How the Big Bend synthesis project meets U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Landscape Conservation Design guidance Document completed: April 23, 2018

Executive summary

Introduction

Geographic boundaries

People South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint involvement Peninsular Florida Blueprint involvement Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy Blueprint involvement

Purpose

Process Identify desired landscape characteristics using quantifiable biological, cultural, social, and physical resource objectives Identify a shared vision of future landscape conditions that meet conservation goals Identify conservation targets and measurable objectives for those targets Evaluate the drivers that influence current and future landscape patterns Assess current and plausible future landscape conditions Analyze the ability of a landscape to support conservation targets at desirable levels under a variety of spatial and temporal scenarios Provide strategies for landscape-scale management, restoration, protection, mitigation, and monitoring to support conservation targets at desirable levels

Product Spatial design Integrated design (from October 3rd Refuge Chief’s Memo) Coordinated adaptation strategy Background What success looks like What failure looks like Role of the Conservation Blueprint (i.e., Spatial Design) in the adaptation strategy Responses to specific threats Recommended actions

Executive summary The Big Bend region of Florida is home to the largest undeveloped coastline in the continental United States. Its unique combination of nature-based livelihoods, high biodiversity, and rural character has led to high interest in conservation from a number of public and private organizations. This high interest has also led to significant progress in collaboratively developing a shared vision for the future of the region and associated metrics and data to track progress. At a large landscape scale, much of this recent progress has been through the South Atlantic LCC, Peninsular Florida LCC, and Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is looking to landscape conservation designs (LCDs) to ensure its efforts are part of a larger, collaboratively developed conservation strategy. Specific FWS LCD-related policies include 056 FW 1 (Climate Change Adaptation), 602 FW 5 (NWRS Strategic Growth), Land Protection Planning Interim Guidance (2016), LCD Guidance (2016), 052 FW 1 (Strategic Habitat Conservation), and 604 DM 1 (Landscape Approach). This document synthesizes existing information to demonstrate that the steps and components of an LCD, as described in national FWS policy, have been fulfilled in this region. Also, in the iterative spirit of LCD, these steps and components are being regularly updated and improved.

Introduction “The Big Bend region of Florida...is a land of working forests, farms, rivers, springs, estuaries, and an extensive Gulf coastline. The people of this rural region rely more on the natural resources for their livelihood and recreation than most places in Florida. An investigation of the region’s population and economy based on secondary data and bolstered by on-site visits and interviews of local officials and state economic professionals found a region rich in the traditions of “Old Florida” but struggling to keep pace with rapid changes and growth in other areas of the state.” - ​Demographic, economic, and growth initiative analysis: Big Bend Region of Florida

The Big Bend is home to the largest undeveloped coastline in the continental United States and is a globally recognized biodiversity hotspot. Its unique combination of nature-based livelihoods, high biodiversity, and rural character has led to high interest in conservation from a number of public and private organizations. This interest has also led to significant progress in collaboratively developing a shared vision for the future of the region and associated metrics and data to track progress.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge Systems (NWRS) strategic vision for 21st century conservation—Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation—noted “landscape conservation is the only path forward to conserve America’s wildlife and wildlife places,” and that “our vision is to embrace a scientific, adaptive, landscape-level approach to conserving, managing, and restoring refuge lands and waters, and facilitate conservation benefits beyond our boundaries.” A cross-regional Planning Implementation Team, formed to help implement this vision, recommends that the Refuge system focus on landscape conservation designs (LCDs) developed by the greater conservation community through Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).

This document synthesizes existing information to demonstrate that the steps and components of an LCD, as described in national FWS policy, have been fulfilled in this region. There is still plenty of room for improvement and the efforts described are being regularly updated and improved over time. This effort also complements previous and ongoing work by the state of Florida to identify and protect conservation priority areas through projects including the Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment, Wildlife Habitat Conservation Needs in Florida: Updated Recommendations for Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas, Florida Ecological Greenways Network, and the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project and programs including Florida Forever, Rural and Family Land Protection, and the Cooperative Conservation Blueprint. Users of this information are encouraged to use the latest version of these reference documents and data layers as they become available.

Geographic boundaries The study area was the product of a several-month-long discussion among project partners, including staff from the LCCs, FWS, FWC, NWRA, and the University of Florida. These discussions included variations of potential study area boundaries ranging as far west as the Apalachicola River watershed, as far north as the Chattahoochee River watershed up to the Atlanta area, and as far east as the St. Mary’s River watershed on the border of Florida and Georgia and running to the Atlantic Ocean.

After several meetings to discuss options depicted on maps, we decided to focus on the watershed core of the Big Bend region of Florida (which also includes watersheds encompassing portions of south-central and southwest Georgia) from the Ochlockonee River on the western end of the study area to the Suwannee River watershed on the eastern end of the study area. In addition, since the Big Bend is usually considered to include several smaller watersheds south of the Suwannee River, the southern boundary of the study area was extended as far south as the Waccasassa River watershed in Levy County, Florida. From the southern and easternmost extent to the western boundary, the river watersheds included in the study area include: Waccasassa, New, Sante Fe, Withlacoochee, Alapahoochee, Alapaha, Suwannee, Steinhatchee, Fenholloway, Econfina, Wacissa, Aucilla, St. Marks, Wakulla, and Ochlockonee. The study area also includes a coastal network of existing conservation lands north of Gulf Hammock Wildlife Management Area, including the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge, Big Bend Wildlife Management Area, Econfina State Park, Aucilla Wildlife Management Area, St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, and Apalachicola National Forest. There is also a riverine network of conservation lands starting with the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge on the Georgia-Florida border south along the Suwannee River. Protecting and restoring functional ecological connectivity among and between the coastal and riverine conservation land networks is one of the important conservation goals in this study.

Fig. 1. Geographic boundaries of study area. People

South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint involvement The South Atlantic LCC is made up of more than 800 individuals from federal agencies, regional organizations, states, tribes, nonprofits, universities, and other groups. A Steering Committee of diverse partners governs the LCC, including representatives from 18 different organizations across the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. The FWS serves on the Steering Committee as an equal partner alongside state wildlife management agencies, other federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers, nonprofits including the Longleaf Alliance and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and other regional groups like the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

The South Atlantic LCC’s mission focuses on the Conservation Blueprint, a living spatial plan that prioritizes opportunities for shared action in the face of future change. Currently, more than 500 individuals from over 150 organizations across the South Atlantic have actively participated in developing and refining the Blueprint, including 121 FWS personnel. Representatives from National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) across the Southeast account for approximately 30 percent of the FWS involvement. Other groups involved with Blueprint development include city governments, state wildlife and forestry agencies, local land trusts, tribes, historic and cultural resource organizations, universities, and other regional partnerships like the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture and the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership.

During in-person workshops to review the spatial design and develop the accompanying coordinated adaptation strategy, some participants covered large areas of the South Atlantic while others worked in subregional break-out groups. Workshops included seven different breakout groups focused on the Gulf Coastal Plain subregion (essentially the Big Bend study area plus the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, or ACF, basin). Each of the three workshops held during 2015 and 2017 was free to attend and held in Tallahassee to facilitate local participation.

Peninsular Florida Blueprint involvement

The Peninsular Florida LCC is made up of over 400 members and is directed by a Steering Committee of 30 members, representing federal and state agencies, nonprofits, tribes, universities and private organizations. The Peninsular Florida LCC focus is on achieving participation across all landowner, organizational and agency groups through incentive-based methods that provide and maintain the social, economic and ecological value of natural systems for future generations. The Peninsular Florida LCC partners have established that the science and planning activities of the Peninsular Florida LCC encompass the entire state of Florida, given that many research, management, and monitoring programs are state-wide; this allows for more seamless coordination of conservation efforts with the South Atlantic LCC and the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC.

Florida has a rich history of landscape-level science that generally began in the 1990s. The Peninsular Florida LCC has a rich array of conservation resources to draw on for the development of the Blueprint, including the Florida Cooperative Land Cover Map (CLC) and the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP). The Peninsular Florida LCC Steering Committee provided guidance in the development of the Blueprint, including using the CLC as the basis for the Priority Resources, aligning as much as possible with the Florida SWAP, and utilizing existing data, particularly the CLIP data. In 2006, the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida called for an identification of those lands and waters in the state that are critical to the conservation of Florida's natural resources. In response, the ​Florida Natural Areas Inventory​ (FNAI), ​University of Florida Center for Landscape Conservation Planning​, and ​Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission​ (FWC) collaborated to produce the CLIP, a GIS database of statewide conservation priorities for a broad range of natural resources, including biodiversity, landscape function, surface water, groundwater, and marine resources. The CLIP Version 3.0 and 4.0 updates have been funded through the Peninsular Florida LCC in support of their Science Team activities and used to modify Priority Resources taken from the CLC to create the Peninsular Florida Blueprint. ​Updates to CLIP (v. 4.0) were completed with the guidance, feedback, and consensus of a Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The TAG is an essential part of the CLIP process, providing review and an opportunity to develop expert consensus for selecting, prioritizing, and integrating the available GIS data. TAG members have relevant scientific or technical expertise in regional conservation assessment, natural resources and ecosystems, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The CLIP TAG is made up of representatives from the FWS, FWC, FNAI, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP), St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), South Florida Water Management District, Progressive Water Resources, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), University of Central Florida, University of Florida, and Rayonier Inc. CLIP TAG members provided input on revisions and new analyses during the v. 4.0 update process (2015) and reviewed and approved the final version (2016).

The development of the Priority Resources and Blueprint was guided by a technical team, with members selected by the Steering Committee. A series of three web workshops was held in spring 2016 to present the draft Priority Resources and Blueprint. Over 100 individuals participated, representing federal, state, and county agencies, neighboring LCCs, non-profit organizations, universities, private organizations, and individual stakeholders.

Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy Blueprint involvement The Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) was initiated by the states of the Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) and the federal agencies that are part of the Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Group (SENRLG), with support from Southeast and Caribbean LCCs and the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership. Through SECAS, diverse partners are working together to design and achieve a connected network of landscapes and seascapes that supports thriving fish and wildlife populations and improved quality of life for people across the Southeastern United States and the Caribbean. The SECAS Blueprint stitches together the work of multiple LCCs into a map of shared conservation and restoration priorities across this greater region. For the Big Bend area, the SECAS Blueprint provides a vetted method for integrating the South Atlantic and Peninsular Florida Blueprints into a single priority layer.

The methods for integration and the final map have been reviewed by points of contact from the state wildlife agencies and federal agencies involved in SECAS. Version 1.0 of the SECAS Blueprint was approved in 2016 by the SEAFWA agency directors and federal SENRLG principals. Version 2.0, used in the Big Bend synthesis project, was approved in 2017.

Purpose The Big Bend synthesis project documents a stakeholder-driven adaptation strategy that promotes ecological sustainability during a time of change and uncertainty. Sustaining natural and cultural resources is the core focus of the Blueprints used in this synthesis, and each effort embeds multiple approaches for dealing with uncertainty and change based on the best available science. Furthermore, by combining the South Atlantic, Peninsular Florida, and SECAS Blueprints, the strategy includes an approach to maintain local and regional relevance by scaling up from subregions, to LCC regions, and up to the full Southeastern United States. In this way, the Big Bend design integrates with all the surrounding areas. This multi-scaled approach allows the strategy depicted by the Blueprints to be used at a local scale and all the way up to a Southeastern U.S. scale.

Another key element of the strategy documented in the Big Bend synthesis project is that it integrates diverse stakeholders and their interests into a landscape spatial design and strategic plan. This call for collaborative and coordinated action is already being acted upon by a wide range of individuals and organizations, and continues to be collaboratively improved every year. For examples of the diversity of stakeholders involved, see the section on “People” above.

Process The Blueprints used in the Big Bend synthesis project address the process steps discussed in FWS LCD guidance. To simplify the document, the following section focuses on how the South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint addresses each process step. These steps, although with slightly different details, are also present in the other Blueprints used in the Big Bend synthesis project.

The following elements are listed in the October 3, 2016 memo from the Refuge Chief under the heading “The Refuge System advocates for and participates in LCD processes that empower our partners and us to:”

Identify desired landscape characteristics using quantifiable biological, cultural, social, and physical resource objectives The overall goal of the South Atlantic Blueprint is to maximize ecosystem integrity across the marine, terrestrial, and freshwater environments. Ecosystem integrity combines the integrity of the region’s natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. Ecosystem integrity is “determined by those states of an ecosystem that are biophysically feasible and compatible with the needs and wants of a society characterized by a plurality of conflicting values” (adapted from Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2004).

Integrity of natural resources - Natural resources characterize the structure, function, and composition of ecological systems, including both managed and unmanaged landscapes and waterscapes. Integrity is measured by the degree of departure from historic levels. Within natural resources, the goals are to: ● Maximize the integrity of natural systems - The ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity and functional organization comparable to those of unaltered systems. ● Maximize the persistence of species of priority conservation concern - Maintaining viable populations of individual species as identified in state, regional, and national conservation plans, if integrity of natural systems is not sufficient to achieve that goal.

Integrity of cultural resources - Cultural or ethnographic resources are related to how people interact with the natural world. Integrity is measured by the quantity and representation of all cultures known to a region. Within cultural resources, the goals are to: ● Maximize the quantity and representation of cultural sites - Cultural sites are place-based resources, such as buildings and archaeological sites. They can be preserved in situ, restored in situ, or moved to other locations for interpretation or curation. ● Maximize the quantity and representation of cultural objects - Cultural objects are items of ethnographic importance that may be preserved, restored, curated or interpreted in situ. ● Maximize the quantity and representation of biotic cultural resources - Biotic cultural resources are living natural resources or systems that have ethnographic importance. These include both natural areas and fish and wildlife populations important to hunting and fishing heritage, as well as plant and animal populations of public interest, such as sweetgrass and longleaf pine.

Integrity of socioeconomic resources - Socioeconomic resources affect human quality of life through livelihood and health. Integrity is measured using monetary benefits and human health outcomes. Within socioeconomic resources, the goals are to: ● Maximize sustainable recreational benefits - Recreation refers to human use of outdoor areas for leisure activities (e.g., tourism). Recreation overlaps with the biotic cultural resources component of cultural landscapes. ● Minimize negative impacts on human health - Human health impacts are minimized by lowering pollution levels in land, air, and water, as well as minimizing exposure of human populations. ● Minimize negative economic impacts - Economic impacts are affected by the availability of opportunities for the exploitation of both renewable and nonrenewable resources. ● Protect green infrastructure - Identify, protect, and restore functional ecosystems that are vital to sustaining local and regional economies and provide ecosystem services including water filtration, flood storage, storm protection, and natural resource provisioning.

Further information on these goals and how they are measured through ecosystem indicators is available in the ​South Atlantic Blueprint 2.2 development process​.

Identify a shared vision of future landscape conditions that meet conservation goals

The ​South Atlantic Ecosystem Indicators​ and ​State of the South Atlantic​ provide a shared vision of future landscape conditions that meet conservation goals.

The ​South Atlantic Ecosystem Indicators ​serve as the building blocks of the Conservation Blueprint. They not only drive the design of this living spatial plan, but also evaluate its success. By monitoring these shared measures of ecosystem health, we can track progress toward shared goals.

The ​State of the South Atlantic​ uses the ecosystem indicators to provide a report card for the condition of the South Atlantic and its subregions. It provides the methods for combining indicators and ecosystems to look at landscape condition.

Identify conservation targets and measurable objectives for those targets Based on the definitions from the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, the conservation targets are the different ecosystems of the region (e.g., forested wetlands, pine and prairie, etc.) and the ​indicators​ provide the metrics to evaluate whether those targets are maintained at desirable levels. The ​State of the South Atlantic​ provides an example of how indicator-specific objectives roll up to assess whether ecosystem-level metrics are being met.

The ​South Atlantic indicators​ are regularly, tested, updated, and improved. When the first version of the indicators was approved, each indicator was assigned a specific objective for desired future condition (in other words, what condition we want an indicator to be in by when). Those objectives were called “targets,” but we are not using the term here to reduce confusion with the way that term is defined in FWS LCD guidance. Unfortunately, many of these original objectives ended up not being achievable given future landscape change. The State of the South Atlantic scoring system is the next step in building a more consistent and achievable set of objectives.

Evaluate the drivers that influence current and future landscape patterns Figures 2 and 3 show the extent of two major drivers influencing current and future landscape patterns: sea-level rise and urban growth. Discussion of these drivers occurred during South Atlantic Blueprint workshops in 2015. Participants reviewed Blueprint priority areas predicted to change due to urban growth and/or sea-level rise by the year 2050. The discussion and subsequent votes about how to respond to those changes resulted in a combination of effort near growing urban areas and actions farther away from future urban growth. The same was true for sea-level rise, with key actions and efforts occurring both in places predicted to transition due to sea-level rise and places farther away from sea-level rise transition areas.

Further details on approaches for agricultural intensification, urban growth, and sea-level rise are included under “Responses to specific threats” in the “Coordinated adaptation strategy” section below.

Fig. 2. Predicted landcover for 1 meter sea-level rise at year 2100 based on SLAMM model.

Fig. 3. Urban growth probability by 2100 based on SLEUTH model. Assess current and plausible future landscape conditions

The ​State of the South Atlantic​ reviewed the current landscape condition across the Gulf Coastal Plain subregion (which includes the Big Bend and ACF basin). It provided data-driven scores of the condition of individual indicators, ecosystems, and the full landscapes and waterscapes for each subregion of the South Atlantic. An updated State of the South Atlantic is planned for 2018.

Assessment of plausible future landscape conditions for the Big Bend occurred leading up to South Atlantic Blueprint 2.0 workshops. Participants reviewed Blueprint priority areas predicted to change due to urban growth and/or sea-level rise by the year 2050. Assessments of current and future landscape conditions are continually improving. Appendix A and Figures 2 and 3 show potential future landcover changes in the Big Bend from sea-level rise and urban growth.

Additional modeling of sea-level rise after the South Atlantic Blueprint 2.0 workshops has further highlighted the importance of this area for future marsh migration. The Big Bend region is expected to support some of the largest amounts of marsh migration for the entire Gulf of Mexico (Appendix A).

Analyze the ability of a landscape to support conservation targets at desirable levels under a variety of spatial and temporal scenarios Based on the definitions from the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, the conservation targets are the different ecosystems of the region (e.g., forested wetlands, pine and prairie, etc.) and indicators provide the metrics to evaluate whether those targets are maintained at desirable levels. In 2015, the first analysis using the indicators to assess the ability of the landscape to support conservation targets at desirable levels under different scenarios began. Figuring out the best methods and ways to communicate the results has been a challenge and only a smaller team of cooperative members have seen the results so far.

The following figures show the results from this analysis for a selected set of ​South Atlantic indicators​. Figure 4 looks at the impacts of urban growth and sea-level rise and highlights the particularly large potential impact of urban growth on pine indicators in the region. Figures 5 and 6 compare urban growth and sea-level rise impacts between the Big Bend and the full South Atlantic region. These figures highlight the relatively large potential impacts of urban growth and the relatively smaller (but still significant) impacts of sea-level rise.

Fig. 4. Potential impacts of urban growth and sea-level rise on selected indicators in the Big Bend

Fig. 5. Potential impact of urban growth on selected indicators in the Big Bend compared to the full South Atlantic

Fig. 6. Potential impact of sea-level rise on selected indicators in the Big Bend compared to the full South Atlantic

One of the biggest threats in the Big Bend, agricultural intensification, was not included in the original analysis due to lack of a good predictive data layer. Work to identify and/or develop this layer for a future assessment is ongoing.

Provide strategies for landscape-scale management, restoration, protection, mitigation, and monitoring to support conservation targets at desirable levels Strategies are provided in the “Coordinated adaptation strategy” section below. The Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) Blueprint, Figure 11, provides the spatial design for where to focus those strategies. Product

Spatial design

Integrated design (from October 3rd Refuge Chief’s LCD Memo) (1) an assessment of current conditions of a landscape, including biological, physical, and socio-economic metrics;

Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10​ depict current conditions in the Big Bend region. The ​State of the South Atlantic​ synthesizes ecosystem indicators to score conditions in the Gulf Coastal Plain subregion and compares them to other nearby subregions of the South Atlantic.

Fig. 7. Resilient biodiversity hotspots from the South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint 2.2.

Fig. 8. Priority aquifer recharge areas from Florida CLIP 4.0.

Fig. 9. Surface water priorities from Florida CLIP 4.0.

Fig. 10. Biodiversity priorities from Florida CLIP 4.0.

Additional maps of current conditions and threats are included in Appendix B.

(2) a spatially explicit assessment of the desired future condition of the landscape using quantifiable biological, physical, and socio-economic objectives;

The SECAS Blueprint, Figure 11, ​provides a spatially explicit assessment of the desired future condition of the landscape. It integrates the South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint, the Peninsular Florida Conservation Blueprint, and Florida CLIP. Priority areas are locations targeted for conservation actions that help maintain, improve, or restore ecosystem integrity. Integrity is measured based on the condition of the ecosystem indicators.

Figure 11. The Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) Blueprint 2.0.

Known issues with integrated design Additional local review of maps in this assessment identified the following issues:

1. TNC Resilience map (Fig. 7) does not include low-lying areas likely to transition due to sea-level rise. That means that some ecologically important places, such as areas North and Southwest of Lake Wimico, are not included in the map. 2. TNC Resilience map (Fig. 7) only includes terrestrial priorities. That means that some areas important for aquatic conservation, like riparian areas going into Lake Wimico, do not score highly. These areas are a priority in the final design (Fig. 11), which includes terrestrial and aquatic priorities. 3. TNC Resilience map (Fig. 7) does not account for threats related to future landscape conversion (e.g., agricultural intensification, urban growth, hydrologic alteration). Many areas of “high resilience” in the Big Bend, particularly working forests, are threatened by landscape-scale conversion and would not be “resilient’ to these changes. 4. SECAS Blueprint (Fig. 11) corridors need further evaluation, particularly the practicality of the routes they are taking. This work is ongoing and improvements in future Blueprint version are likely. 5. The SECAS Blueprint (Fig. 11) undervalues some areas that were historic habitat for migratory fish, but are currently unoccupied. Improvements in the migratory fish indicator to fix this issue is underway. 6. There is a need for continued use of local knowledge for conservation in this region, particularly on private land. GIS models will always have issues and are no substitute for local knowledge.

Coordinated adaptation strategy

Background Many large collaborative efforts covering the Big Bend study area have identified coordinated adaptation strategies and associated conservation actions. Synthesizing and using this existing information helps: 1) Capture the broad range of conservation tools and interests in the region, 2) Build off existing efforts already underway, and 3) Identify potential roles and responsibilities for different collaborative forums.

The ​South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint 2.2 Implementation Strategy​ recently summarized these strategies and actions for the Gulf Coastal Plain subregion.This included both the Big Bend region and the ACF basin. We removed actions specific to the ACF basin, as it was outside the study area, and used the remaining information for this document.

The strategy has 5 parts: 1. What success looks like: Selected statements on what conservation success would look like in the region. Statements come from a South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint workshop in Tallahassee during spring 2017. 2. What failure looks like: Selected statements on what conservation failure would look like in the region. Statements come from a South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint workshop in Tallahassee during spring 2017. 3. Role of the Conservation Blueprint: A description of the relationship between the spatial design, conservation actions, and improvements in landscape condition. 4. Responses to specific threats: Broad overview of the approach to responding to agricultural intensification, urban growth, and sea-level rise in the Big Bend. 5. Recommended actions: Detailed action recommendations for the Big Bend, synthesized from a number of plans.

What success looks like ● Integrated landscapes from restored longleaf pine communities hydrologically connected to coastal saltmarshes; communities are resilient to climate change parameters and have space to adapt accordingly ● Broad public understanding and support for conservation of the region's natural areas, key local resources, and notable/rare species ● Balanced freshwater resource allocation, sharing the resource between human and natural system needs ● Healthy ecosystem with working forests, areas that represent natural forestry areas. Both keeping fish and wildlife habitat healthy ● Managed uplands using frequent prescribed fire that provide high quality habitat for sandhill species ● Containment of urban sprawl through urban service areas ● Areas that protect the Florida aquifer by using best management practices for agriculture to minimize/eliminate runoff ● Big Bend sea grasses improve in health and extent ● Improved estuarine health to support healthy oyster populations in support of living coastal and marine resources and continue local commercial and recreational oyster harvesting ● Wildlife corridors that link conserved lands from St. Vincent NWR in the West to St. Marks NWR in the Central to Okefenokee NWR in the East to Lower Suwannee NWR in the South

What failure looks like ● Seawalls from end to end along the coastal front; coastal development blocking up-slope coastal marsh and forest migration in response to rising sea levels ● Failing natural and urban systems - future generations that are not connected and do not value the natural world because they cannot access it (either due to geographic proximity or loss of the natural system) ● Nutrient contamination leading to increased harmful algal blooms in regional waters and focused basins ● Manatee access to the springs is precluded by low river levels ● A fragmented landscape; conflict between land managers (public or private) and conservation actors/efforts; redundant, uncoordinated efforts ● Land use conversion to more intensive uses, e.g., silviculture converting to row crops ● Key marine and coastal habitats continue to decrease in area resulting in negative impacts to species populations ● Increased risk of wildfires as a result of fire suppression - public perception of fire is negative ● Habitat on public and private lands fragmented by highways with few opportunities for wildlife to safely move across the landscape ● We will look like South Florida, Orlando, or Jacksonville

Role of the Conservation Blueprint (i.e., Spatial Design) in the adaptation strategy Since the completion of the first version of the Blueprint in 2014, the cooperative has focused on two major pathways for improving ecosystem integrity: 1) helping bring in new resources to implement conservation and 2) helping the conservation community use those resources more efficiently. Both pathways increase the capacity available in the South Atlantic for accomplishing conservation goals. Early successes in each pathway have led to an increasing number of Blueprint uses. The increase in uses, combined with rapid changes in the South Atlantic region, make it particularly important to ensure that efforts to implement the Blueprint focus on elements that will have the biggest positive impact on the integrity of South Atlantic ecosystems.

Every year, the cooperative prioritizes its efforts among three categories of activities: 1) Support Blueprint uses, 2) Promote the Blueprint, and 3) Improve the Blueprint. The goal is to maximize the improvement in ecosystem integrity.

Supporting Blueprint uses involves using the Blueprint to facilitate and prioritize specific conservation action. This includes using the Blueprint to bring in new resources through grant proposals, integrating the Blueprint into organizational policy, and clearing barriers for the next big uses of the Blueprint.

Promoting the Blueprint involves giving smaller group trainings and talks within and across organizations, giving formal presentations at meetings and conferences, and organizational inreach and personal networking.

Improving the Blueprint involves strengthening the underlying science and the interfaces to make the Blueprint a more useful tool. This includes updating core Blueprint methodology and documentation (indicators, corridors), developing targets for indicators (what condition do we want each indicator in by when), and updating and maintaining online Blueprint interfaces (Simple Viewer and Conservation Planning Atlas).

Organizations often use conceptual models to help maximize the overall impact of their work. While there are a range of approaches (e.g.,logic models, theory of change), all try to ensure that the focus remains on the ultimate impact and not just on intermediary steps along the way. Figure 12 shows the conceptual model for the Blueprint and how efforts to support, improve, and promote lead to improved ecosystem integrity.

Fig. 12. Conceptual model for how inputs into the South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint effort lead to improvements in the integrity of South Atlantic ecosystems. A more detailed model, developed in Analytica, is available on request.

Responses to specific threats Agricultural intensification Conversion of working forests to intensive row-crop agriculture is one the biggest threats to the lands and waters of the Big Bend. Economic incentives and approaches designed to help landowners maintain working forests, particularly large tracts, are the major focus for addressing this threat. Some representative actions include: 1) Provide incentives (for example, a tax exemption for private lands managed for conservation purposes equivalent to the agricultural tax exemption) to encourage landowners to maintain and manage existing natural areas in the agricultural landscape (FL SWAP), 2) Conserve low-impact land uses (like low-impact silviculture) to help maintain historic cultural attributes and natural resource-based economies of the region (Blueprint workshops), and 3) Provide financial incentives and technical expertise to encourage prescribed burns, through the Interagency Burn Team and other means (GA SWAP).

Sea-level rise Major strategies to address sea-level rise in the Big Bend are a combination of methods to slow impacts (e.g., living shorelines and hydrologic restoration) and long-term approaches to retreat to higher ground (e.g., wetland migration corridors and increased focus on areas less likely to be impacted). Some representative actions include: 1) Install living shorelines where appropriate - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FWC/ FDEP/ Universities/ NGO (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan), 2) Create incentives for homeowners to use ecologically sound alternatives to shoreline hardening (FL SWAP), and 3) Identify and conserve likely migration corridors for habitats and species in the face of climate variability and sea level rise (FL SWAP).

Urban growth The Big Bend region is mostly rural, but significant urban growth is predicted in the future. Major strategies to respond to urban growth are a combination of actions near growing urban areas (e.g., smart growth, green infrastructure) and actions farther away from future urban growth (e.g., working forests, land protection). Some representative actions include: 1) Create incentives for local government to work together to develop appropriate mechanisms to minimize the negative effects from excessive nutrients in wastewater (FL SWAP), 2) Implement smart growth that integrates traditional ag uses with conservation and land management in the Panhandle (low population and a high percentage of silviculture and agriculture) (Blueprint workshops), 3) Remove barriers to fire caused by smoke generation by identification of and planning for “smoke sheds” on a county or regional basis and develop targeted education programs for residents within these smoke sheds (FL SWAP).

Recommended actions

Use of actions Improving the ecosystem integrity of the Big Bend requires a wide range of actions from a diverse set of individuals and organizations. Which action is the best fit for each individual or organization depends on their mission, interests, jurisdiction, and authorities. In some cases, organizations have committed to being lead entities for specific actions.The source of each action, and lead entity when available, is included in parentheses to identify collaborative forums/organizations working on implementing that action.

Sources

Actions come from South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint workshops, ​GA State Wildlife Action Plan​, ​FL State Wildlife Action Plan​, Southeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation’s ​Habitat Management Guidelines​, the ​Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill​, the ​U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed​, and the Partnership for Gulf Coast Land Conservation’s ​Land Conservation Vision for the Gulf of Mexico Region​, and the ​draft FL Coastal Rivers Basin Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan​. While these are all relatively recent documents, in some cases recommended actions in the original plans are now complete. Those actions were not included in this document

Organization

The organization of actions comes from the ​Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation​. The open standards provide a common language across the diverse conservation community.

Actions

Land/Water Management ● Manage forest cover to improve hydrological flow and recharge (Blueprint workshops) ● Enhance utilization of fire and fire surrogate treatments in systems that either require these disturbances to maintain ecosystem function or need these disturbances to restore function (Blueprint workshops) ● Reduce and remove dams to support watershed protection (Blueprint workshops) ● Assess exotic plant populations on public lands and provide technical assistance to private landowners to discourage use of invasive plants (GA SWAP) ● Support large-scale ongoing efforts to improve water management operations that embrace ecological restoration and long-term ecosystem health maintenance (FL SWAP) ● Restore the natural ecological functions of wetlands on public lands (FL SWAP) ● Restore natural sediment transport (FL SWAP) ● Support efforts to clean-up lost or abandoned fishing gear (FL SWAP) ● Restore natural pine species, uneven-aged stands, and longer rotations on publicly owned silvicultural lands (FL SWAP) ● Restore impacted habitats on public lands and waters as a result of incompatible recreation activities (FL SWAP) ● Implement existing plans for invasive non-native plant control in Florida (FL SWAP) ● Continue support for appropriate minimum flows and levels for Outstanding Florida Waters important for the conservation of wildlife (FL SWAP) ● Implement water conservation measures (FL SWAP) ● Restore appropriate flow regimes to coastal habitats (FL SWAP) ● Restore wetland and aquatic systems (FWS Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed) ● Restore coastal strand, barrier island, and estuarine island habitats (FWS Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed) ● Support gear conversion and/or removal of derelict fishing gear to reduce impacts of ghost fishing (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Restore sturgeon spawning habitat (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Allow dead trees and woody debris to decompose naturally (SEPARC Habitat Management Guidelines) ● Continue hydrologic restoration projects - Lead entity: Local/Water Management District/FDEP (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Expand use of alternative water supplies - Lead entity: Local/Water Management District/FDEP (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Conversion of septic tanks to sewer systems where needed and practical - Lead entity: Local/Water Management District/FDEP (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Improve BMP development and implementation for silviculture, crop, livestock operation, and other agriculture District/ FDEP/ Universities/ NGO/ FNAI/ FDACS/ Counties (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Restore and enhance oyster reef habitat where appropriate - Lead entity: FWC/ FDEP/ Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Remove invasive species where appropriate - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USFWS/ FWC/ FDEP/ FDACS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Restore and enhance aquatic and/or emergent aquatic vegetation where appropriate - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USFWS/ FWC/ FDEP/ FDACS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Install and develop longleaf pine habitats where appropriate - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USGS/ USFWS/ FWC/ FDEP/ Universities/ NGO/ FNAI (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Restore riparian habitat where appropriate - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USFWS/ FWC/ FDEP (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Install living shorelines where appropriate - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FWC/ FDEP/ Universities/ NGO (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Identify and enhance/restore upstream sturgeon habitat - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USGS/ USFWS/ FWC (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan)

Species Management ● Increase area of oyster reefs and seagrass beds (Blueprint workshops) ● Increase Gulf sturgeon population in the Suwannee River (Blueprint workshops) ● Flathead catfish removal (Blueprint workshops) ● Continue collaborative efforts to protect sea turtle nests and minimize impacts from shrimp fisheries (GA SWAP) ● Reduce the impacts resulting from incompatible recreation activities; for example, harassment of wildlife by off-road vehicles (ORV) and personal watercraft (FL SWAP) ● Maintain and enhance population levels of wildlife potentially affected by beach nourishment activities including sea turtles that nest along Florida beaches; reduce the need to nourish beaches through restoration of beach habitat (e.g., dunes, etc.) as a means of stabilization (FL SWAP) ● Increasing efforts to reduce roadkill effects through effective use of the new ETDM approach (FL SWAP) ● Reduce mortality among highly migratory species and other oceanic fishes (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Establish or reestablish bird breeding colonies (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Transplant coral and place of hard ground substrate (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Fence livestock out of rivers, streams, wetlands, and other water bodies (SEPARC Habitat Management Guidelines) ● Reduce introduction of game and nongame fish to naturally fish-free isolated wetlands and ponds; remove introduced fish where necessary (SEPARC Habitat Management Guidelines)

Awareness Raising ● Promote longleaf to improve fire resistance in areas surrounding Okefenokee (Blueprint workshops) ● Educate/work with FL citizens likely to support conservation (e.g. people who buy license plates to support different types of conservation) (Blueprint workshops) ● Work with private landowners managing working lands to use best management practices to benefit our indicator species; for instance, encourage longleaf pine planting and prescribed burning (Blueprint workshops) ● Use state lands (e.g., Doerun Pitcherplant Bog Natural Area) and other public lands to showcase habitat restoration efforts (GA SWAP) ● Complete management plans for all state lands and incorporate management objectives for populations of high priority species (GA SWAP) ● Develop educational materials on high priority species and habitats in the ecoregion and provide these to environmental educators at WRD regional education centers (e.g., Sapelo Island) and other facilities (GA SWAP) ● Encourage voluntary efforts to expand or create ‘no-spray’ (mosquito spray) buffer zones in habitats adjacent to conservation areas with vulnerable species (FL SWAP) ● Encourage water conservation through the expansion of water conservation outreach programs (FL SWAP) ● Achieve a better understanding of the costs and benefits associated with maintaining permanent, man-made structures on the coastline (FL SWAP) ● Educate the public on the proper use of fishing gear (FL SWAP) ● Keep the public and elected officials informed about the ongoing harmful algal bloom research and results (FL SWAP) ● Remove barriers to fire caused by smoke generation by identification of and planning for “smoke sheds” on a county or regional basis and developing targeted education programs for residents within these smoke sheds (FL SWAP) ● Improve understanding of and compliance with existing fishing regulations (FL SWAP) ● Reduce the impacts of boats and personal watercraft to natural resources through education and awareness (FL SWAP) ● Discourage rebuilding in high-risk coastal areas (FL SWAP) ● Reduce sea turtle bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries through identification and implementation of conservation measures (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Reduce sea turtle bycatch in commercial fisheries through enhanced training and outreach to the fishing community (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Reduce injury and mortality of sea turtles and marine mammals from vessel strikes (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Reduce injury and mortality of bottlenose dolphins from hook and line fishing gear (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Prevent incidental bird mortality (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Promote environmental stewardship, education, and outreach (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Educate the public on importance of water conservation - Lead entity: Water Management District (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Increase beneficial reuse in communities throughout the District - Lead entity: Water Management District (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Improve education and outreach to coastal homeowners and recreation organizations - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FWC/ FDEP/ Universities/ FDACS/ Counties (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Promote responsible/ low impact recreation activities - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USGS/ USFWS/ FWC/ FDEP/ Universities/ NGO/ FNAI/ FDACS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan)

Livelihood, Economic & Moral Incentives ● Hybrid approach in the Sand Hills and WMDs looking at incentivizing to plan longleaf and recharge aquifers (Blueprint workshops) ● Green timber investment TIMOs in lower Suwannee - a history of successful working landscapes, highly monitored and highly successful; sell easements to States/Feds/Water Management Districts and NGOs and try to buy in priority areas where there is a timber-shed (Blueprint workshops) ● Economic incentives to address pivot irrigation that is impacting the groundwater (Blueprint workshops) ● Provide financial incentives and technical expertise to encourage prescribed burns, through Interagency Burn Team and other means (GA SWAP) ● Develop incentives that encourage the limitation of airborne chemical releases (FL SWAP) ● Establish a comprehensive mitigation/restoration incentive-based program to achieve a no-net-loss of coastal habitat (FL SWAP) ● Develop incentives to create buffers around coastal areas; promote conservation easements in buffer areas (FL SWAP) ● Provide tax incentives to landowners to maintain property in agriculture for five or more years (FL SWAP) ● Provide incentives (for example, a tax exemption for private lands managed for conservation purposes equivalent to the agricultural tax exemption) to encourage landowners to maintain and manage existing natural areas in the agricultural landscape (FL SWAP) ● Provide incentives, guidelines and criteria for siting high impact recreational areas, such as golf courses, and for developing ecologically friendly recreational facilities which include preservation, restoration, and management of natural wildlife habitat (FL SWAP) ● Incentivize promoting compliance with existing stormwater regulations (FL SWAP) ● Encourage all power plants to meet current standards for discharge (FL SWAP) ● Create incentives for preserving large, contiguous scrub and other sensitive upland habitats, as part of the permitting for new mines (FL SWAP) ● Create incentives for local government to work together to develop appropriate mechanisms to minimize the negative effects from excessive nutrients in wastewater (FL SWAP) ● Create and fund a state program to provide technical assistance on shoreline management options to coastal homeowners (FL SWAP) ● Create incentives for homeowners to use ecologically sound alternatives to shoreline hardening (FL SWAP) ● Encourage voluntary incentives for local governments to work together to reduce stormwater effects to vulnerable habitats (FL SWAP) ● Encourage voluntary reduction in Gulf Menhaden harvest (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Incentivize Gulf of Mexico commercial shrimp fishers to increase gear selectivity and environmental stewardship (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Enhance development of bycatch reducing technologies (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Reduce post-release mortality of red snapper and other reef fishes in the Gulf of Mexico recreational fishery using fish descender devices (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Reduce Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper or other reef fish discards through IFQ allocation subsidy program (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Enhance public access to natural resources for recreational use (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Enhance recreational experiences (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan)

Conservation Designation & Planning ● Conserve low impact land uses (like low impact silviculture) to help maintain historic cultural attributes and natural resource-based economies of the region (Blueprint workshops) ● Leverage or support efforts arising within the Air Force in their landscape approach to conservation (Blueprint workshops) ● Work with willing landowners and State partners to protect important coastal to inland corridors within the approved acquisition boundary of St. Marks and Lower Suwannee NWRs, through a combination of fee acquisitions and conservation easements, which will provide benefits for wildlife and plants impacted by sea level rise. (Blueprint workshops) ● Protect shorebird/seabird/waterbird nesting habitat along the gulf coastline/islands (Blueprint workshops) ● Protect habitat of the oval pigtoe mussel in the Santa Fe river (Blueprint workshops) ● Protect corridors along rivers and between public lands including wildlife crossings of highways that fragment the landscape (Blueprint workshops) ● Work with The Nature Conservancy, USFWS, Georgia Land Conservation Center and local land trusts to provide protection for high priority wetlands and stream corridors (GA SWAP) ● Identify local restoration projects where dredged materials can be used (FL SWAP) ● Identify and conserve likely migration corridors for habitats and species in the face of climate variability and sea level rise (FL SWAP) ● Acquire coastal properties and buffer properties in fee title and through conservation easements (FL SWAP) ● Identify important natural habitats that are to be converted to agricultural uses and work with landowners on a voluntary basis to conserve the habitat via acquisition or easement agreements (FL SWAP) ● Support and expand existing tools and programs aimed at preventing negative effects to natural habitats (FL SWAP) ● Acquire lands needed to maintain the hydrologic functioning of ecosystems (e.g., critical recharge areas) through the state’s land acquisition program, Florida Forever, Save Our Rivers program (FL SWAP) ● Acquire buffer lands and use wetlands for stormwater treatment (FL SWAP) ● Acquire lands needed for effective prescribed fire management of public lands (FL SWAP) ● Use the best available science when siting protected areas (FL SWAP) ● Mitigate the effects to marine/estuarine habitats and associated wildlife resulting from beach nourishment that cannot be avoided (FL SWAP) ● Create a state-sanctioned approach for identifying areas where new roads may or may not be constructed and develop criteria for best protecting wildlife and supporting smart growth where road expansion is likely (FL SWAP) ● Acquire lands vital for freshwater recharge (FL SWAP) ● Where land is actually purchased by nonprofit organizations for long-term ownership, dedicated funds should be established and adequately funded to cover the stewardship, maintenance and defense of the easements (Land Conservation Vision for the Gulf of Mexico Region) ● Where land is to be purchased by or for public agencies to enable public recreational access and use, those lands should be strategically located near existing public lands to facilitate cost effective management. Furthermore, there should be close cooperation between federal and state agencies to share in management responsibilities. Dedicated funds for stewardship and management of permanently protected lands should be allowed as part of the land-purchase costs (Land Conservation Vision for the Gulf of Mexico Region). ● Conserve prairies and forests (FWS Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed) ● Protect coastal strand, barrier island, and estuarine island habitat (FWS Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed) ● Protect and manage mesophotic and deep benthic coral communities (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Complete water supply assessments - Lead entity: Water Management District (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Maintain and expand land acquisition programs to purchase land throughout the basin - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FWC/ FDEP/ NGO/ FNAI (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Develop and refine management plans for acquired lands - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FWC/ FDEP/ NGO/ FNAI (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Develop management standards for shoreline disturbance - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FWC/ FDEP/ NGO/ FNAI / FDACS/ Counties (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to improve land use planning to reduce fragmentation of habitats - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FWC/ FDEP/ Universities/Counties (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to develop, improve, and implement comprehensive recreation management plans - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USFWS/ FWC/ FDEP/ NGO/ FNAI/ FDACS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan)

Legal & Policy Frameworks ● Better permitting for water withdrawal (Blueprint workshops) ● Implement smart growth that integrates traditional ag uses with conservation and land management in the Panhandle (low population and a high % of silviculture and ag) (Blueprint workshops) ● Work with GFC and SFI-SIC to facilitate development of forestry BMPs for maintenance of important wildlife habitats (GA SWAP) ● Assist in the development of fish and wildlife resource criteria for recommendations on coastal development (FL SWAP) ● Establish higher water quality standards that help conserve sensitive species (FL SWAP) ● Continue support for the ban on oil and natural-gas drilling off the Florida coast (FL SWAP) ● Augment the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council lists to include marine and estuarine plant species (FL SWAP) ● Develop new agricultural standards (and evaluating and refining existing practices) specifically designed to meet numeric nutrient criteria (FL SWAP) ● Expand the recommendations made by the Land Based Sources of Pollution Issue Team of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative statewide to include all estuarine and nearshore areas of the state (FL SWAP) ● Define standards (BMPs) for vegetation along rights-of-way to reduce effects to sensitive habitats along those corridors (FL SWAP) ● Improve efforts to ensure compliance with existing shoreline hardening regulations (FL SWAP) ● The creation of conservation easements—whether on purchased, donated or privately owned lands— should be accompanied by a dedicated reserve fund for long-term monitoring of the easement. (Land Conservation Vision for the Gulf of Mexico Region) ● Reduce injury, harm, and mortality to bottlenose dolphins by reducing illegal feeding and harassment activities (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Establish MFLs for priority water bodies - Lead entity: Water Management District (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Maintain MFLs for priority waterbodies with existing MFLs - Lead entity: Water Management District (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Implement reductions required to meet TMDL obligations for the Fenholloway River - Lead entity: Buckeye Plant/ FDEP (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Implement the load reductions required to meet TMDL obligations for Wacissa Springs and the Wacissa River - Lead entity:FDACS/FDEP/Water Management District (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Investigate use of permit exemptions and streamlined permitting for restoration projects - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USFWS/ FWC/ FDEP (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Increase enforcement of existing [recreational] ordinances/ rules - Lead entity: Water Management District/ USFWS/ FWC/ FDEP/ FDACS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan)

Research & Monitoring ● Find alternate chemicals for use in mosquito spraying that do not harm other species (FL SWAP) ● Conduct research to better understand the effects from chemicals and toxins to our coastal habitats and species (FL SWAP) ● Support the development of non-destructive, ecologically benign fishing gear and fishing practices (FL SWAP) ● Integrate harmful algal bloom monitoring efforts with remote integrated ocean observing systems (FL SWAP) ● Develop local harmful algal bloom working groups to coordinate and conduct research on harmful algal bloom effects on the natural environment and people (FL SWAP) ● Conduct research to better understand the harmful algal bloom phenomena (FL SWAP) ● Implement a biological risk assessment process to review importation and movement of non-native animal species (FL SWAP) ● Implement a biological risk assessment process to determine if further action on importation and movement of non-native plant species is warranted 526 Chapter 7: Multiple Habitat Threats and Conservation Actions (FL SWAP) ● Increase research on control methods for Old World and Japanese climbing fern (FL SWAP) ● Improve survey methods for invaders and assessing invasion along Florida’s coastline (FL SWAP) ● Thoroughly understand longshore sediment transport in Florida and how it is affected by inlets and structures (FL SWAP) ● Understand the effects of beach nourishment on the environment, quantify these effects, ascribe an economic value and provide natural resources with an appropriate level of protection, and abate the negative effects of nourishment (FL SWAP) ● Refine and expand the development of habitat-specific numeric nutrient criteria aimed at preventing negative effects to natural ecosystems (FL SWAP) ● Review Outstanding Florida Waters to determine if water quality has degraded (FL SWAP) ● Increase sea turtle survival through enhanced mortality investigation and early detection of and response to anthropogenic threats and emergency events (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Increase marine mammal survival through better understanding of causes of illness and death and early detection and intervention of anthropogenic and natural threats (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Measure noise to improve knowledge and reduce impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Maintain existing river and spring monitoring gages - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Annual reporting of flow data with summary reports of flow trends every 4-5 years - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Establish a comprehensive groundwater monitoring network to support planning efforts - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/Other Districts (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Work with other agencies to develop a strategy for data collection, data analysis and groundwater modeling to better define current and future regional water resource impacts - Lead entity: Water Management District/SJRWMD/USGS/State of Georgia (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to monitor water quality throughout the springs and streams of the Coastal Rivers Basin - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FDEP/USGS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to report on the status and trends (if any) of water quality – especially nitrate – in the springs and streams of the Coastal Rivers Basin - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FDEP/USGS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Determine if bacterial impairment determinations and targets based upon the prior standard using fecal coliform bacteria differ from impairment determinations and targets based upon proposed criteria based on E. coli (freshwater Class III) and/or enterococci bacteria (marine Class III and Class II) - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FDEP/ Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Determine if impairments for dissolved oxygen, based upon older criteria of 4 mg /liter differ from impairment determinations based upon newly adopted criteria based on percent saturation - Lead entity: Water Management District/ FDEP/ Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Source identification efforts to ensure that source(s) of bacteria are appropriately identified for waterbodies with identified impairments - Lead entity: Local governments/FDEP/Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Determine the source(s) of nitrogen load to the springshed of Wacissa Springs and the Wacissa River, to implement the draft TMDL’s load reductions - Lead entity: Water Management District/FDEP/USGS/Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue and expand monitoring and mapping of aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial habitats and species - Lead entity: Water Management District/USFWS/FWC/Universities/FNAI (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Improve understanding of trophic dynamics (i.e. food webs) and nutrient cycling in spring and river systems - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Develop and test restoration techniques for improving fish and wildlife habitat in spring and river systems - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/USFWS/FWC/Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to monitor and evaluate effects of sea-level rise on habitat - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/USFWS/FWC/FDEP/Universities Monitor and evaluate sub-aquatic vegetation (SAV) District/USGS/USFWS/FWC/Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Improve understanding of Florida salt marsh vole distribution, habitat, and needs - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/USFWS/FWC/Universities/FNAI (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to monitor and develop restoration techniques for longleaf pine habitat - Lead entity: Water Management District/FWC/Universities/FNAI/FDACS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to monitor the population and develop habitat restoration techniques and projects for Gulf sturgeon - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/USFWS/FWC/Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to monitor and test restoration techniques for improving oyster reef habitat - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/USFWS/FDEP/FWC/Universities/FDACS ● Continue to monitor and control non-native and invasive species District/USGS/USFWS/FWC/FDEP/Universities/NGO/FNAI/FDACS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to improve understanding of effects of changes in freshwater flows on habitats and listed species - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/USFWS/Universities (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to improve understanding of gear and/or harvest restrictions on listed species - Lead entity: Water Management District/USFWS/FWC (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to improve, develop, monitor, and evaluate the effects of silviculture, crop, and livestock operation BMPs on habitats - Lead entity: Water Management District/USGS/USFWS/FWC/FDEP/Universities/FDACS (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan) ● Continue to map and monitor species distributions and habitats - Lead entity: Water Management District/USFWS/FWC/Universities/FNAI (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan)

Education & Training ● Develop educational materials on high priority species and habitats in the ecoregion and provide these to environmental educators at WRD facilities (e.g., GoFish Center, Grand Bay Education Center) and other facilities (GA SWAP) ● Produce targeted educational materials on invasive plant identification and pathways of movement for public area managers and the public (FL SWAP) ● Train “frontline” agency staff on shoreline management options so that they may convey this knowledge to property owners seeking shoreline hardening permits, etc. (FL SWAP)

Institutional Development ● Work with GDOT and local governments to minimize direct impacts to high priority species and habitats from development projects (GA SWAP) ● Work with Georgia Power and private landowners to identify and conserve populations of rare species in and adjacent to utility corridors (GA SWAP) ● Work with NRCS staff to identify high priority habitats and sites for implementation of habitat enhancement/restoration projects through Farm Bill programs (e.g., restoration of longleaf pine-dominated forests and savannas) (GA SWAP) ● Work with GDOT and local governments to minimize direct impacts to high priority species and habitats from development projects (GA SWAP) ● Work with GDOT and local governments to minimize direct impacts to high priority species and habitats from development projects (GA SWAP) ● Work with Georgia Power and private landowners to identify and conserve populations of rare species in and adjacent to utility corridors (GA SWAP) ● Work with GFC and SFI-SIC to facilitate development of forestry BMPs for maintenance of important wildlife habitats (GA SWAP) ● Work with The Nature Conservancy, USFWS, Georgia Land Conservation Center and local land trusts to provide protection for high priority wetlands and stream corridors (GA SWAP) ● Improve coordination of goals between statewide dredged material plans and the state’s port expansion plans (FL SWAP) ● Collaborate among agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public to collectively create, identify, and adopt a statewide “Cooperative Conservation Blueprint” (see Chapter 2: Florida’s First Five Years of Action Plan Implementation) to help guide state and local land-use decisions and land-protection priorities (FL SWAP) ● Fund actions to protect springs and other groundwater-influenced habitats recommended by the Department of Environmental Protection’s Florida Springs Task Force in its report Florida’s Springs: Strategies for Protection and Restoration, November 2000 (FL SWAP) ● Support and enhance the rapid assessment system currently in place (FL SWAP) ● Develop a procedure for prioritizing stormwater management actions on the most sensitive lands (FL SWAP) ● Develop a state-sanctioned prescribed fire management plan and an identified funding source for implementing the objectives of the plan (FL SWAP) ● Increase capacity and accountability for prescribed fire management within agencies (FL SWAP) ● Improve coordination among state and federal management agencies to incorporate fisheries management with ecosystem management (FL SWAP) ● Ensure that all port dredged material management plans are up-to-date and adequate (FL SWAP) ● Encourage participation in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Clean Marinas Program within specially designated water bodies (FL SWAP) ● Establish and encourage a program with standards (e.g., BMPs) for boatyards and marine testing facilities (FL SWAP) ● Improve level of resources to enforcement agencies (FL SWAP) ● Encourage the transition of fish and wildlife management strategies from a species level focus to an ecosystem-level focus (FL SWAP) ● Establish an early detection, warning, and rapid-response protocol among agencies that triggers a coordinated and strategic response to incipient invasions (FL SWAP) ● Review importation of non-native animals to demonstrate that no harm is likely (FL SWAP) ● Create an interagency and researcher consortium to coordinate actions to identify, prevent, detect, prioritize, and control invasive animals (FL SWAP) ● Increase interagency coordination on invasive plant detection, management, and control programs (FL SWAP) ● Support multi-agency review and coordination of the planning and permitting process for roads, bridges, and causeways, i.e., the Florida Department of Transportation’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process (FL SWAP) ● Develop annual restoration targets and establishing a new grant program to fund targeted stream and wetland restoration projects (FL SWAP) ● Improve the vessel grounding damage remediation program (FL SWAP) ● Develop a vessel-anchoring management plan (FL SWAP) ● Reduce commercial fishery bycatch through collaborative partnerships (Deepwater Horizon Restoration Plan) ● Coordinate with FDEP and other agencies to ensure regulatory efforts reflect challenges identified in water supply planning - Lead entity: Water Management District//FDEP/SJRWMD (FL Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM plan)

Tidal Saline Wetland Migration Products for the Big Bend Study Area, FL Incorporating future change into conservation planning: evaluating wetland migration along the Gulf of Mexico under alternative sea-level rise and urbanization scenarios

For more information, please contact: Sinead Borchert U.S. Geological Survey Wetland and Aquatic Research Center [email protected] (337) 266-8509

Michael Osland, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Wetland and Aquatic Research Center [email protected] (337) 266-8664

Nicholas Enwright U.S. Geological Survey Wetland and Aquatic Research Center [email protected] (337) 266-8613

Table of Contents

1. Guide to Understanding the Maps ...... 4

2. Tidal Saline Wetland Migration Maps Sea Level Rise by 2100 2.1. Full Big Bend study area 2.1.1. 0.5 m Sea level rise ...... 10 2.1.2. 1.0 m Sea level rise ...... 11 2.1.3. 2.0 m Sea level rise ...... 12 2.2. Southwest coastline of the Big Bend study area 2.2.1. 0.5 m Sea level rise ...... 13 2.2.2. 1.0 m Sea level rise ...... 14 2.2.3. 2.0 m Sea level rise ...... 15 2.3. Southeast coastline of the Big Bend study area 2.3.1. 0.5 m Sea level rise ...... 16 2.3.2. 1.0 m Sea level rise ...... 17 2.3.3. 2.0 m Sea level rise ...... 18

Sea Level Rise by 2050 2.4. Full Big Bend study area 2.4.1. 0.5 m Sea level rise ...... 20 2.4.2. 1.0 m Sea level rise ...... 21 2.4.3. 2.0 m Sea level rise ...... 22 2.5. Southwest coastline of the Big Bend study area 2.5.1. 0.5 m Sea level rise ...... 23 2.5.2. 1.0 m Sea level rise ...... 24

2

2.5.3. 2.0 m Sea level rise ...... 25 2.6. Southeast coastline of the Big Bend study area 2.6.1. 0.5 m Sea level rise ...... 26 2.6.2. 1.0 m Sea level rise ...... 27 2.6.3. 2.0 m Sea level rise ...... 28

3. Table 1: Area gained or lost in the Big Bend study area by sea level rise scenario and time step ...... 29

4. Figure 1: Maps of county-level barriers and opportunities for landward migration ...... 30

5. Figure 2: Maps of county-level wetland migration onto protected lands ...... 31

6. Potential narrative for Big Bend landscape conservation design ...... 32

3

Guide to Understanding the Maps

The focus of this project is on landward migration of wetlands The focus of this project is solely on the landward migration of tidal saline wetlands, and we did not evaluate the potential for tidal saline wetland loss or local adaptation to sea-level rise via vertical movement. The ability of current tidal saline wetlands to keep pace with sea-level rise is a much different question and beyond the scope of this project. Please note that although current tidal saline wetland data are included in some of the data products, our representation does not indicate that those tidal saline wetlands will be able to keep pace with sea-level rise.

Sea-level rise scenarios and time-steps  For modeling future tidal saline wetland landward migration, we used five sea-level rise scenarios: 0.5-, 1.0-, 1.2-, 1.5-, and 2.0- m increase in sea level by 2100.  For each of the five scenarios, we modeled the following five years: 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, and 2100.  Three of these sea-level rise scenarios (0.5-, 1.2-, and 2.0-m sea-level rise) were identified within an interagency U.S. governmental guidance document (Parris and others, 2012) produced for the 2013 U.S. National Climate Assessment (Melillo and others, 2014). One of the objectives of the guidance document produced by Parris and others (2012) was to provide coastal managers with a set of plausible sea-level rise trajectories that could be used to assess vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation strategies. From this guidance document, we selected the “Intermediate-Low,” “Intermediate-High,” and “Highest” scenarios identified by Parris and others (2012). These three scenarios represent a 0.5-, 1.2-, and 2.0-m sea-level rise by 2100, respectively. See the Data Series Report for more information.

Land cover categories The following categories appear in the “legend.” For more information on any category below please see the Data Series Report (http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds969). Unclassified area – Area not assigned to a land cover category. Current tidal saline wetland – This category includes current tidal saline wetland ecosystems. Tidal saline wetland ecosystems along the NGOM coast are diverse and include salt marshes, mangrove forests, and tidal salt flats. This category includes all of these types of tidal saline wetlands. This category was developed using habitat data available via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Presence of tidal saline wetland was defined as cells that contained estuarine intertidal wetland NWI classes. Please note that our data products do not assess or illustrate tidal saline wetland loss or the

4

ability of current tidal saline wetlands to keep pace with sea-level rise via local vertical movement. Although current tidal saline wetland data are included in some of the data products, our representation does not indicate that those tidal saline wetlands will be able to keep pace with sea-level rise. See the Data Series Report for more information.  Current urban – This category includes a combination of the SLEUTH current urban data (Terando and others, 2014) and the NLCD 2011 data. See the Data Series Report for more information.  Future tidal saline wetland – For a given future sea-level rise scenario and year, this category represents areas where tidal saline wetland landward migration is expected. See the Data Series Report for more information.  Future urban – For a given year, this category represents areas where future urban growth is expected as determined by Terando and others, 2014. See the Data Series Report for more information.  Future tidal saline wetland/current urban – This category represents areas that were classified as being both: (1) Current urban; and (2) Future tidal saline wetland. These are areas where, for a given year and scenario, current urban development may serve as a barrier to wetland landward migration. See the Data Series Report for more information.  Future tidal saline wetland/future urban – This category represents areas that were classified as being both: (1) Future urban; and (2) Future tidal saline wetland. These are areas where, for a given year and scenario, future urban development may serve as a barrier to wetland landward migration. See the Data Series Report for more information.  Leveed – This category identifies current leveed areas as determined from the following data: (1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Levee Database; (2) South Florida Water Management District; or (3) the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. See the Data Series Report for more information.  Future tidal saline wetland/leveed – This category represents areas that were classified as being both: (1) Leveed; and (2) Future tidal saline wetland. These are areas where, for a given year and scenario, current leveed areas may serve as a barrier to wetland landward migration. See the Data Series Report for more information.  Current tidal saline wetland/future urban – This category represents areas that were classified as being both: (1) Current tidal saline wetland; and (2) Future urban. This category is very uncommon. See the Data Series Report for more information.

Uncertainty categories (elevation and tidal datum; available online, not included in this document) To depict uncertainty associated with the elevation and tidal transformation data, we also produced a maximum and minimum tidal saline wetland boundary estimate by using the upper and lower 95-percent confidence limits for the vertical position relative to a tidal datum (Gesch, 2013; Nielsen and Dudley, 2013). See the Data Series Report for more information. The included maps depict the UNADJUSTED future tidal saline wetland migration, but the “maximum” and “minimum” datasets can be obtained on Science Base.

5

 Unadjusted future tidal saline wetland migration – these files DO NOT contain “maximum” or “minimum” in their name and represent areas where landward migration is expected for the given future sea-level rise scenario and year for DEMs that did not incorporate elevation linear error (that is, unadjusted). See the Data Series Report for more information.  Minimum future tidal saline wetland migration – These files include “minimum” in their name and represent the minimum extent for which landward migration is expected for the given future sea-level rise scenario and year for DEMs given elevation and tidal datum transformation uncertainty. Specifically, linear error was added to the DEM values for this category prior to application of the tidal saline wetland elevation threshold models (that is, elevation values were increased hence less migration is expected). See the Data Series Report for more information.  Maximum future tidal saline wetland migration – These files include “maximum” in their name and represent the maximum extent for which landward migration is expected for the given future sea-level rise scenario and year for DEMS given elevation and tidal datum transformation uncertainty. Specifically, linear error was subtracted from the DEM values for this category prior to application of the tidal saline wetland elevation threshold models (that is, elevation values were decreased hence more migration is expected).See the Data Series Report for more information.

For more information  The products associated with this project are available on the project’s Conservation Planning Atlas gallery at this link: http://gcpolcc.databasin.org/galleries/bbfff0152bb14aa5aea5012d02f3156f.  The geospatial outputs associated with this project are available for direct download on the project’s Science Base site: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/55f742a8e4b0477df11c0a2b.  For a more detailed description, please see the methods section of the following USGS Data Series Report: Enwright, N.M., Griffith, K.T., and Osland, M.J., 2015, Incorporating future change into current conservation planning—Evaluating tidal saline wetland migration along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast under alternative sea-level rise and urbanization scenarios: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 969, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds969.  Journal Article: Enwright, N.M., Griffith, K.T., and Osland, M.J. 2016. Barriers and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea-level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14:307-316.

Data limitations Due to the large study area and the region-based objectives associated with this study, we used a relatively simple model and the best available data to identify areas where tidal saline wetland landward migration may occur across the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. Our results are dependent upon the quality and availability of elevation, tidal datum, and tidal saline wetland data. For local-scale

6

decisions, where data quality is poor and (or) where additional variables play an important role, higher-resolution data and (or) a more complex model may be needed. There are many different models available for assessing tidal saline wetland responses to sea- level rise, and the appropriate models depend upon the questions of interest. Prior to using these data, we recommend that individuals carefully consider which models are most appropriate for their objectives. For more background information regarding models of tidal saline wetland response to sea-level rise, the following resources serve as a good starting point: Perillo and others (2009), Fagherazzi and others (2012), Doyle and others, (2015), and Passeri and others (2015). Please note that our data products do not assess or illustrate tidal saline wetland loss or the ability of current tidal saline wetlands to keep pace with sea-level rise via local vertical movement. Although current tidal saline wetland data are included in some of the data products, our representation does not indicate that those tidal saline wetlands will be able to keep pace with sea-level rise. The focus of this project was solely on tidal saline wetland landward migration, and we did not evaluate the potential for tidal saline wetland loss or local adaptation to sea-level rise via vertical movement. The ability of current tidal saline wetlands to keep pace with sea-level rise is a much different question and beyond the scope of this project.

References Doyle, T.W., Krauss, K.W., Conner, W.H., and From, A.S., 2010, Predicting the retreat and migration of tidal forests along the northern Gulf of Mexico under sea-level rise: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 259, no. 4, p. 770–777. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.023.] Fagherazzi, S., Kirwan, M.L., Mudd, S.M., Guntenspergen, G.R., Temmerman, S., D’Alpaos, A., van de Koppel, J., Rybczyk, J.M., Reyes, E., Craft, C., Clough, J., 2012, Numerical models of salt marsh evolution: Ecological, geomorphic, and climatic factors, vol. 50, RG1002, p. 1-28. [Also available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011RG000359/full.] Gesch, D.B., 2013, Consideration of vertical uncertainty in elevation-based sea-level rise assessments—Mobile Bay, Alabama case study: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 63, p. 197–210. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI63-016.1.] Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.C., and Yohe, G.W., eds., 2014, Climate change impacts in the United States—The third national climate assessment: Washington, U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 p Nielsen, M.G., and Dudley, R.W., 2013, Estimates of future inundation of salt marshes in response to sea-level rise in and around Acadia National Park, Maine: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5290, 20 p. [Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5290/.] Parris, Adam, Bromirski, Peter, Burkett, Virginia, Cayan, Dan, Culver, Mary, Hall, John, Horton, Radley, Knuuti, Kevin, Moss, Richard, Obeysekera, Jayantha, Sallenger, Abby, and Weiss, Jeremy, 2012, Global sea level rise scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment: Silver Spring, Md., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Report OAR CPO–1, 37 p. [Also available at http://scenarios.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/NOAA_SLR_r3_0.pdf.]

7

Passeri, D.V., Hagen, S.C., Medeiros, S.C., Bilskie, M.V., Alizad, K., Wang, D., 2015. The dynamic effects of sea level rise on low- gradient coastal landscapes: A review: Earth’s Future, v. 3, p. 159-181. [Also available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EF000298/full.] Perillo, G.M.E., Wolanski, E., Cahoon, D.R., and Brinson, M.M., eds., 2009, Coastal wetlands: an integrated ecosystem approach: Amsterdam, Netherlands, Elsevier. 941 p. Terando, A.J., Costanza, Jennifer, Belyea, Curtis, Dunn, R.R., McKerrow, Alexa, and Collazo, J.A., 2014, The southern megalopolis— Using the past to predict the future of urban sprawl in the southeast U.S.: PLoS ONE, v. 9, no. 7, 8 p. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102261.]

8

Tidal Saline Wetland Migration in the Big Bend Study Area 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-m increase in sea level by 2100 for the year 2100

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Tidal Saline Wetland Migration in the Big Bend Study Area 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-m increase in sea level by 2100 for the year 2050

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Table 1. Area by sea-level rise scenario of future tidal saline wetland, current urban development, low-lying urban area (that may have converted to wetland in the absence of development; “Future Tidal Saline Wetland/Current Urban”), future urban development, low-lying future urban development (that could prevent migration; “Future Tidal Saline Wetland/Future Urban”), and current tidal saline wetland that is predicted to become urban development in the future (“Current Tidal Saline Wetland/Future Urban”) within Florida’s Big Bend Region. The area gained or lost at future time steps is contained in parentheses.

Area by Class in the Big Bend Study Area, FL (km²) (Loss – or Gain +) Class 0.5-m SLR by 2100 1.0-m SLR by 2100 2.0-m SLR by 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 376.83 543.60 455.49 795.59 607.23 1259.95 Future Tidal Saline Wetland (+166.77) (+340.10) (+652.72) 2327.30 2317.87 2322.98 2301.26 2314.14 2265.26 Current Urban (-9.43) (-21.72) (-48.88) Future Tidal Saline 8.30 17.72 12.61 34.34 21.46 70.34 Wetland/Current Urban (+9.42) (+21.73) (+48.88) 2557.41 5576.36 2557.12 5570.46 2555.99 5543.67 Future Urban (+3018.95) (+3013.34) (+2987.68) Future Tidal Saline 0.50 2.50 0.78 8.40 1.91 35.19 Wetland/Future Urban (+2.00) (+7.62) (+33.28)

29

Figure 1. Maps of county-level barriers and opportunities for landward migration of tidal saline wetlands under alternative sea-level rise scenarios. (a) Relative percent of areas available for migration. (b to d) Relative ratio of areas where migration is prevented by current urban land (b), by future urban land (c), and by levees (d). Counties with crosshatching are expected to have less than 1 km² of area available for migration. (Figures and captions from: Enwright NM, Griffith KT, Osland MJ. 2016. Barriers to and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea-level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 307-316.)

30

Figure 2. Maps of county-level landward migration of tidal saline wetlands onto protected lands under alternative sea-level rise scenarios, illustrating the relative percent of landward migration that is expected to occur on lands owned by federal, state, local, or private institutions with the capacity for continued conservation (USGS Protected Areas Database version 1.3). Counties with crosshatching are expected to have less than 1 km² of area available for migration. (Figures and captions from: Enwright NM, Griffith KT, Osland MJ. 2016. Barriers to and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea-level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 307-316.)

31

Potential narrative for Big Bend Landscape Conservation Design

Coastal wetlands in the Big Bend region provide many important ecosystem goods and services. In addition to supporting fish and wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands improve water quality, sequester carbon, protect coastlines, provide seafood, maintain coastal food webs, and provide recreational opportunities (Barbier et al., 2011; Engle, 2011; Costanza et al., 2014). However, coastal wetlands in the Big Bend region are highly vulnerable to rising sea levels (Williams et al., 1999b; Williams et al., 1999a; Doyle et al., 2010; Enwright et al., 2016). In response to sea-level rise, coastal wetlands have historically moved vertically and horizontally across the landscape. In the future, coastal wetlands are expected to migrate landward at the expense of upslope and upriver ecosystems. In a recent study, Enwright et al. (2016) identified areas along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast where wetlands are expected to migrate landward. That study highlights the Big Bend region as an area where a large amount of wetland migration is expected. In some coastal areas south of the Big Bend region (e.g., the Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor estuaries), extensive coastal development limits the potential for wetland migration in response to sea- level rise; however, the lack of coastal development and abundance of protected lands along the Big Bend region means that there are many opportunities for future wetland migration (Enwright et al., 2016). However, coastal wetland migration is expected to occur at the expense of certain upslope and upriver terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, respectively.

References Enwright NM, Griffith KT, Osland MJ. 2016. Barriers to and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea-level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 307-316. Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158. Engle VD. 2011. Estimating the provision of ecosystem services by Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands. Wetlands, 31, 179-193. Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81, 169-193. Doyle TW, Krauss KW, Conner WH, From AS. 2010. Predicting the retreat and migration of tidal forests along the northern Gulf of Mexico under sea-level rise. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, 770-777. Williams K, Pinzon ZS, Stumpf RP, Raabe EA. 1999a. Sea-level rise and coastal forests on the Gulf of Mexico, US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 99-441. Williams K, Ewel K, Stumpf R, Putz F, Workman T. 1999b. Sea-level rise and coastal forest retreat on the west coast of Florida, USA. Ecology, 80, 2045-2063.

32