When people generally think of the Refuge System, they envision the lands protected for wildlife. In fact, like much of the Earth, the Refuge System has far more “waters” than one might assume. Ocean and coastal national wildlife refuge lands and waters comprise 76 percent of the total acres in the Refuge System. A third of all national wildlife refuges are ocean or coastal sites. Through the protection of some of the largest, most intact marine ecosystems on the planet, the Refuge System is a leading contributor to global efforts to conserve marine biodiversity and save the world’s oceans.
National wildlife refuges offer a vast geographic spectrum of scientific research opportunities, whether in the Arctic, near large coastal population centers, or in remote, pristine insular and ocean wildlife refuges. The marine wildlife refuges protect diverse fish and wildlife habitats including salt marshes, rocky shorelines, sandy beaches, kelp forests, mangroves, seagrass meadows, barrier islands, estuaries, lagoons, tropical coral atolls and open ocean. With the addition of the Marianas Trench and Arc of Fire National Wildlife Refuges in 2009, the Refuge System can now add deep-sea hydrothermal vent communities to this list of protected marine ecosystems. With the expansion and additions to the Pacific Reefs Refuges, the Refuge System is now a leader in highly migratory oceanic species conservation, such as tuna, by protecting large areas that are closed to commercial harvest.
Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive communications and outreach strategy regarding Refuge System’s coastal and ocean areas management paradigm to help land managers understand its place within the suite of options for conservation.
Many marine wildlife refuges, particularly the Remote Pacific Islands Complex, make ideal natural laboratories for studying the effects of climate change in the absence of other human disturbance. The Refuge System should continue to support existing research partners like the Pacific Island Climate Change Cooperative and the Palmyra Atoll Research Consortium.
Recommendation: Working in concert with the Service’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and the Refuge System Natural Resources Program Center, maintain, enhance and develop research partnerships and materials on marine issues to provide information on how to work with individual wildlife refuges as well as guidelines and guidance on types of appropriate and compatible research.
Recommendation: Establish access to a research vessel and put together a qualified scientific research team to better inventory, monitor and manage Pacific marine wildlife refuges.
Comment below and/or move on to next sub-section of Chapter 2 - Invasive Species
10 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
While US fisherman have been largely sustainable in our offshore fishing and with the much needed expanded refuges to protect migratory fish by the US, is there a way to add language or a goal that the US National Wildlife Refuge System could be partners or participants with the Marine Stewardship Council and other actors (maybe helping pressure ICATT on bluefin tuna overharvesting, etc).
Because of others actions US fisherman suffer from reduced fish catches as species are extraordinarily overharvested in other waters, and most of all many species themselves are approaching extinction because of lack of global engagement in the international fishing industry. To what extent can the US National Wildlife Refuge System involve itself in wider engagement on global marine protection, biodiversity, and survival of marine wildlife at sustainable levels?
“Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive communications and outreach strategy regarding Refuge System’s coastal and ocean areas management paradigm to help land managers understand its place within the suite of options for conservation.” This is trying to say something important. It just doesn’t do it very well. Trim a few ten dollar words and say what we want to say: “Explain to internal and external audiences how marine and coastal refuges fit within the refuge system” or something like that.
I agree. The critical words “land managers” are buried in the phrasing of this recommendation. Try again! Something like “Develop a strategy to get land management decision makers to recognize their role in protecting coastal and ocean ecosystems” would be more direct.
How much is all of this going to be coordinated with NMFS?
This section could really use some additional information. Pretty remarkable to read the section on Ocean and Marine Conservation and not see the word seabird.
This section needs considerable about of work.
We need to incorparte Marine Protected Areas into the Vision. In 2008, most if not all of our coastal and marine NWR’s also became Marine Protected Areas. Are MPA’s just a special designated area, like UN Biosphere reserves, or RAMSAR sights, or Western Hemisphere Shorebird Networks, etc… Or are they going to have more teeth? What is the purpose for all Coastal refuges to be an MPA too? What are the benfits to wildlife? We need a recommendation to: Develop Regional MPA networking plans, that incorpartes not only Refuge MPA’s but National Parks, and State MPA’s also. NOAA is the lead on MPA’s but Refuge’s make up more than half of the MPA’s out there. We have a major stake in shaping what MPA’s are. We need more vision and direction as to what the FWS’s perspective is.
Also, How do Marine and Coastal refuges fit into LCC’s. LCC’s are focuse on the Landscape view but, estuary and coastal issues can either dominate the discussion or get lost with all the other traditional priorities that LCC’s are currently focused on.
In addition to “… maintain, enhance, and develop research partnerships…” the Service needs to recognize in the vision the importance of continuing to actively partner and participate with other federal agencies, States, NGOs, and citizens on a whole host of already identified activities and needs. Examples include; clean up of marine debris, support regional efforts to reduce the risk of oil spills, seabird and marine mammal monitoring, support of the West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health, ocean literacy, and marine spatial planning.
In addition I promote coordinated management of coastal refuges by region (East Coast, Gulf Coast and West Coast) with emphasis on improving consistency on allowed and prohibited activites, inventoring and monitoring, data gathering and data management.
I agree with Kevin Godsea on defining the roll of refuges as MPAs.
Where’s the beef? More is needed in this section, including the importance of tidal marsh to carbon sequestration, America’s changing coastlines due to sea level rise, the importance of ocean and marine resources to species in the Pacific and Atlantic Flyways and Seaways, barrier islands and their importance to the mainland, marine and ocean T&E species whose recovery is shared by FWS and NMFS, ocean and marine water quality (Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone). Some recommendations that would apply include research on ocean acidification; predictive modeling for islands, atolls, estuaries, coastlines etc. affected by sea level rise; inventory and monitoring for ocean/marine species for future comparisons in 20-40-60 years.
Recommendation: Establish access to a research vessel and put together…”. That is a very worthy goal. Not sure what you mean by “Establish access to a research vessel”? In the current/foreseeable economic situation is this a realistic goal? Would it be appropriate to indicate work in conjunction with other entities like NMFS so not duplicating effort?