbara Ranch) project, located two miles beyond the City boundary of Santa Barbara’s suburb of Goleta, has recently been permitted for the construction of 71 estate homes, an equestrian center, and supporting infrastructure. If built out, this project will likely begin the transformation of the GC into an urbanized area rather than a rare natural landscape. Applications for another 112 residences are already pending on the GC, in addition to about twenty proposals for creation of new lots and lot-line adjustments which are likely precursors to residential development proposals. Large parcels, long held for ranching or agriculture by families, are increasingly being sold to investors and developers.

The GC is one of the premier “hot spots” for threatened biodiversity in the world. According to the U.S. National Park Service (USNPS), 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 Country. 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. [See Attachment 1 for a list of species of concern.] This fertile coastal plain and its adjacent foothills cover approximately 100,000 acres, and support a rich variety of agricultural and ranching operations on land that has, in many cases, been family held for generations.

In 2004, the USNPS conducted a comprehensive study of the GC and 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 USNPS found that it would not be feasible to add Gaviota to the National Park System at that time. Instead, the Park Service suggested (inter alia) that landowners and the County of Santa Barbara create programs, regulations, and incentives to protect and preserve the significant biodiversity of the area.

The GC faces immediate threats of significant development which will threaten not only the rural character of this land, but will likely threaten its biodiversity. Two major planning initiatives have begun in Santa Barbara County which has the potential to effectively address these issues. The GC includes at least 38 coastal watersheds which include some of the last remaining healthy habitat for steelhead trout and other threatened and endangered species, see map at: http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/documents/GaviotaPlan_Watersheds.pdf

The County has created the Gaviota Rural Regional Planning (GRRP) process and named it as one of the highest priority projects for the county’s Long Range Planning Division in 2009-11. This planning process is designed to bring landowners, government and environmental advocates together to find mutually acceptable management policies for this irreplaceable region. Currently lacking any specific or effective County planning tools for Gaviota, and working from an outdated Local Coastal Plan (certified in 1981), much of the GC’s sensitive wildlife and untouched lands are at risk and could be lost forever to development. The goal of the GRRP is to maintain and improve existing rural land zoning designations by tightening definitions and strengthening the Local Coastal Plan (LCP), General Plan policies, biological thresholds and other policies for the GC. Although the County has assigned planning staff to this task, there is little or no available funding to conduct biological studies or collect scientific data with which to inform this important process.

The GRRP will include the use of a Gaviota Planning Advisory Council or GavPAC that will be selected in early October 2009 by Supervisor Doreen Farr of the Third District. The GavPAC will include a series of public hearings in support of the GRRP. The promulgation of mutually agreed upon regulations to prevent developments that will threaten or impact the biodiversity of the area is, perhaps, the only sustainable method of managing the natural resources of the GC, short of acquisition of the entire region, which is currently infeasible. However, reliable data on what threats exist to biodiversity on the GC must be characterized before this process can be effective. Collecting and disseminating that data is the purpose of this request.

The other Long Range Planning Division priority project selected by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for the coming year is the creation of a Countywide Climate Action Strategy (CAS). With respect to climate change, the California policy framework requires that counties and cities develop Climate Action Strategies.

The Center’s work that was funded by the Associates Students Coastal Fund this past academic year led to the introduction of a biodiversity conservation strategy in the County’s Climate Action Strategy. The County is currently the only coastal city or county in the State to include such a biodiversity conservation element in their Strategy, which is required by law. The Center’s report entitled Developing Adaptive Policy to Climate Disturbance in Santa Barbara County (published in September 2009) recommended the development of a biodiversity protection measures in the County’s General Plan, and offered a range of diverse policy tools to support better biodiversity conservation. This proposed project would support the report’s recommendations by actively engaging student contribution in a meaningful way to these two planning efforts in the County.

2009-12-28T21:44:00.001-08:00

The Ocean and Coastal Policy Center (OCPC) supports three primary educational goal – Study, Inform, & Engage. This timeline reflects these educational goals.

I. STUDY. Collection and Synthesis of Available Information on Hot Spots for Threatened Biodiversity on the Gaviota Coast. This project would support the OCPC Mentoring and Internship Program at UCSB by assisting in the development of a team of undergraduate and graduate student research interns or fellows, mentored by Dr. McGinnis, who would collect and synthesize available information on significant habitat areas, significant feeding and migration corridors, and other information about expected threats to the biodiversity of the Gaviota coast (GC). The team members, drawing on their experience and background, would then conduct a vulnerability analysis based on existing scientific information and publications regarding habitats, especially for identified endangered or vulnerable species, and will identify the most important “hot spots” of biodiversity within the GC. The analysis would be incorporated into two planning processes – the GC Rural Planning Process and the County’s Climate Action Strategy – via a public information sharing campaign described below. (November 15 2009 – January 30 2010)

II. INFORM. Write-up of Vulnerability Analysis. Team members would produce an analysis of the most threatened habitats of the GC. This analysis would represent a “briefing” for elected officials, planners, and members of the public. Please note, the County does not currently have the funds to conduct this type of project to support the planning processes. So, with funds from the Coastal Fund, our project and OCPC team members would work together to create a written vulnerability analysis that would include dissemination tools (including Power Point) to clearly and effectively present their data and conclusions to decision-makers and the public. As noted below, this proposed project would represent the implementation of several of the recommendations made in the Center’s prior report funded by CF. (January 30 –February 30 2010)

III. ENGAGE. Information Sharing Campaign. In a well organized Information Sharing Campaign, the analysis would be presented in a way that specifically addresses planning concepts and considerations in development in the County’s GC Regional Rural Planning (GRRP) and Climate Action Strategy (CAS) planning processes that have begun. The vulnerability analysis would be presented in several public workshops held by students and coordinated by Dr. McGinnis, and would be made available on the web and in printed form. This public outreach, information sharing and educational effort would include formal and informal sessions in a collaborative settings that would foster communication between scientists, policymakers, planners, and members of the public on the nature of biodiversity threats to the GC. (March 1 – April 30 2010)

Internships in Coastal Biodiversity Planning for the Santa Barbara County’s Gaviota Rural Plan and Climate Action Strategy

2009-12-28T21:20:00.000-08:00

In November 2009, the Ocean and Coastal Policy Center initiated a second project in support of Santa Barbara County's Climate Action Strategy and the Gaviota Coast Rural Planning Process. This project will be developed further during the next year.

With funding from UC Santa Barbara's Associated Students Coastal Fund, this project provides resources for students to gain professional experience in coastal policymaking in two of the most important planning efforts underway in Santa Barbara County – the Gaviota Coast Rural Planning Process and the Santa Barbara County Climate Action Strategy. Interns at the Ocean and Coastal Policy Center would gain the necessary tools in coastal planning so that they can contribute meaningful input into these planning processes. To support their participation in the planning processes, students would complete a vulnerability analysis and carry out an information sharing campaign that supports biodiversity conservation policy for the Gaviota coastal area.

Final Report Published

2009-10-08T10:05:00.000-07:00

http://ocpc.msi.ucsb.edu/pdfs/ClimateDisturbanceRpt.pdf

New Final Report is available at the above address in a digital format, and will be distributed to members of the Santa Barbara County community in late October.

WORKSHOP I - PROCEEDINGS AND UPDATE ON THE PROJECT (May 18, 2009)

2009-03-12T17:33:00.000-07:00

Developing Adaptive Policy to Climate Disturbance in
Santa Barbara County

When: APRIL 18 2009 10AM - 1PM

Location: Flying A Studios, UCEN, University of California Santa Barbara

Workshop Sponsor: UCSB’s Ocean and Coastal Policy Center (OCPC)
http://ocpc.msi.ucsb.edu/

Proceedings by Wendy Su, ESM and Graduate Research Fellow, OCPC

Guest presenter, Dr. David Revelle, managed and was a contributor to The Pacific Institute’s report, The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast. The report, released March 2009, concluded that sea-level rise will inevitably change the character of the California coast. Adaption strategies must be evaluated, tested and implemented if the risks identified in the report are to be reduced and avoided. Funded by the California Energy Commission, California Department of Transportation, and the Ocean Protection Council, the report focuses on human infrastructure, changes to human habitats and wetland impacts although impacts on coastal marine biodiversity will also be significant. The discussion following Dr. Revelle’s presentation discussed the report and further explored policy tools to protect coastal marine biodiversity.

Climate change impacts on biodiversity will be difficult to quantify for many areas due to a lack of an existing baseline. Many at the table agreed that research will have to continue and will need to be supported. Complicating matters further, the sea level rise zero baseline is shifting due to the 19-year tidal gauge update.

Meanwhile, suggestions include implementing interim protection policies until more site specific information is available to make sound management decisions, basically using a precautionary multi-disciplinary approach which translates the science of climate change into zoning and other local policies as needed. Restoration projects along coastal areas are of particular concern especially when it comes to projects that may be severely impacted by climate change in the form of sea-level rise. The existence of restored areas provides refuge for species which may become more vulnerable due to the habitat threats posed by climate threats, and also becomes a source in situations where repopulation may be necessary. Along with this concern for restoration projects, there also appeared some positive opportunities for creating and restoring wetlands. This is particularly true in areas where infrastructures are not built up right to the edge of wetland ecosystems, where zoning can be altered to accommodate future climate threats or marine reserves implemented. Restoration of watersheds will protect water systems which may be threatened by salt water inundation from sea-level rise. There is a lack of a system of incentives to promote restoration as a buffer against climate change.

Climate change provides opportunities to combine conservation with planning. For example, an assessment of the economic impacts of not providing a climate buffer around infrastructure or biodiversity hotspots melds these two disciplines. While a biodiversity focus in conservation planning for climate change is admirable, broadening the scope to include ecosystem services and functions is the key to ensuring ecosystem resiliency. For planning, it will be imperative to create a list of species and habitats at risk. There is still quite a bit that humans do not know about some species. In these cases, it will be necessary to make predictions based on the best available science while regional and local vulnerability assessments are developed. Another option to consider is wildlife corridors which can be used not just over space but also over time as climate changes, thus climate corridors. In this way, not just wildlife but habitat can migrate over time as habitats adjust to climate change. These linkages will be an important tool in protecting the ecosystem particularly in fragmented areas. Maintaining ecosystem processes allows ecosystem resiliency. Again there should be incentives in place to promote preserving ecosystem services and planning for resiliency. To account for all the benefits that these natural systems provide, natural capital evaluation methods need to improve.

In the process of conservation planning for climate change impacts on biodiversity, there are many hurdles. For one, many regulatory agencies are involved. The overlap in jurisdiction, as well as unclear agency goals, results in delay after delay in the permitting process. Some roundtable members offered the idea of using legitimate state interest clauses to implement policy although there are inter-jurisdictional differences in the interpretation of “legitimate state interest.” Others discussed the idea of expanding California’s coastal zone designation to include areas that will be in the coastal zone in the future so the California Coastal Commission would gain more funding under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Additionally, a gap exists between policy and science. Whereas science offers long-term predictions, policy focuses on the short-term. There exists an inherent conservatism in the scientific community as well which needs to be recognized when creating policy based on scientific information. For example, when planning for 2050 use 2100 predictions for sea-level rise and realize that it may occur well before 2100. Lastly, the implementation of the AB 32 statutory requirement at the local city and county level will result in fewer resources dedicated to sea level rise and biodiversity-focused policies.

Several possible responses to these hurdles were suggested. Increased public communication and community involvement will raise awareness of the challenges that the environment is facing. Education may help to raise additional funds for projects. The University of Washington’s Local Climate Adaptation template plan provides an example of a plan that incorporates climate change. A LEED-like system which adds value to ecosystem restoration and preservation for property-owners would encourage conservation. Giving the general voting population power to amend the General Plan would avoid specific interest-related amendments. Further participation in the Coastal Commission Adaptation Process would ensure that biodiversity issues remain on the table. The CZMA renewal this year by Congress will ensure the continuance of coastal planning processes. Additionally, it was mentioned that since the Coastal Commission and local governments have little political capital, most agencies are looking towards a California Supreme Court decision on public trust doctrine before taking action on climate change responses.

In closing, the discussion members agreed that climate change impacts on biodiversity are uncertain and that further research as well as a precautionary approach would be the best management decision until local or regional ecosystem and biodiversity assessments are carried out.

_____________

Update on the Project, May 18, 2009
by Dr. Michael V. McGinnis, Project Manager

At the March 2009 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors hearing on the long-range planning effort to develop a Climate Action Strategy, the supervisors voted in favor of including in the Strategy biodiversity protection measures. This represents an important step toward biodiversity protection at the county level; it may represent the first such effort in coastal cities and counties to address the climate-related pressures and expected impacts on biodiversity.

In late June 2009, the Ocean and Coastal Policy Center at UCSB will be publishing on the web, and producing hard copies of a report. This report will include a broad survey of the various pressures on coastal marine biodiversity in the region, including anthropogenic climate change. The report will also include a characterization of a range of policy tools that are needed to respond to these pressures.

Below, a number of general planning tools for the County and City are recommended. These recommendations were based on the discussion of participants in Workshop 1, held on 18 April at UCSB. Additional measures by state and federal authorities will also be required. Ideally, new partnership across political, economic and administrative jurisdictions that include non-governmental organizations and the private sector should be developed to address the transboundary pressures of climate change. Additional adaptive strategies, policies and actions in support of the protection of coastal marine biodiversity and other land-use issues at the local level are available in Appendix 2 and 3 of this report.

1) Vulnerability analysis should 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 coastal infrastructure and development, human populations, economy, and natural habitats and species. The vulnerability analysis should be used as one foundation to develop coastal adaptation strategies (both overarching and specific) to both protect coastal marine biodiversity, and address risks or hazards associated with coastal development and land-use. 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 buffer areas and other adaptive strategies that are needed to protect sensitive habitat areas should be incorporated in the County’s Thresholds and Guidelines Manual.

2) Form An Interagency and Public Working Group representing government and non-governmental organizations, e.g. state parks, and the private sector to discuss and recommend adoption of policies to protect coastal 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 coastal marine biodiversity. A number of guiding principles should be emphasized in the Climate Action Strategy to support biodiversity protection, including:
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.

3) Precautionary Principle must be employed to buffer against 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. We can only control the human impacts. Therefore the precautionary principle should be employed.

4) Increase and preserve future wetlands and buffers. The County and City should establish new buffer zones to allow the migration of wetland ecosystems. Planners should develop new policies that restrict land-use activities and new development near future wetlands by establishing specific language in the County’s plans.

5) Increase Coastal Setbacks. Current County policy requires a 75-yr bluff setback for new development. New information regarding sea level rise and resulting bluff erosion should be used to develop new policies that translate into much larger coastal setback distances in the County. The 75-yr. policy should be increased pursuant to Precautionary Principle and because many structures would last over 75 years, possibly leading to future demands for sea walls.

6) Implement Rolling Easement Policy. Rolling easements are a special type of easement placed along the shoreline to prevent property owners from holding back the sea but allow any other type of use and activity on the land. As the sea advances, the easement automatically moves or "rolls" landward. Because shoreline stabilization structures cannot be erected, sediment transport remains undisturbed and wetlands and other important tidal habitat can migrate naturally. Similarly, there will always be dry or intertidal land for the public to walk along, preserving lateral public access to the shore. Unlike setbacks, which prohibit development near the shore and can often result in "takings" claims if a property is deemed undevelopable due to the setback line, rolling easements place no restrictions on development. They allow the landowner to build anywhere on their property with the understanding that they will not be able to prevent shoreline erosion by armoring the shore, or the public from walking along the shore—no matter how close the shoreline gets to their structure. If erosion threatens the structure, the owner will have to relocate the building or allow it to succumb to the encroaching sea. State and local governments, as well as federal agencies and environmental organizations, purchase "rolling easements". Under these arrangements, which can come in a variety of different forms, private landowners on the oceanfront could continue to use and develop their properties as long as they refrain from armoring the shoreline. Often property owners can receive tax benefits for placing a conservation easement on their property. Rolling easements help maintain natural shoreline processes. The figure below depicts an example of a rolling easement.

7) Implement Managed Retreat Policies. Jurisdictions must plan to retreat existing development (structures, utilities, roads, rails, airports, power plants, sewage plants, etc.) from inundation zones and wave run up zones.

8) Identify and preserve Habitat Migration Corridors. Climate disturbance will continue to cause plant communities and species’ ranges to shift. 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. With this in mind, the Conception Coast Regional Conservation Strategy (2005) should be revised to include ecological information and data on the pressures and associated impacts from climate change.

_________________________________BACKGROUND FOR WORKSHOP

by Dr. Michael V. McGinnis

PROJECT OVERVIEW

2009-02-27T14:12:00.001-08:00

PROJECT BACKGROUND

In the south central part of coastal California, the northern Channel Islands, Santa Barbara Channel, coastal watersheds, foothills and Santa Ynez Mountain Range are essential components of a healthy region. The coastal and marine ecosystems of the region are intimately linked to climate. In the past, species have adapted to dramatic change in the climate. Today, however, the unique native species of the region face significant barriers and pressures associated with abrupt change in the climate of the south-central coast. Climate induced environmental changes on coastal and marine ecosystems include:

• Temperature changes that alter ecological processes and species interactions;
• Increase in frequency of extreme ocean warming events, with implications for marine habitats;
• Changes in precipitation that alter freshwater run-off of nutrients, sediment, and contaminants into coastal wetlands and nearshore marine areas;
• Accelerated rates of sea level rise;
• Alteration of oceanic wind and water circulation patterns;
• Continued losses of sea ice over large areas of the Arctic basin;
• Ocean acidification caused by reaction of increasing CO2 with seawater.

Failure to proactively plan for and respond to climate change impacts will have ecological as well as economic implications. While California is encouraging local governments to develop plans that support the reduction of greenhouse gases into their general plans, there has been little if any policy development at the county level in the State to address the major threats to coastal marine biodiversity posed by 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. The City of Santa Barbara voluntarily opted to initiate a climate action plan, which set benchmarks and outline strategies for the reduction of GHG emissions. Santa Barbara County has initiated several climate-related programs in the areas of air, green building, water, waste, land use and transportation. The City’s strategy does not include programs or policies that emphasize the protection of coastal areas, including the harbor, in light of expected impacts from climate change.

Adapting to the impacts of climate change is more than a problem of reducing energy consumption or developing new methods of energy production. Scientists indicate that even if greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically cut, we can expect impacts to coastal marine ecosystems from climate change.

The County Board of Supervisors is considering the establishment of a planning process to develop a Gaviota Local Coastal Plan (LCP), which may begin in a 2009-2010. This project represents an important contribution to needed planning efforts insofar as it includes a review of the types of policies that are needed to protect coastal marine biodiversity in the County. The anticipated outcome of this project is to provide preliminary policy guidance that can support a future update of Santa Barbara County’s General Plan (GP) and Local Coastal Ordinance (i.e., Article Two of the GP) Plan, with a particular emphasis on policies that can protect coastal marine biodiversity.

This project produced by UC Santa Barbara’s Ocean and Coastal Policy Center and funded by the UCSB Associated Students Coastal Fund will lead to the production of a report on the expected pressures on coastal marine ecosystems from climate change, and the policy responses that are needed to protect coastal marine biodiversity in the south-central part of coastal California. The report will focus on Santa Barbara County’s coastal environment to the marine area, including the northern Channel Islands and the Santa Barbara Channel.

The particular emphasis is on the coastal area of the Gaviota coast, including the coastal wetlands and nearshore marine environment of the County. This boundary is not fixed: in some cases, inland areas that influence the coast or are influenced by coastal processes (e.g., sediment sources from coastal watersheds) are included in the scope.

The project will include the production of a report that includes an analysis of existing coastal and marine policies that are developing at the federal, state, county and city levels, and an evaluation of these policies to determine the likelihood that they will meet local needs. This report should be viewed as a preliminary assessment, and will not include much needed regional assessments that should include a vulnerability analysis and economic analysis of coastal areas and development that may be threatened by climate change.

One important part of this project is the integration of information from participants who attend public workshops sponsored by UC Santa Barbara’s Ocean and Coastal Policy Center during the spring of 2009. Participants in the first public workshop to be held in April 2009 include invited members from the public, policymakers, elected officials, members of conservation organizations, and scientists.

A second workshop will also include interested students and faculty at UCSB in a dialogue on climate change on the expected impacts on the coastal marine areas of the region. The goal of the workshops are to foster a shared understanding of the impacts from climate change on the region’s coastal and marine environment, and to receive community input and feedback on policy tools and recommendations that are needed to respond to these pressures and impacts from climate disturbance. The proceedings of these two workshops will be attached as appendices to the final report, which will be completed and distributed in late June 2009.

The report will include three major parts. Part One of the report describes the climate-related pressures to the region’s coastal and marine ecosystems. To characterize the threats and expected impacts from climate disturbance the project includes the use the “pressure-state-response” (PSR) model. The PSR model emphasizes an assessment and analysis of present and future “pressures” posed by climate change on coastal and marine biodiversity. The identification of “pressures” was based on the gathering and synthesizing of existing scientific and technical information, data and material on the impacts and threats posed by climate change. Data and information from government and non-government sources, including scientific reports on the region, federal and state government reports, and regional conservation plans was used to produce this report.

An analysis of pressures included a characterization of the general “state” of the coastal marine environment in light of expected climate change and human use of coastal marine resources. The “state” refers to the condition of the coastal marine ecosystems that result from pressures, e.g. trends in sea surface temperature and acidification, sea level rise, expected impacts on coastal and marine biodiversity, among others. This part of the report offers a number of case studies that provide a characterization of the particular pressures on specific species or habitats of the region, including the northern Channel Islands and the Gaviota coast.

Part Two of the report describes a range of alternative “responses”. The “response” component of the PSR model relates to the actions taken by governments and non-government organizations that are designed to ease or prevent negative coastal marine impacts, to correct existing damage, or to conserve or enhance coastal marine ecosystem integrity. These responses may include regulatory and non-regulatory policy, management actions, planning elements, changes in coastal marine resource management and coastal land use, and the provision of environmental information. This section provides a general overview of existing local coastal policies that have been adopted by the City of Santa Barbara and County of Santa Barbara with respect to the expected pressures from climate change on coastal marine ecosystems.

Part Three of the report includes an overview of general policy goals and recommendations to improve the role of county and city governance in an era of climate change. A number of general policy goals and management actions are proposed to guide future planning with respect to climate change at the county and city level.

Pressures on Coastal Marine Ecosystems

The cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of coastal marine resources can exacerbate a system’s ability to adapt to ecological disturbance. Significant emissions cut of greenhouse gases will not bring quick relief to the myriad pressures on coastal marine biodiversity. Some dangerous consequences for biodiversity and human beings may likely be triggered, and will persist for long periods of time, even if emissions were cut radically. Climate change will interact with and accelerate the existing pressures to biodiversity, such as natural ocean-climate variability (i.e., long and short term change in oceanographic regimes), habitat degradation, overexploitation of resources, such as fisheries, and the significant impacts of the introduction of non-native invasive species on coastal marine 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 coastal marine resources and anthropogenic climate disturbance.

CLIMATE DISTURBANCE AND COASTAL MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

While institutional focus and public attention has been on the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) note that large-scale change in the world’s coastal and marine ecosystems is expected even if greenhouse gas emissions were significantly reduced. The IPCC (2007) reports the following:

• Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values... The atmospheric concentrations of CO2... in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution;
• It is likely that anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many natural systems;
• Greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades; and
• The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to further acidification. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century.

Hansen et al. (2005) conclude their analysis of global warming by noting that a warming of more than 1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute dangerous climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species. The sixth mass extinction of plants and animals is likely underway -- nearly 50 percent of all species could disappear within the lifetimes of people now living on Earth (Cadotte et al. 2008). The last mass extinction took place 65 million years ago during the Cretaceous Tertiary extinction event. The most comprehensive assessment of the world’s mammals confirms an extinction crisis, with almost one in four at risk of disappearing, according to The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, revealed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in October 2008. The study to assess the world’s mammals shows at least 1,141 of the 5,487 mammals on Earth are known to be threatened with extinction. One in four marine mammals may go extinct.

A comprehensive review of the expected impacts from climate change on coastal marine ecosystems is found in Schubert et al. (2006). One primary pressure of growing concern is oceanic acidification, which is caused change in the pH of seawater and rising CO2 levels in atmospheric and oceanographic processes. Oceanic acidification will likely have significant adverse impacts on the reproduction, metabolism and growth of several species of invertebrates and coastal marine ecosystems of California, including some of the top commercial fisheries in the state (Orr et al. 2005; Royal Society 2005; Kleypas et al. 2006; Fabry et al. 2008; Feely et al. 2008). A second issue of concern is sea level rise, which threats coastal ecosystems (e.g., wetlands), watersheds, and the urban infrastructure along the shoreline (IPCC 2007). A characterization of the impacts of sea level rise of coastal processes, beach ecology, and the social infrastructure of coastal California is found in Revell et al. (2008).

Coastal Marine Ecosystem Disturbance

California’s coastal marine ecosystems have been significant degraded by human activities. Wetlands and watersheds have been dramatically altered or destroyed by human activities during the past 60 years. Most of the riparian areas of the coastal rivers and streams of the region have been lost. Rivers have been rerouted and dammed. Creeks have been paved and channelized. Wetlands have been filled. Important fresh-water and salt water inputs to coastal wetlands have been altered. Few estuaries are open to the necessary tidal influence. Along coastal southern California entire ecological communities are considered threatened or endangered. Coastal sage scrub communities in southern California are reported by the US Department of the Interior as “endangered ecosystems” (Noss et al. 1995).

The California’s MTE has lost many important coastal habitats and associated biodiversity: 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% (McGinnis 2000, 2006). 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, according to a recent University of California, Berkeley, study (Loarie et al. 2008). Marine scientists document large-scale disturbance in the coastal marine ecosystems of California (NOAA 2008; CDFG 2002). McGowan et al. (1998) indicate that there has been a decline in primary and secondary level of marine ecological productivity since 1958.

There are a number of existing pressures on coastal marine ecosystems likely to be exacerbated by climate change, including:

• Growth and development

o Energy development
o Conflicts over land protection and land use planning
o Habitat Fragmentation
o Agriculture and range expansion

• Water and hydrology

o Availability/quality
o Diversions
o Management conflicts
o Temperature changes
o Sea level rise
o Pollution and sediments
o Fish populations passage issues

• Ecosystem change

o Vegetation structure
o Community changes

• Invasive species, pests, and disease
• Fire regime changes
• Disturbance regime changes
• Sport and Commercially harvested species

Climate change will have direct impacts on existing coastal protected areas such as ecological reserves, wildlife areas, undesignated lands, mitigations sites, and easements. Sea level rise and changes in the intensity of storm events could impact low lying coastal areas and result in the loss or inundation of coastal wetlands and dune habitat resulting in salt water intrusion and loss of fresh water resources for fish and wildlife. Changes to the timing and intensity of freshwater input may impact marine and nearshore populations through increased runoff resulting in pollution and sedimentation contamination and shifts in urban growth and development will place new or increased pressure on existing coastal resources and available habitat. Inundation of coastal infrastructure will cause widespread pollution and contamination further jeopardizing marine and near-marine environments.

Changes in the atmosphere, oceanographic processes, and biology are linked to changes in the basic life-support and life-giving mechanisms of the earth. This section briefly describes the expected pressures and associated impacts from climate disturbance on coastal marine ecosystems of the region. The major pressures associated with climate change should be understood a cumulative in nature; there will likely be synergistic impacts associated with the multiple-use of coastal marine resources and climate change.

Pressures

Sea Level Rise, Inundation, and Coastal Storms
Sea level rise and erosion risks
Coastal storms and extreme weather events
Changing Ocean and Coastal Conditions
Salinity changes (especially in estuaries)
Temperature changes (air and sea)
Changes to ocean currents, upwelling, and stratification
Ocean acidification

Impacts

Effects of Sea Level Rise, Inundation, and Coastal Storms - Impacts to the Built Environment
Infrastructure at risk
Impacts to coastal populations
Economic impacts
Effects of Changing Ocean and Coastal Conditions – Impacts to the Natural Environment

Impacts to coastal ecosystems – beaches, wetlands, intertidal and subtidal habitats
Changes in protected species populations (endangered species, marine mammals, etc.) commercially significant species (fisheries), marine ecosystems and food webs, and introduction of new invasive species, and economic impacts

The effects of climate changes can be generally described, even though their magnitude, timing, and location cannot be known for certain. Anticipating both gradual change and episodic events is essential to enable communities to become resilient to effects from climate change. The potential impacts on our coastal community include:

Community Infrastructure

Climate conditions are generally factored into the design of community
infrastructure. As climate conditions change, some infrastructure systems may be less effective or may fail altogether, which could alter the function, value, or viability of improvements these systems protect or serve.

- Coastal roads, highways, and rail lines are at risk from the effects of increased winter precipitation, increased coastal erosion, and flooding. Over the long term, roads, highways, and railroads will be affected by sea level rise and increased tidal elevations along the ocean shore, estuaries, and coastal creeks and river.

- Santa Barbara Airport runway is located on filled estuarine wetlands and may be at risk of inundation from storm surge and high tides and, over time by sea level and increased tidal heights.

- Port facilities, jetties and groins will be subject to damage from larger storm waves. Watershed flooding may increase sediment loads into estuaries and thus increase the need for dredging of navigational channels. Increased tidal height will affect docks and bulkheads.

- Dikes and levees: Rising sea level and the increased likelihood of inundation from higher storm surge and tidal heights, especially in times of river flooding, may threaten the integrity of dikes and levees. Infrastructure and development on lands protected by dikes are at risk of damage and inundation as dikes fail.

- Shore protection improvements: Some portions of the County’s ocean shorelines have been armored against erosion from ocean waves. As shorelines erode landward in response to higher sea level and storms, armored properties are at risk of becoming peninsulas, then islands, and then overtopped. An increase in significant wave heights is likely to damage or cause failure of some hardened shorelines, potentially resulting in damage to nearby unprotected property and infrastructure.

- Municipal Services/Stormwater systems: The capacity of local stormwater management systems may be exceeded as the magnitude or frequency of rainfall events increases, especially as tidal elevations rise leading to localized flooding, accelerated deterioration, and possible system failure. Systems at or near capacity today may be unable to handle future storm loads, which could have a significant effect on location of future development.

- Water supply and wastewater treatment: Rainfall in winter is projected to increase. However, storing water across longer, drier summers may be a problem for some coastal communities where storage systems are already at or over capacity during summer. Reduced precipitation in summer months, especially in conjunction with warmer winter temperatures, may reduce the water available for municipal supply systems. In addition, wastewater treatment facilities are usually located at the lowest elevation in a watershed, which places those facilities at risk from rising sea level and tidal elevation.

- Recreational facilities: Increased erosion along ocean shore from rising sea levels and coastal storms may seriously alter beaches, and in some cases, the infrastructure necessary for safe access to and from beaches and coastal parks. Coastal trails and campgrounds may experience frequent damage from high winds and flooding.

Coastal Natural Systems

Many familiar coastal habitats, ecosystems, and natural resources will be affected by climate change. Low-lying habitats and ecosystems are especially vulnerable to floods, tides and ocean waves. Temperature and precipitation changes will affect the distribution and composition of forests, riparian areas, and other terrestrial habitats. Even rocky intertidal habitats are vulnerable to increased atmospheric and ocean temperatures.

- Coastal creeks and rivers: Streams that drain into the Santa Barbara Channel will carry increased runoff from greater winter rainfall but will become drier in summer due to decreased rainfall. More severe rainfall events in these streams may increase the frequency and severity of flooding episodes.

Warmer summer temperatures and lower summer stream flows may raise water temperatures to the detriment of aquatic species, such as southern steelhead salmon and other coldwater

- Estuarine wetlands are vulnerable to rising sea level and tidal elevations, depending on rate of sediment deposition, the nature of the shoreline, and pace of sea level rise. Freshwater tidal wetlands may be inundated more frequently by saline waters, triggering changes in wetland communities.

An adequate supply of sediments to the estuary could enable tidal wetland elevations to keep pace with rising tidal elevation.

- Estuarine benthic ecosystems: Higher air temperatures can heat mudflats and raise estuarine water temperatures, especially upstream of ocean influence, thus affecting benthic communities and productivity. The loss of benthic habitat will directly affect the composition and productivity of estuarine ecosystems.- Invasive species: Such invasions may be related to climate factors.

- Acidification:. As ocean waters become more acidic, estuaries will be subjected to these same acidic conditions. The effects of increased acidity on estuarine ecosystems are not yet known, but scientists are concerned about the potential effects on clams, crabs, oysters and other shellfish.

The Pacific Ocean

- Ecosystem shifts: Summer winds are critical to upwelling that drives productivity of marine ecosystems. Recent El Niño events demonstrated that warmer ocean temperatures and shifting wind patterns can, from just one season to the next, affect upwelling and the production of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and forage fish. Seabirds, marine mammals, salmon and other species were adversely affected by El Niño conditions and are expected to be affected by long term shifts in climate conditions.

- Distribution of species: Long-term changes in ocean conditions are likely to result in a northward shift in the distribution of marine species, including sea birds and marine mammals. El Niño conditions have been cited as a factor in marine mammal mortality, and lack of seabird reproductive success.

- Changes in upwelling: Timing of the seasonal upwelling in the Pacific off Oregon, which provides the nutritional foundation for the marine food web, is changing. A long-term shift in the timing of up-welling would have long-lasting effects on commercial and recreational fisheries.

- Hypoxia: While it is not clear that climate change is causing the hypoxic ‘dead zones’ in ocean waters off California, the forces causing the hypoxia are all linked to, and affected by, climate change.

- Ocean acidification: Increasing ocean acidification due to its absorption of CO2 has the potential to reduce the ability of marine species to form shells, which in turn would have a dramatic effect on the entire marine food web. Shellfish such as clams, oysters, and crabs will be particularly sensitive to an increasingly acid environment.

- Ocean shore: The ocean shore will certainly be altered in many places due to higher sea level, higher waves, more frequent and stronger storms, and possible shifts in predominant wind directions. Beach and bluff erosion will result in shoreline retreat. Ocean shores armored with rip-rap and seawalls will be increasingly at risk over time.

- Estuarine shores: The shorelines of estuaries will change over time as increasing tidal elevations push the “normal” shoreline farther inland. Habitats and human uses in low-lying areas adjacent to estuaries are at risk over time even if protected by bulkheads, dikes, or levees. Habitat restoration projects in coastal shorelands should consider effects of future climate change.

- Non-native species: Habitat changes in response to shifts in temperature, salinity, and precipitation will provide opportunities for invasion by non-native species that are adapted to the new habitat conditions or that out-compete native species weakened by habitat change.

Coastal Economic Sectors

- Harvest effects: Some commercial ocean fish stock, already at low levels from overharvest, may be at risk over the long term as ocean conditions change. Changes in ocean ecosystem conditions are likely to fundamentally alter the historic fisheries of the south coast.

- Ocean acidification: Calcium-based plankton, which support the marine food web, are at risk from even minute changes in ocean acidity. Changes in plankton production will affect fisheries in ways that cannot now be predicted. It is not known how larger shellfish, such as clams, oysters, and crabs will fare in an increasingly acid environment.

List of Useful References:

Barbour, E. and L. Kueppers. 2008. Conservation and Management of Ecological Systems in a Changing California. Public Policy Institute of California. November. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1108EBR.pdf

Brook, B.W., N.S. Sodhi, and C.J.A. Bradshaw. 2008. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23, 8: 453-460.

California Oceans and Coastal Resources Working Group. 2008. Draft Outline. The draft and final report by this working group will assess climate change and sea level rise impacts. The report will include adaptation strategies for coastal habitats and infrastructure along the 1,100 miles of California's coastline. This group has recently submitted their cross-sector analysis, which will undergo review through stakeholder meetings, workshops, and final review/approval by the California Ocean Protection Council. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/oceans/index.html

Fabry, V. J., B.A. Seibel, R.A. Feely, and J.C. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 414–432.

Feely, R., C. L. Sabine, J. M. Hernandez-Ayon, D. Ianson, B. Hales. 2008. Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive ‘Acidified’ Seawater onto the Continental Shelf. Science 10.1126/science.1155676.

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.

Halpern, B.S., S. Walbridge, K.A. Selkoe, C. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D'Agrosa, J.F. Bruno, K.S. Casey, C. Ebert, H. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H.S. Lenihan, E.M.P.

Madin, M. Perry, E.R. Selig, M. Spalding, R.S. Steneck, R. Watson. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948-952.

Hanak, E. and G. Moreno. 2008. California Coastal Management with a Changing Climate. Public Policy Institute of California. November. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1108GMR.pdf

Loarie, S.R., B.E. Carter, K. Hayhoe, S. McMahon, R. Moe, et al. 2008. Climate Change and the Future of California's Endemic Flora. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002502

Moser, S.C. and A.L. Luers. 2008. Managing climate risks in California: the need to engage resource managers for successful adaptation to change. Climatic Change (2008) 87 (Suppl 1):S309–S322. DOI 10.1007/s10584-007-9384-7. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w332708643k363g2/

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.

Revell, D., M. Heberger, P. Gleick, B. Battalio, H. Cooley, and J. Vandever. 2008 In Press. An Initial Assessment of the Impacts of Sea Level Rise to the California Coast. Project Funded by the California Energy Commission’s Energy Research Program, CalTrans, and the California Ocean Protection Council. www.pacinst.org

Schubert, R., et al. 2006. The Future Oceans – Warming up, Rising High, Turning Sour. Special Report. German Advisory Council on Global Change. Berlin.

Sorensen, R.M., R. N. Weisman, and G.P. Lennon. Control of Erosion, Inundation, and Salinity Intrusion Caused by Sea Level Rise. Chapter 6. http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter6.pdf

Stoms, D. M., F. W. Davis, S. J. Andelman, M. H. Carr, S. D. Gaines, B. S. Halpern, R. Hoenicke, S. G. Leibowitz, A. Leydecker, E. Madin, H. Tallis and R. R. Warner. 2005. Integrated coastal reserve planning: making the land-sea connection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 429-436.

The San Diego Foundation. San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study. http://www.sdfoundation.org/news/pdf/Focus2050glossySDF-ClimateReport.pdf

Titus, J.G. 1990. Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Land Use. LAND USE POLICY, April 1990. Vol 7: issue 2, pp:138-53. http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BURAD/$File/landuse.pdf