THE KEY TO SAVING KEY DEER (Odocoileus virinianus eluvium): MAPPING HABITAT LOSS AND HOW ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT CAN BE USEFUL
A PAPER SUBMITTED FOR COMPLETEION OF SENIOR RESEARCH FOR THE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES STETSON UNIVERSITY BY
Zella Conyers
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE(S) OF BACHELOR OF ARTS ENVIROMENTAL STUDIES AND GEOGRAPHY AND BACHELOR OF ARTS POLITICAL SCIENCE
ADVISOR(S) Dr. J. Anthony Abbott, Ph.D. And Dr. William Ball
MAY 2015 Table of Contents
Abstract 5
Introduction 6
Literature Review 8
Policy Making
Study Area H
Methods 14
SLAMM6.3
Model Inputs
Interpreting SLAMM Results
Uncertainty
Analyzing Adaptive Management
Observations and Data Analysis 21 Results of SLAMM
Adaptive Management Analysis 35 Conclusion and Discussion 37 Works Cited List of Figures
Figure 1 pg. 13 Aerial map of Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Figure 2 pg. 13 Map of the National Key Deer Refuge
Figure 3 pg. 14 Image of land cover types in relation to current sea levels.
Figure 4 pg. 15 Image of the parameters table used in SLAMM.
Figure 5 pg. 17 IPCC 2001 projections of sea-level rise.
Figure 6 pg. 18 United Southeast Florida Sea Level Projection.
Figure 7 pg. 23The initial conditions of the land cover types for Big Pine Key and No Name key.
Figure 8 pg. 24Land cover change for sea-level rise of 0.58 meters by 2100 in the year 2045.
Figure 9 pg. 25Land cover change for sea-level rise of 0.58 meters by 2100 in the year 2060.
Figure 10 pg. 26 Land cover change for sea-level rise of 1.5 meters by 2100 in the year 2045.
Figure 11 pg. 27 Land cover change for sea-level rise of 1.5 meters by 2100 in the year 2060. Acknowledgements
Thank you to my Advisor, Dr. Anthony for his guidance and support in the completion of this project.
Thank you Dr. Jason Evans for his guidance, support, and helping me to becoming the GIS (semi-) professional that I am now.
Thank you to Dr. James Buthman for getting me interested in the public policy realm and everything he has done for me since my time at Stetson.
Thank you my Senior Research Project Classmates for their time and interest in creating the best project. Abstract
The effects of sea-level rise, especially displacement of habitat, are beginning to be of
vital interest to policy makers throughout the Florida Keys. Displacement will not only
disgruntle humans but a wide array of endemic species, such as Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus
virinanus clavium). Big Pine Key and No Name Key are home to most of the Key Deer
population and are identified as part of the National Key Deer Refuge (US Fish and Wildlife
Service). Using Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM), Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) predictions of sea level rise were used to project land cover change throughout the study area for the years 2040 and 2065. Through the analysis of the predictions
produced and peer-reviewed journals, it is shown how adaptive management can be used to
address Key Deer habitat loss. Introduction
Sea level rise is a global issue and will affect the habitats of humans, animals and other organisms. Sea-level rise is on a positive trend, with nine inches over the last one-hundred years, causing minor problems for infrastructure such as flooding but the effect on the habitat of endangered and threatened species is not directly being addressed, when it should. Endemic species of the coast are at risk of extinction due to loss of habitat from sea level rise. A coastal area that will suffer damage from sea level rise is the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys are home to a large array of endemic species and sea-level rise is threatening the livelihood of this unique aspect of the area, in specific the Florida Key Deer
(Odocoileus virinianus clavium). In 1957 the Key Deer population hit an all-time low of 27 and sparked the establishment of the National Key Deer Refuge which has helped to bring the population back to the
800 individuals there are today (FWS.gov 2014). About three-quarters of the Key Deer population live on
Big Pine Key and No Name Key, with approximately 60 percent of the entire population on Big Pine Key
(Harveson et al. 2004). The Key Deer thrive in all habitats of Big Pine Key which include pine rocklands, hardwood hammock, mangroves, and freshwater wetlands. The loss of Key Deer habitat will cause the
Key Deer to search for new habitat, often amongst humans and highways which will cut their survival rate and put the species at a higher level of extinction. Mapping habitat loss will help to identify areas of high concern and help to develop a plan in which Key Deer can survive the effects of sea level rise.
The Sea Level Affecting on Marshes Model has been used by several governmental and non governmental organizations to calculate the effect of sea level rise on wetlands, with a focus on marshes.
SLAMM USES National Wetland Inventory Data, Digital Elevation Data and optional data sets to stimulate impacts of long-term sea level rise on wetlands and shores (NOAA.gov 2014) SLAMM has been used in other areas by entities like the National Wildlife Federation which ran the model for
Biscayne Bay and eight of areas in Florida to show the effects sea-level rise will have on the marshland around that area (NOAA.gov 2014). It was also used in Coastal Maryland to identify high priority conservation areas (NOAA.gov 2014). By calculating exact habitat loss of the Key Deer on Big Pine Key through SLAMM (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model) areas of high risk can be highlighted and prioritized. SLAMM has not been run for Big Pine Key but by running the model, habitat loss can be predicted which can help prioritize areas of concern and help to develop a policy of adaptation.
When creating policy for things such as se level rise, several approaches must be used to create an effective and resilient solution. Research has shown that individuals are more likely to adopt policy with multiple functional perspectives rather than just one when considering the relocation of infrastructure
(Alexander, Ryan and Measham 2011). This idea of multifunctional perspectives can be applied to the development of policy that will address Key Deer habitat loss and displacement. A new way of thinking is required to combat the effects of sea-level rise. Adaptive management is a flexible, reliable and progressive policy and can be easily applied to address the issue of key deer habitat loss due to sea-level rise effects. Adaptive management is a "learn by doing," as described by the Department of the Interior
(Williams and Brown 2012). It is based on the recognition that resource systems are only partially understood and occurs through the practice of management, with adjustments as understanding is improved (Williams and Brown 2012).
Adaptive management has been used in several governmental management areas, especially economics and the resource department. The Department of the Interior created an adaptive management applications guide in 2012 for resource management (Williams and Brown 2012). This document encourages the use of adaptive management, especially in situations of high uncertainty, and can be useful in application (Williams and Brown 2012). The high uncertainty of sea-level rise effects and the stability of Key Deer habitat make adaptive management a great choice to combat what is to come. This policy allows for the evaluation of practices, and the improvement of discontinuation of certain policies.
Adaptive management is the way to handle the loss of Key Deer habitat to the effects of sea-level rise. Literature Review
The effects of sea-level rise is not a modern phenomenon, it has been a developing
problem since human and infrastructure development. It can be seen throughout America's past with the destruction of many coastal communities from storm surges and the rising sea. A prime
example is Edingsville Beach, South Carolina; a vacation spot to the wealthy in the 1850's to the
1890's when it was destroyed by the sea (Pilkey and Young 2009). Beginning in 1881, a series
of storms hit the island, removing dunes and destroying houses. Finally, with the Great Storm of
1893 the once wealthy coastal community was reduced to a mere barrier island (Pilkey and
Young 2009). This is only the beginning of once inhabitable land taken back by the sea.
Today, local coastal communities are experiencing the effects of sea-level rise more than
ever with rising tides, erosion and daily inundation. Coastal communities like the Florida Keys
will be among the first forced to deal with the effects of sea-level rise. In the Florida Keys, the
Lower Florida Keys are more susceptible to sea-level rise than the Upper Florida Keys (Zhang et
al. 2009). There is an initiative throughout the Florida Keys, the Green Keys Project, which has
adopted the effects of sea-level rise a main concern
(http://www. greenkevs.org/en/resources/elibrarv.html?res id=31). This project is centered
around the need for policy in order to address the negative effects of sea-level rise on the
developed areas of the Florida Keys. However the project does not address the pressing issue of the unique animals which inhabit the islands and the effect sea-level rise will have on their
population and habitat.
A project done by Reece et al., show the vulnerability of 300 species in Florida to the threats of sea-level rise and climate change (Reece et al. 2011). The vulnerability assessment
showed Key Deer among the highest vulnerability due to sea-level rise and barriers o dispersal (Reece et al. 2011). This study, along with Harvesons' study shows the population dynamic of the Florida Key Deer with nearly 60 percent of the population located on Big Pine Key, a highly
susceptible area to sea-level rise (Harveson 2004). Much has been done to show the vulnerability
of the Florida Key Deer, but what type of habitat and how much has not been examined.
The Florida Key Deer lives on a range of habitat throughout the lower Florida Keys,
ranging from pine flatwoods to fresh water wetlands. Although past studies have shown a loss in
Key Deer habitat with the rise of sea-levels, but what has not been shown is what type of land
loss there will be. Ecosystems react differently to the rise of sea-level; mangroves can withstand the rise in salinity, where a freshwater marsh ecosystem will be forever altered by the
introduction of salt water. This missing information will help to calculate how much Key Deer
habitat and the resources that they use will be lost. Several models have been used to show the
rise in sea-levels throughout coastal communities, such as Ecological landscape spatial
simulation models, Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM), Dynamic Interactive
Vulnerability Assessment (Mcleod et al. 2010).
There are major differences in the models that predict sea-level rise. Some models are
bathtub models, which do not take into account the changing ecosystems and sea-level rise
effects as filling up a bath tub. These models are not good at predicting sea-level rise in coastal
communities, which react in several different ways to sea-level rise. In the past, bath tub models
were the prime way to show effects of sea-level rise but today there are dynamic models such as
SLAMM. SLAMM is best used to projects habitat changes in response to sea-level rise at local
and regional scales (Mcleod et al. 2010). SLAMM has been run on several coastal areas like
Maryland and South Carolina to highlight impacted areas and has contributed to the development
of sea-level planning for these areas. There was also a study done in Texas in order to show coastal impacts of sea-level rise on the marshland (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 2011).
SLAMM will be used to show habitat changes throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key in
reference to Key Deer habitat.
Policy Making
By running sea-level rise models for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, it will show a loss
in habitat but not what can be done to combat the effects. Vulnerability assessments, such as the
one done by Reece, show a high vulnerability for Key Deer and their habitat range (Reece et al.
2011). What is to be done to combat the effects? Throughout history there have been several
policies put into place in order to protect the population of Key Deer, like being listed on the
endangered species list and the creation of the National Key Deer Refugee in 1957 (FWS.gov
2014). With sea-level rise, what is to come of the Key Deer population and all the work done to
preserve it?
Many ideas have been thrown into the mix on how to fix the problems produced from
sea-level rise, such as managed retreat or Mycoo's coastal setbacks in "Sustainable Tourism,
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Adaption Policies in Barbados" (Mycoo 2014). In the
article "Managed Retreat of Communities: Understanding Responses to Projected Sea-Level
Rise," research showed that respondents are more likely to adopt a policy which has multiple
functional perspectives rather than just one when considering the relocation of homes and
infrastructure (Alexander, Ryan and Measham 2011). By incorporating more than one approach to handling the habitat loss of the Key deer in Big Pine Key, Florida, the deer population will
become more resilient to the effects of sea-level rise by providing different paths of adaptation.
Developing a policy with different avenues to addressing the habitat loss of Key deer will help
10 with the resilience of the species because it will help the population deal with the biophysical and
spatial uncertainties, such as surge weather (Bell et al. 2014).
Policy that encompasses all of the above is defined as Adaptive Management. Adaptive
management is described as a 'learning by doing' process, which promotes flexible decision
making that can be altered in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions
become better understood (Williams et al. 2009). Adaptive management is best used in situations
of high uncertainty, such as in the case of sea-level rise throughout Key Deer habitat. This
progressive form of policy has been used in other areas like in Fackler's management of
recreation near Golden Eagle nesting sites where several approaches were proposed (Fackler
2014). It has also been used to address the management of Waterfowl Harvests where it has
been in use for 20 years (Johnson et al. 2015). Here the program has been successful in helping to maintain the waterfowl population through increments of learning which has contributed to
better management decisions (Johnson et al. 2015). Furthermore, Johnson et al. concluded that
with the use of adaptive management it greatly increased the awareness of the roles of social
values, trade-offs, and attitudes toward risk in dec is ion-making (Johnson et al. 2015).
Adaptive management has been used to help the rise of population and n the restoration
of ecosystems, like in the case of the South River near Waynesboro, VA (Foran et al. 2012). In this article, the use of adaptive management was evaluated for the South River, where criticism
of the policy included limited ability to learn from actions and more (Foran et al. 2012). In
conclusion, the study found that the implementation of adaptive management was helpful in that
it can link project performance criteria, decision-maker preferences, environmental models, and
short-and long- term monitoring information with management choices (Foran et al. 2012).
11 Throughout the history of the Florida Key Deer there has been an array of policy that has
dealt with the lessening of the population and viable habitat, but the effects of sea-level rise on the habitat of Key Deer will need an alternate approach. Adaptive management will be proved to
be the better option to combat these uncertain effects because of its flexibility, innovation, and its
system of checks and balances. Study Area
The study area is Big Pine Key and No Name Key, located in the Florida Keys (Figure
1). The islands are located in Monroe County, which has been classified as an area of high
vulnerability to sea-level rise at all levels of governance and has been involved with combating
sea-level rise, on a local and regional level, since the millennium (Southeast Florida Regional
Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group
2012). Despite its high risk, Big Pine Key and No Name Key are home to the National Key Deer
Refuge which encompasses 17 islands and stretches from north of Marathon, Florida to north of
Key West Florida (Harveson 2004).
Big Pine Key and No Name Key are home to approximately 75 percent of the Key Deer
population which already suffer from habitat destruction with the use of highways and human
development (Lopez 2010). Island elevation was 0-3 meters above sea level which makes its
land types very susceptible to the effects of sea level rise (Lopez 2010). The Key Deer thrives in
all habitats that make up Big Pine Key and No Name Key which consists of pine rocklands,
hardwood hammock, mangroves, and freshwater wetlands. These land types in relation to the
mean sea level can be seen in Figure 3. Habitat loss in Big Pine Key due to sea level rise will
displace a large portion of the Key Deer population and put the species at a higher risk for
extinction. Big Pine Key and No Name Key contain most of the Key Deer population and
12 looking at the effects sea level rise will have on this area will help to depict the future of the species.
Figure 1. This is an aerial image of Big Pine Key (The larger Island in the center) and No Name Key (The smaller island to the right). Source is from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
National Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge
Legend
Visitor Center
Walking Trails
Deer Viewing
Wildlife Viewing
Refuge Lands looktor Refuge Boundary Signs
Private Property. HiiNx* : Pi M.II* Prcperly rights.
Figure 2. The figureabov e is a map of the National Key Deer Refuge. This better highlights Big Pine Key and No Name Key as individual islands. Source is fws.gov
13 I 'egeuulon Types PL - pinclands. HM = hammocks. I:M = freshwater marsh. BW = hultonwood. MG = mangrov
Historical!). development occurred in tidal resulting in the creation of uplands.
Fig. 1. Relationship of vegetation types to mean sea level (m) in the lower Florida Keys. Florida, USA. Photos illustrate develop ment (left, note canal on left and increase in elevation due to fill), lowland (center, buttonwood/mangrove forest), and upland (right, pineland; Modified from Folk 1991).
Figure 3. This is an image taken which helps to better illustrate the changing and unique land cover of the lower Florida Keys, which is home to the Key Deer. Her you can see a wide range of land types which are explored throughout this study. These land types are also depicted in relation to the mean sea level through the lower Florida Keys. Source: Johnson et al. Methods
This study combines the use of a spatially explicit model that simulates land-cover
changes from long-term SLR and spatial imagery to help predict land cover changes throughout
the National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR). Land-cover types range from fresh and saltwater
wetlands to developed and undeveloped areas. Areas with change will present an issue for its
human inhabitants as well as the endangered Florida Key Deer. This assessment of land-cover
change along with the analysis of pervious work will be used to support adaptive management as
the best solution to address Key Deer habitat loss.
SLAMM 6.3
SLAMM 6.3 (Sea-level Affecting Marshes Model) is a GIS based regional climate model
which is used to project the habitat changes in response to sea-level rise. The model uses cells
based on the cell-size of the USGS Digital Elevation Model; each cell is assigned with a land
14 cover type and elevation data (Mcleod 2010). The SLAMM model uses parameters and boundary conditions, set by the user, in its simulations of 25 land-cover categories (Figure 4). Land cover categories used in this study include: developed and undeveloped, saltmarsh, tidal flat, inland
fresh marsh, swamp, cypress marsh, beach, and open water. The conversion of land types occurs by switching from one type to another on a cell-by-cell basis in a given time step (Warren
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc.2011). The standard time step for this model is 5-25 years, and will be done for the years 2015, 2040 and 2065 (present day and 25 and 50 years into the future)
(Mcleod 2010). The simulations produced by SLAMM include five primary processes that are involved in coastal wetland conversions and shoreline modifications: inundation, erosion, over wash, saturation, and salinity (Chu 2014). The advantages of SLAMM are that it can be applied
at regional scales, can provide detail information about the vulnerability of coastal habitats and
species to changes in sea-levels, and can provide detailed information on how habitats may shift
as a result of these changes (Mcleod 2010).
• EM fenai l faibutn
ta-M. CUM fcMfl MM]
Knl "MOM fmr) own*. C<>1 RIO MIC RIO
f»« w OfVo< J>j«, - ] MM MM M
iW",'«H,«l 1.7J 1.17 U7
"H««"W 4.B1 «1M «JO
G>o« Ml On. (n*w. Mil) 0«. OO. o» "*+*—* ton* r*i u u u >mtnvt*<>r<) 1 1 1 T»%1 flow tot. * ffi OI 01 01 are •MW»**»OT t»-vV) it it 19 Erfc Iced M*r* *»»-*') «» if «.* t.M'.tfMarV.lartMftO S.» M S.I HMfmiwwM*) 1* M U Ha-VMtttrlMM 7 7 7 TUB*-*ip*co|-aVf} 11 LI 1.1 t^tewortwir—,'*] 0.) O) 03 BmH >a *M> MV) 1 1 I Fita 0.t"i» (>aril ;s :s :s Snon OtrriaV) Pattmrton She* Aravwn P«. »ww ynmmW IS I .«— 1 i « i wm»<*i Figure 4. This is a screenshot of the parameters, used to give you a better visual representation of the SLAMM model. 15 Model Inputs SLAMM requires spatial and non-spatial inputs in order to run the simulations. There are two spatial inputs required: land cover categories (NWI file) and elevation (DEM file/GIS layer). The land cover categories were obtained from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) and categories land types into categories understood by SLAMM. The DEM, or elevation, file contains the elevation data for the entire lower keys and was provided by the Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL). In addition, there is a SLOPE file which links the slope of the GIS layer to the project and is required to run the simulation (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc.2011). The SLOPE file was also gathered from the FDEM. Parameters were set by the input of the data. SLR scenarios in SLAMM are based on the IPCC 2001 Climate Change Report and currently projects a range between 0.2 and 1.6 meters by 2100 (Church 2013). In this study two projections will be used, based on the IPCC projections of the IPCC Climate Change Report produced in 2001 (Figure 5); with sea-level rising 0.58 meters by 2100 in the first scenario and 1.4 meters in the second. Figure 6 shows an easier to understand graph. This projection was used because it is widely accepted among several Florida government agencies, including the Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC). Along with the FWC, the Nature Conservancy in 2009 used 2007 IPCC projections of sea-level rise ranging from 0.18 meter to a projection of 1.4 meters (Zhnag et. Al 2012). The historical trend was not used because this is not a likely scenario, in the case of sea-level rise projections today. The highest projection was not used because of the devastating results of the model run. The production of more than a two meter rise in sea levels would completely render Big Pine Key and No Name Key uninhabitable. 16 (e) Sea level rise oirvt produced by 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 •^'u^ several models Year Figure 5. IPCC Projections for sea-level rise for 2100 of the 2001 Climate Change Report. The range extends from a historical trend of approximately 0.1 meter to the highest scenario of approximately 1.0 meters. Source is the EPPC Climate Change Report 2004. The curves represent several scenarios of global action. •M I t^*lmit InMnl %•» lm*l MM •••• tor (a-MrlM* i I ! J! ' 0 \t*i> 1990 ?0O0 MID M»0 JOV) 2040 JOSO AMO Figure 6. The figure above is the Unified Southeast Florida Sea Level Rise Projection for Regional Planning Purposes. Projections use historic Key West tidal data and the United States Army Corps of Engineers Guidance (USACE 2209). The upper curve represents the bounds of the projection levels. Interpreting SLAMM Results After the simulation is executed, a combination of file types are produced (XML, ASC, OVR, DBF, and Microsoft Excel) for each year indicated and two for each future case;: 1. Initial Conditions, 2. 2040 Projections, and 3. 2065 projections. The ASC files will be opened in 17 ArcGIS programs ArcMap and ArcCatalog in order to convert the product of SLAMM into a map file that can be used to show the land cover changes produced. After the ASC raster files are opened in ArcMap it is easier to visually modify for better interpretation. The maps produced, were produced for the entire lower keys, from a few islands before Big Pine Key down to the southernmost point located in Key West. This was done because SLAMM, from experience, works better with larger areas because then it takes into account the transition of habitats around Big Pine Key which will have a high influence on the outcome of Big Pine Key and No Name Key Projections. Then each map produced was clipped, using the geoprocessing tool 'clip' in ArcCatalog, to the parameters of Big Pine Key and No Name Key (including Open Ocean). This allowed the SLAMM results to only show results for this area. Then, the land cover was identified by creating an extra column in the attribute data and using an excel spreadsheet produce by the simulation to match the ID number with the land cover type. This is done for each year and projection. After the land cover type is identified, a color is assigned to each type in order to highlight the change. The map was then exported as a PDF (personal database file) for easier access and to prevent any changes to the data. Next, the attribute of each map produced is copied to an Excel spreadsheet in order to determine the percentage of habitat loss in each scenario. First, the initial conditions map was evaluated in order to determine the amount of useable land initially on the islands. The land categories were chosen because they are areas which are available to the Key Deer twenty-four hours a day and are as follows: Developed Dry Land, Undeveloped Dry Land, Swamp, Inland Fresh Marsh, Transitional Salt Marsh, Regularly-Flooded Marsh, Mangrove, Rocky Intertidal, and Irregularly-Flooded. Developed land was included because Key Deer are known to use residential and commercial areas extensively IS (http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MSRPPDFs/KevDeer.pdf). Tidal flat, ocean beach, inland open water and open ocean were not identified as useable habitat because of the uncertainty of range and the absences of resources available by the other areas. By using the excel spreadsheet information, percentage of habitat loss was also be determined, and converted into a circle graph for interpretation purposes. When the attribute table is copied into excel, three columns are produced, the first is the land category type, second the amount of hectares per land category type and last the ID number of the category. The last column is ignored. Percentage change is calculated using the first two columns. The initial conditions are first determined by adding all the columns together, than the useable land is added together, and lastly the total land is divided by the useable land to determine the initial land percentage. The percentage of useable land for the initial conditions was approximately thrity percent. The loss in useable land was then determined by a simple percent of change formula: (initial condition usable land-Scenario usable land)/initial condition usable land. This method was applied to all four scenarios in order to determine the percentage of land cover loss. The data produced was then converted to a pie chart for easier interpretation. Uncertainty Sea-level rise predictions are just that predictions. The uncertainty of the rate of sea-level rise is a very controversial topic and is highly determined by forces out of human control. The model used in this project takes into account this uncertainty. SLAMM is equipped with a Monte-Carlo uncertainty analysis module that provides confidence statistics of the results. The Monte-Carlo uncertainty analysis is used to dependably quantify the probability distributions of the target outcomes (Janssen 2012). Uncertainty distributions for almost all variables were run on 19 the parameters of the project in order to support accuracy in the results. Elevation uncertainty was represented using a spatially-autocorrelated map and is represented by a color gradient. The uncertainty model is not used in the evaluation of the results due to complexity and it displaces the focus of my research from the outcome of the model to the probability of the model. (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 2011). Analyzing Adaptive Management Research was done to support adaptive management as the best solution for Florida Key Deer habitat loss throughout Big Pine Key. With such high uncertainty that exists concerning the future of ecological systems, adaptive management has been developed to address these uncertainties. Adaptive management begins with the basic Markov Decision Process framework by recognizing that there is scientific uncertainty about how a system will respond to specific actions (Fackler 2014). This unique type of policy requires recurrent decisions that are characterized by reducible ecological uncertainty. By analyzing adaptive management framework, current initiatives and peer-reviewed journals on the topic, the effectiveness of adaptive management will be evaluated in relation to Florida Key Deer. 20 Observations and Data Analysis Results of SLAMM After running SLAMM and interpreting the results a loss in total habitat throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key was shown in all maps produced. The results showed a range of percentage of habitat loss at each prediction. The pie charts produced provide an easier understanding of the loss in habitat. The initial conditions produced showed a total of 4256.64 hectares of viable land throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key. With 767.33 hectares classified as undeveloped dry land and 1390.45 as developed dry land. Mangroves consisted of 1204.49 hectares, which is important to note because it is a large portion of the land used by Key Deer. Sea-level rise projections of 0.58 meters by 2100 were produced for the 2045 and 2060. In year 2045 there was a total habitat loss of 10 percent. The total amount of viable hectares was reduced from 4256.64 hectares to 3822.3 hectares. There was a noticeable loss in undeveloped dry land, swamp land, transitional salt marsh, and inland fresh marsh. Among these, it is important to take note of the loss in inland fresh marsh and swamp which is a source of drinking water, food, and habitat for the Key Deer. It is also important to notice the introduction of a new land cover type, estuarine beach which is unusable by the Key Deer. Estuarine beach is an enclosed body of salt water formed in response to ecosystem changes induced by sea-level rise (Nordstrom 1992). There is also an increase in the mangrove land cover type, which was expected due to the ability to adapt to moderate levels of sea-level rise. This is because mangroves tend to expand laterally into areas of higher elevations, moving them landward as the sea-level rises and explaining their increase in area (Gilman 2008). In the year 2060, there was a total habitat loss of 14 percent. The total amount of viable hectares was reduced from 4256.64 to 3662.66. Here there is a loss in all viable areas of habitat. There is still an increase of mangrove land cover encompassing a total of 1681.85 hectares of viable land. Also, another new land type is introduced: estuarine beach. This habitat is also classified as unusable by Key Deer because it is also an enclosed body of water. At 0.58 meters of sea-level rise by 2100 there is a total loss 21 of 14 percent of usable Key Deer habitat, which induces the eventual need of policy in order to address the loss in habitat. Sea-level rise projections were also produced for 1.5m by 2100 for the year 2045 and 2060. In this scenario, by the year 2045 there showed a loss of 29 percent of total habitat. In this year, both estuarine beach and estuarine open water appear, totaling to 2211.04 hectares. This is important to note because a large portion of viable habitat was converted to this land type. Another important area to note is the loss in undeveloped dry land, about a 52 percent loss in hectares. There is also a large increase in mangrove land cover, froml204.49 to 1770.46 hectares. In the year 2060 for this scenario, there was a total habitat loss of an astounding 62 percent, 4256.64 hectares to 1627.2 hectares. Here both estuarine open water and estuarine beach are present. All areas of viable habitat are reduced. An important land cover loss to notice is mangrove land cover, which is reduced. This is crucial to note because with such a substantial rise in sea-levels mangrove are unable to adapt to the changes creating a loss in land cover. This range of 10 percent to 62 percent shows a high level of uncertainty in Key Deer habitat loss due to sea-level rise. Regardless of uncertainty the projections only show a loss of total habitat. The range not only shows uncertainty but show certainty of a loss of habitat for the Key Deer which will pose a problem for government officials dedicated to protecting these creatures and the residential areas who experience the Key Deer nuisance daily. The results show a definite loss in Key Deer habitat supporting my thesis, that there is a loss in habitat for Key Deer through sea-level rise that will support the idea of adaptive management as perfect fit for policy. 22 Big Pine Key and No Name Key in Hectares, Initial Conditions - tt inr \ ** 1 A ^H ^P* \.^B ^K^ *dfl Sl^^fl| ^^^^fl ^r -ii,/£i ^^^r **"'^MH The map above displays the ^^tftf ^^b • Oeveloped Ory Land land cover of Big Pine Key and _^^H ^^^ • Undeveloped Dry Land No Name Key in Florida. The ^^H ^^.. land cover types are located in ^^| Inland Fresh Marsh the pie chart to the right, which ^H Transitional Salt Marsh is a proportional representation Regurlary-Floaded Marsh of the land cover types throughout Big Pine Key and Mangrove No Name Key. ^H ^V ^^| ^V Ocean Beach Cartography: Zella Conyers ^H ^V^ • Rocky Intertidal Sources: Florida Geographic Data ^^H ^^r • Inland Open Water Library, Florida Natural Areas Inventory ^^^IH BW^^^ • Open Ocean Spring 2015 Figure 1. These are the initial conditions of the land cover types for Big Pine Key and No Name key. This shows a total of 4256.64 hectares of viable habitat for the Florida Key Deer. The next figure shows the color grade for the map, as well as proportional representation of the land cover types located throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key in a Pie Chart 23 2045 Big Pine Key and No Name Key in Hectares, 0.58m by 2100 The map above displays the land cover of Big Pine Key and l Developed Dry Land No Name Key in Florida for the l Undeveloped Dry Land year 2045, with a sea-level rise I Swamp scenario of 0.58m by 2100. The • Inland Fresh Marsh land cover types are located in Transitional Salt Marsh the pie chart to the right, which • Regurlary-FloodedMarsh is a proportional representation • Estuarine Beach • Mangrove of the land cover types. • Tidal Flat • Ocean Beach Cartography: Zella Conyers l Rocky Intertidal Sources: Florida Geographic Data I Inland Open Water Library, Florida Natural Areas Inventory l Open Ocean Spring 2015 l Irregularly-Flooded Marsh Figure 8. This is map prediction of land cover change for sea-level rise of 0.58 meters by 2100 in the year 2045 which shows a ten percent reduction in overall loss in habitat for the Key Deer. 24 2060 Big Pine Key and No Name Key in Hectares, 0.58m by 2100 i M ...j •*.. Jte } • K^tl -&* '" •& The map above displays the • Developed Dry Land land cover of Big Pine Key and • Undeveloped Dry Land No Name Key in Florida for the • Swamp year 2060, with a sea-level rise • Inland Fresh Marsh scenario of 0.58m by 2100. The Transitional Salt Marsh M • Regurlary-Flooded Marsh land cover types are located in • Estuarine Beach the pie chart to the right, which is • Mangrove a proportional representation of • Tidal Flat the land cover types. • Ocean Beach • Rocky Intertidal • Estuarine Open Water Cartography: Zt Ha Conyers - Inland Open Water Sources: Florida G eographic Date • Open Ocean Library, Florida Natur al Areas Invent ory • Irregularly-Flooded Marsh Spring * 015 Figure 9. This is map prediction of land cover change for sea-level rise of 0.58 meters by 2100 in the year 2060 which shows a 14 percent reduction in overall loss in habitat for the Key Deer. 25 2045 Big Pine Key and No Name Key in Hectares, 1.5m by 2100 Land Cover Types I Developed Dry Land The map above displays I Undeveloped Dry Land the land cover of Big Pine I Swamp Key and No Name Key in I Inland Fresh Marsh Florida for the year 2045, Transitional Salt Marsh with a sea-level rise I Regurlary-Flooded Marsh scenario of 1.5m by 2100. I Estuarine Beach 1 Mangrove I Tidal Flat Cartography: Zella Conyers I Ocean Beach Sources: Florida Geographic I Rocky Intertidal Data Library, Florida Natural A'eas Inventory I Estuarine Open Water Spring 2015 '• Inland Open Water I Open Ocean I Irregularly-Flooded Marsh Figure 10. This is map prediction of land cover change for sea-level rise of 1.5 meters by 2100 in the year 2045 which shows a 29 percent reduction in overall loss in habitat for the Key Deer. 26 2060 Big Pine Key and No Name Key in Heactares, 1.5m by 2100 Land Cover Type • Developed Dry Land The map above displays • Undeveloped Dry Land the land cover of Big Pine • Swamp Key and No Name Key in • Inland Fresh Marsh Florida for the year 2060, Transitional Salt Marsh with a sea-level rise • Regurlary-Flooded Marsh scenario of 1.5m by 2100. • Estuarine Beach Mangrove • Tidal Flat Cartography: Zella Conyers • Ocean Beach Sources: Florida Geographic • Rocky Intertidal Data Library, Florida Natural Areas Inventory Estuarine Open Water Spring 2015 Inland Open Water • Open Ocean • Irregularly-Flooded Marsh Figure 11. This is map prediction of land cover change for sea-level rise of 1.5 meters by 2100 in the year 2060 which shows a 62 percent reduction in overall loss in habitat for the Key Deer. 21 Adaptive Management Analysis Policy-makers have a tough job today in the public sector. Current policies in place cannot perform effectively under dynamic and uncertain conditions like sea-level rise. Developing policy for the uncertain will be a necessity especially among coastal communities, like the Florida Keys. Areas like this will be among the first to experience the need for policy to deal with the uncertain effects and rise of sea level. Adaptive management policy is useful for Big Pine Key and No Name Key because such policies can anticipate effects of the future and respond to an array of conditions with more successful outcomes when faced with uncertainty (Bhadwal and Swanson 2009). Sea-level rise planning has become a focus for places like the Florida Keys, which currently has an initiative, Green Keys!, that has begun to propose ways in which to deal with the effects of sea-level rise on the local communities. In order to handle the diminishing habitat of the Florida Key Deer, officials must develop a new type of policy in order to deal with the changing conditions and high uncertainty of the effects of sea-level rise. Adaptive management is best way form of policy to tackle the habitat loss of Florida Key Deer because it tackles the world of uncertainty with flexibility and a checks and balances system that is progressive and innovative. By analyzing adaptive management framework and current initiatives in the Florida Keys, the idea of adaptive management will fit perfectly in the case of the Key Deer. Framework Three different scenarios of adaptive management framework are explored. The positive and negative aspects of each case of adaptive management framework are assessed and how they can be applied to a management strategy for Key Deer habitat loss throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The first will be on the management of recreational activity near Golden Eagle nesting site; the second is concerned with the management of mercury in the South River located in Waynesboro, VA; and finally twenty years of adaptive management of waterfowl harvests will 28 be the last case examined (Fackler et al. 2014; Foran et al. 2015; Johnson et al. 2015). The final case is an implementation of adaptive management, while the latter two are models to run in order to determine the effectiveness of adaptive management. Golden Eagle Adaptive Management In this study, an adaptive management framework was developed in order to control hiking near Golden Eagle nests in Denali National Park located in Alaska. They developed a multistate site-occupancy model which implemented the optimal decisions of management (adaptive optimization) in three scenarios over a specified time period (Martin et al.). The scenarios and management decisions were a product of empirical estimates and expert opinion (Martin et al. 2011). The model then helped to formalize three hypotheses about the effects of hiker access on occupancy dynamics of Golden Eagles (Martin et al. 2011). The simulation results were plotted to show how the implementation of adaptive management as the means of dealing with model uncertainty and showed adaptive optimization can reduce uncertainty over time (Martin et al. 2011). This application of adaptive management principles highlights the flexibility of this approach. Flexibility is crucial in the development of adaptive management policy and is a main contributor to the above models. Flexibility allows, when necessary, for the termination of an ineffective decision and the implementation of an optimal decision. In the model, all scenarios of the application of adaptive management led to a similar outcome of reduction of uncertainty (Martin et al. 2011). This is because overtime the best decision for management was chosen at intervals of the modeling process and when a management decision became inefficient (not the optimal decision), it was converted to one that was (Martin et al. 2011). This flexibility allows 29 for the discovery of the uncertain by determining which policies work and discarding the ones that do not. These models can be applied to the development of adaptive management policy for the Florida Key Deer and the uncertainty of sea-level rise effects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. By running models similar to these, empirical estimates and expert opinion can help to determine the fate of the future of the Key Deer. The best decisions can be predicted through model runs and over time reduced uncertainty with the incorporation of their future decisions. The downfall of these models is that they are applied to something that can ultimately be controlled, human interaction. In the case of Key Deer, sea-level rise and its effects cannot be controlled. Therefore, when implementing this model there are far more important decisions to be considered and can disrupt the outcomes of adaptive optimization. Mercury in the South River Mercury in the South River in Waynesboro, VA has been a problem for quite some time and here Foran et al. shows how an alternative form of adaptive management, enhanced adaptive management (EAM) model, which designed to support phased remedial action can be effective (Foran et al. 2015). EAM is a deterministic, multi-attribute model which uses a quantitative decision model that links estimated effects of chosen remedial actions with criteria for a successful management plan (Foran et al. 2015). The decision model uses a quantitative evaluation of management options, then a relative score is produced to show how well the decision meets up with the criteria, and finally a decision is made (Foran et al. 2015). In conclusion of the models, EAM helped to focus decision-making under uncertainty about remedial performance and limited understanding of a systems response (Foran et al. 2015). 30 This model is beneficial in that it identifies clear links between management decisions and current knowledge and project criteria, speeds the decision process, plans can be evaluated on how well they improve the decision model and remedial plans can be updated as new information becomes available (Foran et al. 2015). EAM would be useful in the implementation of policy concerning Key Deer habitat loss due to sea-level rise because of its in depth evaluation of decision making, speed, and flexibility. For example, this model can take sea-level rise, evaluate possible management decisions and produce the decisions which best match up with the project goal in a timely manner. This is beneficial because the effects of sea-level rise on Key Deer habitat, even in the lowest projection of 0.58 meters by 2100, will require a speedy policy development process. It will also allow for the most statistically relevant decisions to be sorted out, allowing for more time to be dedicated to implementation and lessening uncertainty. 20 Years of Adaptive Management on Waterfowl Harvests An evaluation of the adaptive harvest management (AHM) program implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFW) for the sport harvest of waterfowl showed how successful the program was in increasing the awareness of the roles of social values, tradeoffs, and attitudes toward risk in decision-making (Johnson 2015). AHM is a branch of adaptive management, created by the USFW, which involves the same principle of adaptive management. The study also emphasizes how the management of waterfowl will need to include not only the focus of relationships among habitat, harvest, populations but how society values waterfowl today and in the future. Through the implemented management of waterfowl, four broad lessons concerning the implementation of AHM which can also be applied to the implementation of an adaptive management policy concerning Key Deer. The lessons are as follows: 1. the larger the project area and an increase in variables limit learning to improve future regulatory decisions; 2. 31 Adaptive management requires unambiguous management objectives; 3. The decision process becomes more difficult when more individuals are involved; and 4. the uncertainty of certain aspects of global change (Foran et al. 2015). Although originated for harvest management, each lesson can be helpful for policy makers in the development of adaptive management to combat the effects of sea-level rise on Key Deer to better understand and implement the policy. The area for implementation of policy, in the case of Key Deer would be limited and comparatively small, making this a prime area for the implementation of adaptive management. By being unambiguous in policy formation, it can later be easily determined which policy was effective and which were not in the management of Key Deer. Also, by understanding that the decision process should not be extended beyond necessary individuals can help to decision-making speedy and effective, which is highly desired when dealing with an uncertain timeframe like that of Key Deer habitat loss. Finally, accepting uncertainty is a large portion of adaptive management and is needed to move forward with implementation, especially with the large uncertainty that surrounds sea-level rise and its effects on ecosystems. Current Initiatives the Florida Keys In this section, current action plans that are concerned with sea-level rise effects in the Florida Keys are discussed. Then how each action plan can incorporate adaptive management is explored. The two initiatives are the Southeast Florida Regional Final Climate Action Plan and the Monroe County Climate Action Plan (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group 2012; Monroe County Climate Change Advisory Committee 2013). Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact 32 This is a document was created in August 2012 by a collection of counties in Florida (Monroe, Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade Counties) which are vulnerable to future sea- level rise and is intended to help guide the development of adaption strategies and policies to become a more climate-resilient community (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group 2012). Here a different model was used to predict acreages lost to sea-level rise effects and concluded with results similar to the ones produced in this study, that Big Pine Key and No Name Key habitat will be negatively affected by sea-level rise effects. This compact assumes a basic model for sea- level rise projections and the effect it has on acreage, then an economic assessment is conducted in which a dollar amount is matched to damages per inundation level (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group 2012). The vulnerability analysis highlights areas of impact where management policies need to be put in place in order to adapt to the changes to come. Adaptive management can be implemented within Big Pine Key and No Name key through this compact by a recurrent evaluation of models and their projections as well as attaching a dollar amount to certain scenarios. The models, similar to the one used in the Big Pine Key study in this paper, can be used to help highlight crucial areas in need of conservation, adaptation, and vulnerability. A constant evaluation of the models and its projections is how this compact can be changed to adaptive management. By constantly evaluating the model type, on can help to lessen the uncertainty of sea-level rise projection because there will be a continuous flow of new information and technologies. Finally, by attaching a dollar amount to the damages, the phenomena of sea-level rise throughout Big Pine Key can be explained to the public in terms 33 they understand. This will help policy developers to understand society's value of the study area and its resources. Monroe County Climate Action Plan The Monroe County Community Climate Action Plan (MACCCP) was created to outline a course of action for the county to minimize climate change impacts and to increase the sustainability of the county (Monroe County Climate Change Advisory Committee 2013). The action plan includes an evaluation of future predictions of sea-level rise throughout the county, highlighting Big Pine Key as an area of high susceptibility, most likely due to its low-lying land and abundance of natural, undeveloped area (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group 2012). It then leads into an identification of focus areas including, but not limited to, policy coordination, natural systems, and built environment. A main goal highlighted by the community was revision of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to address planning related to climate change mitigation and adaptation needs (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group 2012). The plan further discusses the development of a policy which can combat the uncertainty of sea-level rise and its effects on developed and undeveloped land. Adaptive management can be implemented as a factor of the comprehensive plan because of its flexibility and ability to deal with uncertainty. One section of the development of the comprehensive plan calls for an adaption process, which documents change in ongoing monitoring of climate change and its impacts. Here adaptive management would fit perfectly into this comprehensive plan because of its checks and balances system which is expected to be constantly updated with new knowledge and the use of new technologies. 34 In conclusion, a paradigm shift in policy-making is needed throughout the keys in order to combat the effects of sea-level rise. Home of the Key Deer, Big Pine Key and No Name Key, are classified as high susceptible to sea-level rise by both initiatives and is an area of high uncertainty due to its abundance of natural areas. Each action plans highlights goals of the work group that align with the concept of adaptive management. With the acceptance of uncertainty and the learning by doing process of adaptive management the county can implement a policy that matches their wants with the effectiveness of adaptive management. Conclusion and Discussion As seen in Figure 7-Figure 11, the results of this study show that there is a dramatic loss in habitat range of the Florida Key Deer due to sea-level rise and that there is a solution in adaptive management. Through the SLAMM model habitat loss was shown through the conversion of land types due to the effects of sea level rise throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key. There was a range of approximately 10 percent to sixty percent of sea-level rise in Big Pine Key and No Name Key in the scenarios of 0.58 (Figure 8-9) and 1.5 (Figure 10-11) meters of sea-level rise by the year 2100 for the years 2045 and 2060. Important to note is that there is a large conversion of land type from undeveloped land to mangrove, this shows a different reaction to sea-level rise by each land type. If the lower scenario is considered, Big Pine Key and No Name Key will experience an overall decrease in total Key Deer habitat hectares of 10 percent by 2045 and 14 percent by 2060. This may not be significant in terms of percentage but produces an overall loss in hectares of approximately 700 hectares, which is a significant loss in habitat for the already crowded species. The higher scenario produces an overall loss in habitat area of approximately 62 percent, and would induce emergency management of the Key Deer population in order to maintain survival. 35 Big Pine Key and No Name Key have proven to be very susceptible to the effects of sea- level rise through the projections produced from this study. Unlike humans, the Florida Key Deer have no way to combat the destruction of their habitat. The Florida Key Deer must rely on us to help save their livelihood and the best way to do so is to implement an adaptive management policy to address the issue. Adaptive management allows for the constant evaluation of policies and their effectiveness. With this method, there can be a policy developed where the solution to Key Deer habitat loss can continuously be evaluated and tailored as needed throughout time. Adaptive management allows for a policy that can adapt to the changing environment and new problems that can arise when dealing with such an uncertain future. Such policy has been implemented to address issues around the globe, like the Manitoba Crop Insurance Program in Canada and the National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas where adaptive management policy were put in place to have an ever-present and ever-changing policy to address the is sue (Swans on). The effects of sea level rise will be felt globally but can only be tackled locally through the implementation of concepts such as adaptive management. The land cover changes produced by SLAMM help to predict the total habitat loss that Key Deer will experience. This loss in habitat shows there is a potential problem concerning range of living space for Key Deer, and to ignore the problem would result in the loss of an important part of the Florida Keys diversity. Through the constant update of models and observations used by adaptive management, we can address the issue at hand and propose solutions. 36 Works Cited Alexander, K.S., A. Ryan., T.G. Measham. 2011. Managed retreat of coastal communities: understanding responses to projected sea level rise. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Taylor and Francis. 55(4): 409-433. Bell, J., M. I. Saunders, J. X. Leon, M. Mills, A. Kythreotis, S. Phinn, P. J. Mumby, C. E. Lovelock, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and T. H. Morrison. 2014. Maps, laws and planning policy: Working with biophysical and spatial uncertainty in the case of sea level rise. In Environmental Science & Policy. Elsevier Ltd. 44:247-257. Benscoter, AM., J.S. Reece, R.F. Noss, L.A. Brandt, F.J. Mazzotti. 2013. Threatened and endangered species with vulnerable ecological traits also have high susceptibility to sea level rise and habitat fragmentation. PLoS One. 8(8): 1-10. Callaway, J.C., and V.T. Parker. 2012. Current issues in tidal marsh restoration. InEcology, conservation, and restoration of tidal marshes: The San Francisco estuary. London: University of California Press. Ch 18. Chen, X., Y. Feng, and N. E. Huang. 2014. Global sea level trend during 1993-2012. Global and Planetary Change. 26-32. Chu, M.L., J.A. Guzman, R. Munoz-Carpena, G.A. Kiker, and I. Linkov. 2014. A simplified approach for simulating changes in beach habitat due to the combined effect of long-term sea level rise, storm, erosion, and nourishment. Church, J.A., P.U. Clark, A Cazenave, J.M. Gregory, S. Jevrejeva, A. Levermann, M.A. Merrifield, G.A. Milne, R.S. Nerem, P.D. Nunn, A.J. Payne, W.T. Pfeffer, D. Stammer, and A.S. Unnikrishnan, A.S., 2013. Sea level change. In: Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.- K.; Tignor, M.; Allen, S.K. Boschung, J.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V., and Midgley, P.M. (eds.). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 79p. 37 East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 2004. Land use impacts and solutions to sea level rise in east central Florida. State of Florida. 1. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2013. What will adaptation cost? An economic framework for coastal community infrastructure . NOAA Coastal Services Center. 1. Fackler, P. L., K. Pacifici, J. Martin, and C. Mclntyre. 2014. Efficient use of information in adaptive management with an application to managing recreation near Golden Eagle nesting sites. 9(8), 1- 14. Ferner, M.C., 2012. Research reserves as a model for conservation science and management of tidal marshes. In Ecology, Conservation, and Restoration of Tidal Marshes: The San Francisco Estuary, ed. A. Palaima. London: University of California Press. Foran, C. M., K.M. Baker, N.R. Grosso, and I. Linkov. 2015. An enhanced adaptive management approach for remediation of legacy mercury in the south river. 10: 1-15. FWS.gov. Key deer. Multi-Species recovery plan for south Florida. http ://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MSRPPDFs/KeyDeer.pdf (Last Accessed April 5 2015). FWS.gov. 2014. National Key Deer Refuge. Fish and Wildlife Sen/ice. http://vvvvvv.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHR USFWS NationalKeyDeer NWR fs.pdf (last accessed 24 November 2014) Gilman, E. L., J. Ellison, N.C. Duke,and C. Field. 2008. Review: Threats to mangroves from climate change and adaptation options. Aquatic botany, mangrove ecology - applications in forestry and costal zone management. 237-250. Harveson, P.M., R.R. Lopez, N.J. Silvy, and P. A. Frank. 2004. Source-sink dynamic of Florida Key deer on Big Pine Key, Florida. Journal of wildlife management. 68(4): 90-915. Hastings, R. 2009 Loss of natural habitats and biodiversity. The lakes of Pontchartrain: their history and environments. University of Press Mississippi. 1: 151-159. Hatfield, J. S., M. H. Reynolds, N. E. Seavy, and C. M. Krause. 2012. Population dynamics of Hawaiian seabird colonies vulnerable to sea-level rise. Conservation biology. 26(4): 667-678. 38 Holmes, M. 2012. Policy: achievements and challenges. InEcology, Conservation, and Restoration of Tidal Marshes: The San Francisco Estuary, ed. A. Palaima. London: University of California Press. LOOK UP PAGE NUMBERS AND VOLUME Jacobsen, G. D. 2013. Do economic conditions influence environmental policy? Evidence from the US Senate. In Economics Letters 120:167-170. Janssen, H. 2012. Monte-carlo based uncertainty analysis for sampling efficiency and sampling convergence. Leuven. Johnson, F. A., G.S. Boomer, B.K. Williams, J.D. Nichols, and D.J. Case. 2015. Multilevel learning in the adaptive management of waterfowl harvests: 20 years and counting. Wildlife society bulletin, 39(1). 9-19. Katselidis, K.A., G. Schofield., G. Stamou., P. Dimopoulos., J.D. Pantis. 2013. Employing sea-level rise scenarios to strategically select seat turtle nesting habitat important for long-term management at a temperate breeding area. In Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Elsevier B.V. 450: 47-54 Lopez, R.R., N.J. Silvy, R.N. Wilkins, P.A. Frank, M.J. Peterson. 2004. Habitat-use patterns of Florida Key Deer: implications of urban development. In The journal of wildlife management. 68:900- 908. Martin, J., P. Fackler, J.D. Nichols., M.C. Runge, C.L. Mclntyre, B.L. Lubow, M.C. McCluskie, and J.A. Schmutz. 2011. An adaptive management framework for optimal control of hiking near Golden Eagle nesting sites. Conservation biology. 25: 316-323. Mcleod, E., B. Poulter, J. Ffinkel, E. Reyes and R. Salm. 2010 Sea-level rise impact models and environmental conservation: a review of models and their applications. In, Ocean and coastal management. 53:507-517. Monroe County Climate Change Advisory Committee. 2013. Monroe county climate action plan. Homestead. 1-62. 39 Myfwc.com. 2011. Key deer fact sheet, http://myfwc.com/media/2211869/Key-Deer.pdf (Last accessed April 5 2015). 1-3. My coo, M. 2014. Sustainable tourism, climate change and sea level rise adaptation policies in Barbados. Natural resources forum 38:47-57. NOAA.gov. 2014. Digital Coast Office For Coastal Management http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slamm (last accessed 24 November 2014). Nordstrom, K.F. 1992. Estuarine beaches. New York. 1-171. Reece, J.S., R.F. Noss, J. Oetting, T. Hoctor, and M. Volk. 2011. A vulnerability assessment of 300 species in Florida: threats from sea-level rise, land use, and climate change. Ruppert, T., and C. Grimm. 2013. Drowning in place: local government costs and liabilities for flooding due to sea-level rise. Florida Bar Journal 87:29-33. Pikley, O.H. and R. Young. 2009. The rising sea. Washington D.C. 20-108. Sea Level Rise. 2012. Hearing before the committee on energy and natural resources United States senate one hundred twelfth congress second session to receiver testimony on the impacts of sea level rise on domestic energy and water infrastructure. United States Senate. 1. Southeast Florida regional climate change compact inundation mapping and vulnerability assessment work group. 2012. Analysis of the vulnerability of southeast Florida to sea level rise. State of Florida. 18-32. Swanson, D., S. Bhadwal. 2009. Creating adaptive policies: a guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. Enterprises. 1-140. Swanson, K.M., J.Z. Drexler., D.H. Schoellhamer., K.M. Thorne., M.L. Casazza., C.T. Overton., J.C. Callaway, J.Y. Takekawa. 2013. Wetland accretion rate model of ecosystem resilience (WARMER) and its application to habitat sustainability for endangered species in the San Francisco estuary. Coastal and Estuarine Research Foundation. 37(2): 476-496. 40 Tang, H. S., S. Kraatz, K. Qu, G. Q. Chen, N. Aboobaker, and C. B. Jiang. 2014. Fligh-resolution survey of tidal energy towards power generation and influence of sea-level-rise: A case study at coast of New Jersey, USA. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 32: 960-982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Science behind the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM). Division of habitat and resource conservation: branch of resource management support. 1-2. Wadlow, K. Sea-level rise will affect key deer more than any U.S. endangered species. Florida Keys Keynote. 2013. Marathon, FL. Florida Keys Keynoter. 6-18. Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 2011. SLAMM analysis of southern Jefferson County, TX. 1-113. Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 2011. SLAMM user guide. 1-120. Willams, B.K., andE.D. Brown. Adaptive Management Working Group. 2012. Adaptive management: the U.S. department of the interior applications guide. Washington. Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. http ://www. greenkevs.org/en/resources/elibrarv.html?res id=31 Zhang, K., J. Dittmmar, M. Ross, and C.Bergh. 2012. Assessment of sea level rise impacts on human population and real property in the Florida keys. 41