Transcript Lecture 9 Marine Restoration and MPAs

Restoration of Marine Habitats
 Restoration = “returning a system to a close
approximation of its condition prior to disturbance,
with both the structure and the function of the system
recreated” (NRC 1992)
 Represents one end of a continuum of conservation
biology (Hobbs and Norton 1996) and can be thought of as a
strategy to conserve biodiversity (Jordan et al. 1988) and
ecosystem integrity (Cairns and Heckman 1996)
 Should not include fisheries enhancement as
restoration activities
 Landscape-based approaches could benefit fisheries
indirectly
Restoration of Marine Habitats
 Scope of restoration intervention necessary varies
depending on:
 The bottleneck that is currently limiting the
population or habitat
 Ultimate goal of the restoration activity
 Societal value placed on the resource to be restored
Role of Marine Ecologists
 Work to identify and address the bottlenecks
 Identify positive effects that promote reestablishment
of species
 Communicate the benefits of restoration to the public
Use of Historical Benchmarks
 Historical data is useful in setting goals for restoration
projects but should be used with caution
 Problem with historical data is that it does not
acknowledge:
 Uncertainty of reconstruction of historical population size
 Dynamic nature of ecosystems
 Losses of keystone species
 Establishment of invasive species
 Effects of climate change
 Logistical and financial difficultly associated with some of
these goals
Long-term Sustainability
 Is the project sustainable under current and future
environmental conditions
 Does restoration plan take climate change and sealevel rise into account?
seaturtlecamp.com
al.com
Habitat-Level Restoration
 Bottleneck of many fish and inverts is habitat loss and
degradation
 Focuses on target species that are habitat formers
(foundation species)
 Have the potential to benefit multiple species and
trophic levels, as well as energy flows and ecosystem
function
Lessons Learned….
 Species diversity and genetic variation is important
when restoring vegetation-based habitats (salt marsh,
mangroves, seagrass)
 Positive species interactions can be beneficial to
restoration of target species (particularly in salt
marshes)
 Topographic complexity is important when restoring
salt marshes
More Lessons Learned…
 Conservation and rehabilitation of existing habitats is
most cost-effective approach to ensure ecosystem
functions are preserved
 Engineering for persistence has often neglected the
needed biological aspects of a project
 Projects should have historical justification but plan
for the future as well
 Few projects have established specific goals and
measureable criteria for determining success and few
are adequately monitored
Powers and Boyer (2013)
Lesley P. Baggett1; Sean P. Powers1; Robert Brumbaugh2; Loren Coen3;
Bryan DeAngelis2; Jennifer Greene2; Boze Hancock2; Summer Morlock4
1The
University of South Alabama/Dauphin Island Sea Lab; 2The Nature Conservancy; 3
Florida Atlantic University; 4NOAA Restoration Center
Shellfish habitat a national restoration priority
Goals
1) Build on 2004 guidance (www.oyster-restoration.org),
as well as other efforts
2) Develop monitoring guidance that would enable:
 basic assessment of oyster restoration projects
 comparison of projects within and across regions, tidal
elevations, and construction types
 estimation of ecosystem services / achievement of
ecological goals
 adaptive management and improvement in project
design over time
Comprehensive
Guidance
Credit: L. Coen
Credit: Natural History Museum- Rotterdam
Brian Kingzett, PSRF
Credit: Bo Lusk, TNC
Credit: L. Coen
Credit: DISL
Credit: Jeff DeQuattro, TNC
Credit: DISL
Process
 Steering committee of
restoration scientists
and restoration program
managers
 Workshop with experts
from the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Pacific coasts
 6+ week public review
and comment period
(over 300 downloads)
2011 Silver Spring, MD Workshop Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lesley Baggett, Sean Powers (USA/DISL)
Rob Brumbaugh, Jenn Greene, Boze Hancock (TNC)
Bryan De Angelis, Kay McGraw, Summer Morlock, Stephanie Westby
(NOAA)
Loren Coen (FAU)
Brian Allen (Puget Sound Restoration Fund)
Denise Breitburg (SERC)
Dave Bushek (Rutgers University)
Jon Grabowski (Northeastern University)
Ray Grizzle (UNH)
Ted Grosholz (UC – Davis)
Megan La Peyre (USGS)
Mark Luckenbach (VIMS)
Mike Piehler (UNC – Chapel Hill)
Philine zu Ermgassen (University of Cambridge)
Metrics and Variables
 Universal metrics and environmental variables
 Metrics and variables that should be sampled for every
oyster restoration project
 Restoration goal-based metrics
 Metrics that are specific to ecosystem service-based
restoration goals and should be sampled for projects
citing that particular restoration goal
 Ancillary metrics
 Secondary level of metrics that can provide
supplemental or more detailed information concerning
project performance. Are optional.
Defining Restoration
 “The process of establishing or reestablishing a
habitat that in time can come to closely resemble a
natural condition in terms of structure and function”
(modified from Turner and Streever 2002)
 Includes:
 Activities aimed at returning degraded oyster habitat
(natural or constructed) to its prior condition
 Construction of new oyster habitats of various forms
and foundation materials (natural and man-made)
The Universal Metrics
 Reef areal dimension
 Reef height
 Live oyster density
 Live oyster size-frequency distribution
Performance Criteria for Ecosystem
Service-Based Metrics
 Goals and criteria should be developed with regard to
data gained from pre-construction baseline data or
data obtained from sampling at control or natural
reference sites
 Goals should be framed in a way that allows statistical
analysis
 Criteria should consider how the project is anticipated
to perform over both short- and long-term time frames
Reef Areal Dimension
 Consists of two component metrics:
 Project footprint – the maximum areal extent of the
footprint of the reef
 Reef area – the actual area (summed) of patches of
living and non-living oyster shell (or reef substrate with
and without live oysters) within the project footprint
Reef Areal Dimension
The edge of the reef is defined as a continuous line where the
percent coverage of surficial living or non-living shell substrate is
equal to or greater than 25%
Reef Areal Dimension
 Units: m2
 Preferred Methodology: Differential GPS/GIS (side-
scan sonar, multi-beam sonar, or depth-finder for
sub-tidal)
 Performance criteria: None
 Gains in project footprint and reef area may be due to
spreading of original cultch and not accretion of the
reef
Reef Height
 Average height of a reef off
the bottom substrate
 Units: m (cm for low relief
reefs)
 Preferred Methodology: georeferenced laser-based
elevation scanner, rod and
transit/laser-level, RTK GPS
(subtidal: sonar, depth finder)
 Performance criteria: Positive
or neutral change in reef
height from original structure
Credit: L. Coen
Credit: DISL
Oyster Density
 The number of live oysters per m2; includes the
number of live adult oysters and live spat
 For C. virginica:
 Spat: Shell height < 25mm
 Adults: Shell height ≥ 25mm
 For O. lurida
 Spat: Shell height < 18mm
 Adults: Shell height ≥ 18mm
Oyster Density
 Units: Mean density of live spat
and live adult oysters
(individuals m-2)
 Density performance criteria:
Target densities(stated as
individuals m-2) based on
available density data for
natural and restored reefs in
similar settings as well as
historical data.
 Recruitment performance
criteria: Evidence of successful
recruitment during at least two
years of a five year period.
Oyster Density: Intertidal or
Subtidal, Unconsolidated Material
 Random quadrat
samples along reef
 Excavate to depth
necessary to obtain all
live oysters
 Stratified random
sampling if needed
 If comprised of multiple
patch reefs, take
samples at subset of
patches of low, medium,
and high densities
Oyster Density: Metal Structures or
Bagged Shell
 Early Development Stage
 Random samples along reef
 Remove bag of shell and
count all live oysters
(including spat) within
 Measure areal coverage of
bag and convert density to
m2
 Late Development Stage
 Random samples along reef
near base, middle, and crest
using quadrat
Credit: DISL
Credit: TNC
Oyster Density: Cement Structures
 Select units at random
points along the reef
 Quadrat samples at
base, middle, and crest
Credit: DISL
Oyster Density: Seeded Oysters
 Unit = seed oysters/m2
 Determine initial average
density post deployment
 Quadrat sampling
 Calculating seed oysters
over total area
 Will lose ability to track
surviving seed oysters of
specific cohort over time
 Genetic markers
 Size class segregation
Credit: J. Greene
Oyster Size-Frequency Distribution
 Measure of the distribution
of the population across
various size classes.
 Units: Mean shell height of
adult oysters (in mm); mean
percentage of measured
oysters per size class (%)
an/or number of oysters per
size class
 Perform in conjunction with
oyster density sampling
 Performance criteria: None
Universal Environmental Variables
 Should be monitored for every
oyster restoration project,
regardless of the restoration goal of
that project.
 Aid in the interpretation of data
collected during pre- and postconstruction monitoring
 Water temperature (°C)
 Salinity (ppt or psu)
 Dissolved oxygen – subtidal reefs
only (mg L-1)
Ecosystem Service-Based Goals
 Brood stock and oyster population enhancement
 Habitat enhancement for resident and transient
species
 Enhancement of adjacent habitats
 Water quality improvement
Performance Criteria for Ecosystem
Service-Based Metrics
 Example: “As monitoring progresses, there should be a
trend of increasing density of the target species, with
an ultimate goal of having statistically greater densities
of target species than those present pre-construction
or at the control site, or a density that is roughly equal
to that of the natural reference site.”
Brood Stock and Oyster Population
Enhancement
 Metrics
 Nearby reef oyster density and associated size-frequency
distributions
 Nearby reef large oyster abundance
Habitat Enhancement for Resident
and Transient Species
 Metric
 Density of selected target
species or groups







Epifaunal sessile
invertebrates
Infaunal invertebrates
Non-oyster filter feeders or
encrusting species
Small resident mobile fish
and invertebrates
Transient crustaceans and
juvenile fish
Transient adult fish
Waterbirds
Credit: DISL
Credit: L. Coen
Enhancement of Adjacent Habitats
 Metrics
 Shoreline loss/gain (change in shoreline position)
 Shoreline profile/elevation change
 Density of marsh/mangrove plants (if applicable)
 Ancillary Metrics
 Submerged aquatic vegetation
 Wave energy and tidal water flows
Credit: L. Coen
Water Quality Improvement
 Metrics
 Seston and/or Chlorophyll a concentration
 Light penetration measurements
Credit: R. Brumbaugh
Ancillary Monitoring
Considerations
 Presence of Predatory, Pest and/or Competitive





Species
Disease Prevalence and Intensity
Oyster Condition Index
Gonad Development Status
Shell Volume for Determination of Shell Budget
Percent Cover of Reef Substrate
Marine Protected Areas
 MPA is a catch-all term with various definitions and levels
of protection
 Is basically placed-based ecosystem management
 MPAs cover approximately 0.5% of the world’s seas
 National Marine Protected Areas Center describes MPAs in
U.S. based on 5 characteristics
 Conservation Focus
 Level of Protection
 Permanence of Protection
 Constancy of Protection
 Scale of Protection
Classification: Conservation Focus
 Natural Heritage: MPAs or zones established and
managed wholly or in part to sustain, conserve, restore,
and understand the protected area’s natural biodiversity,
populations, communities, habitats, and ecosystems; the
ecological and physical processes upon which they depend;
and, the ecological services, human uses and values they
provide to this and future generations.
 Cultural Heritage: MPAs or zones established and
managed wholly or in part to protect and understand the
legacy of physical evidence and intangible attributes of a
group or society which is inherited and maintained in the
present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations.
Classification: Conservation Focus
 Sustainable Production: MPAs or zones established
and managed wholly or in part with the explicit
purpose of supporting the continued extraction of
renewable living resources (such as fish, shellfish,
plants, birds, or mammals) that live within the MPA,
or that are exploited elsewhere but depend upon the
protected area’s habitat for essential aspects of their
ecology or life history (feeding, spawning, mating, or
nursery grounds).
Classification: Level of Protection
 Uniform Multiple-Use: MPAs or zones with a consistent
level of protection, allowable activities or restrictions
throughout the protected area. Extractive uses may be
restricted for natural or cultural resources.
 Zoned Multiple-Use: MPAs that allow some extractive
activities throughout the entire site, but that use marine
zoning to allocate specific uses to compatible places or
times in order to reduce user conflicts and adverse impacts.
 Zoned Multiple-Use With No-Take Area(s): Multipleuse MPAs that contain at least one legally established
management zone in which all resource extraction is
prohibited.
Classification: Level of Protection
 No-Take: MPAs or zones that allow human access and even
some potentially harmful uses, but that totally prohibit the
extraction or significant destruction of natural and cultural
resources.
 No Impact: MPAs or zones that allow human access, but
that prohibit all activities that could harm the site’s
resources or disrupt the ecological and cultural services
they provide. Examples of activities typically prohibited in
no-impact MPAs include resource extraction of any kind
(fishing, collecting, or mining); discharge of pollutants;
disposal or installation of materials; and alteration or
disturbance of submerged cultural resources, biological
assemblages, ecological interactions, physiochemical
environmental features, protected habitats, or the natural
processes that support them.
Classification: Level of Protection
 No Access: MPAs or zones that restrict all human
access to the area in order to prevent potential
ecological disturbance, unless specifically permitted
for designated special uses such as research,
monitoring or restoration.
Classification: Permanence Of
Protection
 Permanent: MPAs or zones whose legal authorities
provide some level of protection to the site in perpetuity for
future generations, unless reversed by unanticipated future
legislation or regulatory actions.
 Conditional: MPAs or zones that have the potential, and
often the expectation, to persist administratively over time,
but whose legal authority has a finite duration and must be
actively renewed or ratified based on periodic
governmental reviews of performance.
 Temporary: MPAs that are designed to address relatively
short-term conservation and/or management needs by
protecting a specific habitat or species for a finite duration,
with no expectation or specific mechanism for renewal.
Classification: Constancy of
Protection
 Year-Round: MPAs or zones that provide constant
protection to the site throughout the year.
 Seasonal: MPAs or zones that protect specific habitats and
resources, but only during fixed seasons or periods when
human uses may disrupt ecologically sensitive seasonal
processes such as spawning, breeding, or feeding
aggregations.
 Rotating: MPAs that cycle serially and predictably among
a set of fixed geographic areas in order to meet short-term
conservation or management goals (such as local stock
replenishment followed by renewed exploitation of
recovered populations).
Classification: Scale of Protection
 Ecosystem: MPAs or zones whose legal authorities
and management measures are intended to protect all
of the components and processes of the ecosystem
within its boundaries.
 Focal Resource: MPAs or zones whose legal
authorities and management measures specifically
target a particular habitat, species complex, or single
resource (either natural or cultural).
MPAs and Conservation of
Biodiversity
 Very few existing MPAs protect against fishing
 Do they still provide a benefit? YES, if they…
 prevent further habitat destruction within their
boundaries
 Help restrict discharge of pollutants from coastal areas
Marine Reserves
 MPAs that restrict fishing (at some level)
 Are very effective if well enforced
 Benefits are proportional to the level of protection from
fishing
 Halpern (2003) reviewed 89 studies of reserves at least
partially closed to fishing





90% of reserves increased the biomass of species present
63% increased species’ abundance
80% increases species’ average size
59% increased species diversity
On average, abundance doubled, biomass increased 2.5x, size
of animals increase by one third, and diversity increased by
one third
Marine Reserves
 Gell and Roberts (2003a, 2003b) looked at areas closed
to some or all fishing for 5 or more years
 Found evidence for large and rapid increases in the
biomass of exploited species
 Biomass typically increased 3-5x in five years and
benefits continued to develop as the reserves aged
 Also found that these reserves worked over a wide
range of habitats , environmental variables, fishing
pressure outside reserve, and socio-economics of
country
Factors that Influence a
Population’s Speed of Recovery
 Whether there is a source of recruitment to the reserve
 Size and distance of source population and how that
relates to the dispersal distance of the species
 Density of population (if it is a species whose
reproduction is dependent on density rather than
absolute abundance)
 Life history of the species
 State of habitat within the reserve
The Case for Ecosystem-Based
Conservation vs. Reserves
Targeting Single Species
 It’s a better value
 Single-species closures are unlikely to work because
the causes of decline for one species are tied to our
efforts to catch other species
 Reserves targeted at single-species miss out at species
that are unaccounted for by conventional fisheries
management
 Lack of knowledge about the biology of species and
the ecological processes that will facilitate their
recovery
Will All Species in a Reserve
Benefit?
 No, some will increase in abundance and others will
decline
 Hope is that the natural trophic cascades will reestablish
 Results in a refuge for communities that is different
than the communities present in exploited areas
 Reserves promote diversity at regional scales
Guidelines for Designing Resilient
MPAs
(Commission for Environmental Cooperation)
 #1: Protect species and habitats with crucial ecosystem
roles, or those of special conservation concern
 #2: Protect potential carbon sinks
 #3: Protect ecological linkages and connectivity
pathways for a wide range of species
 #4: Protect the full range of biodiversity present in the
target biogeographic area