OVERVIEW

A recent assessment of the state of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Defender of Wildlife, 2008), describes two of the most pressing challenges and opportunities facing the system, as “plan[ing] for 21st century conservation” and “respond[ing] to climate change.”  The report calls for the development of a national habitat protection plan which “should emphasize connecting and buffering habitats through strategic land acquisitions or easements.”  It goes on to state that “FWS should use the refuge system to advance deeper understanding of the impacts of climate change and as a key element in developing a national climate change adaptation strategy necessary to safeguard the nation’s fish, wildlife and plants.”  In order to meet these objectives, they recommend that “FWS should manage the refuge system to respond to climate change by:

[1] emphasizing the elimination of species dispersal barriers,
[2] the reduction of non-climate stressors,
[3] aggressive land acquisition strategies and
[4] employing adaptive management principles grounded in science-based inventory and monitoring.”

We at MIT agree with this assessment, but at the same time acknowledge that this is an incredibly challenging set of tasks for FWS, as currently organized and funded.  The difficulty is arguably highest in the Greater Florida Everglades, with a trifecta of more endangered species, more population growth and more climate change impacts than anywhere else in the continental U.S.  There is little chance that FWS will succeed at all of these tasks operating on its own.  Fortunately, we also think that should not be necessary, since every other conservation organization and every level of government share this challenge.  To us, the immediate challenge is to adopt and adapt planning methods which have proven successful elsewhere, including methods of collaborating with others given significant institutional, professional and geographic boundaries.

Our research takes a systematic scenario-based approach, and we believe in working directly with those tasked with decisions so that our research efforts can be directed at questions of management concern and bounded by response mechanisms which are judged feasible by those who will be asked to execute them.  For this reason, we are asking the Ecoteam’s assistance in creating a set of spatially-explicit scenarios for the region in 2050 and 2100.  The goal of this exercise is not to attempt to “predict” future conditions, but rather to specify a plausible range of conditions which should be considered for planning purposes. 

At the first stage, we are looking (through a revision of the literature and different consultative processes) to identify key driving forces, and their plausible ranges See Figure 1.  For example, based on both literature review and manager survey, we know that we must consider sea level rise (SLR).  We will bring this information to the EcoTeam and ask them to pick an appropriate range of levels to consider, based in this case in part on IPCC reports, and on local knowledge (for example, the elevation range of the Key Deer refuge).  At this stage, we will also diagram and consider institutional relationships, since rules are also important driving forces and constraints.  For example, if county zoning conflicts with the expansion of refuge boundaries in a given direction, that is a key constraint.

Second, we will package these elements (assumptions, rules, constraints) into scenarios.  A scenario is a logically-cohesive set of elements which makes management sense to consider as a discrete possibility.  For example, our scenarios are likely to include assumptions about human population growth and distribution, biophysical changes from global warming, and policies or projects, such as the construction and management of various CERP elements.

Third, we will work with USGS and other partners to simulate future changes given these scenarios.  In particular, we will spatially simulate future land cover change, and – with help from USGS and the water management district – future hydrologic regimes.

Finally, we will consider a set of potential impacts from these land cover and hydrologic changes.  Specifically, we would like to examine the multispecies habitat impacts of the various scenarios, so as to judge the likely relative effectiveness of different conservation strategies. 

At the conclusion of the project, we expect to have a set of scenarios which bound current estimated uncertainties about human population growth, CERP implementation and management, additional conservation measures, and climate change.  Each scenario will be spatially simulated and available online as a mapped “alternative future.”  For each future, we will have a set of evaluations, based either on simulation modeling, expert opinion, or the combination of the two.  By careful sensitivity analysis of the different impacts of these scenarios, we expect to be able to provide immediate guidance to FWS on which management strategies were the most effective under which conditions. 

In the case of global warming, we already know two very important things: first, that the exact types, levels, locations and timing of impacts remain highly uncertain, and second, that management decisions need to be made anyway, lest important options be lost.  Therefore, our focus within this project is not on reducing scientific uncertainty, but rather on setting up a decision environment which can effectively synthesize rapidly changing science.