Key West, Great White Heron and National Key Deer National Wildlife Refuges Technical Brief Summary

Massachusetts Institute of Department of Urban Studies and Planning Technology

ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE GREATER EVERGLADES LANDSCAPE Key West, Great White Heron and National Key Deer National Wildlife Refuges Technical Brief Summary

Project Summary assumptions with four dimensions. Each Alternative Future visu- alizes land use patterns and landscape changes such as coastal “Addressing the Challenge of Climate Change in the Greater inundation, urbanization, and conservation expansion. Future Everglades Landscape” is a research initiative funded by the U.S. changes in conservation lands are modeled and/or designed Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Geological Survey based on the input from managers and other local experts, using (USGS) and carried out by a group of researchers at the Depart- the best available ecological information and data. ment of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Refuge Context

The study investigates possible trajectories of future transforma- Key West, Great White Heron and National Key Deer National Wild- tion in Florida’s Greater Everglades landscape relative to four main life Refuges are located in the Florida Keys, approximately 100 drivers: climate change, shifts in planning approaches and regula- miles southwest of Miami. Key West and Great White Heron are tions, population change, and variations in financial resources. satellites of the National Key Deer NWR. The refuge habitats are Through a systematic exploration at the landscape-scale, this composed of mangrove islands, beaches and dunes, salt marsh research identifies some of the major challenges to future conser- wetlands, sea grass, patch reefs, tropical hardwood hammocks, vation efforts and illustrates a planning method which can gener- and pine rockland forests. More than 250 species of birds utilized ate conservation strategies resilient to a variety of climatic and this critical habitat for nesting, feeding and as a migration stop. socioeconomic conditions. Key West provides habitat for the endangered green and log- This project integrates the best available scientific information on gerhead sea turtles and the threatened roseate tern. Great White climate change with local knowledge and expertise in order to cre- Heron supports these same species and the endangered rice rat. ate a suite of management-relevant scenarios for Florida’s Greater National Key Deer supports the last 800 remaining endangered Everglades landscape. Scenarios are conceived not as blueprints Key deer. The refuge is also home to the following species: wood for the future, but rather as learning tools for managing in the face stork (E), lower Keys rabbit (E), garber’s spurge (E), rice rat (E), Key of uncertainty. The scenarios are internally-consistent bundles of tree-cactus (E), eastern indigo snake (T) and tree snail (T).

Refuges Context Characterization Great White Heron Key West National Key Deer Refuge Area 200,000 acres 189,000 acres 84,851 acres County Monroe Monroe Monroe Trust Resources green and loggerhead sea turtle, rice rat, green and loggerhead sea turtle, threatened Key deer, wood stork, lower Keys rabbit, gar- threatened roseate tern roseate tern ber’s spurge, rice rat, Key tree-cactus, eastern indigo snake, stock island tree snail

Figure 1. Location in Study Region

Nat’l Wildlife Refuges Freshwater Wetlands

Nat’l Park System Saltwater Habitats

Agriculture Forested

Dry Open or Scrub Urban

Open water

Legend Figure 2. Refuge Context Area

Florida Keys Refuges Technical Brief 1 December 2010 MIT Scenarios in the Greater Everglades Landscape: 2010-2060

Given the range of uncertainties in dealing with climate holder group. The stakeholder group was asked to discuss and change, the MIT research team developed a series of sce- prioritize potential scenario designs. narios in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders. The stakeholder group articulated four top-level scenario di- The MIT scenarios consider how climate change (primarily mensions: sea level rise, population, financial resources, and sea level rise), conservation, demographics, the economy, land useplanning assumptions (Figure 3. Scenario Dimensions and land use planning transform the future landscape of the Table). Within these dimensions, stakeholders developed a Greater Everglades. Each scenario is comprised of a set of bounded range of possible values and picked a small set of input assumptions that determine how these major factors measurable indicators from the best available science. interact and manifest themselves spatially over time. The research team assembled representatives from federal, state and local government to serve as the project’s stake- Scenarios

CURRENT LAND-USE

CURRENT LAND USE PROJECTED LAND USE

Nat’l Wildlife Sea Level Rise Nat’l Park System Agriculture Agriculture Conservation Conservation Urban Urban

SCENARIO A

POPULATION DOUBLE

TREND

CLIMATE PLANNING CHANGE H M L BAU PRO ASSUMPTIONS

$$$ FINANCIAL RESOURCES

SCENARIO B

POPULATION DOUBLE

TREND

CLIMATE PLANNING CHANGE H M L BAU PRO ASSUMPTIONS

$$$ FINANCIAL RESOURCES

2 Florida Keys Refuges Technical Brief December 2010 Scenario Development Scenario Dimensions

Scenarios were refined in four large workshops over the course SEA LEVEL POPULATION PLANNING FINANCIAL of a year. In the first two workshops, scenario components RISE ASSUMPTIONS RESOURCES were discussed in a relatively abstract fashion based on literature review. (inches) (in millions) (BAU vs. Proactive) (Low vs. High)

In the third and fourth workshops, all of the variables were ex- 3.6 Trend (25) Business as $ pressed quantitatively and represented geographically across Usual (B.A.U.) the study area at different scales. Each of the scenarios repre- sents a bundle of internally consistent input assumptions and 18.4 Double (29) Proactive $$$ dimensions. The full set of possible input assumptions is found 39.1 in the Scenario Dimensions table to the right (Figure 3). Figure 3. Scenario Dimensions Table

SCENARIO C

POPULATION DOUBLE

TREND

CLIMATE PLANNING CHANGE H M L BAU PRO ASSUMPTIONS

$$$ FINANCIAL RESOURCES

SCENARIO E

POPULATION DOUBLE

TREND

CLIMATE PLANNING CHANGE H M L BAU PRO ASSUMPTIONS

$$$ FINANCIAL RESOURCES

SCENARIO I

POPULATION DOUBLE

TREND

CLIMATE PLANNING CHANGE H M L BAU PRO ASSUMPTIONS

$$$ FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Florida Keys Refuges Technical Brief 3 December 2010 Climate Change Factor: Sea Level Rise Methodology Climate Change Factor: Sea Level Rise in 2060

Sea level rise was computed in GIS using a “bathtub” model. In this form of modeling, sea level inundation is simulated based on areas currently within a given vertical elevation from the 0 elevation level of a digital elevation model (DEM). This process can- not distinguish between areas which are hydrologically connected to the ocean and those which are isolated. In Southern Flor- ida and the Greater Everglades landscape, the prevalence of pervious bedrock means that most such areas near the coast will be inundated. In interior regions, the indicated regions are more likely to be subject to high CURRENT SHORELINE water tables. However, this form of modeling does not take into account drainage, pumping and other active management methods which are common in south and central Florida.

A digital elevation model was created by mosaicing together the best available terrain elevation data. The base model was taken from the USGS National Elevation Da- taset (NED). The Everglades Depth Estima- Sea Level Rise Inundation (Percentage) tion Network (EDEN) was used to provide Great White Heron 59.4% improved vertical accuracy within its area Key West 8.0% of coverage. Similarly, a “bald earth” terrain National Key Deer 39.7% LOW SLR + 9 cm (+3.6”) LOW model derived by NOAA from 2007 LIDAR was used for the four most Southeastern- counties where it was available. No attempt was made to correct the zero elevation points of the input DEMs to a tidal datum. Therefore, these results should be taken as an index of risk of inundation or high water table, rather than as a prediction of a certain specific water level. MIT Climate Change Scenarios Sea Level Rise Inundation (Percentage)

MIT low and moderate climate change sce- Great White Heron 96.3% narios are consonant with IPCC 2007 climate Key West 95.6% change results in that they fall within the National Key Deer 72.7% MEDIUM SLR + 47 cm (+18.4”) range of values projected by current downscaled models for the study region.

The climate variable ranges considered by our “low climate change” correspond to

Constant CO2 and 3.6 inches of sea level rise by 2060. Our “moderate climate change” corresponds to IPCC A2 and 18.4 inches by 2060. Our stakeholders felt that it was important to consider the potential impacts of ice sheet melting in our “high climate Sea Level Rise Inundation (Percentage) change” scenarios. Therefore we based its Great White Heron 99.8% values on an average of temperature and sea level rise values obtained from peer-re- Key West 98.8% National Key Deer 93.7%

viewed literature. HIGH SLR + 99cm (+ 39.1”)

4 Florida Keys Refuges Technical Brief December 2010 Climate Change Factor: Temperature Methodology Climate Change Scenarios and IPCC Scenario Definitions

Temperature predictions were obtained MIT temp.

Constant CO 2 from the National Center for Atmospheric 3 MIT High B1 o o

o (+3.8 C or 7 F) Research (NCAR). These data represent C)

A1B the ensemble averages of several global A2 climate change models. These were statis- 2 tically downscaled by NCAR and provided MIT Mid o o as GIS point data with approximately 4 (+2.2 C or 4 F) 1 kilometer spacing between samples. We further downscaled this data using inverse distance weighting interpolation. This 0 MIT Low o o generated grids of resolution and extent ( Warming Global Surface (+.55 C or 1 F) comparable to our other study area grids, -1 with 50 meter horizontal resolution. We converted temperatures from degrees Kel- 1900 2000 2060 2100 vin to degrees Celsius. These grids were Year Adopted from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/ipcc_scenario_prediction.gif intersected with masks of FWS refuges and their context areas using map algebra. IPCC Scenario Terminology: Zonal statistics were computed for each Constant CO2 : Greenhouse gas concentrations fixed at 2000 levels. Assumes some form and level of in- area to determine the average projected tervention. temperature shift under IPCC scenarios. A2: Continuously increasing global population, regionally-oriented and slower economic development. From IPCC Forth Assessment Report 2007 http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/029.htm#storya1

Climate Change Factor: Average Annual Temperature in 2060

o o o CURRENT AVG. ANNUAL TEMP. ( C) CONSTANT CO2 SCENARIO ( C) A2 SCENARIO ( C)

21- 21.5 21.5 - 22 23- 23.5

21.5- 22

21.5 - 22 21-21.5 23- 23.5 22- 22.5 22- 22.5 23.5 - 24

22.5 - 23 22.5-23 24- 24.5

23- 23.5 23- 23.5 24.5 - 25 23.5 - 24 23.5 - 24

24- 24.5 26 -26.5

25.5-26 23.5 - 24 24- 24.5

24.5 - 25 oC 25.5-26 oC 26.5-27 oC (~76 oF) (~78 oF) (~80 oF)

Current Average Annual Temperature (degrees C or F) Average Annual Temperature Increase (degrees C or F) Average Annual Temperature Increase (degrees C or F)

Great White Heron 24.5 - 25 oC 76 oF Great White Heron +1 oC +1.8 oF Great White Heron +2 oC +3.6 oF

Key West 24.5 - 25 oC 76 oF Key West +1 oC +1.8 oF Key West +2 oC +3.6 oF National Key Deer 24.5 - 25 oC 76 oF National Key Deer +1 oC +1.8 oF National Key Deer +2 oC +3.6 oF

Florida Keys Refuges Technical Brief 5 December 2010 Ecological Impact Assessment

One of the beneficial aspects of scenario-based Center, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). These planning is that it allows decision-makers to use geographically characterize the habitats of a number of individual species, important scenarios as learning tools. For each scenario habitats, and general landscape patterns. In order to characterize these vulnerabili- generated, we compute a set of potential impacts ties, we spatially intersected existing classifications with our scenarios using GIS raster on natural resources. By systematically compar- map algebra. For characterizations of ecosystems and habitats, we used FWC’s “Stra- ing these impacts against the scenario input as- tegic Habitat Conservation Areas” (SHCA) and FNAI’s “Endangered Natural Communi- sumptions, we can determine which impacts are ties” (ENC). For individual species, we used FWC or Geoplan habitat maps. In order likely across a range of future conditions, and to assess broad-scale landscape ecology, we used the Florida Ecological Greenways where and when these are likely to occur. Be- Network. Because not all species are important across the full range of our study area, cause our scenarios include several conservation we used specific species assessments for particular National Wildlife Refuge context strategies played out against a range of exog- areas. For example, in the case of the Florida Panther NWR, we report impacts on the enous conditions, this can directly inform strate- Florida panther. gic habitat conservation planning. We assessed scenario-level vulnerability based on the area This type of analysis has three significant limitations, which should be noted. The first directly impacted by either inundation from sea is that we used static definitions of ecosystems, of species habitat, and of greenways. level rise, or urbanization. We also traced the fate This does not simulate how these communities might change under the tempera- of those lands proposed as conservation priori- ture, precipitation and fire regimes expected under climate change. Therefore, these ties, but not currently protected under each sce- estimates should be considered an estimate of vulnerability only to sea level rise and nario. This provides a causal explanation of which urbanization. The second limitation is that we considered only direct spatial impacts factors are likely to conflict with the conservation from habitat conversion or inundation. This analysis does not account for “neighbor- of these resources. hood” or “upstream” changes which can cause habitat degradation. Similarly, it does not assess the landscape ecological effects of fragmentation, although these may be Our impact analyses are based on an extensive significant for some communities. Third, this study did not involve any form of hydro- set of prior ecological studies and assessments, logical modeling. Therefore, this method does not address changes to hydrological notably work by the Florida Natural Areas Inven- regimes, or diversions of water, even though under some scenarios these would be tory (FNAI), the University of Florida Geoplan highly likely.

Endangered Natural Communities (ENC) Scenario B

The Endangered Natural Communities is a combination of data layers created by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), specifically the under-represented natural communities and the coastal resources layers. This data prioritizes natural communities and coastal areas that are particularly vulnerable or inadequately represented on conservation lands.

Urban Development Sea Level Rise

Scenario B: low sea level rise, high financial resources, proactive planning, trend population growth

Scenario C Acres of Conflict Acres

Scenario

Sea Level Rise Urban Development

2060 Conflict with Vulnerable Urban Development Endangered Natural Communities Sea Level Rise

Scenario C: high sea level rise, low financial resources, business-as-usual planning, double population

6 Florida Keys Refuges Technical Brief December 2010 FNAI (Rare Species) Habitat Conservation Priorities (FNAIHAB) Scenario B

Created by FNAI for the Florida Forever statewide environmen- tal land acquisition program. This system utilizes occurrence- based potential habitat for 248 species of plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates for terrestial and aquatic species. The data prioritizes landscapes that would protect both the greatest number or rare species and those species with the greatest conservation need.

Urban Development Sea Level Rise Scenario B: low sea level rise, high financial resources, proactive planning, trend population growth Scenario C Acres of Conflict Acres

Scenario

Sea Level Rise Urban Development

2060 Conflict with Vulnerable FNAI Habitat Conservation Priorities Urban Development Sea Level Rise Scenario C: high sea level rise, low financial resources, business-as-usual planning, double population

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCA) Scenario B

SHCA Priority rankings were created by FWC to identify gaps in the statewide wildlife conservation areas and to inform land acquisition and conservation efforts. The ranking includes both global and state priorities, and selects areas of habitat that are essential to sustain a minimum viable population for focal species of terrestrial vertebrates not adequately protected on existing conservation lands.

Urban Development Sea Level Rise

Scenario B: low sea level rise, high financial resources, proactive planning, trend population growth Scenario C Acres of Conflict Acres

Scenario

Sea Level Rise Urban Development

2060 Conflict with Vulnerable Strategic Urban Development Habitat Conservation Areas Sea Level Rise Scenario C: high sea level rise, low financial resources, business-as-usual planning, double population

Florida Keys Refuges Technical Brief 7 December 2010 General Findings

Under even low sea level rise, projections show that at least half of the conservation priority areas in the Keys become inundated. Under medium and high sea level rise, the vast majority of land in this context area will be lost to direct inundation. Urban infrastructure, including US 1, is highly vulnerable to sea level rise.

Because of the unique ecological communities found here and the lack of potential mitigation areas, translocation may be the only alternative for long-term conservation of some of the resources in this area. Also, though they are beyond the scope of this project, marine habitats in the Keys are subject to significant impacts in these scenarios and demand further investigation.

Team Profile

Participants

Dr. Michael Flaxman Dr. Juan Carlos Vargas-Moreno For more information contact: (PI & Lead Faculty) (Co-PI & Project Manager) Juan Carlos Vargas Moreno (Project Manager) 77 Massachusetts Av. Office 9-316 MIT-USGS Science Impact Collaborative Researchers Cambridge MA, 02139 [email protected] Dr. Herman Karl (USGS-MIT Science Impact Collaborative) +1 (617) 253-1367 Olivier Barreteau (Research-Scientist- CEMAGRET, France) Christopher Horne, Gates Gooding, Allison Lassiter (MCP) Stephen Lloyd, Vanessa Ng, Linda Ciesielski (MCP Candidates) Web page: Holly Moeller (PhD Candidate) http://www.alternativefuturestechnologies.com/everglades Aaron Thom and Kelsie Baker (BS Env. Eng. Candidate)

US Fish and Wildlife Service Reference this fact sheet as: Paul Souza (Field Supervisor, USFWS’s S.F. Ecological Services) Vargas-Moreno and Flaxman, M. Addressing the Challenges Steve Traxler (FWS - Project Coordinator & Senior FWS Biologist) of Climate Change in the Greater Everglades Landscape. Project Sheet November, 2010. Deparment of Urban Studies US Geological Survey (USGS) Team and Planning. MIT. Dr. Ronnie Best (Coordinator, USGS Everglades Science Initiative) Funding This project is supported by and in partnership with the following federal agencies: • USFWS, Vero Beach Office • USGS, Greater Everglades Priority Ecosystems Science Program

8 Florida Keys Refuges Technical Brief December 2010