Institute of Marine Sciences

This is an index of my approximately 6,200 nudibranch reprints and books. I have indexed them only for information concerning systematics, taxonomy, nomenclature, & description of taxa. This list should allow you to quickly find information concerning the description, taxonomy, or systematics of almost any species of nudibranch. The full citation for any of the authors and dates listed may be found in the nudibranch bibliography at http://repositories.cdlib.org/ims/Bibliographia_Nudibranchia/.

California’s ocean and coasts are central to the state’s identity, economy, and the everyday wellbeing of its residents. Yet access to and benefits from these areas and ecosystems remain deeply unequal. Despite mandates to ensure public access and enhance opportunities for livelihoods, recreation, and education, the regional mosaic of ocean health, amenities, and engagement continues to be influenced by historical policies of exclusion, uneven investment and regulatory enforcement, and ongoing coastal gentrification. In this report, we examine how marine governance approaches (including the state’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) network) can better align ecological objectives with distributive, procedural, and recognitional equity. As part of a participatory and community-engaged research approach, we partnered with local organizations dedicated to advancing environmental justice and promoting ocean literacy to investigate a) how access, activities, values, and benefits from the ocean vary across diverse communities in Central California; and b) how benefits are influenced by management and social and environmental change.

Using a combination of semi-structured interviews, a large-scale survey instrument (n = 2,191 responses), targeted case studies, and focus group discussions, we worked to engage demographics underrepresented in collaborative coastal management processes to date (i.e., urban fishers, Tribal members, environmentally disadvantaged communities, etc.) in providing data, interpreting research results, and co-developing management recommendations. Our findings indicate that, despite existing legal frameworks, ocean access and benefits continue to accrue disproportionately to affluent, White communities living in close proximity to the coast, while underserved communities (including Black and Asian Americans, Tribal members, and/or low-income households) face compounding barriers (i.e., costs, information, social gatekeeping, etc.). In addition, we demonstrate that the loudest and most prominent voices in ocean and coastal management may not represent the needs and priorities of underserved communities, or Californians at large. Though much of modern policy discourse surrounds the provision and sustainability of material attributes (income, livelihoods, food, etc.), relational and subjective values associated with connection, healing, identity, and cultural expression were of primary importance for much of our study population. Rather than a strict focus on objective, ecological, and/or economic metrics, we suggest that MPAs and other conservation interventions would benefit from increased consideration of the diverse connections people have with marine environments (and the multitude of activities that support them) while pursuing strategies that simultaneously advance environmental health and human wellbeing. Indeed, increased attention to the lived experience of different populations across the Central Coast (as rooted in diverse uses, values, cultures, and traditions) is required to better understand how California residents are impacted by and respond to social and environmental change and management interventions.

As currently designed and managed, MPAs alone are unlikely to deliver a full suite of benefits to underserved communities at scale. Yet embedding equity in all stages of the adaptive management cycle and pairing ecological goals with tangible investments in access infrastructure (affordable transit/parking, accessible facilities), information and safety (multilingual signage, clear and transparent rules, targeted community programming), and pathways to local workforce development and Tribal co-stewardship could measurably increase engagement, trust, and support. When pursued collectively, we suggest such strategies may help cultivate a new generation of ocean advocates and stewards, aligning biodiversity gains with equitable ocean outcomes for underserved communities, while promoting durable and shared wellbeing across the coast.

Coastal habitat restoration, especially of coral reef ecosystems, can significantly reduce the exposure of coastal communities to natural hazards and, consequently, the risk of wave-driven flooding. Likewise, reef degradation can increase coastal flood risks to people and property. In this study, the valuation of coral reefs in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), along the coasts of St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas, demonstrated the social and economic benefits provided by these natural defenses. Across the territory, more than 481 people and $31.2 million of infrastructure were estimated to receive protection from coral reefs per year (2010 U.S. dollars). In 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria significantly damaged coral reefs throughout the archipelago. By combining engineering, ecological, geospatial, social, and economic data and tools, this study provided a rigorous valuation of where potential coral reef restoration projects could help rebuild these damaged habitats and decrease the risks from coastal hazards faced by USVI’s reef-fronted communities. Multiple restoration scenarios were considered in the analysis, two of which are detailed in this report. These include (1) ‘Ecological’ restoration, where restoration creates a structure that is 0.25 m high and 25-m-wide reef, and (2) ‘Hybrid’ restoration, where restoration creates a structure that is 1.25 m high and 5 m wide. There are many ways that such structures could be developed. In the hydrodynamic analyses, there are no assumptions about how the restoration is developed. Many practitioners of both coral (and oyster reef) restoration consider that a reef height of 0.25 m might be delivered from planting corals alone and that 1.25 m might require a combination of artificial structures and coral planting. In a third scenario, the analysis investigated the reduction of protection benefits that would occur through the reduction of 1 meter of naturally occurring reef height due to reef degradation. The reduction of protection due to the loss of reefs can also be interpreted as the protection value of the existing reefs.

In all studied restoration scenarios, it was assumed that the planting of corals would enhance hydrodynamic roughness, effectively dissipating incident wave energy and reducing the potential for coastal flooding. A standardized approach was employed to strategically locate potential restoration projects along the entire linear extent of existing reefs bordering the USVI, and to identify where coral reef restoration could offer valuable benefits in flood reduction. Potential restoration projects were only located within the existing distribution of reefs across the region, even though numerous sites were positioned far offshore (2-3 km), and some were at relatively deep depths (up to 7 m). Risk-based valuation approaches were followed to delineate flood zones at a 10 m² resolution along the entire region's reef-lined shorelines for all the potential coral reef restoration scenarios. These were subsequently compared to flood zones without coral reef restoration.

The potential reduction in coastal flood risk provided by coral reef restoration, and the protection value of existing reefs, were quantified utilizing the latest information available at the time of analysis from the U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Bureau of Economic Analysis for return-interval storm events. The change in Expected Annual Damages (EAD), a metric indicating the annual protection gained due to coral reef restoration, was calculated based on the damages associated with each storm probability. The findings suggest that the benefits of reef restoration are spatially variable within the USVI. In some areas, the analysis showed limited benefits from reef restoration, which may be attributed to the depth or offshore distances of proposed restoration sites. However, there were a number of key areas where reef restoration could have substantial benefits for flood risk reduction.

The annual flood risk reduction attributed to potential ‘ecological’ coral reef restoration in the USVI was 99 people and $6.1 million (2010 U.S. dollars). The Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR) for this restoration approach was found to be larger than 1 (i.e., cost-effective) along 11% of the St. Croix coastline, 4.9% of the St. John coastline, and 8.7% of the St. Thomas coastline. This analysis offers stakeholders and decision-makers a spatially explicit and rigorous evaluation that illustrates how, where, and when potential coral reef restoration efforts in St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas could be instrumental to reducing coastal storm-induced flooding. Understanding areas where reef management, recovery, and restoration could effectively reduce climate hazard-related risks is crucial to protect and enhance the resilience of coastal communities in USVI.