1. Long term monitoring of nearshore habitats in the Gulf of Alaska: Why and How? James L. Bodkin USGS, Alaska Science Center USGS, Alaska Science Center Thomas A. Dean Coastal Resources Associates, Inc. Coastal Resources Associates, Inc.

2. Objectives Demonstrate social and economic benefit to monitoring Demonstrate social and economic benefit to monitoring Requires understanding change Requires understanding change Responding in a timely way Responding in a timely way Describe the Nearshore component of a ecosystem-based program to monitor and manage the Gulf of Alaska Describe the Nearshore component of a ecosystem-based program to monitor and manage the Gulf of Alaska Recovery and restoration value Recovery and restoration value A design to understand cause and enable management A design to understand cause and enable management

3. Why Monitor? ESA direct annual recovery costs in 2003 ESA direct annual recovery costs in 2003 Spotted owl California Condor Chinook Salmon* Black footed ferret Steller Sea lion 5.1 million 3.4 million 123 million 2.3 million 49.5 million

4. Indirect costs  Calif. Gnatcatcher 0.5 million in 2003 Plus an estimated 300 million/year in indirect costs  Spotted owl 5.1 million in 2003 Plus an estimated 21-46 billion in indirect costs to assure a 91-95% probability of population viability Associated with habitat protection/acquisition, lost jobs, and lost revenues

5. Can we limit these costs?  The example of the Brown Pelican (listed in 1970, 0.6 million direct costs in 2003)

6. The example of the sea otter in CA and AK Decline detected ESA listing Rat Islands, Aleutians Decline detected Mgmt action California ?

7. Summary  Letting species decline to the point of becoming endangered has high social and economic costs  Monitoring provides an early warning system that enables management by identifying human activities that are adversely affecting natural resources prior to requiring regulatory action  Manageable human effects include invasive species, contaminants, mortality, disturbance, and habitat modification

8. Monitoring the Gulf of Alaska  To detect change  To understand causes  To predict future change  To inform  To contribute to problem solving

9. Why the nearshore ? 11 of 15 non-recovered resources are included in the Nearshore plan

10. Nearshore Web Linkages to other habitats Nearshore Web Linkages OffshoreWatersheds

11. 4 Regions 12 Blocks 4 Intensive Blocks Nearshore Sampling Design

12. Nearshore Sampling Design (each region) 10 Intensive Sites 6 Selected Sites 60 Extensive Sites

13. Shoreline Surveys Birds and mammals Sea otters Regions

14. Nearshore Birds and Marine Mammals - Abundance - Diet - Productivity Intensive Blocks

15. Intertidal/Subtidal Communities - Density - Productivity - Diversity Physical Measures Sites - Intensive

16. - Abundance - Sizes Sites - Extensive

17. - Contaminants Subsistence Food

18. Understanding Causes for Change  Spatial / Temporal Patterns of Change  Trophic Relations  Productivity/Growth  Size and Age structures  Research Fund Design features

19. GOA Marine Science: An EVOS Legacy Exxon Valdez Oil spill Trustee Council