1

AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Charles Town, West Virginia

An Analysis on the Relationship among Mangrove Ecosystems, Economic Status and Climate

Change in the Southeastern United States

EVSP 699 MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & MANAGEMENT

AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY

Rachel Wilkins

December 7, 2014

Dr. Elizabeth D’Andrea

2

Table of Contents

Abstract- p. 5

Introduction- p. 5-28

Background: Mangrove Ecosystems- p. 5-14

Background: Mangrove Ecosystems and Climate Change- p. 14-20

Background: Climate Change and Coastal Human Populations- p. 20-24

Background: Mangroves, Human Communities and Climate Change- p. 24-26

Background: Economic Status Trends in the United States- p. 27-28

Findings- p. 28-70

Location of Mangrove Communities and Average Household Income by County- p. 28-44

Louisiana Data- p. 28-30

Mississippi Data- p. 30-32

Alabama Data- p. 32-33

Georgia Data- p. 33

Florida Data- p. 33-44

Population and Economic Trends for the Southeastern United States- p. 44-50

Health of Mangrove Ecosystems- p. 50-56

Climate Change Impacts in the United States- p. 57-65

Connection between Climate Change and Economic Status- p. 65-70

Data Analysis- p. 70-77

Louisiana Data Analysis- p. 70

Mississippi Data Analysis- p. 70-71

Florida Data Analysis- p. 71-75

Climate Change Data Analysis- p. 75-77

Discussion- p. 77-82

Implications of Climate Change for Mangrove Ecosystems in the Southeastern United States- p.

77-81

Implications of Climate Change for Coastal Communities- p. 81-82

Conclusion- p. 82-90

3

Summary of Results- p. 82-86

Pathways for Future Research- p. 86-90

Acknowledgements- p. 90

References- p. 91-107

Tables:

Table 1: List of Species of Special Concern, Vulnerable, Threatened and Endangered- Classified

Species Identified in Mangrove Ecosystems in the Southeastern U.S.- p. 10-12

Table 2: Data on Income Levels and Presence of Mangroves in Louisiana by County- p. 28-29

Table 3: Data on Income Levels and Presence of Mangroves in Mississippi by County- p. 30-31

Table 4: Data on Income Levels and Presence of Mangroves in Alabama by County- p. 32

Table 5: Data on Income Levels and Presence of Mangroves in Florida by County- p. 33-42

Table 6: Population Density by State in 2008- p. 44

Table 7: Coastal Poverty Data by Shoreline Counties in 2010- p. 47

Table 8: Comparison of Populations Above and Below the Poverty Line in 2010 of Gulf Coast

States, Coastal Regions of Gulf Coast State and the Nation as a Whole- p. 48

Table 9: Comparison of Population Density for Gulf Coast State and the Portion of State on the

Gulf Coast in 2010- p. 48-49

Table 10: Beneficial and Harmful Ranges of Water Quality Index Parameters- p. 51

Table 11: Portions of Gulf Coast States at Higher Risk based on Poverty Levels in 2010- p. 67

Table 12: Most Expensive Hurricanes during the period of 2004-2010- p. 67-68

Table 13: Gulf Coast Comparison of Population Percentage Living in SFHAs and Population

Percentage of SFHAs in FEMA V-Zone Counties in 2010- p. 69

Figures:

Figure 1: Location of Mangrove Ecosystems Worldwide- p. 9

Figure 2: Comparison of low, medium and high levels of carbon dioxide emissions reductions

provided by mangrove ecosystems for the different mangrove-containing regions- p. 14

Figure 3: Locations of Climate Change Impact Hotspots under the Worst-Case Climatic Scenario-

p. 18

Figure 4: Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards in U.S. the year 2000- p. 22

Figure 5: Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards in FEMA region IV in the year 2000-

p. 22

4

Figure 6: Social Vulnerability of Florida Counties to Environmental Hazards in the year 2000-

p. 23

Figure 7: Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards in the years 2006-2010- p. 23

Figure 8: Louisiana Average Household Income by County- p. 29

Figure 9: Mississippi Area of Habitat containing Mangroves by County- p. 31

Figure 10: Mississippi Average Household Income by County- p. 31

Figure 11: Alabama Average Household Income by County- p. 32

Figure 12: Florida Average Household Income by County- p. 43

Figure 13: Florida Area of Habitat containing Mangroves by County- p. 43

Figure 14a and 14b: Wages in the Southeastern U.S. in the year 2008- p. 46

Figure 15a and 15b: Levels of Poverty in the Southeastern U.S. in the year 2008- p. 47

Figure 16a and 16b: A1F1 Climate Change Scenario for the Southeastern U.S. during the period

of 2076-2100- p. 58

Figure 17a and 17b: B1 Climate Change Scenario for the Southeastern U.S. during the period of

2076-2100- p. 61

Figure 18a and 18b: A2 Climate Change Scenario for the Southeastern U.S. during the period of

2076-2100- p. 63

Figure 19a and 19b: B2 Climate Change Scenario for the Southeastern U.S. during the period of

2076-2100- p. 65

Figure 20a, 20b and 20c: Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards in FEMA Region IV in

the year 2000 and Population Density for the Southeastern U.S. in the year 2000- p. 66-67

Figure 21: Breakdown of Gulf of Mexico coast in terms of Risk from Sea Level Rise for the year

2000- p. 68

Figure 22: Level of Risk Sea Level Rise Poses to the Coastal U.S. as of the year 2013- p. 69

Figure 23a and 23b: Comparison of Known Mangrove Locations based on Red Mangrove

Location and the National Wetlands Inventory Data- p. 78

Figure 24a and 24b: Louisiana Land Subsidence and Florida Storm Surge Projections- p. 79

5

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine if there is a relationship among mangrove

ecosystems, the economic make-up of human populations in the southeastern United States and

climate change. Census data for this region will be analyzed to determine economic status and

compare it to maps of mangroves. Mangrove health will be determined by the data compiled by

state and federal-level environmental agencies and will be compared to Census data. Data from

the National Atlas of the United States and the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute will

be used to visualize population density, level of unemployment, average wages in the

southeastern United States and communities’ level of risk from environmental disasters. These

data are analyzed using Microsoft Excel and ArcGIS. The results of the study were ultimately

inconclusive. A clear connection between mangroves and economic status was not found in this

region. The research shows that climate change will impact mangrove ecosystems and human

communities with a lower economic status independently of one another. Improved data are

needed on the location, size and health of mangrove ecosystems to determine whether a

relationship between mangroves and economic status exist in this region.

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a relationship among mangrove

ecosystems, the economic make-up of human populations in the southeastern United States and

climate change. The hypothesis that will be investigated in this research is: There is a correlation

between the health of mangrove ecosystems, the economic status of human populations in the

southeastern United States and climate change.

Background: Mangrove Ecosystems

6

Mangrove ecosystems account for only 0.12 percent of world’s total terrestrial area

(McNally, Uchida & Gold, 2011). There are three general categories of mangrove forest types:

basin/interior mangroves (including fringe mangroves); scrub mangroves; and hammock

mangroves (Hogarth, 2007). Scrub and hammock mangroves are common in Florida (Hogarth,

2007). There are four main species of mangroves present in the U.S. and Central American

region: black mangrove, Avicennia bicolor and Avicennia germinans; button mangrove,

Conocarpus erectus; white mangrove, Laguncularia racemosa; and red mangrove, Rhizophora

mangle (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2007, Guo, Zhang, Lan & Pennings, 2013,

United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], n.d. a, USDA, n.d. b, USDA, n.d. c, Evans-

Graves Engineers, Inc., 2013, Coastal Environments, Inc., 2013, United States Fish and Wildlife

Service [USFWS], 2008c, City of Cocoa Beach & Brevard County Environmentally Endangered

Lands Program, 2008, Florida Coastal Management Program [FCMP], 2013 and Rookery Bay

National Estuarine Research Reserve [RBNERR] & Florida Department of Environmental

Protection [FDEP], 2013). Over 30 percent of the world’s mangrove ecosystems had been

destroyed by the year 2000 (Yohe, Lasco, Ahmad, Arnell, Cohen et al., 2007). The recent history

of mangrove population size in the U.S. is as follows. The period of 1980-1990 saw mangroves

decline from 275,000 hectares to 240,000 hectares; in the years 1990-2000, mangroves declined

to 200,000 hectares; and in the years 2000-2005, mangroves declined to 195,000 hectares (FAO,

2007). As of 2010, the total mangrove area in the U.S. is 3,029.55 km2 (Spalding, Kainuma &

Collins, 2010).

The U.S. has 47 protected areas containing mangroves (Spalding et al., 2010). In the

southeastern U.S., mangrove ecosystems are primarily located in Florida; however, there are

small patches in other areas along the Gulf coast. In western Florida, mangroves are abundant in

7

the areas of Charlotte Harbor, Tampa Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, Florida Bay, the Shark River

Estuary and the Florida Everglades (Spalding et al., 2010). There are also mangroves present in

the west-central and southwest portions of Citrus County, Florida (Citrus County, 2014). In

southwestern Florida, there are ample mangrove ecosystems in Collier County, particularly in the

Rookery Bay Estuarine Research Reserve, where there are approximately 16,200 hectares of red,

black and white mangroves (RBNERR & FDEP, 2013). There are also mangroves in Lee

County, particularly in the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve, where just over 10 percent of the area

(approximately 464 hectares) contains mangroves (Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve [EBAP] &

FDEP, 2014). Additionally, Monroe and Miami-Dade counties contain significant mangrove

ecosystems, including the over 364 hectares Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (Biscayne Bay

Aquatic Preserves [BBAP] & FDEP, 2013). In eastern Florida, mangroves were formerly

abundant in the areas of Lake Worth, Jupiter Sound and the Indian River Lagoon (Spalding et al.,

2010). Specifically, the Lake Worth Lagoon preserve has had an increase of mangroves (Lake

Worth Lagoon Initiative [LWLI], 2013). This increase in mangrove area occurred during the

period of 1985-2007 via ecological restoration projects in the central and northern sections of the

preserve, including: 3,723 m2 at Little Munyon Island; 8,580 m2 at Snook Islands Natural Area;

8,085 m2 at Ibis Isle Restoration; 1,780 m2 at Bryant Park Wetlands; 7,244 m2 at South Cove

Natural Area; John’s Island and Peanut Island (LWLI, 2013).

In Louisiana, the Breton National Wildlife Refuge was created in 1904 and contains

black mangroves (Spalding et al., 2010, USFWS, 2008c). This refuge contains the Chandeleur

Islands and Breton Island. Numerous hurricanes that have struck this refuge, especially

Hurricane Katrina, have resulted in significant damage to these coastal ecosystems (Spalding et

al., 2010, USFWS, 2008c). For example, the number of nests of brown pelicans, terns and black

8

skimmers went from 6,000-8,000 nests, 35,000-50,000 nests and 3,000 nests, respectively before

Hurricane Katrina to 2,500 brown pelican nests, 7,000 tern nests and 450-500 nests post-

Hurricane Katrina (USFWS, 2008c). Additionally, the pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina human

population was 65,364 and 25,489 respectively, due to the extent of structural damage inflicted

on the area (USFWS, 2008c).

In Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, which has an area of 665,231 hectares, black

mangroves are located in the eastern portion of the parish and are primarily on three barrier

islands: Grand Gosier Island, Breton Island and the Curlew Islands (Evans-Graves Engineers,

Inc., 2013). There are also small patches of black mangroves in the 60,700-hectare Barataria Bay

and Breton Sound. The Barataria Barrier Islands and Barataria Barrier Shorelines cover 1,497

and 3,237 hectares respectively, and the small patches of black mangroves present provide

quality habitat for numerous coastal bird species. The Chandeleur Islands cover 16,713 hectares,

with black mangroves present on the portion of the island bordering Chandeleur Sound and

Breton Sound. Chandeleur Sound and Breton Sound cover 20,315 and 60,702 hectares

respectively (Evans-Graves Engineers, Inc., 2013). In addition to hurricane damage, the health of

mangroves at the refuge has been threatened with the presence of nutria (Myocastor coypus

Molina), an invasive mammalian species (USFWS, 2008c).

These ecosystems are quickly being destroyed worldwide, putting their overall survival in

serious jeopardy (Siikamaki, Sanchirico & Jardine, 2012). The majority of the southeastern U.S.

had a wetland density ranging from 16 to over 40 percent as of 2009 (Dahl & Stedman, 2013).

As seen in Figure 1 below, the limited range of mangrove ecosystems increases the urgency for

their preservation (Siikamaki et al., 2012). There are several factors responsible for this limited

range (Hogarth, 2007). Mangroves are able to withstand soils that are low in nutrients and

9

oxygen and high in salinity and water content, and these types of soils do not typically occur

outside of tropical regions. Even though mangroves can tolerate high soil and water salinity, they

do better in areas of low salinity. A consequence of this ability to survive in high salinity areas is

that mangroves have a slow growth rate. Additionally, the habitat range of mangroves is limited

by ambient temperature, which typically has to be above 20º C during the winter months

(Hogarth, 2007). Water temperature is also an important factor, with red mangroves needing a

median water temperature of 18.889º C (FDEP, 2014c).

Figure 1: Locations of mangrove ecosystems worldwide (Siikamaki et al., 2012).

Mangrove ecosystems provide numerous benefits for humans and the environment,

including: protecting coastlines from storm surge and flooding; serving as an important carbon

sink; providing food and timber for humans; serving as a desired habitat for fish nurseries as well

as breeding areas for a multitude of species; helping with pollution control via water filtration;

and protecting coral reefs from sediment pollution with their soil and nutrient-retention

properties (Ammar, Dargusch & Shamsudin, 2014, Osti, Tanaka & Tokioka, 2009). The

shoreline-protection benefits of mangroves are present even if the other economic benefits are

not (Hogarth, 2007). For example, fringe mangroves are those that occur on the coast but are not

large enough to be considered a ‘forest,’ have low levels of productivity in terms of fishery and

10

timber economies. However, these fringe mangroves still provide important coastline protection

that is immensely beneficial to the environment and human communities (Hogarth, 2007).

Mangroves also provide habitat for a multitude of important species (FDEP, 2014c).

Listed species that have been observed in areas with mangrove ecosystems in the southeastern

U.S. are presented below in Table 1 (Levy County, n.d., FCMP, 2013, Brevard County Board of

County Commissioners, 2006, FDEP, 2014c, Brevard County Board of County Commissioners,

2000, USFWS, 2008c, RBNERR & FDEP, 2013, EBAP & FDEP, 2014, BBAP & FDEP, 2013,

LWLI, 2013, Coastal Environments, Inc., 2013).

Table 1 List of Species of Special Concern, Vulnerable, Threatened and Endangered- classified species identified in mangrove ecosystems in the southeastern U.S.

Common Name Scientific Name Species' Status

Eastern brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis Species of Special Concern

Wood stork Mycteria americana Endangered

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened

Ivory-billed woodpecker Campephilus principalis Endangered

White-crowned pigeon Patagioenas leucocephala Threatened

Snowy egret Egretta thula Species of Special Concern

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Species of Special Concern

Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius Endangered

Florida ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus Threatened

Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium Endangered

American crocodile Crocodylus acutus Threatened

Atlantic salt marsh snake Nerodia clarkii taeniata Threatened

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea Species of Special Concern

Louisiana heron Egretta tricolor Species of Special

Concern

White ibis Eudocimus albus Species of Special Concern

American kestrel Falco sparverius Threatened

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Species of Special

11

Concern

Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens Threatened at state (FL)

level

Limpkin Aramus guarauna Species of Special Concern

Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

Reddish egret Egretta rufescens Species of Special Concern

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor Species of Special

Concern

Southeastern American kestrel

Falco sparverius paulus Threatened at state (FL) level

Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis Threatened at state (FL)

level

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus Species of Special Concern

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Species of Special

Concern

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja Species of Special Concern

Black skimmer Rynchops niger Species of Special

Concern

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Threatened at state (FL) level

Least tern Sternula antillarum Threatened at state (FL) level

Rice rat Oryzomys palustris Endangered

Southeastern beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Threatened

Florida mouse Podomys floridanus Species of Special Concern

Sherman's fox squirrel Sciurus niger shermani Species of Special

Concern

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered

Gopher frog Lithobates capito Species of Special

Concern

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened

Striped mud turtle Kinosternon baurii Threatened at state (FL) level

Florida pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Species of Special Concern

Florida brown snake Storeria dekayi victa Threatened at state (FL) level

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Endangered

12

Mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus Species of Special Concern

Erect pricklypear Opuntia stricta Threatened

Beach creeper Opuntia stricta Threatened

Coastal mock vervain Glandularia maritima Endangered

Coastal sandmat Chamaesyce cumulicola Endangered

Twinberry Myrcianthes fragans Threatened

Tough bully Sideroxylon tenax Endangered

Curtiss' horypea Tephrosia angustissima var.

curtissii

Endangered

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos Endangered

Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii Vulnerable

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened

Stiff leaf wild pine Tillandsia fascisulata Endangered at state (FL) level

Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata Endangered at state (FL) level

Twisted airplant Tillandsia flexuosa Threatened at state (FL) level

Southeastern snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris

Threatened at state (FL) level

Marian's marsh wren Cistothorus palustris marianae Species of Special

Concern

Big Cypress fox squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia Threatened at state (FL) level

Florida manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris Endangered

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Endangered

Key Largo woodrat Neotoma floridana smalli Endangered

Golden leather fern Acrostichum aureum Threatened at state (FL)

level

Cowhorn orchid Cyrtopodium punctatum Endangered at state (FL) level

Dollar orchid Encyclia boothiana var.

erythonioides

Endangered at state (FL)

level

Johnson's seagrass Halophila johnsonii Threatened

Turtle grass Thalassia testudinum Threatened at state (FL)

level

Mangrove mallow Pavonia paludicola Endangered at state (FL) level

Snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis Endangered

Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus Threatened at state (FL) level

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered

13

Mangroves are classified as foundation species because they play an important role in

maintaining the structure and function of the ecosystem (Osland, Enwright, Day & Doyle, 2013).

The combined monetary value of the ecosystem services that mangroves provide globally is over

$1.6 trillion annually (Cavanaugh, Kellner, Forde, Gruner, Parker et al., 2014). Mangroves tend

to be a more efficient carbon sink than other forested areas, so a loss of a mangrove ecosystem

will have a greater impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels compared to an equal loss of

other forested ecosystems (Ammar et al., 2014). When healthy, mangroves are able to survive

and thrive in harsh and often varying environmental conditions, such as rising and falling water

levels, fluctuating salinity levels, anaerobic soils, high rates of sedimentation, and high ambient

temperatures. Additionally, conservation of mangroves provides multiple economic, ecological

and socio-cultural benefits, whereas utilization without conservation measures provides only

economic benefits (Ammar et al., 2014).

As mentioned previously, preserving mangrove ecosystems saves a major carbon sink

that can help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere (Siikamaki et al.,

2012). The ability of mangroves to store carbon dioxide varies based on the region and their

overall size and health. This in turn, is based on the level of protection for mangrove ecosystems,

which varies by country. This comparison is shown below in Figure 2 (Siikamaki et al., 2012).

14

Figure 2: Comparison of low, medium and high levels of carbon dioxide emission reductions provided by mangrove ecosystems for the different regions containing mangroves (Siikamaki et al., 2012).

There are several factors that contribute to the size of mangrove ecosystems in a particular

country, including: social and political stability, strength of property rights, level of conflict in

desired land uses, GDP, population density, and the variety of industries in the national economy

(Barbier & Cox, 2003). Destruction of mangrove ecosystems negatively impacts humans as well

as the environment. Mangrove destruction has been connected to degraded quality of fresh water,

a reduction in fish populations, erosion and soil salinization in coastal areas (Barbier & Cox,

2003).

Destruction and degradation of mangroves occurs in several ways (Hogarth, 2007).

Mangrove forests are often cleared for development; utilized for shrimp farming, which can

reduce ecosystem function; and removed for timber production. Pollution is also an important

factor. The most common and threatening pollutants mangroves are exposed to include: chemical

pesticides, dissolved metal waste and crude oil in the form of oil spills or oil leaks. Interestingly,

pesticides and dissolved metals often have little impact on the mangroves themselves, but have

devastating impacts on other plant and animal species in mangrove ecosystems. These pollutants

become trapped in the soils, where burrowing organisms and other plant species absorb them

along with soil nutrients. Mangroves exposed to oil pollution produce very different results. Oil

15

is so devastating because it covers the mangrove’s root system where oxygen is absorbed,

causing mangroves to suffocate. Depending on the amount and the duration of exposure,

mangroves could recover with relatively minimal damage, or could die (Hogarth, 2007).

Mangroves are very resilient ecosystems (Di Nitto, Neukermans, Koedam, Defever,

Pattyn et al., 2014). However, this resilience is greatly influenced by the speed and amount of sea

level rise, so the variety of potential climate scenarios poses different risks to the survival of

mangrove ecosystems. If sea level rise is gradual and minimal, most mangroves can adapt by

shifting further inland. However, if the increase occurs quickly and is a significant increase, such

as a rise of nine inches or more, then their resilience and overall survival will be threatened (Di

Nitto et al., 2014).

Mangroves, coral reefs and salt marshes are considered the most vulnerable coastal

ecosystems to climate change impacts (Parry, Canziani Palutikof et al., 2007). Climate change

benefits the growth of mangroves with the accompanying higher ambient temperatures and

increased CO2 concentrations (Nicholls, Wong, Burkett, Codignotto, Hay et al., 2007). However,

climate change threatens mangroves with the likelihood of decreasing levels of soil along the

coastline and saltwater intrusion, which can inhibit their ability to adapt by moving further inland

in combination with the artificial restrictions that will make it challenging for mangroves to shift

inland (Parry et al., 2007, Nicholls et al., 2007).

If the ability of mangroves to move inwards is inhibited, either by natural topographical

features or anthropogenic development, their ability to adapt to rising sea levels will be reduced

(Di Nitto et al., 2014). The adaptability of mangroves also depends on their overall health, which

in many cases has been reduced due to human activities (Di Nitto et al., 2014). The health of

16

mangroves can be determined by measuring their productivity levels with a combination of five

methods: efficiency of gas exchange rate, harvest, growth rate and litterfall, demographic

characteristics, and light attenuation (Alongi, 2009). The ideal seawater salinity for mangroves is

35 g/L (Hogarth, 2007). Similar to tropical rainforests, the soils that mangroves grow in have low

nutrient levels. Studies have shown that phosphate and nitrate are likely limiting factors in the

presence and size of mangroves. Also similar to tropical rainforests, these soils get their nutrients

from decaying organic matter and animal waste (Hogarth, 2007). If the overall health of

mangrove ecosystems is weakened, sea level rise could deal a devastating blow to their long-

term survival (Di Nitto et al., 2014).

Background: Mangrove Ecosystems and Climate Change

The southeast region of the U.S. has been experiencing an increasing warming trend

characterized by multiple winter seasons where there has not been a hard freeze most likely due

to global warming and climate change (Guo et al., 2013). This warming pattern is enhancing the

habitat range of mangrove ecosystems, specifically black mangroves (A. germinans) (Guo et al.,

2013). In northern Florida, for example, the period of 1984-2011 saw a significant increase in the

total area of mangrove ecosystems, and this was negatively correlated with the occurrence of

cold snaps (Cavanaugh et al., 2014). In Florida more than other areas in the southeastern U.S.,

the absence of cold snaps has had a significant impact on the expansion of mangrove ecosystems.

If the current trend of climate change continues, the number of cold snaps in Florida will

continue to decline, which will result in an even greater increase in the expansion of mangroves

(Cavanaugh et al., 2014).

17

One of the impacts of climate change is to impact the placement and composition of

ecotones, or regions where one ecosystem overlaps with another (Osland, Day, Larriviere &

From, 2014). Changes in the mangrove-salt marsh ecotone in the southeastern U.S. have already

been seen and will likely continue, depending on the future pathway of climate change. The

mangrove-salt marsh ecotone is a very ecologically productive region that provides numerous

benefits, including: habitat for multiple plant and animal species, many of which are threatened

and endangered; important carbon sinks; buffers for coastal areas from storm surge; support for

multiple food webs; and important storage for nutrient-rich soils. However, threats from climate

change will change the dynamic of this important ecotone. A reduction in the number of hard

freezes, likely due to global warming and climate change, in this region have resulted in the

expansion of black mangroves (A. germinans) into salt marsh habitat. Each of these habitats

provides numerous benefits. However, the presence of a healthy, diverse ecotone provides more

benefits than either habitat alone, making climate change potentially devastating for species

relying on health diverse mangrove-salt marsh ecotones (Osland et al., 2014).

As seen in Figure 3 below, there are multiple climate hotspots which will experience

more significant impacts from climate change, including the Gulf Coast of the southeastern

United States (Piontek, Muller, Pugh, Clark, Deryng et al., 2014). This is the result of these areas

passing the thresholds, or tipping points, in multiple aspects, e.g. reduced crop yields, sea level

rise, which result in a dramatic increase in climate change impacts. This map shows the projected

hotspots under the worst-case climatic scenario. These hotspots could experience significant

change depending on global actions to address climate change (Piontek et al., 2014).

18

Figure 3: Locations of climate impact hotspots under the worst-case climatic scenario (Piontek et al., 2014).

The Atlantic and Gulf coast regions of the U.S. are two of the areas that would

experience the greatest coastal wetland losses as a result of climate change because these regions

experienced sea level rises approximately 0.15 m above the global average (Engle, 2012,

Nicholls et al., 2007). Additionally, if wetland ecosystems, including mangroves, attempted to

adapt by migrating further inland, this would be impeded by the presence of artificial coastal

protections, e.g. sea walls and dikes (Engle, 2012). The ability of mangroves to buffer increases

in sea level is hampered by their destruction via land-use changes to agriculture and aquaculture

(Rosenzweig, Casassa, Karoly, Imeson, Liu et al., 2007). Mangrove destruction also increases

the damages done by hurricanes and storm surges because there will be fewer wetland buffers

and a higher sea level (Engle, 2012). This contributes to coastal erosion and mangroves being

forced further inland due to sea level rise, which takes over marsh ecosystems, in Florida

(Rosenzweig, Casassa, Karoly, Imeson, Liu et al., 2007).

The relationship between mangrove destruction and increased threats from storm surge

due to cyclones and hurricanes has been well established in the U.S. (Schmidt, McCleery, Lopez,

Silvy, Schmidt & Perry, 2011). The increased risk from storm surge threatens human and

ecological communities alike (Xu, Zhang, Shen and Li, 2010). The location of mangrove

19

ecosystems in coastal areas puts them at high risk for threats from sea level rise and will likely be

one of the first ecosystems where negative consequences of rising sea levels due to climate

change will be seen (Di Nitto et al., 2014). The Gulf coast is especially vulnerable to increases in

hurricanes and storm surge (Rosenzweig et al., 2007). In Louisiana specifically, shoreline

erosion increased from 0.61 m/yr in 1855-2002 to 0.94 m/yr in 1988-present; and hurricanes in

2005 destroyed over 560 km2 of coastal wetlands (Rosenzweig et al., 2007). Projections for

future storm intensity over the next 50 years range from no change to an increase of 30 percent,

while projections for future storm frequency during the same time period range from a decrease

of 20 percent to an increase of 10 percent (Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of

Louisiana [CPRAL], 2012). Louisiana has approximately 647-971 hectares of mangrove forests

(Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries [LDWF] & Louisiana National Heritage

Program [LNHP], 2009). Future projections for likely sea level rise over the next 50 years are in

the range of 0.12-0.65 m (CPRAL, 2012). The potential increase in storm intensity and sea level

rise pose serious threats to the survival of mangroves in Louisiana (CPRAL, 2012).

From the period of 1980-2005, the U.S. experienced 67 natural disasters with each

costing approximately $1 billion; the majority of these occurred in the southeast region (Nicholls

et al., 2007). These expenses will rise as storm intensity and frequency is projected to increase

due to climate change (Nicholls et al., 2007). If climate change continues on its present path,

there will be an approximately 0.6 m rise in sea level by 2050 in Florida that will cost over $90

billion in terms of real estate and tourism. If this path continues, there will be a total increase in

sea level of approximately 69 cm by 2060 in Florida that will result in over three-fourths of

Miami becoming submerged (Engle, 2012). This trend is evident in the Everglades, where

20

mangroves have been moving further inland due to sea level rise over the last five decades

(Nicholls et al., 2007).

Background: Climate Change and Coastal Human Populations

The projected increase in sea level is especially concerning when there is also a projected

increase in people moving to coastal areas (Hinkel, Lincke, Vafeidis, Perrette, Nicholls et al.,

2014). This migration to coastal areas is occurring on a global scale, which increases threats to

people from sea level rise and storm surge worldwide (Hinkel et al., 2014). In Florida especially,

ninety percent of the population lives on the coast, making any rise in sea level threatening

(Engle, 2012). Specific Florida examples include Collier County, where the population went

from 85,971 to 210,000 during the 1980-1998 years, and increased to the current population of

332,854 as of 2013 (RBNERR & FDEP, 2013). A similar trend is seen in Lee County, where the

population increased from 205,266 in 1980 to 426,463 in 2000, and the period of 2000-2011 saw

the population increase to 631,330 (EBAP & FDEP, 2014).

This trend is absent in Louisiana. For example, in St. Bernard Parish, the population in

the year 2000 was 67,229 (Coastal Environments, Inc., 2013). After Hurricane Katrina in 2005,

the majority of the population was forced to relocate, although many people are slowly returning.

As of 2010, the population in St. Bernard Parish was 35,897 (Coastal Environments, Inc., 2013).

These coastal communities will be less protected if coastal development increases with the

population, which will remove and degrade the natural defenses to storm surge, like mangroves

(Hinkel et al., 2014). There are numerous uncertainties surrounding this migration, including: the

amount of sea level rise that will occur; the number and severity of future catastrophic flood

events; the ability of countries and communities to adapt to changing climate conditions; the

21

level of population migrating to coastal areas; and the economic make-up of said migrating

population (Hinkel et al., 2014).

Social vulnerability is one method of examining the consequences of this coastal

migration (Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute [HVRI], 2013a, HVRI, 2013b, HVRI,

2013c). Social vulnerability focuses on how economic and sociological characteristics of a

population influence the level or risk of the population to environmental disasters (HVRI,

2013b). Determining whether a county has a low, medium or high risk to environmental disasters

can be done by examining a multitude of factors, including: economic class and levels of

poverty; level of access to a vehicle; the age range and gender make-up of counties; the family

structure and/or support system; the existence of any language barriers; ethnicity and race;

employment rates; accessibility of reliable health care, especially in the instance of natural

disasters; number, type and severity of any medical disabilities; and level of urbanization (HVRI,

2013a, HVRI, 2013b). Figures 4-7 show how social vulnerability of counties to environmental

hazards throughout the U.S., including the southeast region, has increased from the year 2000 to

the period of 2006-2010 (HVRI, 2013a, HVRI, 2013b, HVRI, 2013c). Figures 4 and 7 take into

account 32 and 30 factors respectively and many of these factors were mentioned previously

(HVRI, 2013a, HVRI, 2013b). Of these 30-plus factors, seven play a significant role in

determining the level of social vulnerability: Hispanic ethnicity; economic class and race; level

of employment in the service industry; number of elderly residents; number of people who have

special needs/disabilities; distribution of wealth and Native American ethnicity (HVRI, 2013b).

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the social vulnerability of FEMA region IV and Florida counties,

respectively, which covers the majority of the southeastern U.S. (HVRI, 2013c).

22

Figure 4: Social vulnerability to environmental hazards in the year 2000 (HVRI, 2013a).

Figure 5: Social vulnerability to environmental hazards in FEMA region IV in the year 2000 (HVRI, 2013c).

23

Figure 6: Social vulnerability of Florida counties to environmental hazards in the year 2000 (HVRI, 2013c).

Figure 7 below shows how social vulnerability has increased from the year 2000 during the

period of 2006-2010 (HVRI, 2013b).

Figure 7: Social vulnerability to environmental hazards in the years 2006-2010 (HVRI, 2013b).

A comparison of Figures 6 and 7 illustrates that social vulnerability has increased in the

southeastern U.S. from 2000 to 2006-2010, especially in Florida (HVRI, 2013c, HVRI, 2013b).

24

For example, in 2000, the social vulnerability of south Florida was primarily considered a low

risk (HVRI, 2013c). The map of 2006-2010 shows social vulnerability in this area increased to

medium risk (HVRI, 2013b).

Sea level rise will be even more of a concern in the Gulf coast region because of land

subsidence (Wilbanks, Lankao, Bao, Berkhout, Cairncross et al., 2007). New Orleans for

example, experiences a rate of land subsidence of approximately 6 mm/yr that is projected to

increase to 10-15 mm/yr (Wilbanks et al., 2007). In St. Bernard Parish, land subsidence rates for

the Chandeleur Islands region is approximated at 0-0.6 m per century (Coastal Environments,

Inc., 2013). Hurricane Katrina caused the deaths of over 1,000 people in Louisiana, primarily

due to flooding, with the poor and elderly experiencing the bulk of the casualties (Wilbanks et

al., 2007). Some estimates project that the rate of land subsidence could increase up to 35 mm/yr

over the next 50 years (CPRAL, 2012). Customized adaptation measures are needed to reduce

the number of casualties in future natural disasters so at-risk communities can benefit, e.g. if the

main adaptation is a type of warning system, this may not reach poor communities (Wilbanks et

al., 2007).

Background: Mangroves, Human Communities and Climate Change

It has been well-established that the consequences of climate change, including sea-level

rise and storm surge, pose great risk to coastal regions worldwide (Das, 2012). A study

conducted in Orissa, India found a relationship between the economic and sociological make-up

of communities and the level of death risk with the occurrence of a tropical cyclone. Specifically,

communities that were poorest had the greatest chance of having a high casualty count after a

tropical cyclone compared to wealthier communities. Additionally, these communities had

25

greater rates of mangrove ecosystem degradation and destruction, which reduced the natural

defenses to storm surge from tropical cyclones (Das, 2012).

Severe mangrove degradation has been a part of India’s history (Kumar, n.d.). Mangroves

exist on India’s east coast, like in Orissa; on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; and the west

coast, like in Goa. The history of mangrove destruction in India is as follows. Within the last 100

years, 40 percent of India’s mangroves have been destroyed. The period of 1975-1981 saw a

mangrove loss of 7,000 hectares; and the period of 1987-1997 the Andaman and Nicobar Islands

had a mangrove loss of 22,400 hectares and mangroves in Goa dropped from 20,000 hectares to

500 hectares. Several mangrove restoration efforts have been conducted in Goa in response to

this destruction, including: 876 hectares were ecologically restored during the period of 1985-

1997; in 1991, a five-year Mangrove Management Plan was implemented and called for 100

hectares of mangroves to be planted annually; and another five-year management plan is in the

works (Kumar, n.d.).

This destruction occurred in spite of several environmental protection efforts, including:

the Indian Forest Act of 1927 serves to protect plant species; the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972

serves to protect animal species; a 1976 amendment to the Indian Constitution that detailed the

requirement of its citizens to conserve and restore the nation’s natural environment; the 1976

creation of the National Mangrove Committee in the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

which was composed of mangrove ecosystems scientists, that was to serve as the Indian

government’s counsel on mangrove ecosystem management; the Forest Conservation Act of

1980 requires the consent of the Government of India before any forest ecosystem is altered in a

non-forestry related action; the Environmental Protection Act of 1986 includes a Coastal

Regulation Zone, where industrial activities resulting in waste discharges occurring on the coast

26

must be regulated to ensure the protection of coastal ecosystems; and the 1988 National Forest

Policy, which emphasized the importance of researching ecosystem protection and management.

(Kumar, n.d.). Severe mangrove destruction was able to occur in spite of these laws primarily

because these laws have not been consistently and effectively enforced (Kumar, n.d.).

In contrast to India, mangrove protection in the U.S. primarily occurs under the Clean

Water Act of 1972 (CWA), which includes protection for wetlands and other coastal and aquatic

ecosystems (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2011). Development or

destruction of wetlands requires the issuance of a permit by the United States Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE), which often works with the EPA on wetland protection and regulation

issues (USEPA, 2011). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) can also help protection

mangroves, because of its focus on protecting threatened and endangered species and their

respective habitats (USEPA, 2014). The ESA is enforced by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service and the USFWS (USEPA, 2014).

Tanzania is another example of the relationship between economics and mangrove

ecosystems (McNally et al., 2011). The Saadani National Park implemented stronger protections

for mangrove ecosystems to reduce their destruction. While the short-term impacts of this

implementation reduced the average income of human communities, the long-term benefits of

this mangrove conservation were far greater. The short-term loss primarily consisted of a loss of

firewood, and interestingly, the wealthier households felt this economic loss more than poorer

households. The long-term benefits were increases in the fishing and shrimping professions,

which require healthy mangrove ecosystems. This implementation also expanded the amount of

mangrove habitat within the park (McNally et al., 2011).

27

Background: Economic Status Trends in the United States

Poverty is not confined to any particular area (Bishaw, 2014). Every state in the U.S. has

areas of poverty. A minimum of one-fifth of a population has to be living in poverty for the

whole area to be considered ‘in poverty.’ Poverty levels in the U.S. as a whole declined during

the 1990-2000 period from 20 percent to just over 18 percent; however, this was reversed during

the 2000-2010 period and rose from 18 percent to just over 25 percent of the nation living in

poverty. This translates into over 70 million people living in poverty. This increase was also seen

in the southeast. In the year 2000, this region had between 10 and 30 percent of state populations

living in poverty areas. Specifically, the poverty rates for individual states in the southeast were:

10.0-19.9 percent in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina; South Carolina had 20.0-

24.9 percent; 25.0-29.9 percent in Alabama; and 30.0 percent or higher in Mississippi and

Louisiana. The U.S. poverty rate at this time was 18.1 percent (Bishaw, 2014).

In 2010, the poverty rates for individual states in the southeast were: 25.0-29.9 percent in

Florida; and 30.0 percent or higher in Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana (Bishaw, 2014). The U.S. poverty rate at this time was 25.7

percent (Bishaw, 2014). A survey for the time period 2010-2012 compared the percentages of

people in near poverty by state with the poverty national average (Hokayem & Heggeness,

2014). Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi and Tennessee all had higher

rates than the national average of 4.7 percent (Hokayem & Heggeness, 2014).

The income level of a region plays a significant role in determining the region’s level of

risk from climate change impacts (Carter, Jones, Berry, Burkett, Murley et al., 2014). For

example, in the Gulf coast region almost all of the economically and socially disenfranchised

28

communities live in areas that are not adequately prepared for climate change effects, especially

sea level rise. This risk is also present with the increasing ambient temperatures occurring due to

climate change. Coastal cities such as Tampa, New Orleans, and Miami have experienced more

days with ambient temperatures approaching 38º C, which in turn increases the number of

injuries and deaths due to heat-related illnesses compared to other regions (Carter et al., 2014).

Findings

Location of Mangrove Communities and Average Household Income by County

The average income value for each coastal county in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia

and Florida and whether there are any mangroves present are in Tables 2-5 below (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2012, Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program [BTNEP] & Louisiana Wildlife

and Fisheries [LWF], n.d.). The median U.S. household income is just over $51,000 (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2012).

Louisiana Data

Table 2: Data on Income Levels and Presence of Mangroves in Louisiana by County

County Average Household Income

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012)

Area of Habitat Containing

Mangroves

Washington Parish $30,363 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Orleans $37,468 No mangroves present (Frazel,

2013)

St. Bernard Parish $39,200 Breton National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS, 2013)

St. Mary Parish $40,431 No mangroves present (Frazel,

2013)

Iberia Parish $41,783 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Vermilion Parish $42,693 No mangroves present (Frazel,

2013)

Lafourche Parish $47,492 Coastal mangrove-marsh shrubland (BTNEP & LWF,

29

n.d.)

St. John the Baptist Parish $47,466 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Jefferson Parish $48,175 Coastal mangrove-marsh

shrubland (BTNEP & LWF, n.d.)

Terrebonne Parish $48,437 Coastal mangrove-marsh shrubland (BTNEP & LWF,

n.d.)

St. James Parish $51,725 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Plaquemines Parish $54,730 Breton National Wildlife

Refuge (USFWS, 2013)

Cameron Parish $59,555 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

St. Tammany Parish $60,866 No mangroves present (Frazel,

2013)

The Louisiana data on average household income in Table 2 is also shown in Figure 8 below

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Figure 8: Average household incomes of coastal Louisiana parishes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Of the 14 coastal parishes, only four have an average household income above the national

average: St. James Parish at $51,725; Plaquemines Parish at $54,730; Cameron Parish at

$59,555; and St. Tammany Parish at $60,866 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Of these four

parishes, only Plaquemines Parish contains mangroves which are in the Breton National Wildlife

$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000

Louisiana Average Household Income by County

AverageHouseholdIncome

30

Refuge (USFWS, 2013). This refuge also covers St. Bernard Parish, which has an average

household income of $39,200 (USFWS, 2013, U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). This refuge has over

101,171 hectares divided as follows: 1,497 hectares in the Barataria Barrier Islands; 3,237

hectares in the Barataria Barrier Shorelines; 60,702 hectares in Breton Sound; 16,713 hectares in

the Chandeleur Islands; and 20,315 hectares in Chandeleur Sound (Evans-Graves Engineers,

Inc., 2013).

However, the health of Breton National Wildlife Refuge has been far from secure

(USFWS, 2013). The 2005 hurricane season, especially Hurricane Katrina, caused significant

damage, including the loss of almost three-quarters of the refuge’s terrestrial area. Five years

later, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill caused significant damage to the habitat and nesting bird

species. The refuge is slowly recovering; however, with the threats of climate change and land

subsidence in the area, its future health is still at risk (Evans-Graves Engineers, Inc., 2013,

USFWS, 2013). According to the BTNEP and LWF (n.d.), three other parishes contain

mangroves in the form of “coastal mangrove-marsh shrubland (p. 1)”; however, the acreage size

and health of this shrubland was not found. These counties and their respective average

household incomes are: Lafourche Parish at $47,492; Jefferson Parish at $48,175; and

Terrebonne Parish at $48,437 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Mississippi Data

Table 3: Data on Income Levels and Presence of Mangroves in Mississippi by County

County Average Household Income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012)

Area of Habitat Containing Mangroves

Hancock County $44,494 8 hectares estuarine forest

(CDM, 2010)

Harrison County $45,668 Yes, e.g. Ship Island Preserve-830 hectares (Mississippi

Department of Marine Resources, 2012)

31

Jackson County $47,906 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

The Mississippi data on area of habitat containing mangroves and average household income in

Table 3 are also shown in two graphs below in Figures 9 and 10 respectively (CDM, 2010,

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, 2012, Frazel, 2013, U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Figure 9: Area of habitat containing mangroves in Mississippi by coastal county (CDM, 2010, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, 2012, Frazel, 2013).

Figure 10: Average household income in Mississippi by coastal county (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

All three Mississippi coastal counties fall below the national average for average household

income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The two counties with habitat containing mangroves,

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Hancock County Harrison County Jackson County

Mississippi Area of Habitat Containing Mangroves by County

Area of

Habitat

Containing

Mangroves

$42,000

$44,000

$46,000

$48,000

$50,000

Hancock

CountyHarrison

CountyJackson

County

Mississippi Average Household Income by County

Average Household Income

32

Hancock and Harrison, have average household incomes of $44,494 and $45,668 respectively

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The coastal county with the highest average household income is

Jackson County at $47,906, which does not contain mangroves (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012,

Frazel, 2013).

Additionally, the health of mangroves in Hancock and Harrison is not provided. For

Hancock, there is mention of 8 hectares of estuarine forest, but no additional information on the

specific make-up of this habitat or its health (CDM, 2010). The Mississippi Department of

Marine Resources (2012) provides the area of Ship Island Preserve in Harrison County; however,

the area and health of mangroves within this preserve and the health of the preserve as a whole is

not provided.

Alabama Data

Table 4: Data on Income Levels and Presence of Mangroves in Alabama by County

County Average Household Income

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012)

Area of Habitat Containing

Mangroves

Mobile County $40,996 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Baldwin County $50,147 Yes (Baldwin County

Commission, 2010)

The Alabama data in Table 4 are also shown below in Figure 11 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Figure 11: Average household income in Alabama by coastal county (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

Mobile County Baldwin County

Alabama Average Household Income by County

Average Household Income

33

Based on the research, there are no mangroves in Mobile County, but there are some in Baldwin

County (Frazel, 2013, Baldwin County Commission, 2010). However, there was not any

documentation on the area of the Baldwin County mangroves. Additionally, both Mobile and

Baldwin counties have an average household income below the national average at $40,996 and

$50,147 respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Georgia Data

Based on the research, there are no mangroves in Georgia due to its latitude (Frazel, 2013).

Florida Data

Table 5: Data on Income Levels and Presence of Mangroves in Florida by County

County Average Household Income

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012)

Area of Habitat Containing

Mangroves

Dixie County $32,312 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Levy County $35,737 Yes (Levy County, n.d.) Cedar

Keys National Wildlife Refuge- 308 hectares (USFWS, 2010)

Taylor County $37,408 No mangroves present (Frazel,

2013)

Franklin County $37,428 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014)

No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Citrus County $37,933 Yes (Citrus County, n.d.), e.g.

Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge- 12 hectares (USFWS,

2012a); St. Martins Marsh Aquatic Preserve- 11,517 hectares (FDEP, 2014b)

Gulf County $39,178 No mangroves present (Frazel,

2013)

Jefferson County $41,359 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Hernando County $42,011 No mangroves present (Frazel,

2013)

Escambia County $43,573 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Miami-Dade County $43,605 Yes, e.g. Mangrove Preserve

(Miami-Dade County Natural

34

Areas Management Working Group, 2004); Oleta River State Park- 418 hectares

(Florida State Parks, n.d.); Biscayne Bay Aquatic

Preserves- 27,830 hectares (FDEP, 2014b)

Pasco County $44,228 Yes, e.g. Boy Scout Preserve-

7 hectares (Pasco County, n.d.); Pasco Palms Preserve-46 hectares (Pasco County,

n.d.)

Volusia County $44,400 Yes, e.g. Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve- 6 hectares

(Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc., 2011); Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve-, 1,918

hectares (FDEP, 2014b)

Charlotte County $45,037 Yes, e.g. Peace River Preserve- 182 hectares

(Charlotte County Florida, n.d.); Thorton Key Preserve- 12 hectares (Charlotte County

Florida, n.d.); Ann Dever Memorial Regional Park along

Oyster Creek- 48 hectares (Charlotte County Florida, n.d.); Cedar Point

Environmental Park- 46 hectares (Charlotte County

Florida, n.d.); Tippecanoe Environmental Park- 153 hectares (Charlotte County

Florida, n.d.); Charlotte Harbor (Geselbracht,

Freeman, Gordon, Birch, 2014); Cayo Costa State Park- 981 hectares (Florida State

Parks, n.d.); Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park- 16,996

hectares (Florida State Parks, n.d.); Cape Haze Aquatic Preserve- 4,451 hectares

(FDEP, 2014b); Gasparilla Sound- Charlotte Harbor

Aquatic Preserve- 32,374

35

hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve- 3,237 hectares (FDEP,

2014b); Woolverton Kayak Trail (Florida Paddling Trails

Association, 2011)

St. Lucie County $45,196 Yes, 1,744 hectares (Saint Lucie County, 2010), e.g.

Harbor Branch- 72 hectares (Beal, Smith, McDevitt, Merrill, n.d.); Indian River

Lagoon (Saint Lucie County, 2010); Indian River- Vero

Beach to Ft. Pierce Aquatic Preserve- 4,451 hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Jensen Beach

to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve- 8,903 hectares

(FDEP, 2014b); North Fork St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve- 1,202 hectares

(FDEP, 2014c); Avalon State Park- 265 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); D.J. Wilcox Preserve-

42 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Queens Island Preserve- 93

hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Oceanique- 6 hectares (FDEP, 2014c)

Pinellas County $45,258 Yes, e.g. Shell Key Preserve: God’s Island, Summer Resort Key, Panama Key, Sister Key,

Sawyer Key- 67 hectares (Pinellas County Department

of Environmental Management, 2007); Caladesi Island- 3.7 km (Coastal

Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2013); Boca Ciega Bay

Aquatic Preserve and Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve- 141,639 hectares (FDEP,

2014b)

Walton County $47,273 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Indian River County $47,341 Yes, e.g. Round Island South

36

Conservation Area- 23 hectares (Indian River County Florida Board of County

Commissioners, n.d.); Indian River Lagoon Spoil Island

(Beal, Smith, McDevitt, Merrill, n.d.); Indian River- Malabar to Vero Beach

Aquatic Preserve- 11,331 hectares (FDEP, 2014b);

Indian River- Vero Beach to Ft. Pierce Aquatic Preserve- 4,451 hectares (FDEP,

2014b); Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge- 2

hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Quay Dock Road- 1 hectare (FDEP, 2014c); Toni Robinson Trail-

3 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); CGW Mitigation Bank- 60

hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Prange Islands Conservation Area- 10 hectares (FDEP,

2014c); Green Salt Marsh- 6 hectares (FDEP, 2014c);

Lagoon Greenway- 75 hectares (FDEP, 2014c)

Bay County $47,770 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Manatee County $47,812 Yes, e.g. Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve- 10,117 hectares (FDEP, 2014b)

Flagler County $48,090 No mangroves present (Frazel,

2013)

Sarasota County $49,388 Yes, e.g. Blackburn Point Park- 2 hectares (Sarasota

County, 2004); Blind Pass Beach & Intracoastal- 26 hectares (Sarasota County,

2004); Caspersen Beach- 45 hectares (Sarasota County,

2004); Caspersen Intracoastal- 44 hectares (Sarasota County, 2004); Edwards Island (Little

& Big)- 12 hectares (Sarasota County, 2004); Fox Creek-

37

152 hectares (Sarasota County, 2004); Lemon Bay Preserve Additions- 8 hectares

(Sarasota County, 2004); Neville Marine Preserve- 46

hectares (Sarasota County, 2004); Otter Key- 12 hectares (Sarasota County, 2004);

Palmer Point Beach- 12 hectares (Sarasota County,

2004); Phillippi Estate Park- 24 hectares (Sarasota County 2004); Pocono Trails- 3

hectares (Sarasota County, 2004); Quick Point- 13

hectares (Sarasota County, 2004); Siesta Beach Nature Trail- 4 hectares (Sarasota

County, 2004); South Lido Beach & Intracoastal (Otter

Key)- 40 hectares (Sarasota County, 2004); Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve- 3,237

hectares (FDEP, 2014b)

Duval County $49,463 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Brevard County $49,523 Yes, e.g. Coconut Point

Sanctuary- 25 hectares (Brevard County, 2014);

Maritime Hammock Sanctuary- 60 hectares (Brevard County, 2014); Pine

Island Conservation Area- 384 hectares (Brevard County,

2014); Thousand Islands Conservation Area- 136 hectares (Brevard County,

2014); Blowing Rocks Preserve- 5 hectares (City of

Cocoa Beach & Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program,

2008); Banana River Aquatic Preserve- 12,140 hectares

(FDEP, 2014b); Indian River- Malabar to Vero Beach

38

Aquatic Preserve- 11,331 hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Sykes Creek Headwaters

Preserve- 122 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Indian River Lagoon

Preserve State Park- 162 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Hardwood Hammock

Sanctuary- 12 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Hog Point Sanctuary-

8 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Snag Harbor- 6 hectares (FDEP, 2014c)

Hillsborough County $49,536 Yes, e.g. McKay Bay Preserve- 58 hectares (Hillsborough County

Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection

Program [ELAPP], n.d.); Diamondback Preserve- 3 hectares (Hillsborough County

ELAPP, n.d.); Wolf Branch Nature Preserve- 566 hectares (Hillsborough County ELAPP,

n.d.); Upper Tampa Bay Regional Park- 241 hectares

(Hillsborough County ELAPP, n.d.); Rocky Creek Coastal Preserve- 140 hectares

(Hillsborough County ELAPP, n.d.); Double Branch Bay

Preserve- 316 hectares (Hillsborough County ELAPP, 2007); Cockroach Bay

Aquatic Preserve- 1,942 hectares (FDEP, 2014b); E.G.

Simmons Regional Park- 185 hectares (Florida Parks and Campgrounds, 2010)

Lee County $50,014 Yes, e.g. Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge- 16 hectares (USFWS, 2008b);

Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge- 207 hectares

(USFWS, 2008d); Cayo Costa State Park- 981 hectares

39

(Florida State Parks, n.d.); Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park- 16,996 hectares;

Mound Key Archaeological State Park (Florida State

Parks, n.d.); J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge- 2,589 hectares (USFWS,

2008a); Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve- 4,451 hectares

(FDEP, 2014b); Gasparilla Sound- Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve- 32,374

hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Matlacha Pass Aquatic

Preserve- 5,058 hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve-

21,853 hectares (FDEP, 2014b)

Broward County $51,694 Yes, e.g. Deerfield Island

Park- 21 hectares (Broward County, n.d.); Laurel Oak Trail- 366 m (Broward

County, n.d.); New River Trail- 975 m (Broward

County, n.d.); West Lake Park- 6,279 m (Broward County, n.d.)

Martin County $53,210 Yes, e.g. St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park (Florida State Parks, n.d., Martin

County, n.d.); Jonathan Dickinson State Park- 4,249

hectares (Florida State Parks, n.d., Martin County, n.d.); Sea Branch Preserve State Park

(Florida State Parks, n.d.); Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet

Aquatic Preserve- 8,903 hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Loxahatchee River- Lake

Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve- 3,642 hectares

(FDEP, 2014b); North Fork St. Lucie River Aquatic

40

Preserve- 1,202 hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Jensen Beach Impoundment- 37 hectares

(FDEP, 2014c); Dutcher Cove- 25 hectares (FDEP,

2014c); Jensen Beach West- 13 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Muscara- 8 hectares (FDEP,

2014c) ; Indian Riverside Conservation Area- 18

hectares (7 are mangroves) (FDEP, 2014c); River Cove (FDEP, 2014c); Santa Lucea-

3 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Bathtub Beach- 2 hectares

(FDEP, 2014c); Jimmy Graham Park- 13 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Bob Graham

Beach- 8 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Beachwalk Pasley- 5

hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Curtis Beach- 2 hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Florida

Oceanographic Site- 16 hectares (FDEP, 2014c);

Blowing Rocks Preserve- 29 hectares (FDEP, 2014c)

Palm Beach County $53,242 Yes, e.g. Lake Worth Lagoon- 119 hectares including: Ibis

Isle, John’s Island, Little Munyon Island, Snook Islands

Natural Area (4 hectares), South Cove Natural Area (8,094 m2), Grassy Flats Lake

Worth Lagoon (2,833 m2), Bicentennial Park, Ocean

Ridge Natural Area (Palm Beach County, 2013, Beal, Smith, McDevitt, Merrill, n.d.,

Anderson, 2014); Intracoastal Waterway-Loxahatchee River

(Anderson, 2014); John D. MacArthur Beach State Park- 131 hectares (Florida State

Parks, n.d.); Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve-

41

8,903 hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Loxahatchee River- Lake Worth Creek Aquatic

Preserve- 3,642 hectares (FDEP, 2014b); Jupiter Inlet

Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area- 48 hectares (FDEP, 2014c)

Wakulla County $53,301 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Monroe County $53,821 Yes, e.g. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park- 24,009

hectares (Florida State Parks, n.d.); Key West National

Wildlife Refuge- 80,937 hectares (USFWS, 2012c); Great White Heron National

Wildlife Refuge- 3,075 hectares (USFWS, 2012b);

National Key Deer Refuge- 3,723 hectares (USFWS, 2014); Crocodile Lake

National Wildlife Refuge- 2,711 hectares (USFWS,

2009); Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge- 202 hectares (USFWS, 2008e); Biscayne

Bay Aquatic Preserves- 27,830 hectares (FDEP,

2014b); Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve- 1,861 hectares (FDEP, 2014b);

Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve- 2,832 hectares

(FDEP, 2014b)

Okaloosa County $54,242 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Santa Rosa County $55,129 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

Collier County $58,106 Yes, e.g. Naples Bay Tidal Creek- 40 hectares (Collier County, 2013); Fruit Farm

Creek- 91 hectares (Collier County, n.d.); Rookery Bay

National Estuarine Research Reserve- 45,657 hectares

42

(FDEP, 2014a) with 16,187 hectares of mangroves (RBNERR & FDEP, 2013);

Ten Thousand Islands- 14,163 hectares (USFWS, 2011);

Collier-Seminole State Park- 2,942 hectares (Florida State Parks, n.d.); Cape Romano-

Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve- 20,829 hectares

(FDEP, 2014b); Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve- 23,502 hectares (FDEP, 2014b)

Nassau County $58,712 No mangroves present (Frazel, 2013)

St. Johns County $62,663 Yes, e.g. Southeast Intracoastal Waterway Park,

Nease Beachfront Park- 46 hectares of black mangroves

(Saint John’s County, n.d.); Ponce Landing- 10 hectares (FDEP, 2014c)

The Florida data in Table 5 are also shown in two graphs below in Figure 12 of the

average household income by county and Figure 13 of the area of habitat containing mangroves

by county (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, U.S. Census Bureau, 2014, Frazel, 2013, Levy County,

n.d., USFWS, 2010, Citrus County, n.d., USFWS, 2012a, FDEP, 2014b, Miami-Dade County

Natural Areas Management Working Group, 2004, Florida State Parks, n.d., Pasco County, n.d.,

Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc., 2011, Charlotte County Florida, n.d., Geselbracht et al., 2014,

Florida Paddling Trails Association, 2011, Saint Lucie County, 2010, Beal et al., n.d., FDEP,

2014c, Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, 2007, Coastal Planning &

Engineering, Inc., 2013, Indian River County Florida Board of County Commissioners, n.d.,

Sarasota County, 2004, Brevard County, 2014, City of Cocoa Beach & Brevard County

Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, 2008, Hillsborough County ELAPP, n.d., Florida

43

Parks and Campgrounds, 2010, USFWS, 2008b, USFWS, 2008d, USFWS, 2008a, Broward

County, n.d., Martin County, n.d., Palm Beach County, 2013, Anderson, 2014, USFWS, 2012c,

USFWS, 2012b, USFWS, 2014, USFWS, 2009, USFWS, 2008e, Collier County, 2013, Collier

County, n.d., FDEP, 2014a, RBNERR & FDEP, 2013, USFWS, 2011, Saint John’s County,

n.d.).

Figure 12: Average household income in Florida by coastal county (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

Figure 13: Area of habitat containing mangroves by Florida county (Frazel, 2013, Levy County, n.d., USFWS, 2010, Citrus

County, n.d., USFWS, 2012a, FDEP, 2014b, Miami-Dade County Natural Areas Management Working Group, 2004, Florida

State Parks, n.d., Pasco County, n.d., Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc., 2011, Charlotte County Florida, n.d., Geselbracht et al.,

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Dix

ie C

ou

nty

Levy

Co

un

ty

Tay

lor

Co

un

ty

Fran

klin

…

Cit

rus

Co

un

ty

Gu

lf C

ou

nty

Jeff

ers

on

…

He

rnan

do

…

Esc

am

bia

…

Mia

mi-

Dad

e…

Pas

co C

ou

nty

Vo

lusi

a C

ou

nty

Ch

arl

ott

e…

St. L

uci

e…

Pin

ella

s C

ou

nty

Wal

ton

Co

un

ty

Ind

ian

Riv

er…

Ba

y C

ou

nty

Ma

nat

ee…

Fla

gle

r C

ou

nty

Sara

sota

…

Du

val C

ou

nty

Bre

vard

…

Hill

sbo

rou

gh

…

Lee

Co

un

ty

Bro

wa

rd…

Ma

rtin

Co

un

ty

Pal

m B

eac

h…

Wak

ulla

…

Mo

nro

e…

Oka

loo

sa…

San

ta R

osa

…

Co

llie

r C

ou

nty

Nas

sau

Co

un

ty

St. J

oh

ns…

Florida Average Household Income by County AverageHousehold Income

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

Dix

ie C

ou

nty

Levy

Co

un

ty

Tay

lor

Co

un

ty

Fran

klin

Co

un

ty

Cit

rus

Co

un

ty

Gu

lf C

ou

nty

Jeff

ers

on

Co

un

ty

He

rnan

do

Co

un

ty

Esc

am

bia

Co

un

ty

Mia

mi-

Dad

e…

Pas

co C

ou

nty

Vo

lusi

a C

ou

nty

Ch

arl

ott

e C

ou

nty

St. L

uci

e C

ou

nty

Pin

ella

s C

ou

nty

Wal

ton

Co

un

ty

Ind

ian

Riv

er…

Ba

y C

ou

nty

Ma

nat

ee C

ou

nty

Fla

gle

r C

ou

nty

Sara

sota

Co

un

ty

Du

val C

ou

nty

Bre

vard

Co

un

ty

Hill

sbo

rou

gh

…

Lee

Co

un

ty

Bro

wa

rd C

ou

nty

Ma

rtin

Co

un

ty

Pal

m B

eac

h…

Wak

ulla

Co

un

ty

Mo

nro

e C

ou

nty

Oka

loo

sa C

ou

nty

San

ta R

osa

…

Co

llie

r C

ou

nty

Nas

sau

Co

un

ty

St. J

oh

ns

Co

un

ty

Florida Area of Habitat Containing Mangroves by County Area of

Habitat

Containing

Mangroves

44

2014, Florida Paddling Trails Association, 2011, Saint Lucie County, 2010, Beal et al., n.d., FDEP, 2014c, Pinellas County

Department of Environmental Management, 2007, Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2013, Indian River County Florida

Board of County Commissioners, n.d., Sarasota County, 2004, Brevard County, 2014, City of Cocoa Beach & Brevard County

Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, 2008, Hillsborough County ELAPP, n.d., Florida Parks and Campgrounds, 2010,

USFWS, 2008b, USFWS, 2008d, USFWS, 2008a, Broward County, n.d., Martin County, n.d., Palm Beach County, 2013,

Anderson, 2014, USFWS, 2012c, USFWS, 2012b, USFWS, 2014, USFWS, 2009, USFWS, 2008e, Collier County, 2013, Collier

County, n.d., FDEP, 2014a, RBNERR & FDEP, 2013, USFWS, 2011, Saint John’s County, n.d.).

Population and Economic Trends for the Southeastern United States

The population density for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and specifically Pinellas

County, Florida in 2008 is shown below in Table 6 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration [NOAA], 2008). Pinellas County has the highest population density on the Gulf

Coast (NOAA, 2008).

Table 6: Population Density by State in 2008

State Population Density

(people/square mile)

Population Density

(people/square kilometer)

Louisiana > 125 > 323

Mississippi > 50 > 129

Alabama 100 259

Florida ~ 200 ~ 518

Pinellas County, Florida ~ 3,365 ~ 8,717

The population density of these coastal areas then needs to be compared to income levels. The

U.S. Census Bureau (2012) conducts surveys on income levels throughout the U.S. that are also

useful in determining the level of risk for coastal communities. In 2010, the poverty rates for

states in the southeast were: 25.0-29.9 percent in Florida; and 30.0 percent or higher in Georgia,

Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana (Bishaw, 2014).

The U.S. poverty rate at this time was 25.7 percent (Bishaw, 2014). The average income of the

45

Gulf Coast in 2008 was $77,068 with 57 percent of the population employed, which is slightly

less than the national percentage of population employed (NOAA, 2008).

The southeast coast had a 79 percent population increase in the 1980-2006 years and the

population density increased from 481 to 860 people per square kilometer (Engle, 2012). The

Gulf coast had a 53 percent population increase in the 1980-2006 years and the population

density increased from 409 to 624 people per square kilometer (Engle, 2012). In Florida

specifically, the 2006 populations on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts were 8,173,987 and 5,612,336

respectively, and the Florida housing levels on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts were 3,697,572 and

2,921,545 respectively (Kildow, 2008). Out of fifteen coastal states, Florida’s coastal population

in 2006 was ranked third with just over 76 percent of the population living along the coast and

ranked thirteenth in coastal population density (Kildow, 2008).

Baldwin and Mobile counties in Alabama are on the lower end of this economic spectrum

(Mobile Bay National Estuary Program [MBNEP], n.d.). The breakdown of income in Baldwin

County, Alabama is: 6 percent of the population earns less than $10,000 per year; just over 16

percent of the population earns between $10,000 and $24,999 per year; just over 27 percent of

the population earns between $25,000 and $49,999 per year; just under 20 percent of the

population earns between $50,000 and $74,999 per year; and just over 30 percent of the

population earns $75,000 or more per year. Just over 12 percent of the population lives below the

poverty line. The breakdown of income in Mobile County Alabama is: just over 11 percent of the

population earns less than $10,000 per year; just under 20 percent of the population earns

between $10,000 and $24,999 per year; 27 percent of the population earns between $25,000 and

$49,999 per year; just over 18 percent of the population earns between $50,000 and $74,999 per

46

year; and just over 23 percent of the population earns $75,000 or more per year. Just over 19

percent of the population lives below the poverty line (MBNEP, n.d.).

Many coastal counties get a significant portion of their revenue from tourism, e.g.

Franklin County, FL at 14 percent; Monroe County, FL at 29 percent; Okaloosa County, FL at

12 percent; and Orleans County, LA at 18 percent (NOAA, 2008). For example, tourism in Lee

County accounts for 20 percent of the jobs and pumps $3 billion every year into the local

economy (EBAP & FDEP, 2014). Mangroves play an important part in this tourism and provide

numerous benefits for locals in the form of coastal protection from flooding and storm surge.

Unfortunately, as of 2011, 15 percent of the mangroves present in the preserve have been

destroyed (EBAP & FDEP, 2014). Figures 14 and 15 show the average wages in the southeastern

U.S. in the year 2008 and the level of poverty in this region in the year 2008, respectively

(National Atlas of the United States [NAUS], 2013).

Figure 14a: Wages in the southeastern U.S. in the year 2008 (NAUS, 2013).

Figure 14b: Legend for the map of wages in the southeastern U.S. in the year 2008 (NAUS, 2013).

47

Figure 15a: Levels of poverty in the southeastern U.S. in the year 2008 NAUS, 2013).

Figure 15b: Legend for the map showing levels of poverty in the year 2008 (NAUS, 2013).

The levels of poverty present in shoreline counties in 2010 for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,

Georgia and Florida are shown below in Table 7 (NOAA, 2013).

Table 7: Coastal Poverty Data by Shoreline Counties in 2010

State Percent of population in poverty (%)

Louisiana 16

Mississippi 15

Alabama 17

Georgia 15

Florida 13

As of 2010, the population in Gulf Coast region in poverty was 17 percent, compared to the

national average of 13 percent; and the average income of the Gulf Coast region was $41,203,

compared to the national average of $43,462 (NOAA, 2011). In Louisiana specifically, the

48

average household income of St. Bernard Parish and the state of Louisiana as a whole during

2005-2009 was $36,660 and $42,460, respectively (Coastal Environments, Inc., 2013). The

percentage of the population in St. Bernard Parish and the state of Louisiana as a whole during

this period that were living in poverty was 21.3 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively (Coastal

Environments, Inc., 2013). As of 2010, the population of Plaquemines Parish was 23,042

(Evans-Graves Engineers, Inc., 2013). Similar to other areas of Louisiana, the population

declined significantly after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The population density of the Parish is 23

people per square kilometer, while the state average is just over 248 people per square kilometer

(Evans-Graves Engineers, Inc., 2013). Comparisons of populations above and below the poverty

line in 2010 for Gulf coast states, portions of Gulf coast states and the nation as a whole is shown

below in Table 8 (NOAA, 2011).

Table 8: Comparison of Populations Above and Below the Poverty Line in 2010 of Gulf Coast States, Coastal Regions of Gulf Coast State and the Nation as a Whole

Above poverty line (%)

Below poverty line (%)

Gulf coast

region

83 17

Gulf coast state 84 16

U.S. total 87 13

The population density for Louisiana; Orleans, Louisiana; Mississippi; Alabama; Florida;

Pinellas County, Florida; and Hillsborough County, Florida in 2010 is shown below in Table 9

(NOAA, 2011).

Table 9: Comparison of Population Density for Gulf Coast State and the Portion of State on the Gulf Coast in 2010

State Population

density of entire state

Population

density of entire state

Population

density of portion of state

Population

density of portion of state

49

(people/square mile)

(people/square kilometer)

on Gulf Coast (people/square

mile)

on Gulf Coast (people/square

kilometer)

Louisiana 100 259 ~150 ~388

Orleans, Louisiana

N/A 2,029 5,256

Jefferson, Louisiana

N/A 1,463 3,790

Mississippi > 50 > 129 ~100 ~ 259

Alabama ~ 100 ~259 ~100 ~ 259

Florida 350 906 ~250 ~647

Pinellas County, Florida

N/A 3,348 8,673

Hillsborough

County, Florida

N/A 1,205 3,121

Determining whether a relationship between population density and income levels exists

in the study area was not clear cut. Based on the data in Table 6, ranking the 2008 population

density of Gulf coast states from lowest to highest is: Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and

Florida (NOAA, 2008). In 2010, the levels of poverty in these states, Florida had the lowest at

between 25.0-29.9 percent, while the other states had 30.0 percent or higher poverty levels

(Bishaw, 2014). This could partially indicate an inverse relationship between population density

and income levels. However, when this comparison focuses on the poverty levels of shoreline

counties, this potential relationship disappears (NOAA, 2013). Based on the data in Table 7,

ranking the states from lowest to highest poverty levels based on shoreline counties is: Florida,

Mississippi and Georgia are tied, Louisiana and Alabama. Even though the Table 7 data obscures

any potential pattern, these data have greater relevance for this study because of the location of

mangroves in coastal areas (NOAA, 2008).

This greater relevance is a reason why the data in Tables 8 and 9 needs to be included

(NOAA, 2011). In addition to the data being more up-to-date, Table 9 also includes the

50

population density of the portion of the state on the Gulf coast. Ranking these coastal population

densities from lowest to highest is as follows: Mississippi and Alabama are virtually tied,

Louisiana and then Florida (NOAA, 2011). These statistics are very similar to those in Table 6,

which shows consistency but do not show a significant relationship (NOAA, 2013). One

explanation for the unclear relationship in regards to Louisiana is the impact of the 2005

hurricane season, which forced large portions of the population to relocate to other areas (Evans-

Graves Engineers, Inc., 2013, Coastal Environments, Inc., 2013). People have been slowly

returning to the region, and this is projected to continue (Evans-Graves Engineers, Inc., 2013,

Coastal Environments, Inc., 2013, NOAA, 2011). In St. Bernard Parish for example, the

population is expected to increase by almost 80 percent by 2020, which will help compensate for

the post-Hurricane Katrina population decline (NOAA, 2011).

Health of Mangrove Ecosystems

Mangrove health can be analyzed in several ways. The overall health of coastal ecosystems can

be determined by several criteria: water quality index, which is based on levels of DIN

(dissolved inorganic nitrogen), chlorophyll a, DIP (dissolved inorganic phosphorus), dissolved

oxygen and water clarity; sediment quality index, which is based on sediment toxicity, sediment

chemistry and sediment TOC (total organic carbon); benthic index, which is based on

biodiversity levels, sediment TOC, dissolved oxygen levels and sediment toxicity; coastal habitat

index; and the fish tissue contamination index (Engle, 2012). Additional water quality

parameters measured included: salinity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended solids

(TSS), Secchi Disk Depth, fecal coliform, mercury, invasive species and exotic species (LWLI,

2013, Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, 2006, Brevard County Board of County

Commissioners, 2000). However, coastal ecosystems are diverse in what levels of these criteria

51

are considered ‘healthy.’ For example, coral reefs require clear water whereas wetland

ecosystems, like mangroves, benefit from water that is not ‘crystal-clear’ (Engle, 2012). Table 10

lists some of these ecosystem health parameters and their respective ranges of what is considered

‘good’ and ‘poor.’ Ecosystem health for the southeast coast (from Florida to North Carolina) and

Gulf coast (from Florida to Texas) are analyzed below.

Table 10: Beneficial and Harmful Ranges of Water Quality Index Parameters

Water Quality Parameter Beneficial Range Harmful Range

Chlorophyll α (µg/L) (USEPA, n.d., FDEP, n.d.)

0.2-19.9 >20

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

(FDEP, n.d.)

≥ 5 < 5

Salinity (g/L) (Hogarth, 2007) 35 > 35

Total nitrogen (mg/L) (USEPA, n.d.)

0.17-1.29 ≥ 1.30

Total phosphorus (µg/L)

(Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support, 2009)

10-17.5 > 17.5

Secchi Disk Depth (m) (Bureau of Assessment and

Restoration Support, 2009)

0.79-2.10 > 2.10

Fecal coliform (counts/100 mL) (USEPA, 2013a)

≤ 35 > 35

Mercury (µg/L) (USEPA,

2013b)

≤ 0.025 > 0.025

Based on the coastal ecosystem health criteria mentioned previously, the southeast coast (from

Florida to North Carolina) has been given an overall rating of Fair (3.6) (Engle, 2012). The

breakdown of this score is: benthic ecosystems- Good (82 percent; 13 percent Fair and 3 percent

Poor); fish tissue contamination index-Good (64 percent; 8 percent Poor); water quality- Fair (13

percent Poor, 64 percent Fair); coastal habitat quality index- Fair (lost 2,200 acres of coastal

wetlands in the 1990-2000 years; sediment quality index- rated Fair (2 percent) to Poor (13

percent) (Engle, 2012).

52

The Fair rating of the coastal habitat quality index for the southeast coast can be

connected to mangrove health in several ways (Engle, 2012). While the area lost over 809

hectares of wetlands during the 1990-2000 years, numerous wetland restoration efforts have been

and are currently being conducted, including of mangroves (Engle, 2012). Palm Beach County,

Florida is a prime example (Anderson, 2014). The total area of mangroves in Palm Beach

County increased from 265 hectares to 270 hectares from 1985 to 2001. This trend was also seen

in Palm Beach County’s Lake Worth Lagoon, where mangrove area increased from 110 hectares

to 112 hectares in the same time period. In 2007, mangrove area was 287 hectares in Palm Beach

County with 114 hectares in Lake Worth Lagoon. In 2014, Lake Worth Lagoon had 119 hectares

of mangroves (Anderson, 2014). The period of 2007-2012 saw a total increase of 4 hectares in

mangroves at Lake Worth Lagoon (LWLI, 2013). The gradual increase is primarily due to

habitat restoration activities (Anderson, 2014).

Mangrove restoration efforts within Lake Worth Lagoon occurred in several areas

(LWLI, 2013). From 1985-2007, the following mangrove increases occurred: 3,723 m2 at Little

Munyon Island; 8,579 m2 at Snook Islands Natural Area; 2 hectares at Ibis Isle Restoration;

1,780 m2 at Bryant Park Wetlands; 7,244 m2 at South Cove Natural Area; John’s Island and

Peanut Island. More recent restoration projects include: Boynton Beach/Ocean Ridge Mangrove

Preserves and Breakwaters in 2009 created protection for 14 hectares of mangroves; Little

Munyon Island in 2009; Peanut Island Lagoon/Shoreline Restoration in 2009; Ibis Isle

Restoration in 2010 formed 3 hectares of mangroves; Snook Islands Natural Area in 2012; South

Cove Natural Area in 2012 formed 8,094 m2 of mangroves; Snook Islands Wetland Restoration

Phase II in 2013 formed almost 3,035 m2 of mangroves. A total of 16 hectares of mangroves

have been restored at Lake Worth Lagoon as of 2013 (LWLI, 2013).

53

Most of the water quality parameters discussed previously for the southeast coast were

also measured at Lake Worth Lagoon specifically (LWLI, 2013). The specific parameters

measured at Lake Worth Lagoon were salinity, total nitrogen, chlorophyll α, total phosphorus,

TSS, and Secchi Disk Depth. Analysis of these water quality parameters was done by dividing

Lake Worth Lagoon into three sections: north, central and south. The averages of these water

quality parameters for the north in the years 2007-2012 were: 32.55 salinity; 0.33 total nitrogen;

3.22 chlorophyll α; 0.024 total phosphorus; 7.8 TSS; and 1.4 Secchi Disk Depth. The averages of

the water quality parameters for the central section in these years were: 29.05 salinity; 0.48 total

nitrogen; 5.00 chlorophyll α; 0.041 total phosphorus; 9.9 TSS; and 1.5 Secchi Disk Depth. The

averages of the water quality parameters for the south in these years were: 30.30 salinity; 0.42

total nitrogen; 5.69 chlorophyll α; 0.036 total phosphorus; 9.1 TSS; and 1.5 Secchi Disk Depth

(LWLI, 2013).

There have been eight primary areas of Lake Worth Lagoon that had poor ratings for one

or more of these water quality parameters (LWLI, 2013). Of these eight, five had poor ratings for

dissolved oxygen, nutrients, three had poor ratings for fecal coliform and one had poor ratings

for mercury concentration in fish populations. Three areas had one water quality parameter rated

poor, four sections had two water quality parameters rated poor and one had three water quality

parameters rated poor. These poor ratings occurred in the years 2005-2008 (LWLI, 2013).

In Indian River County, Florida restoration efforts are occurring in the Indian River

Lagoon System (FDEP, 2014c). These are primarily shoreline restoration projects designed to

slow down the disappearance of mangroves due to erosion and development projects (FDEP,

2014c). Brevard County, Florida is another area on the southeast coast that has conducted

mangrove restoration, primarily at Thousand Islands and Blowing Rocks Preserve (City of

54

Cocoa Beach & Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, 2008). At

Thousand Islands Preserve, Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Australian pine

(Casuarina equisetifolia) are problem species, comprising approximately 10 hectares of the

conservation area. Thousand Islands are a part of a habitat conservation area managed by the

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for wading bird species. At Blowing Rocks

Preserve, 5 hectares of mangroves have been restored (City of Cocoa Beach & Brevard County

Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, 2008).

Invasive species are also a problem in other areas of Brevard County, including the

Maritime Hammock Sanctuary and Coconut Point Sanctuary, which are part of Archie Carr

National Wildlife Refuge (Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, 2006, Brevard

County Board of County Commissioners, 2000). Some of the exotic species seen at the Maritime

Hammock Sanctuary include: papaya (Carica papaya); Madagascar Periwhinkle (Catharanthus

roseus); Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon); Lantana (Lantana camara); Brazilian pepper (S.

terebinthifolius); and Spanish bayonet (Yucca aliofolia) (Brevard County Board of County

Commissioners, 2006).

At Coconut Point Sanctuary, exotic plant species include: Brazilian pepper (S.

terebinthifolius); Australian pine (C. equisetifolia); Madagascar Periwhinkle (C. roseus); guinea

grass (Panicum maximum); simpleleaf chastetree (Vitex trifolia); Cuban tree frog (Osteopilus

septentrionalisu); brown anole (Anolis sagrei) (Brevard County Board of County

Commissioners, 2000). There are also several exotic insect species at this sanctuary, including:

fungus growing ant, Cyphomyrmex rimosus; Eurhopalothrix floridana; Pheidole moerens; red

imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta); Strumigenys eggersi; and little red fire ant (Wasmannia

auropunctata) (Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, 2000).

55

The overall rating of the Gulf Coast (from Florida to Texas) is Fair (2.4) (Engle, 2012).

The breakdown of this score is: water quality index- Fair (53 percent; 10 percent Poor); benthic

ecosystems- Fair to Poor (20) (25 percent of coast is missing data); sediment quality index- Poor

(19 percent); coastal habitat index- Poor (from 1998-2004 lost 16,915 hectares of wetlands or 1.2

percent); and fish contamination index- Good (9 percent rated Poor) (Engle, 2012).

The Gulf Coast has an overall lower rating (2.4 compared to the Southeast coast’s 3.6)

and a lower rating for coastal habitat index (Poor because of 16,915 hectares of lost wetlands

compared to the Southeast coast’s Fair and 890 hectares lost wetlands) (Engle, 2012). This can

be explained in several ways. The first is to compare the total area of habitat containing

mangroves of the southeast and Gulf coasts based on the data in Tables 2-5. Based on these

tables, the southeast coast has approximately 120,155 hectares of habitat, all in Florida. The Gulf

coast has approximately, 585,960-586,284 hectares of habitat, of which, 584,474 hectares are in

Florida alone. Louisiana has approximately 647-971 hectares of mangrove forests (LDWF &

LNHP, 2009). Mississippi has approximately 838 hectares of habitat containing mangroves

(CDM, 2010, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, 2012). There are some mangroves

present in Baldwin County, Alabama; however, details on the specific area were not found

(Baldwin County Commission, 2010). The Gulf coast has a significantly greater area of habitat

containing mangroves than the Southeast coast, in large part to the fact that a greater portion of

the Gulf coast mangrove-permissive climates (Frazel, 2013).

Similar to the Southeast coast, there have been several ecological restoration projects on

the Gulf coast (BBAP & FDEP, 2013). For example, Monroe and Miami-Dade counties in

Florida contain the over 364-hectare Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserves, where several mangrove

restoration projects have occurred, including the Dinner Key Islands. Additionally, the 283-

56

hectare Bill Sadowski Critical Wildlife Area contains an important area of mangroves that have

not been degraded or destroyed by developmental activities (BBAP & FDEP, 2013).

However, these successes are countered by other portions of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic

Preserves, like the health of mangroves at Card Sound, which are in jeopardy due to the intense

development and water diverting activities that blocked this area from the Everglades water

system (BBAP & FDEP, 2013). Card Sound contains 687 hectares of diverse habitats, including

mangroves, making this an important area in need of protective and restorative actions. In

addition to habitat destruction, invasive species are causing damage to this preserve, including:

the Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) (in Everglades); monitor lizard (Varanus

niloticus) (at Sanibel Island); seaside mahoe (Thespia populnea); Brazilian pepper (S.

terebinthifolius); Australian pine (C. equisetifolia); and umbrella tree (Schefflera actinophylla).

These species are intruding on habitats of red, black and white mangroves at the preserve (BBAP

& FDEP, 2013).

Other areas of the Gulf coast also have considerable problems with invasive species. In

Collier County, Florida, the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, which contains

16,187 hectares of mangroves, has: Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius); Australian pine (C.

equisetifolia); melaleuca (M. quinquenervia); climbing fern (Lygodium spp.); and latherleaf (C.

asiatica) (RBNERR & FDEP, 2013). Directly north of Collier County is Lee County, where the

Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve, which contains 464 hectares of mangroves, has: water hyacinth (E.

crassipes); alligator weed (A. philoxeroides); and red lionfish (P. volitans) (EBAP & FDEP,

2014). Habitat destruction is another threat to Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve. As of 2011, 15

percent of the mangroves present in the preserve have been destroyed (EBAP & FDEP, 2014).

57

Climate Change Impacts in the United States

There are four general scenarios that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) uses to illustrate the potential impacts of climate change: A1, B1, A2 and B2 (USEPA,

2009). The EPA has written a report on how these scenarios specifically apply to the U.S.

(USEPA, 2009). Each scenario is based on where the greatest importance is placed, e.g. habitat

conservation or development; the type of actions taken, e.g. primarily pro-active or reactive; and

the intensity with which these actions are implemented. Each scenario has incorporated

population density and projected migration patterns; real and projected land-use; economic and

sociological factors; ecological factors; and sea level rise, and are designed to look at how these

scenarios will evolve until the year 2100 (USEPA, 2009).

The A1 scenario for the U.S. includes: low birth rate and low death rate results in slow

and minimal population growth; high immigration (both intra- and inter-migration); increased

economic development; greater interconnectedness with the global economy; and a focus on

efficient technological innovations (USEPA, 2009, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[IPCC], 2007). For coastal areas specifically, the projections include: coastal migration is less

likely; habitat conservation is a low priority; aquaculture growth has a large increase; adaptation

response is more reactive; hazard risk management is a low priority; tourism growth is high;

extractive industries are larger; infrastructure growth is large; human- induced subsistence is

more likely; and the 2080s global coastal population (defined as at less than 100 m above sea

level and less than or equal to 100 km from the coastline) is projected to be 3.2-5.2 billion

(Nicholls et al., 2007).

58

The A1 scenario has three secondary scenarios based on the type of technological

innovations taken (IPCC, 2007). These three pathways are: A1F1, A1T and A1B. The

characteristics of these pathways are as follows. The A1F1, which has a continued heavy reliance

on fossil fuels, projects that globally 10 million people threatened by coastal flooding due to sea

level rise by 2080, and projects a 0.26-0.59 m increase in global sea level by 2100 compared to

1980-1999 levels (Nicholls et al., 2007). Figure 16 illustrates how the A1F1 scenario will impact

the southeastern U.S. during the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health,

Climatic Research Unit [CRU], Global Precipitation Climatology Centre [GPCC], German

Weather Service, University of East Anglia, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, IPCC,

2012).

Figure 16a: The changes in climatic patterns and seasonal variations of the A1F1 climate change scenario for the southeastern U.S. during the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

Figure 16 Map Key

Hurricane/monsoon type weather

Dry winters

Full humidity

Warmer temperatures, full humidity and warm summers

Warmer temperatures, full humidity and hot summers

Figure 16b: Map Key for Figure 16 on the changes in climatic patterns and seasonal variations of the A1F1 climate change scenario for the southeastern U.S. during the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

59

According to Figure 16, under the A1F1 scenario, the southern half of Florida will experience:

greater instances of hurricane/monsoon type weather in the interior and parts of the coast; dry

winters in the southwest interior, along the coast and parts of the Florida Keys; and full humidity

on portions of the south-central east and south-central west coasts. The northern half of Florida

will experience: warmer temperatures, higher humidity and warm summers in the interior; and

warmer temperatures, higher humidity and hot summers along the east and west coasts. The rest

of the Gulf coast and Georgia will experience similar weather conditions as the northern half of

Florida (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

The A1T scenario, which has a reliance on renewable resources, e.g. not fossil fuels, and

projects a 0.20-0.45 m increase in global sea level by 2100 compared to 1980-1999 levels

(Nicholls et al., 2007). Finally, the A1B scenario, which has a reliance on a diverse array of

energy resources, and projects a 0.21-0.48 m increase in global sea level by 2100 compared to

1980-1999 levels (IPCC, 2007, Parry et al., 2007, Carter, Jones, Lu, Bhadwal, Conde et al.,

2007). The low priority given to habitat conservation under the general A1 scenario poses

serious threats for the survival of mangroves (Nicholls et al., 2007). The benefits of mangrove

ecosystems in regards to shoreline protection were discussed in-depth previously. This combined

with the lack of proactive choices or hazard management actions and the high infrastructure

development and resource extraction in this scenario threatens the safety of the southeast region,

and especially the Gulf coast human population (Nicholls et al., 2007).

The B1 scenario for the U.S. is very similar to the A1 scenario, except that it places

greater emphasis on the need for sustainability in terms of economic development and resource

usage (USEPA, 2009). The specific projections include: the height of global population is

reached mid-century and then falls; an economic paradigm shift occurs, i.e. focus is shifted from

60

highly consumptive, materialistic society to a clean, efficient technology- information society;

importance placed on sustainability in terms of resource consumption, economic growth,

environmental use and preservation, and social issues to achieve a greater global equality; no

other actions taken to address climate change; projects that globally under 5 million people

threatened by coastal flooding due to sea level rise by 2080; and projects a 0.18-0.38 m increase

in global sea level by 2100 compared to 1980-1999 levels (IPCC, 2007, Parry et al., 2007, Carter

et al., 2007).

For coastal areas specifically, the B1 scenario projections include: coastal migration is

more likely; habitat conservation is a high priority; aquaculture growth has a smaller increase;

adaptation response is more proactive; hazard risk management is a high priority; tourism growth

is high; extractive industries are smaller; infrastructure growth is smaller; human-induced

subsistence is less likely; and 2080s global coastal population (defined as at less than 100 m

above sea level and less than or equal to 100 km from the coastline) is projected to be 1.8-2.4

billion (Nicholls et al., 2007). This scenario poses less of a threat to the survival of mangroves

compared to the A1 scenario because habitat conservation is given a high priority. Additionally,

the inclusion of proactive steps and hazard risk management and the reduction of infrastructure

development and resource extraction offer greater protections for coastal communities compared

to the A1 scenario (Nicholls et al., 2007).

Figure 17 shows how the B1 scenario will impact the southeastern U.S. during the period

of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012). Based on Figure 17, under the

B1 scenario, over half of the state of Florida, from north to south, will experience: warmer

temperatures, higher humidity and warm summers in the interior; and warmer temperatures,

higher humidity and hot summers along the east and west coasts. The rest of the Gulf coast and

61

Georgia are projected to experience similar weather conditions. Small patches of the southwest

coast and Florida Keys are projected to experience dry winters, with two small patches of the

southwest coast of Florida projected to experience higher humidity levels. A good portion of the

southeast coast of Florida is projected to have more hurricane/monsoon type weather (Institute

for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

Figure 17a: The changes in climatic patterns and seasonal variations of the B1 climate change scenario for the southeastern U.S. during the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

The A2 scenario for the U.S. includes: less focus on becoming more involved with the

global economy, i.e. become regionally-focused; higher internal migration and lower

immigration; slightly less economic growth due to the regional focus; the regional focus results

Figure 17 Map Key

Hurricane/monsoon type weather

Dry winters

Full humidity

Warmer temperatures, full humidity and warm summers

Warmer temperatures, full humidity and hot summers

Figure 17b: Map key for Figure 18 on the changes in climatic patterns and seasonal variations of the B1 climate change scenario for the southeastern U.S. during the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

62

in a slower pace of technological innovations; and a slightly higher birth rate than the A1 and B1

scenarios due to the reduced economic growth (USEPA, 2009, IPCC, 2007). Additional

projections include: global populations living in already distressed river basins will increase from

1.4-1.6 billion in 1995 to 4.3-6.9 billion in 2050; there will be an increase of 4.5 percent in

deaths attributed to ozone; and it projects that globally over 30 million people threatened by

coastal flooding due to sea level rise by 2080 (Parry et al., 2007).

The A2 scenario also includes a 36 cm increase in sea level in 2000-2080 years, which

will result in over one-third of coastal wetlands lost, with the southeastern U.S. being one of the

hardest hit areas (Parry et al., 2007). By 2100, there will be a projected increase of 0.23-0.51 m

compared to 1980-1999 levels (Carter et al., 2007). This area is not adequately prepared to

handle the rise in sea level and likely increase in storm intensity and frequency as well as storm

surge (Parry et al., 2007). For coastal areas specifically, projections include: coastal migration is

less likely; habitat conservation is a low priority; aquaculture growth has a large increase;

adaptation response becomes more reactive; hazard risk management is a low priority; tourism

growth is high; extractive industries are larger; infrastructure growth is larger; human-induced

subsistence is more likely; and 2080s global coastal population (defined as at less than 100 m

above sea level and less than or equal to 100 km from the coastline) is projected to be 3.2-5.2

billion (Nicholls et al., 2007).

Figure 18 illustrates how the A2 scenario would impact the southeastern U.S. during the

period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012). Based on Figure 18, the

A2 scenario projects that: just over half of Florida, from north to south, will have warmer

temperatures, higher humidity and warm summers in the interior, and warmer temperatures,

higher humidity and hot summers along the east and west coasts; only three small portions of the

63

southwest Florida coast and a few segments of the Florida Keys will be characterized by dry

winters; several sections on the southeast and southwest Florida coast will experience greater

humidity levels; and the majority of hurricane/monsoonal type weather is projected for

practically all of the southeast Florida coast (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

Figure 18a: The changes in climatic patterns and seasonal variations of the A2 climate change scenario for the southeastern U.S. during the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

The B2 scenario for the U.S. includes: greater focus on regional health and problem-

solving on the regional level; emphasizes the importance of sustainability in terms of social

issues, economic growth and environmental use and preservation is placed at the local and

Figure 18 Map Key

Hurricane/monsoon type weather

Dry winters

Full humidity

Warmer temperatures, full humidity and warm summers

Warmer temperatures, full humidity and hot summers

Figure 18b: Map key for Figure 19 on the changes in climatic patterns and seasonal variations of the A2 climate

change scenario for the southeastern U.S. during the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

64

regional levels; lower internal migration and immigration; a moderate amount of economic

growth; slower, but more diverse technological innovation compared to the B1 and A1 scenarios;

moderate population growth that is slower than the A2 scenario; it projects that globally just over

5 million people threatened by coastal flooding due to sea level rise by 2080; and it projects a

0.20-0.43 m increase in global sea level by 2100 compared to 1980-1999 levels (USEPA, 2009,

IPCC, 2007, Parry et al., 2007, Carter et al., 2007).

For coastal areas specifically, the B2 scenario projects that: coastal migration is least

likely; habitat conservation is a high priority; aquaculture growth has a smaller increase;

adaptation response is more proactive; hazard risk management is a high priority; tourism growth

is lowest; extractive industries are smaller; infrastructure growth is smallest; human-induced

subsistence is less likely; and the 2080s global coastal population (defined as at less than 100 m

above sea level and less than or equal to 100 km from the coastline) is projected to be 2.3-3.4

billion (Nicholls et al., 2007).

Figure 19 illustrates how the B2 scenario would impact the southeastern U.S. during the

period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012). In this scenario, over

half of Florida, from north to south, is projected to experience warmer temperatures, higher

humidity and warm summers in the interior, and warmer temperatures, higher humidity and hot

summers along the east and west coasts. There are a few areas of the southwest and a small

segment on the southeast Florida coasts and parts of the Florida Keys that will be characterized

by dry winters. The majority of the southeast Florida coast will experience hurricane/monsoon

type weather; and a couple sections of the southeast and southwest coasts will experience greater

humidity levels. The remaining Gulf coast will have similar climatic conditions as the northern

half of Florida (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

65

Figure 19a: The changes in climatic patterns and seasonal variations of the B2 climate change scenario for the southeastern U.S. during the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

All of these scenarios are based on the assumption that actions directly intended to

address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will not be taken (Parry et

al., 2007). While a lack of action is entirely possible, the probability of this occurring is

impossible to know and should be avoided to minimize the damage to human and ecological

communities (Parry et al., 2007).

Connection between Climate Change and Economic Status

There has been a 1.7-1.8 mm/yr global sea level rise over the last one hundred years and

has increased to 3 mm/yr over the last ten years (Rosenzweig et al., 2007). A 72 cm increase in

Figure 19 Map Key

Hurricane/monsoon type weather

Dry winters

Full humidity

Warmer temperatures, full humidity and warm summers

Warmer temperatures, full humidity and hot summers

Figure 19b: Map key for Figure 20 on the changes in climatic patterns and seasonal variations of the B2 climate change scenario for the southeastern U.S. for the period of 2076-2100 (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

66

sea level rise in 2000-2080 would result in over 40 percent of coastal wetlands being destroyed

(Nicholls et al., 2007). On the eastern coast of the U.S., three-quarters of the shoreline is

experiencing erosion due to sea level rise during the past 100-150 years (Rosenzweig et al.,

2007). People who are in the lower economic classes experience the brunt of the consequences of

natural disasters, like from Hurricane Katrina (Parry et al., 2007). This vulnerability is expected

to increase as climate change progresses (Parry et al., 2007). Figures 20a and 20b are shown in

order to compare the social vulnerability in the southeast region of the U.S. in 2000 to the

population density of this region in 2000 (HVRI, 2013, NAUS, 2013).

Figure 20a: Social vulnerability to environmental hazards in FEMA region IV in the year 2000 (HVRI, 2013b).

Figure 20b: Population density for the southeastern U.S. in the year 2000 (NAUS, 2013).

67

Figure 20c: Legend for Figure 20b of the southeastern U.S. population density in the year 2000 (NAUS, 2013).

There are portions of Gulf Coast populations that are considered at a higher risk than the general

population based on poverty levels (NOAA, 2011). These levels are shown below in Table 11

(NOAA, 2011).

Table 11: Portions of Gulf Coast States at Higher Risk based on Poverty Levels in 2010

State Percentage below poverty

level (%)

Louisiana 16

Mississippi 14

Alabama 16

Florida 10

The trends of poverty and population density for coastal regions of the southeastern U.S. then

need to be compared to the history of the most costly hurricanes to strike this region to better

understand the cost, in dollars and public safety, that increased storm intensity poses to the

region (NOAA, 2011). The most expensive hurricanes during the years of 2004-2010 are shown

below in Table 12, in increasing order of cost (NOAA, 2011).

Table 12: Most Expensive Hurricanes during the period 2004-2010

Hurricane Year Cost (in billions)

Dennis 2005 $2

Gustav 2008 $5

Jeanne 2004 $8

Frances 2004 $10

Ivan 2004 $15

68

Charley 2004 $17

Rita 2005 $17

Wilma 2005 $17

Ike 2008 $27

Katrina 2005 $134

While the entire Gulf of Mexico coast is at risk from sea-level rise, the western portion covering

the Louisiana-Texas region is at a higher risk than the eastern portion covering from Mississippi

to Florida (Thieler & Hammar-Klose, 2000). The southwest coast of Florida is also considered at

high risk from sea level rise. The breakdown of the Gulf of Mexico coast in terms of risk from

sea level rise for the year 2000 is shown below in Figure 21 (Thieler & Hammar-Klose, 2000).

Figure 21: Breakdown of Gulf of Mexico coast in terms of risk from sea level rise for the year 2000 (Thieler & Hammar-Klose, 2000).

A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is required to implement floodplain management

actions and flood insurance must be purchased (NOAA, 2011). In SFHAs in the Gulf Coast, the

population living in poverty is at 14 percent. The percentage of Gulf Coast counties/state that are

made up of SFHAs in FEMA V-Zone counties are: Louisiana- 84 percent; Mississippi- 35

percent; Alabama- 23 percent; and Florida- 37 percent. Just under 60 percent of the Gulf Coast is

projected to be very vulnerable to sea level rise. Grand Isle, Louisiana, for example, is projected

to have one of the greatest increases in sea level rise over a 100-year time period, at 0.9 m. The

69

entire coastlines of Mississippi and Louisiana are projected to have either a high risk or a very

high risk of sea level rise. The population percentage living in SFHAs in the Gulf Coast

compared to the population percentage of SFHAs in FEMA V-Zone counties as of 2010 is

shown below in Table 13 (NOAA, 2011).

Table 13: Gulf Coast Comparison of Population Percentage Living in SFHAs and Population Percentage of SFHAs in FEMA V-Zone Counties in 2010

State SFHAs (number

of people)

SFHA in FEMA V-Zone

counties (%)

Louisiana 1,290,051 49

Mississippi 129,265 37

Alabama 83,881 15

Florida 1,645,514 29

As the preceding figures and tables illustrate, the risk to the southeastern coast of the U.S. from

environmental hazards has continued to increase. Figure 22 below shows the level of risk from

sea level rise to the Gulf of Mexico coast as of the year 2013 (United States Geological Survey

[USGS], 2013).

Figure 22: The level of risk sea level rise poses to the coastal U.S. as of the year 2013 (USGS, 2013).

70

The potential threats to Louisiana are especially concerning when the Table 13 data is compared

to the history of hurricanes in Table 12, as well as the current and projected rates of land

subsidence along with the current and projected increase in population discussed previously

(NOAA, 2011). This concern is heightened further with the data shown in Figure 23 (USGS,

2013). While there are significant portions of the Florida coast and some of the Alabama coast

that are considered a very high risk, the entire coasts of Mississippi and Louisiana have that

classification. There are only a few scattered areas in Florida and Alabama that are classified as a

low or medium level of risk, which requires the entire region to take mitigating and adapting

actions (USGS, 2013).

Data Analysis

Louisiana Data Analysis

There does not appear to be a pattern of mangroves and income. The parishes are ranked

in order of increasing average household income above in Table 2, and the presence of

mangroves is scattered over a wide range of income levels. Parishes containing mangroves have

average household incomes ranging from St. Bernard’s $39,200 to Plaquemines’ $54,739 (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2012). This income gap is especially interesting since the Breton National

Wildlife Refuge covers both of these parishes, indicating that the presence of mangroves likely

does not have any significant influence on income levels (USFWS, 2013). Mangrove-free

parishes have average household incomes ranging from Washington’s $30,363 to St. Tammany’s

$60,866. These two parishes have the lowest and highest incomes respectively, and neither of

them have mangroves, further evidence of a lack of a pattern (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Mississippi Data Analysis

71

The two counties with habitat containing mangroves, Hancock and Harrison, have

average household incomes of $44,494 and $45,668 respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

The coastal county with the highest average household income is Jackson County at $47,906,

which does not contain mangroves (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Frazel, 2013). This could be seen

as a pattern, in that the counties with the lower average incomes have mangroves while higher

income counties do not. However, when looking at the two mangrove-containing counties,

Harrison County has a higher average income and a significantly larger acreage of habitat

containing mangroves compared to Hancock County (U.S. Census Bureau, CDM, 2010,

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, 2012). The combination of contradicting trends, a

lack of specific information on mangrove health and area, and a pool of only three counties does

not provide enough evidence to determine the presence of a relationship between mangroves and

income.

Florida Data Analysis

An analysis of these data starts with ranking counties in order of increasing average

household income, which was done in Figure 12 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014, U.S. Census

Bureau, 2012). Dixie County has the lowest average household income at $32,312 and St. John’s

County has the highest at $62,663 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). As was stated previously, the

U.S. median household income is approximately $51,000. Of the 36 counties examined, 26 are

below this income level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

The next step is to set examine the presence of mangroves by county. Out of 36 counties,

15 do not contain mangroves based on the research. The majority of these counties are

mangrove-free due to climatic conditions (Frazel, 2013). Mangrove-free counties on the Gulf

72

coast include: Hernando, Dixie, Taylor, Jefferson, Wakulla, Franklin, Gulf, Bay, Walton,

Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Escambia counties (Frazel, 2013). Hernando County is an exception to

this climatic condition requirement on the Gulf coast. On this coast, mangroves are rare to find

north of Levy County (Frazel, 2013). Hernando County is two counties south of Levy County

but based on the research conducted, there are no mangroves present even though there are

mangroves in Pasco County to the south and Citrus County to the north (Pasco County, n.d.,

Citrus County, n.d., USFWS, 2012a, FDEP, 2014b). Mangrove-free counties on the Atlantic

coast are: Flagler, Duval and Nassau (Frazel, 2013). Flagler County is an exception to this

climatic condition requirement on the Atlantic Coast. On the Atlantic coast, mangroves are rare

to find north of St. John’s County (Frazel, 2013). Flagler County is one county south of St.

John’s County but based on the research conducted, there are no mangroves present even though

there are mangroves in St. John’s County to the north and Volusia County to the south (Saint

John’s County, n.d., FDEP, 2014c, Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc., 2011, FDEP, 2014b). Only

four of these mangrove-free counties have average household income levels above the national

average, and all of them are a minimum of four counties north of Levy County: Wakulla County

at $53,301; Okaloosa County at $54,242; Santa Rosa County at $55,129; and Nassau County at

$58,712 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

The next step is to look at the area of habitat containing mangroves, which is not

necessarily the same as area of mangroves. The reason for this important distinction is explored

in the next section. These data are shown above in Figure 13. Since there are 36 coastal counties

in Florida, this analysis will split the counties into three groups based on habitat area containing

mangroves: counties with less than 404 hectares of habitat; counties with 404-40,468 hectares of

habitat; and counties with 40,468 hectares of habitat or more. Excluding the mangrove-free

73

counties, there are four counties containing less than 404 hectares of habitat containing

mangroves. In order of increasing habitat area containing mangroves, these counties are:

Broward County has an average household income at $51,694 and approximately 21 hectares of

habitat; Pasco County has an average household income of $44,228 and approximately 54

hectares of habitat; St. John’s County has an average household income of $62,663 and

approximately 56 hectares of habitat; and Levy County has an average household income of

$35,737 and approximately 308 hectares of habitat (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Broward County,

n.d., Pasco County, n.d., St. John’s County, n.d., Levy County, n.d., USFWS, 2010). Half of

these counties are above and half are below the national average household income and there is

not a distinct pattern or trend with habitat area in these counties (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

There are eleven counties that contain between 404 and 40,468 hectares of mangroves. In

order of increasing habitat containing mangroves, these counties are: Volusia County has an

average household income of $44,400 and approximately 1,924 hectares of habitat; Hillsborough

County has an average household income of $49,536 and approximately 3,455 hectares of

habitat; Sarasota County has an average household income of $49,388 and approximately 3,687

hectares of habitat; Manatee County has an average household income of $47,812 and

approximately 10,117 hectares of habitat; Citrus County has an average household income of

$37,933 and approximately 11,529 hectares of habitat; Palm Beach County has an average

household income of $53,242 and approximately 12,844 hectares of habitat; Indian River County

has an average household income of $47,341 and approximately 15,966 hectares of habitat;

Martin County has an average household income of $53,210 and approximately 18,170 hectares;

St. Lucie County has an average household income of $45,196 and approximately 18,526

hectares of habitat; Brevard County has an average household income of $49,523 and

74

approximately 24,395 hectares; and Miami-Dade County has an average household income of

$43,605 and approximately 28,248 hectares of habitat (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Zev Cohen &

Associates, Inc., 2011, FDEP, 2014b, Hillsborough County ELAPP, 2007, Florida Parks and

Campgrounds, 2010, Sarasota County, 2004, Citrus County, n.d., USFWS, 2012a, Palm Beach

County, 2013, Beal et al., n.d., Anderson, 2014, Florida State Parks, n.d., FDEP, 2014c, Indian

River County Florida Board of County Commissioners, n.d., Martin County, n.d., Saint Lucie

County, 2010, Brevard County, 2014, City of Cocoa Beach & Brevard County Environmentally

Endangered Lands Program, 2008, Miami-Dade County Natural Areas Management Working

Group, 2004).

There does not seem to be a consistent pattern with these counties. There are some small

but conflicting trends present, e.g. a positive correlation between average income and mangrove

area in Volusia and Hillsborough counties, and four separate negative correlations between these

variables in Sarasota, Manatee and Citrus counties; in Palm Beach and Indian River counties; in

Martin and St. Lucie counties; and in Brevard and Miami-Dade counties.

There are five counties that have over 40,468 hectares of habitat containing mangroves.

In order of increasing habitat containing mangroves, these counties are: Charlotte County has an

average household income of $45,037 and approximately 58,485 hectares of habitat; Lee County

has an average household income of $50,014 and approximately 84,529 hectares of habitat;

Collier County has an average household income of $58,106 and approximately 123,414 hectares

of habitat; Pinellas County has an average household income of $45,258 and approximately

141,707 hectares of habitat; and Monroe County has an average household income of $53,821

and approximately 147,183 hectares of habitat (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Charlotte County

Florida, n.d., Geselbracht et al., 2014, Florida Paddling Trails Association, 2011, USFWS,

75

2008b, USFWS, 2008d, USFWS, 2008a, Collier County, 2013, Collier County, n.d., Pinellas

County Department of Environmental Management, 2007, Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.,

2013, FDEP, 2014a, RBNERR & FDEP, 2013, USFWS, 2011, Florida State Parks, n.d., FDEP,

2014b, USFWS, 2012c, USFWS, 2012b, USFWS, 2014, USFWS, 2009, USFWS, 2008e).

Of these five counties only two, Monroe and Collier, have average household incomes

above the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). There were two patterns in these five

counties. For Charlotte, Lee and Collier, there was a positive correlation between average

household income and area of habitat containing mangroves; however, Pinellas County disrupted

the pattern. This positive correlation also occurs with Pinellas and Monroe counties.

Interestingly, the large area of habitat containing mangroves in Pinellas County coincides with

Pinellas County having the highest population density on the Gulf Coast, at 8,717 people per

square kilometer in 2008 and 8,673 people per square kilometer in 2011 (NOAA, 2008, NOAA,

2011).

Climate Change Data Analysis

Compared to the A1F1 scenario, the B1 scenario projects that: a larger portion of Florida

will experience warmer temperatures, higher humidity and warmer summers in the interior; and

warmer temperatures, higher humidity and hot summers along the east and west coasts; a smaller

portion of southwest Florida will experience dry winters; hurricane/monsoonal type weather only

projected for the southeast coast instead of the southeast and southwest coast under the A1F1

scenario; and smaller sections of southern Florida experiencing higher humidity levels (Institute

for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012). There are no significant differences between the A1F1

76

and B1 scenarios with regards to the rest of the Gulf coast and Georgia (Institute for Veterinary

Public Health et al., 2012).

A comparison of the A2 scenario to the A1F1 and B1 scenarios shows several similarities

and differences (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012). The A2 scenario is projected

to have: more areas with higher humidity levels than the B1 scenario and a greater portion of the

southeast coast will have higher humidity levels compared to the A1F1 scenario; a greater

portion of southeast Florida will experience hurricane/monsoon type weather compared to the B1

scenario and this type of weather is primarily on the southeast coast compared to the A1F1

scenario which projected hurricane/monsoon type weather for the southern Florida coast in

general; fewer areas of southern Florida are characterized by dry winters than the A1F1 or B1

scenarios; and the A2 scenario is in between the A1F1 and B1 scenarios in terms of warmer

temperatures, full humidity and warm summers in the interior, and warmer temperatures, full

humidity and hot summers along the east and west coasts of Florida. There are not any

noticeable differences between the A1F1, B1 and A2 scenarios for the rest of the Gulf coast

(Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

The A2 scenario poses similar threats to mangroves and coastal populations to the A1

scenario (Nicholls et al., 2007, IPCC, 2007, Parry et al., 2007, Carter et al., 2007). However, in

terms of sea level rise, the A2 scenario is projected to be more severe, which will result in greater

destruction of mangroves and other coastal ecosystems and pose greater threats to coastal human

communities (Nicholls et al., 2007). The only way the A2 scenario is not as severe as the A1

scenario is that the former has a more regional focus whereas the latter has a more global focus.

The focus on regional issues could be beneficial in that the issues of protecting mangroves and

77

coastal human communities could become more noticeable with a shift in focus to the local and

regional level (Nicholls et al., 2007).

The risks associated with the B2 scenario are very similar to the B1 scenario (Nicholls et

al., 2007). Mangroves would experience greater protection under both B1 and B2 scenarios and

coastal human communities would be more prepared for climate change consequences with the

focus on habitat conservation, being proactive and applying hazard risk management actions.

The B2 scenario is more beneficial than the B1 scenario in that the B2 scenario has the least

amount of infrastructure growth. This in combination with the emphasis on habitat conservation

would be better for the survival of mangroves and other coastal ecosystems, which in turn would

offer greater protections for coastal human communities (Nicholls et al., 2007).

A comparison of the B2 scenario to the A1F1, B1 and A2 scenarios illustrate several

similarities and differences (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012). The Gulf coast,

excluding Florida, will experience similar conditions in all four scenarios. All four scenarios also

project a minimum of the northern half of Florida to have climatic conditions similar to the

remaining Gulf coast, with the B1 and B2 climate scenarios expanding these climatic conditions

further south compared to the A1F1 and A2 climate scenarios. The B2 climate scenario has

slightly more areas characterized by dry winters than A2; however, A2 dry winter areas are

located further north compared to B2. The A1F1 and A2 scenarios project greater portions of

southern Florida to experience hurricane/monsoon type weather and greater humidity levels

compared to the B1 and B2 scenarios (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012).

Discussion

Implications of Climate Change for Mangrove Ecosystems in the Southeastern U.S.

78

The general consequences of climate change, e.g. sea level rise, storm surge, were

discussed in-depth previously. This section will analyze how these consequences will impact

areas containing mangroves. Figure 23 shows a map of red mangrove habitat (primarily in

Florida) and the location of mangrove habitat based on the National Wetlands Inventory data

(Little Jr., 1971, Southwest Florida Water Management District [SWFWMD], 2014, United

Nations Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre [UNEP-WCMC],

n.d.). Figure 24 shows the rate of land subsidence in Louisiana in 2010 and the projected land

subsidence rate in 2050, as well as the storm surge zones present in Florida (Louisiana State

University [LSU] Center for GeoInformatics, 2014, Florida Division of Emergency Management

[FDEM], 2011).

Figure 23a: A comparison of known mangrove locations based on red mangrove location and the National Wetlands Inventory data (Little Jr., 1971, SWFWMD, 2014, UNEP-WCMC, n.d.).

Figure 23 Map Key

Red mangroves

National Wetlands Inventory mangroves

Figure 23b: Map key for Figure 24 on the comparison between known mangrove locations based on red mangrove location and the National Wetlands Inventory data (Little Jr., 1971, SWFWMD, 2014, UNEP-WCMC, n.d.).

79

Figure 24a: Louisiana land subsidence and Florida storm surge projections (LSU Center for GeoInformatics, 2014, FDEM,

2011).

Comparison of these maps with the other data highlights several important facts. First, a

complete knowledge of mangrove habitat location is incomplete. Figure 23 does not show any

mangrove habitat in Louisiana, even though research showed five parishes contained mangroves,

especially St. Bernard and Plaquemines in the Breton National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS, 2013).

Figure 24 Map Key

Louisiana subsidence rate

2010

2050

Storm surge zones

Tropical storm

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

Category 5

Figure 24b: Map key for Figure 25 on Louisiana land subsidence and Florida storm surge projections (LSU Center for GeoInformatics, 2014, FDEM, 2011).

80

However, the data in Figures 23 and 24 were obtained through ArcGIS online data, which have a

disclaimer in regards to any lack of accuracy.

Second, the land subsidence rate, which was discussed previously, is projected to become

an even bigger problem for Louisiana. As Figure 24 shows, this will impact counties that are not

even on the coast. When the land subsidence rate is combined with the history of hurricanes that

have struck and destroyed large expanses of habitat, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Breton

National Wildlife Refuge discussed previously, and climate change, the survival of Louisiana

mangroves is seriously threatened. Third, the storm surge zones in Florida appear to coincide

with the location of documented mangrove habitat, especially in the southwestern portion of the

state. The threat of storm surge provides another threat to the survival of mangrove ecosystems.

This increases the importance of knowing the location, size and health of mangrove ecosystems

to help prepare for climate change and understand the spectrum of severity of its impacts.

Finally, Figures 23 and 24 need to be compared to Figures 16-19. Figure 16 shows the

A1F1 climate scenario (Institute for Veterinary Public Health et al., 2012). When Figure 16 is

compared to Figures 23 and 24, it is seen that the southwest portion of Florida and the Florida

Keys, which have a significant amount of mangrove ecosystems and is projected to experience

significant storm surge impacts, will experience drier winters under the A1F1 scenario. The

environmental conditions required for mangrove growth were discussed previously, including

the need for a moist environment. If these projected environmental conditions weaken

mangroves, their ability to protect the coastline from the storm surge projected in Figure 24, this

would pose a serious threat to coastal communities.

81

However, Figure 16 shows other areas of the southwest and southeast coast are projected

to have more humid conditions under the A1F1 scenario, which according to Nicholls et al.

(2007) could be beneficial for the survival and expansion of mangrove ecosystems discussed in

the Introduction. Additionally, the weather conditions projected for the rest of the Gulf coast

could also aid mangroves with the warmer ambient temperatures and greater humidity, especially

if there is an accompanying reduction in the occurrence of cold snaps, as discussed by

Cavanaugh et al. (2007) in the Introduction.

Implications of Climate Change for Coastal Communities

Sea level rise also poses numerous threats to human communities in this region. For the

Gulf coast, poverty rates for people living in SFHAs is at 14 percent, which is close to what the

poverty rates are for entire Gulf coast states, which illustrates the significant impact of living on

the coast has on individual and household economics (NOAA, 2011, NOAA, 2013). This is

especially true for the shoreline county poverty levels, which were shown in Table 7 (NOAA,

2013). With Florida being the exception, the shoreline county poverty levels for Alabama,

Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi were only two to four percent higher than the SFHA poverty

levels (NOAA, 2013). The shoreline county poverty levels are more in line with the poverty

levels for the entire Gulf coast state and the portion of the state on the Gulf, shown in Table 8,

which is 16 and 17 percent respectively (NOAA, 2013, NOAA, 2011). The poverty level for the

U.S. as a whole is 13 percent, which is additional evidence that the Gulf coast population is at a

greater risk from sea level rise and other climate change consequences (NOAA, 2011). With the

threat of sea level rise from climate change, people living in SFHAs will likely increase, which

will expand the population at risk (NOAA, 2013).

82

Grand Isle, Louisiana was discussed previously in reference to projected sea level rise of

over three feet (NOAA, 2011). Grand Isle is located in Jefferson Parish, which has an average

household income below the national average and some limited mangrove-marsh habitat

(NOAA, 2011, U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, BTNEP & LWF, n.d.). This is in addition to the entire

coastline of Louisiana being classified as at a very high risk for sea level rise (USGS, 2013).

Finally, the current and projected Louisiana land subsidence rate and the Florida storm

surge zones provide serious threats to coastal populations as well. The increasing trend of people

moving to the coast, including the return of many people to areas of Louisiana that were

destroyed by Hurricane Katrina that were discussed in-depth previously illustrate these threats.

The income levels of these coastal areas add to the concern. Out of the 35 coastal counties in

Florida, 25 of them have average household incomes below the national average (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2012). Additionally, both of Alabama’s coastal counties, all three of Mississippi’s, five

out of six of Georgia’s and 10 out of 14 Louisiana’s coastal parishes are below this average (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2012). The income levels combined with the poverty rates of these areas provide

heightened climate change threats to populations with lower income compared to wealthier

populations as was discussed previously (Carter et al., 2014). The data in Figures 23 and 24

combined with the population trend and implications of climate change will require drastic

mitigation and adaptation actions to be taken to reduce these threats for future populations and

the survival of mangrove ecosystems.

Conclusion

Summary of Results

83

The vast majority of mangroves in the southeastern U.S. are located in Florida. There are

multiple preserves and refuges that serve as protection for mangroves and other associated

habitats, as well as for numerous vulnerable, species of special concern, threatened and

endangered-designated species. Coastal habitats such as mangroves are under numerous threats,

from the multiple consequences of climate change; pollution; habitat fragmentation, degradation

and destruction; and pressure from a large and still growing human coastal population. Human

populations living on the coast also face threats from climate change, and these threats are

greatest for the poor.

People in a lower economic status, especially on the Gulf Coast, also face serious threats

from climate change. These communities are often less prepared than their wealthier

counterparts, which makes the impacts of climate change more severe. The communities at this

higher risk level have also increased over the last decade. Florida’s poverty rate increased from

10.0-19.9 percent in 2000 to 25.0-29.9 percent in 2010. Additionally, the Gulf coast states

Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi had a greater percentage of their respective populations in

near poverty compared to the national average in the years 2010-2012. Combining this increase

in poverty with an increasing coastal population, threats from sea level rise will pose a serious

threat for Florida.

However, this noticeable increase in poverty rates was not seen in Louisiana, which had

poverty rates of 30.0 percent or higher in 2000 and 2010, in spite of the multiple natural disasters

that hit the region in 2005. However, this consistency could be explained by the mass exodus that

occurred after Hurricane Katrina and the gradual return of the population several years later. This

gradual return is also being seen with mangroves at the Breton National Wildlife Refuge, which

were largely destroyed by the 2005 hurricane season.

84

Determining the existence of a link between the presence and health of mangroves and

the economic status of human populations was ultimately inconclusive. Coastal states containing

mangroves tended to have higher poverty rates than the national average. The potential

relationship could be divided into two general possibilities: a positive correlation or a negative

correlation between mangroves and economic status. Both positive and negative correlations

were found in multiple states. However, both of these correlations were found in the same states

and were only present between two or at most three counties, which did not provide strong

evidence for the existence of a significant connection. There are several explanations for this

uncertainty, and they are explored in the next subsection.

The impact of climate change can be separately connected to mangroves and to economic

status. The A1F1 scenario shown in Figure 16 showed how drier winter conditions in the

southwest portion of Florida combined with the large area of mangrove habitat; storm surge

projections; average household incomes and poverty levels; and current and projected population

density pose serious risks for coastal communities. This is in contrast to the rest of the Gulf

coast, which is projected to have warmer ambient temperatures and higher humidity levels that

could prove suitable for mangroves, especially in Louisiana, where previous hurricanes have

wiped out much of its mangrove habitat.

A comparison of the A1F1 and B1 climate scenarios shown in Figures 16 and 17

respectively, illustrates the projected weather conditions in the B1 scenario to be: less active, in

terms of hurricane occurrence; and wetter, in terms of warmer ambient temperatures and higher

humidity, which could prove beneficial for mangroves and coastal communities. Combining the

projected weather conditions with the projected actions and focuses by governments worldwide,

the B1 scenario would provide greater benefits than the A1F1 scenario in regards to: more

85

suitable weather conditions for mangroves; and a greater importance is placed on habitat

conservation, hazard risk management, sustainability and social equality. These benefits would

extend to coastal communities, which are projected to have an increase in coastal migration

under the B1 scenario.

A comparison between the A2 scenario shown in Figure 18 with the A1F1 and B1

scenarios shown Figures 16 and 17 respectively, illustrated several differences. The A2 scenario

has a greater portion of Florida characterized by warmer temperatures, higher humidity and

warm summers in the interior; and warmer temperatures, higher humidity and hot summers along

the east and west coasts of Florida compared to the A1F1 scenario, but less than the B1 scenario

projected. This combined with a greater portion of southeast Florida projected to have

hurricane/monsoon type weather pose serious risks for the region under the A2 scenario.

Additionally, the low priorities placed on habitat conservation and hazard risk management

under the A2 scenario put the survival of mangroves and the well-being of coastal communities

at greater risk. The only non-negative aspect of this is that coastal migration is projected to be

low under the A2 scenario, so the population at risk from these conditions will not be increasing

significantly.

Finally, a comparison between the B2 scenario shown in Figure 19 with the A1F1, B1

and A2 scenarios shown in Figures 16-18 respectively, illustrated several similarities and

differences. The Gulf coast, excluding Florida, will experience similar climatic conditions in all

four scenarios. All four scenarios also project a minimum of the northern half of Florida to have

climatic conditions similar to the remaining Gulf coast, with the B1 and B2 climate scenarios

expanding these climatic conditions further south compared to the A1F1 and A2 climate

scenarios. The B1 and B2 scenarios would provide more suitable climatic conditions for

86

mangroves and include greater importance placed on habitat conservation and hazard risk

management, which is beneficial for both mangroves and coastal communities. The A1F1 and

A2 scenarios project greater portions of southern Florida to experience hurricane/monsoon type

weather and greater humidity levels compared to the B1 and B2 scenarios.

With regards to mangroves, the A1F1 and A2 scenarios would pose greater risks to

survival and reduce the ability of mangroves to protect coastlines from storm surge compared to

the B1 and B2 scenarios. These comparisons illustrate that the B1 and B2 scenarios project less

risk to mangroves and coastal communities in terms of climatic conditions, habitat conservation

and a proactive mindset compared to the A1F1 and A2 scenarios. Because climate scenarios that

include higher rates of coastal development will reduce the ability of mangroves to adapt to sea

level rise, as discussed by Di Nitto et al. (2014) in the Introduction, ranking the scenarios from

best to worst in terms of extractive industries and infrastructure development while taking into

account other aspects of the scenarios is as follows: B2, B1, A1 and A2. The A2 scenario is

especially concerning since it is projected that one-third of coastal wetlands being lost by 2080.

Because a connection between mangroves and economic status was not established, the

impacts of climate change on these variables must be done separately. A comparison between

Figures 23 and 24 with Figures 16-19 helped illustrate that these threats to both mangroves and

coastal populations exist and need to be addressed.

Pathways for Future Research

There is an information gap in mangrove habitat in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission [FFWCC], 2014). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission (FFWCC) is aware of this information gap and has developed the Coastal Habitats

87

Independent Mapping and Monitoring Program (CHIMMP) to fill that gap. This program was

inspired by The Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring (SIMM) program and the data

obtained via CHIMMP will also provide valuable information for the SIMM program.

Successful completion of this program should assist in future efforts to research mangrove

habitat in Florida, and hopefully other coastal states will take similar measures, if they have not

done so already (FFWCC, 2014).

This information gap is also seen in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Sources like the

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the World Atlas of Mangroves (Spalding et al., 2010)

have information on the location of mangroves. However, when the map of red mangroves

(based on the World Atlas) and NWI data on mangrove locations is compared to the data in

Tables 2-5, they do not match. The World Atlas and NWI data leave out numerous sections of

mangrove ecosystems, especially in Louisiana. The number of sources that had to be utilized to

find all of these mangroves could be reduced if these national and international sources were

regularly updated.

This information gap made finding reliable information on the location of mangroves for

this study a significant challenge and often produced vague and contradictory results. This was

due in large part to the absence of accurate and comprehensive information on the location, size

and health of mangrove ecosystems, especially in the U.S. (FAO, 2007). For example, according

to Frazel (2013), there are an estimated 189,797 hectares of mangrove forests in Florida.

However, based on the total acreage provided by the numerous sources cited previously, this

number is approximately 584,474 hectares. This is primarily due to the fact that many sources

will list the area size of a preserve, but not the specific area of mangroves within the preserve.

There will be vague phrases used, like ‘expansive’ or ‘fringe,’ which do not help determine the

88

actual mangrove area. As a result, in the Location of Mangrove Communities and Average

Household Income by County subsection, the third column is titled “Area of Habitat Containing

Mangroves,” rather than “Area of Mangroves” as it was initially. This explains the discrepancy

between Frazel (2013) and the numerous other sources on mangrove area.

Additionally, many sources use different terminology when describing mangroves. The

FDEP refers to mangroves or ‘tidal swamps,’ whereas others simply use the category ‘estuarine

wetlands,’ which includes mangroves and salt marshes. When the latter phrase is used, it can be

difficult to determine the specific type of wetland present in an area. Other sources, like the

BTNEP and LWF (n.d.) in Louisiana simply say ‘mangrove-marsh shrubland,’ but do not specify

the location (other than the county), the area or health of the ecosystem.

There are numerous examples of the lack of specificity when describing the area of

mangroves or even the terminology used to identify them, including: the Miami-Dade County

Natural Areas Management Working Group (2004) referred to a wetland habitat called

‘Mangrove Preserve;’ however, the document did not mention the size of this ecosystem;

Geselbracht et al. (2014) referred to the area of Charlotte Harbor containing mangroves, but no

estimate as to its size; the Florida Paddling Trails Association (2011) described the Woolverton

Kayak Trail as containing large areas of mangroves, but with no size estimate; Beal et al. (n.d.)

described a mangrove restoration project at the Indian River Lagoon Spoil Island, but did not

give an area estimate; the Mound Key Archaeological State Park is described as containing

mangroves by Florida State Parks (n.d.), but there was not a specific mention of the area’s size;

and the St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park and the Sea Branch Preserve State Park both contain

mangroves according to Florida State Parks (n.d.) and Martin County (n.d.) but the specific

mangrove area was absent. Ensuring at least one or two reputable sources maintains an up-to-

89

date list of mangrove ecosystem location, area and working to have a more universal

terminology when describing specific wetland ecosystems are additional areas that need to be

researched.

Additionally, some areas containing mangroves had up-to-date, detailed information

about the ecosystem’s overall health; however, many did not. The Lake Worth Lagoon is a good

example in that there was a management plan that was completed in 2013 and contained recent

ecological restoration activities with the approximate area of mangroves restored, as well as

detailed water quality analysis of the area. Other areas, especially in Louisiana, did not have up-

to-date management plans, with many parishes only having management plans from 20 or more

years ago, which are not very useful in determining the current area size and health of mangroves

or any other type of habitat.

Determining the ideal ranges for the ecosystem quality parameters discussed previously

was also a challenge, and many of these values were contradicted by other sources. The three

USEPA sources referenced for the ecosystem quality values (USEPA, n.d., USEPA, 2013a and

USEPA, 2013b) often contradicted one another and conflicted with the information of FDEP

(n.d.) and the Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support (2009). Additionally, values for a

significant number of the ecosystem quality parameters were not found, including: DIP, DIN,

water clarity, TSS, all sediment quality criteria and all benthic index quality criteria. The primary

fact that all of these sources were consistent on was that many of the ecosystem quality

parameters will vary by region and by ecosystem; however, research for this study was unable to

find the federal guidelines for these parameters.

90

Once a detailed and complete record of mangrove area is completed, and a more specific

terminology is more universally established, the relationship between mangroves and human

communities can be further explored. While this study only focused on the economic factors of

human communities in regards to mangroves, sociological factors are also an important area that

needs to be explored. This type of study should also be done with other ecosystems, e.g. salt

marshes, seagrasses and coral reefs. These types of ecosystems have high levels of biodiversity

and provide numerous benefits for human communities and are often interconnected, like the

mangrove-salt marsh ecotone discussed previously. This combined with the impending threats of

climate change make the need to better understand the connection between humans and different

ecosystems essential.

Acknowledgements: I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to the entire faculty at

American Public University System for providing quality instruction from experienced and dedicated professors who helped expand my knowledge and understanding of a diverse array of environmental management issues. I would especially like to thank my thesis advisor Dr.

Elizabeth D’Andrea for her insightful advice and patient guidance and to Dr. Robert Seal, who reviewed an earlier draft and provided very useful feedback that helped me better understand the

intense scrutiny given to peer-reviewed scientific articles. I would also like to thank the Esri Company, specifically Greg Mattis, Lisa Paulsen and Michelle DeBoves for granting me access to their ArcGIS software with a 1-year Student Trial, which was incredibly useful during my

research.

91

References

Alongi, D.M. (2009). Chapter 22: Paradigm shifts in mangrove biology. In Perillo, G., Wolanski,

E., Cahoon, D. & Brinson, M. (eds). Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem

Approach. p. 615-634. London, Elsevier.

Ammar, A. A., Dargusch, P. P., & Shamsudin, I. I. (2014). Can the Matang Mangrove Forest

Reserve provide perfect teething ground for a blue carbon based REDD+ pilot project?

Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 26(3), 371-381.

Anderson, E. (2014). Palm Beach County estuarine habitat mapping. Coastal Habitat Integrated

Mapping and Monitoring Program (CHIMMP). Palm Beach County Department of

Environmental Resources Management.

Baldwin County Commission. (2010). Flood damage prevention ordinance of Baldwin County,

Alabama.

Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program & Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries. (n.d.).

Natural communities of Louisiana: Coastal mangrove-marsh shrubland.

Barbier, E. B., & Cox, M. (2003). Does economic development lead to mangrove loss? A cross-

country analysis. Contemporary Economic Policy. 21(4), 418-432.

Beal, J., Smith, K., McDevitt, E., Merrill, M. (n.d.). Conservation and restoration Florida coastal

marshes: An overview of MESS. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

92

Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserves & Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2013).

Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserves Management Plan. FDEP Coastal and Aquatic Managed

Areas.

Bishaw, A. (2014). Changes in areas with concentrated poverty: 2000 to 2010. American

Community Survey Reports. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics

Administration. U.S. Census Bureau.

Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. (2006). Maritime Hammock Sanctuary

Management Plan. Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.

Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. (2000). Coconut Point Sanctuary Management

Plan. Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.

Brevard County. (2014). Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program sanctuaries.

Broward County. (n.d.). County Parks. Parks and Recreation Division.

Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support. (2009). State of Florida Numeric Nutrient

Criteria Development Plan. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of

Environmental Assessment and Restoration.

Carter, L.M., Jones, J.W., Berry, L., Burkett, V., Murley, J.F. et al. (2014). Chapter 17: Southeast

and the Caribbean. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national

climate assessment, Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.C., Yohe, G.W., Eds., U.S. Global

Change Research Program, 396-417. doi: 10.7930/JON-P22CB.

Carter, T.R., Jones, R.N., Lu, X., Bhadwal, S., Conde, C. et al. (2007). New assessment methods

and the characterisation of future conditions. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

93

Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P.,

van der Linden, P.J., Hansen, C.E., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.,

p.133-171.

Cavanaugh, K.C., Kellner, J.R., Forde, A.J., Gruner, D.S., Parker, J.D. et al. (2014). Poleward

expansion of mangroves is a threshold response to decreased frequency of extreme cold

events. PNAS. 111(2), 723-727. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1315800111.

CDM. (2010). Hancock County, Mississippi Comprehensive Plan. Prepared for the Board of

Supervisors.

Charlotte County Florida. (n.d.). Natural resources: Environmental lands. How is a preserve

different from an environmental park?

Citrus County. (2014). Chapter 10: Future Land Use Element

Citrus County. (n.d.). Citrus County public lands, wildlife habitats, and flora & fauna.

City of Cocoa Beach & Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program. (2008).

Management Plan: Thousand Islands Conservation Area.

Coastal Environments, Inc. (2013). St. Bernard Parish Coastal Zone Management Program.

Prepared for St. Bernard Parish Government.

94

Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (2013). Pinellas County Coastal Management Program:

Summary Planning Document. Prepared for Pinellas County Department of Environment

and Infrastructure- Engineering and Technical Support Division.

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. (2012). Louisiana’s comprehensive

master plan for a sustainable coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of

Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA.

Collier County. (2013). Naples Bay Tidal Creek Restoration.

Collier County. (n.d.). Fruit Farm Creek Mangrove Restoration Project. Sponsored by Coastal

Resources Group, Inc. and Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Dahl, T.E. & Stedman, S.M. (2013). Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of

the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Marine

Fisheries Service.

Das, S. (2012). The role of natural ecosystems and socio-economic factors in the vulnerability of

coastal villages to cyclone and storm surge. Natural Hazards. 64(1), 531-546.

doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0255-9.

Di Nitto, D. D., Neukermans, G. G., Koedam, N. N., Defever, H. H., Pattyn, F. F., Kairo, J. G.,

& Dahdouh-Guebas, F. F. (2014). Mangroves facing climate change: Landward

migration potential in response to projected scenarios of sea level rise. Biogeosciences.

11(3), 857-871. doi:10.5194/bg-11-857-2014.

95

Engle, V. (2012). National Coastal Condition Report IV September 2012. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water.

Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve & Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2014). Estero

Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. FDEP Coastal Office.

Evans-Graves Engineers, Inc. (2013). Coastal Zone Management Program update to the

Plaquemines Parish Coastal Zone Management Program. Plaquemines Parish Department

of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Plaquemines Parish Project

No. F12AF70162, and Evans-Graves Engineers, Inc. Project No. 2011-21-770.

Florida Coastal Management Program. (2013). Florida Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation

Plan.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2014a). Rookery Bay National Estuarine

Research Reserve. Gulf Ecological Management Site.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2014b). Florida’s Aquatic Preserves: Aquatic

Preserves List.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2014c). Indian River Lagoon System

management plan. Including Banana River, Indian River- Malabar to Vero Beach, Indian

River- Vero Beach to Ft. Pierce, and Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserves.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Coastal Office.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (n.d.). Lake Worth Lagoon-Palm Beach Coast

Basin Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Aquifers.

96

Florida Division of Emergency Management. (2011). Regional Evacuation Studies. ArcGIS

Online Data.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (2014). Coastal Habitats Independent

Mapping and Monitoring Program (CHIMMP).

Florida Paddling Trails Association. (2011). Woolverton Trail Report.

Florida Parks and Campgrounds. (2010). E.G. Simmons Regional Park.

Florida State Parks. (n.d.). All Florida State Parks. Florida Division of Recreation and Parks.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2007). Mangroves of North and Central America 1980-

2005: Country Reports, Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 137, Rome,

FAO.

Frazel, D. (2013). Estuarine habitat restoration planning guide for Florida. St. Johns River Water

Management District. Palatka, FL. 66 pp.

Geselbracht, L., Freeman, K., Gordon, D., Birch, A. (2014). The effects of sea level rise on

coastal habitats and vulnerable species at six of Florida’s Gulf Coast estuaries. The

Nature Conservancy, Gulf of Mexico Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Guo, H., Zhang, Y., Lan, Z., & Pennings, S. C. (2013). Biotic interactions mediate the expansion

of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) into salt marshes under climate change. Global

Change Biology. 19(9), 2765-2774. doi:10.1111/gcb.12221.

97

Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute. (2013a). Social vulnerability index for the United

States-32 variables. Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Arts and

Sciences.

Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute. (2013b). Social vulnerability index for the United

States- 2006-2010. Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Arts and

Sciences.

Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute. (2013c). SoVI ® 2000- 32 variable State and

Regional Maps. Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Arts and

Sciences.

Hillsborough County Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program. (2007). The

Bower Tract land management and land use plan. Hillsborough County Parks Recreation

and Conservation Department.

Hillsborough County Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program. (n.d.).

Diamondback Preserve land management and land use plan, McKay Bay Nature Preserve

land management and land use plan, Wolf Branch Nature Preserve land management and

land use plan, Upper Tampa Bay Park land management and land use plan, Rocky Creek

Coastal Preserve land management and land use plan.

Hinkel, J., Lincke, D., Vafeidis, A.T., Perrette, M., Nicholls, R.J. et al., (2014). Coastal flood

damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. PNAS. 111(9), 3292-3297.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222469111.

98

Hogarth, P.J. (2007). The Biology of Mangroves and Seagrasses. 2nd ed. Oxford University

Press, Inc., New York.

Hokayem, C. & Heggeness, M.L. (2014). Living in near poverty in the United States: 1966-

2012. Current population reports. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and

Statistics Administration. U.S. Census Bureau.

Indian River County Florida Board of County Commissioners. (n.d.). Round Island South

Conservation Area. Parks Division.

Institute for Veterinary Public Health, Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Global Precipitation

Climatology Centre (GPCC), German Weather Service, University of East Anglia,

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC). (2012). Koppen-Geiger Observed and Predicted. ArcGIS Online Data.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation

and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof,

J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hansen, C.E., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kildow, J. (2008). Phase II facts and figures: Florida’s ocean and coastal economies report.

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, National Ocean Economics Program,

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council.

Kumar, R. (n.d.). Conservation and management of mangroves in India, with special reference to

the State of Goa and the Middle Andaman Islands. FAO Corporate Document

Repository.

99

Lake Worth Lagoon Initiative. (2013). Lake Worth Lagoon Management Plan. Partnered with

Palm Beach County Florida, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Florida

Department of Environmental Protection, the Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc.,

Florida Navigation Inland District.

Levy County. (n.d.). Levy County Comprehensive Plan Coastal Management Element: Goals,

objectives and policies; Chapter 5: Conservation Element; Chapter 4: Coastal

Management Element.

Little Jr., E.L. (1971). Atlas of United States trees. Vol. 1: Conifers and Important Hardwoods.

Miscellaneous Publication 1146. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. ArcGIS Online Data.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries & Louisiana National Heritage Program. (2009).

The natural communities of Louisiana.

Louisiana State University Center for GeoInformatics. (2014). Comparison of subsidence

vulnerabilities in 2010 and 2050. ArcGIS Online Data.

Martin County. (n.d.). Beaches, parks and ecotourism.

McNally, C.G., Uchida, E. & Gold, A.J. (2011). The effect of a protected area on the tradeoffs

between short-run and long-run benefits from mangrove ecosystems. PNAS. 108(34),

13945-13950. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101825108.

Miami-Dade County Natural Areas Management Working Group. (2004). Miami-Dade County

Natural Areas Management Plan. Department of Environmental Resources Management

(DERM) Technical Report Number 2004-1.

100

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. (2012). Mississippi GEMS (Gulf Ecological

Management Site): Ship Island Preserve.

Mobile Bay National Estuary Program. (n.d.). Comprehensive Conservation and Management

Plan for Alabama’s estuaries and coasts 2013-2018.

National Atlas of the United States. (2013). Biology of the United States. Map Maker.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). National Coast Population Report:

Population Trends from 1970 to 2020. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Census Bureau.

National Ocean Service, NOAA. (2011). The Gulf of Mexico at a second glance. Washington,

D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Ocean Service, NOAA. (2008). Gulf of Mexico at a glance. Washington, D.C. U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Nicholls, R.J., Wong, P.P., Burkett, V.R., Codignotto, J.O., Hay, J.E. et al. (2007). Coastal

systems and low-lying areas. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007).

Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Fourth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hansen, C.E.,

Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK., p. 315-356.

Osland, M. J., Day, R. H., Larriviere, J. C., & From, A. S. (2014). Aboveground allometric

models for freeze-affected black mangroves (Avicennia germinans): Equations for a

101

Climate Sensitive Mangrove-Marsh Ecotone. Plos ONE. 9(6), 1-7.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099604.

Osland, M. J., Enwright, N., Day, R. H., & Doyle, T. W. (2013). Winter climate change and

coastal wetland foundation species: Salt marshes vs. mangrove forests in the southeastern

United States. Global Change Biology. 19(5), 1482-1494. doi:10.1111/gcb.12126.

Osti, R., Tanaka, S., & Tokioka, T. (2009). The importance of mangrove forest in tsunami

disaster mitigation. Disasters. 33(2), 203-213. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01070.x.

Pasco County. (n.d.). Environmental Lands preserves and conservation areas. Environmental

Lands Division: Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management Program (ELAMP).

Palm Beach County. (2013). Lake Worth Lagoon Management Plan. Lake Worth Lagoon

Initiative.

Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P. et al. (2007). Technical summary. In

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts,

adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.,

Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hansen, C.E., Eds., Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK., p. 23-78.

Piontek, F., Muller, C., Pugh, T.A.M., Clark, D.B., Deryng, D. et al. (2014). Multisectoral

climate impact hotspots in a warming world. PNAS. 111(9), 3233-3238. doi:

10.1073/pnas.1222471110.

102

Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management. (2007). 2007 Shell Key Preserve

Management Plan. Environmental Lands Division.

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve & Florida Department of Environmental

Protection. (2013). Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan.

Includes Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, Cape Romano- Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic

Preserve and Rookery Bay NERR. FDEP Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas.

Rosenzweig, C., Casassa, G., Karoly, D.J., Imeson, A., Liu, C. et al. (2007). Assessment of

observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems. In Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and

vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P.,

van der Linden, P.J., Hansen, C.E., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.,

p. 79-131.

Saint John’s County. (n.d.). LAMP Major Projects: Florida Communities Trust Program.

Saint Lucie County. (2010). Comprehensive Management Plan Chapter 5. Coastal Management

Element: Data inventory and analysis, Chapter 6. Conservation Element: Data inventory

and analysis.

Sarasota County. (2004). Sarasota County Land Management Master Plan. Adopted by Sarasota

Board of County Commissioners.

Schmidt, P., McCleery, R., Lopez, R., Silvy, N., Schmidt, J., & Perry, N. (2011). Influence of

patch, habitat, and landscape characteristics on patterns of Lower Keys marsh rabbit

103

occurrence following Hurricane Wilma. Landscape Ecology. 26(10), 1419-1431.

doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9654-7.

Siikamaki, J., Sanchirico, J.N. & Jardine, S.L. (2012). Global economic potential for reducing

carbon dioxide emissions from mangrove loss. PNAS. 109(36), 14369-14374. doi:

10.1073/pnas1200519109.

Spalding, M., Kainuma, M. & Collins, L. (2010). Word Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan

Publishing. London, UK; Washington, D.C., U.S.A. ISBN: 978-1-84407-657-4.

Southwest Florida Water Management District. (2014). National Wetlands Inventory for the

District. ArcGIS Online Data.

Thieler, E.R. & Hammar-Klose, E.S. (2000). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to

Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. United States

Geological Survey, Woods Hole Field Center, MA, Coastal and Marine Geology Team.

USGS Open-File Report 00-179.

United Nations Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre. (n.d.).

Ocean Data Viewer: World Atlas of Mangroves (2010). ArcGIS Online Data.

United States Census Bureau. (2014). State and county quick facts: Franklin County, Florida

Median household income, 2008-2012.

United States Census Bureau. (2012). Data visualization gallery: Islands of high income. U.S.

Department of Commerce.

104

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d. a). Plant profile: Conocarpus erectus L. button

mangrove.

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d. b). Plant profile: Laguncularia racemosa (L.)

C.F. Gaertn white mangrove.

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d. c). Plant profile: Rhizophora mangle L. red

mangrove.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Summary of the Endangered Species

Act.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013a). Nationwide Bacteria Standards Protect

Swimmers at Beaches.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). Chapter 62-302: Surface Water

Quality Standards.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). News Releases by Date: EPA launches

new website to protect wetlands; urges public to report any violations of the law.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Land-use scenarios: National-scale

housing-density scenarios consistent with climate change storylines. Global Change

Research Program, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). State development of Nutrient Criteria

for nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014). National Key Deer Refuge. Southeast Region.

105

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuges:

Breton National Wildlife Refuge.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012a). Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge.

Southeast Region.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012b). Great Heron National Wildlife Refuge.

Southeast Region.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012c). Key West National Wildlife Refuge. Southeast

Region.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife

Refuge. Southeast Region.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.

Southeast Region.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Southeast Region.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008a). J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge.

Southeast Region.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008b). Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge.

Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008c). Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Department of the Interior. Southeast Region.

106

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008d). Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge.

Southeast Region.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008e). Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge.

Southeast Region.

United States Geological Survey. (2013). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-

Level Rise. Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center.

Wilbanks, T.J., Lankao, P.R., Bao, M., Berkhout, F., Cairncross, S. et al. (2007). Industry,

settlement and society. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate

change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to

the Fourth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry,

M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hansen, C.E., Eds., Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK., p. 357-390.

Xu, H., Zhang, K., Shen, J., & Li, Y. (2010). Storm surge simulation along the U.S. East and

Gulf Coasts using a multi-scale numerical model approach. Ocean Dynamics. 60(6),

1597-1619. doi:10.1007/s10236-010-0321-3.

Yohe, G.W., Lasco, R.D., Ahmad, Q.K., Arnell, N.W., Cohen, S.J. et al. (2007). Perspectives on

climate change and sustainability. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J.,

Hansen, C.E., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK., p. 811-841.

107

Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc. (2011). Management Plan for Doris Leeper Spruce Creek

Preserve. Prepared for County of Volusia Community Services Department: Parks,

Recreation and Culture Division, Growth and Resource Management Department:

Environmental Management Division.