RachelWilkins-Week14.FinalResearchPaper

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 ofContents
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 year2000 (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
n.d.)
Terrebonne Parish $48,437 Coastal mangrove-marsh
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
Average
Household
Income

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
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
MississippiArea of Habitat Containing
Mangroves by County
Area of
Habitat
Containing
Mangroves
$42,000
$44,000
$46,000
$48,000
$50,000
Hancock
County
Harrison
County
Jackson
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
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
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
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

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
(FDEP, 2014b); Jensen Beach
to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic
(FDEP, 2014b); North Fork
St. Lucie River Aquatic
(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-
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
Indian River- Vero Beach to
Ft. Pierce Aquatic Preserve-
2014b); Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge- 2
hectares (FDEP, 2014c); Quay
Dock Road- 1 hectare (FDEP,
2014c); Toni Robinson Trail-
CGW Mitigation Bank- 60
Prange Islands Conservation
Area- 10 hectares (FDEP,
2014c); Green Salt Marsh- 6
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
(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
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
2004); Otter Key- 12 hectares
(Sarasota County, 2004);
Palmer Point Beach- 12
2004); Phillippi Estate Park-
24 hectares (Sarasota County
2004); Pocono Trails- 3
2004); Quick Point- 13
2004); Siesta Beach Nature
Trail- 4 hectares (Sarasota
County, 2004); South Lido
Beach & Intracoastal (Otter
Key)- 40 hectares (Sarasota
County, 2004); Lemon Bay
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
hectares (Brevard County,
2014); Blowing Rocks
Preserve- 5 hectares (City of
Cocoa Beach & Brevard
County Environmentally
Endangered Lands Program,
2008); Banana River Aquatic
(FDEP, 2014b); Indian River-
Malabar to Vero Beach

38
Sykes Creek Headwaters
Preserve- 122 hectares (FDEP,
2014c); Indian River Lagoon
Preserve State Park- 162
Hardwood Hammock
Sanctuary- 12 hectares (FDEP,
2014c); Hog Point Sanctuary-
Snag Harbor- 6 hectares
(FDEP, 2014c)
Hillsborough County $49,536 Yes, e.g. McKay Bay
(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
n.d.); Rocky Creek Coastal
n.d.); Double Branch Bay
2007); Cockroach Bay
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
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
(FDEP, 2014b); Gasparilla
Sound- Charlotte Harbor
Matlacha Pass Aquatic
(FDEP, 2014b); Pine Island
Sound Aquatic Preserve-
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
n.d., Martin County, n.d.); Sea
Branch Preserve State Park
Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet
Loxahatchee River- Lake
Worth Creek Aquatic
(FDEP, 2014b); North Fork
St. Lucie River Aquatic

40
(FDEP, 2014b); Jensen Beach
Impoundment- 37 hectares
(FDEP, 2014c); Dutcher
Cove- 25 hectares (FDEP,
2014c); Jensen Beach West-
Muscara- 8 hectares (FDEP,
2014c) ; Indian Riverside
hectares (7 are mangroves)
(FDEP, 2014c); River Cove
(FDEP, 2014c); Santa Lucea-
Bathtub Beach- 2 hectares
(FDEP, 2014c); Jimmy
Graham Park- 13 hectares
(FDEP, 2014c); Bob Graham
Beach- 8 hectares (FDEP,
2014c); Beachwalk Pasley- 5
Curtis Beach- 2 hectares
(FDEP, 2014c); Florida
Oceanographic Site- 16
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
2014b); Loxahatchee River-
Lake Worth Creek Aquatic
(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
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-
2014); Crocodile Lake
National Wildlife Refuge-
2009); Pine Island National
Wildlife Refuge- 202 hectares
(USFWS, 2008e); Biscayne
Bay Aquatic Preserves-
2014b); Coupon Bight
Lignumvitae Key Aquatic
(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
(FDEP, 2014b); Rookery Bay
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
DixieCounty
LevyCounty
TaylorCounty
Franklin…
CitrusCounty
GulfCounty
Jefferson…
Hernando…
Escambia…
Miami-Dade…
PascoCounty
VolusiaCounty
Charlotte…
St.Lucie…
PinellasCounty
WaltonCounty
IndianRiver…
BayCounty
Manatee…
FlaglerCounty
Sarasota…
DuvalCounty
Brevard…
Hillsborough…
LeeCounty
Broward…
MartinCounty
PalmBeach…
Wakulla…
Monroe…
Okaloosa…
SantaRosa…
CollierCounty
NassauCounty
St.Johns…
Florida Average Household Income by County Average
Household Income
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
DixieCounty
LevyCounty
TaylorCounty
FranklinCounty
CitrusCounty
GulfCounty
JeffersonCounty
HernandoCounty
EscambiaCounty
Miami-Dade…
PascoCounty
VolusiaCounty
CharlotteCounty
St.LucieCounty
PinellasCounty
WaltonCounty
IndianRiver…
BayCounty
ManateeCounty
FlaglerCounty
SarasotaCounty
DuvalCounty
BrevardCounty
Hillsborough…
LeeCounty
BrowardCounty
MartinCounty
PalmBeach…
WakullaCounty
MonroeCounty
OkaloosaCounty
SantaRosa…
CollierCounty
NassauCounty
St.JohnsCounty
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 year2008 (NAUS, 2013).

47
Figure 15a: Levels of poverty in the southeastern U.S.in the year2008 NAUS, 2013).
Figure 15b: Legend for the map showing levels of poverty in the year2008 (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 Healthet 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).

RachelWilkins-Week14.FinalResearchPaper

RachelWilkins-Week14.FinalResearchPaper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to RachelWilkins-Week14.FinalResearchPaper

Similar to RachelWilkins-Week14.FinalResearchPaper (20)

RachelWilkins-Week14.FinalResearchPaper