Download The FWs` Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal

National Wetlands Newsletter, vol. 30, no. 6. Copyright © 2008 Environmental Law Institute.® Washington D.C., USA. Reprinted
by permission of the National Wetlands Newsletter. To subscribe, call 800-433-5120, write [email protected], or visit http://www.eli.org.
The FWS’ Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program and Coastal Program: Dealing
With Climate Change
By David H. Gordon
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program aim
to conserve and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Adapting to climate change is shaping how the
two programs plan, design, and implement their habitat conservation projects.
I
n 1985, Robert Peters predicted that in responding to anticipated global climate, “we may have to depend upon the lessons and techniques of ecological restoration to save many
species—and even whole communities” (Peters 1985). Today,
more than 20 years later, the reality of climate change and its effects
on our environment are becoming ever more immanent and increasingly visible, (Walther et al. 2002, Root et al. 2003, IPCC 2007) and
theorists and ecologists are actively considering the role of ecological
restoration in adapting to climate change (Lavendal 2003, Harris et
al. 2006). These discussions are occurring against the backdrop of
several key issues—scientific uncertainty, the role of historical conditions, and maintaining species assemblages versus ecosystem functions. These and other ideas are beginning to shape how ecologists
approach the planning, design, and implementation of habitat conservation projects, both for restoration and protection purposes.
Dealing with Uncertainty
Considerable scientific uncertainty exists concerning the direction
and extent of climate-induced change on a local and regional basis
(McCarty and Zedler 2002). This presents significant challenges
for restoration and ecosystem management in general (Harris et
al. 2006). For example, it is largely unknown how plant and animal species, populations, habitats, and ecosystems will respond to
climate change due to their differences in competitive abilities, dispersal and colonization capabilities, migration rates, and response
to disturbance. This is especially true in our extensive human altered natural landscapes. Harris et al. (2006) contend such uncertainties can be seen as obstacles to decisionmaking (see Lavendal
2003) into restoration planning and practice.
There is much discussion about restoration endpoints, particularly the relevance of historical reference conditions, given
predicted future climate change scenarios (CCSP 2008). The issue here is reconsidering the traditional approach of restoring an
ecosystem to some desired historical condition. Many agree that a
new approach must center on the precept of dynamic ecosystems
David H. Gordon, Ph.D., is a Biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and is the National Team Leader for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in the Washington, DC, Office in Arlington, Virginia.
with changing habitats in response to climate change. Still, a key
question for those involved in restoration is how to determine the
proper balance between rebuilding past systems and attempting to
build resilient systems for the future. Perhaps in some instances
both goals are achievable, but the prognosis seems to be that this
may not always be the case (Harris et al. 2006).
Inextricably linked to this discussion is the question of whether the focus should be on maintaining historical species assemblages versus maintaining space and capacity for ecosystem functions
and processes. Harris et al. (2006) suggest that “these two general
approaches constitute locations on a continuum from limited human intervention to complete control” and “the extent, pace, and
spatial variation of climate-induced change will determine what
approach can be taken” at a particular location. The latter approach
may be most appropriate for vulnerable ecological systems having
the greatest sensitivity to climate change and the least likelihood of
adapting to such change.
Habitat Restoration and Climate Change
In August 2007, the Society for Ecological Restoration International
issued a position statement on global climate change during a joint
conference with the Ecological Society of America. The statement
called attention to the role of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in
supporting human populations and underscored the need to protect and restore these habitats as an important action to mitigate
global climate change and its effects (Science Daily 2007).
Ecological restoration can be defined as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (SERI 2004). For the purposes of this article, we
broaden this definition to include the long-term protection of high
quality habitats or sites embedded in human-altered landscapes
that essentially are large-scale restoration sites even though intact
remnants of habitats remain.
Despite the many unknowns and uncertainties regarding the
impacts of climate change on ecosystems and how these systems
respond, many agree that near-term responses should focus on increasing the resilience of communities in the face of environmental
variability (McCarty and Zedler 2002). The challenge for restoration ecologists is to determine how to build resilience and adapt-
November-December 2008 ability into local and regional ecosystems and to take steps to mitigate for climate effects when possible (e.g., carbon sequestration). A
recent report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program suggests
“activities that promote overall ecosystem health, whether they are
restorative (e.g., planting trees, captive breeding, and reintroduction)
or protective (e.g., restrictive of destructive uses) will tend to build
resilience” (CCSP 2008). The report discusses seven approaches—
protection of key ecosystem features, reduction of anthropogenic
stresses, representation, replication, restoration, refugia, and relocation—that manipulate or take advantage of ecosystem properties to
enhance their resilience to climatic changes. Using these approaches,
all sizes of restoration projects can build in some buffer against the
negative aspects of climate change, but the greatest potential may
remain with large restoration projects, such as preserves, that can sustain more species and more genotypes (McCarty and Zedler 2002).
Role of Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Programs
As voluntary, cooperative habitat conservation programs, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’) Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program and Coastal Programs are well positioned to work with
a wide array of public and private partners to address the effects
of climate change on fish and wildlife species and their habitats.
continue to include private lands conservation, easements, and acquisitions. At the national, regional, and state level, our programs
remain committed to providing fish and wildlife technical assistance in the development and revision of agricultural conservation
program policies, priorities, and practices. At the field level, our
programs will expand our integrated landscape level approach to
conservation planning by applying available biological and hydrological models with emerging information about predicted trust
resource response to projected climate change scenarios.
Delivering direct technical and financial assistance to our conservation partners to restore and protect habitats will be paramount
as we deal with climate change. For example, terrestrial carbon
sequestration is considered a viable near-term approach to reducing greenhouse gases because it can be implemented immediately
(Negra et al. 2008). Biological carbon sequestration through afforestation and restoration of grasslands and wetlands (Gleason et al.
2008) is an integral piece of FWS’ overall climate strategy. Our programs are a primary delivery mechanism of these types of projects
and we expect to increase involvement and become more actively
engaged in regional and local carbon sequestration partnerships.
The protection of private lands using conservation easements will
be an important tool in this endeavor (Ristino 2007).
Linking priority lands with federal, state, and private lands
will leverage greater cumulative benefits to trust species.
Working closely with our many partners, program activities affect millions of acres of private and public lands across the United
States with meaningful outcomes for trust species. Our programs
are well positioned to help develop technologies for coping with
climate change and its impacts, especially in extensively altered and
intensively managed systems such as agriculture, water resources,
and developed coastlines.
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Programs are
implementing strategic conservation responses to climate change
through conservation planning, design, and delivery. Near-term
activities include engaging our conservation partners to factor
climate change into existing and planned conservation scenarios
at local and regional scales. This will require examining potential
climate scenarios and the vulnerability of conservation targets to
climate change. This, in turn, will translate into the design and implementation of projects that incorporate global climate change.
A growing body of scientific literature suggests that the protection and restoration of key tracts and habitat types targeted in
landscape level planning may significantly improve the chance for
fish and wildlife to adapt to changing climates and may be the key
to many of these species’ survival (Peters 1992, Li et al. 2006).
Accordingly, FWS is working to expand landscape conservation
efforts in the programs’ geographic focus areas in ways that actively and directly address climate change. Linking priority lands
with other federal, state, and private lands will leverage greater cumulative benefits to trust species. Land conservation strategies will
national wetlands newsletter
In addition, our programs are focused on the prevention and
reduction of habitat fragmentation. Maintaining connectivity in
landscapes promotes trust species migration and movement necessary for species to adapt to climate change induced habitat dynamics (Li et al. 2006).
Expected changes in global climate and water needs may
exacerbate the loss of native biodiversity and increase risks to
ecosystems due to increased flooding or water shortages. Viable
management actions to mitigate the impacts of water stress on the
landscape and minimize risks to ecosystems, including wetland and
floodplain restoration, land protection, in-stream habitat improvements, riparian management, and dam removal/retrofit (Palmer et
al. 2008), are elements of habitat conservation projects undertaken
by both programs.
Conclusion
Despite the scientific uncertainty surrounding the impacts of climate change, we must work to build resilience and adaptability into
local and regional ecosystems and mitigate climate impacts when
possible. The series of articles in this issue of the National Wetlands
Newsletter, authored by FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program staff, describe real world approaches the
two programs are taking to address the effect of climate change in
our habitat conservation projects.
Continued on page 19
54. Roxanne Thomas et al., Effects of Climate Change for Aquatic Invasive
Species and Implications for Management and Research, EPA/600/R-08/014,
1-1, 2-2 (Feb. 2008) (State invasive programs have expressed concern that climate
change will cause invasive species range expansions; a lack of ability to predict which
species will be likely to establish under changing conditions in order to appropriately modify management priorities; development of prediction and assessment of
conditions that many lead to invasion, increased spread, survival, and growth rates,
unanticipated interactions between climate changes and invasive species; the effects of climate change on control efforts; and the effects on the ecosystem from
increased invasions.)
55. Id., at xi, 2-4, 2-6 (Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington have already included con-
siderations of changing conditions in adaptive invasive species (AIS) management
plans; only Virginia actually discusses climate change in its AIS management plan).
56. These include increased water temperatures, higher CO2 concentrations, and
altered precipitation patterns.
57. Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum et al., Global Climate Change: implications for
international public health policy, 25 Bulletin of the World Health Organization 244 (2007), available at http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/3/06039503/en/.
58. Id.
Gordon, continued from page 6
References
CCSP (Climate Change Science Program). 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation
options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources: Final Report, Synthesis and
Assessment Product 4.4 A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Julius, S.H., J.M.
West (eds.), J.S. Baron, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H.
Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, USA, 873 pp.
Gleason, R.A., B.A. Tangen, and M.K. Lauban. 2008. Carbon sequestration, in R.
A. Gleason, M.K. Lauban, and N.H. Eulis, Jr., eds., Ecosystem services derived
from wetland conservation practices in the United States Prairie Pothole Region
with an emphasis on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve
and Wetlands Reserve Programs. Pages 23-30. U.S. Geological Professional Paper 1745. 58pp.
Harris, J.A., R.J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and J. Aronson. 2006. Ecological restoration and
global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14(2):170-176.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Fourth assessment report: climate change 2007: synthesis report summary for policymakers.
Li, M.H., N. Krauchi, and S.P. Gao. 2006. Global warming: can existing reserves
really preserve current levels of biological diversity. Journal on Integrated Plant.
Biology 48(3):255-259.
Lavendal, B. 2003. Ecological restoration in the face of global climate change: obstacles and initiatives. Ecological Restoration 21:199-203.
McCarty, J.P. and J.B. Zedler. 2002. Restoration, ecosystem, in Encyclopedia of
Global Environmental Change, Vol. 2. The Earth system: biological and ecological dimensions of global environmental change, edited by R.E. Munn, H. .
Mooney, and J. Canadell. Pages 532-539. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Negra, C., C.C. Sweedo, K. Cavender-Bares, and R. O’Malley. 2008. Indicators of
carbon storage in U.S. ecosystems: baseline for terrestrial carbon accounting.
Journal of Environmental Quality 37:1376-1382.
Palmer, M.A., C.A.R. Liermann, C. Nilsson, M. Florke, J. Alcamo, P.S. Lake, and N.
Bond. 2008. Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(2):81-89.
Peters, R.L.. 1985. Global Climate Change: A Challenge for Restoration Ecology.
Restoration and Management Notes 3(2):62-67.
Peters, R.L. 1992. Conservation of biological diversity in the face of climate change
in R.L. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy, eds., Global warming and biological diversity.
Pages 15-30. Yale University Press, New Haven. 386pp.
Ristino, L.A. 2007. Climate change mitigation: using the value of ecosystem services
to pay for conservation on private lands. Sustainable Development, Ecosystems
and Climate Change Committee Newsletter 10(3):2-5.
Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rozenweig, and J.A. Pounds.
2003. Finger prints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature
421:57-60.
Science Daily. 2007. Ecological restoration: a global strategy for mitigating climate
change, at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070817165031.htm
SERI (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Writing
Group). 2006. The SER international primer on ecological restoration. Soc.
Ecol. Rest. Int., Tucson, Arizona.
Walther, G., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. BeeBee, J. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Barlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent
climate change. Nature 416:389-395.
Haynes & O’Reilly-Doyle, continued from page 8
tion Reserve Program, have contributed significantly to the restoration of bottomland forested wetlands.
Restoring native wildlife habitats and capturing carbon represents a “win-win” for the Service and its partners. Expanding terrestrial carbon sequestration activities will be an increasingly important part of the FWS’ conservation work.
References
Amacher, G.S., J. Sullivan, L. Shabman, L. Zepp, and J. Groninger. 1997. Restoration of the lower Mississippi delta bottomland hardwood forest: Economic and
policy considerations. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Research Bulletin 185. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Creasman, L., N.J. Craig, and M. Swan. 1992. The forested wetlands of the Mississippi river: An ecosystem in crisis. Baton Rouge: The Nature Conservancy of
Louisiana.
Harris, L.D. and J.G. Gosselink. 1990. Cumulative impacts of bottomland hardwood
forest conversion on hydrology, water quality, and terrestrial wildlife, in J.G.
Gosselink, L.C. Lee, and T.A. Muir (eds.), Ecological processes and cumulative
impacts: Illustrated by bottomland hardwood ecosystems. Pages 259-322. Boca
Raton, Florida: Lewis.
Haynes, R.J. 2004. The development of bottomland forest restoration in the lower
Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Ecological Restoration 22(3):170-182.
Hefner, J.M. and J.D. Brown. 1985. Wetland trends in the southeastern United
States. Wetlands 4:1-12.
Mississippi Fish & Wildlife Foundation, Wildlife Mississippi Financial Assistance:
Carbon Sequestration, at http://www.wildlifemiss.org.previewmysite.com/financial/carbon.html.
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. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service Report 28.
Stanturf, J.A., S.H. Schoenholtz, C.J. Schweitzer, and J.P. Shepard. 2001. Achieving
restoration success: Myths in bottomland hardwood forest restoration. Ecology
91(2):189-200.
Stanturf, J.A., C.J. Schweitzer, and E.S. Gardiner. 1998a. Afforestation of marginal
agricultural land in the lower Mississippi river alluvial valley, U.S.A. Silva Fennica 32:281-297.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Terrestrial carbon sequestration: restoring native wildlife habitat and capturing carbon. Region 4 Fact Sheet, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 2pp.
November-December 2008 19