application of slamm 4.1 to nine sites in...

DRAFT NOT FOR RELEASE INTERNAL USE ONLY

Application of SLAMM 4.1 to Nine Sites in Florida

For: National Wildlife Federation Patty Glick

Climate Change Specialist 6 Nickerson Street, Suite 200

Seattle, WA 98109

February 16, 2006

Jonathan S. Clough, Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc PO Box 253, Warren VT, 05674

(802)-496-3476


Application of SLAMM 4.1 to Nine Sites in Florida Project Background ................................................................................................................... 1 Model Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2

Sea Level Rise Scenarios.................................................................................................... 2

Model Results ............................................................................................................................ 4

All of Florida ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Pensacola: .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Apalachicola .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Tampa Bay ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Charlotte .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Florida Bay .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Biscayne Bay ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Saint Lucie .................................................................................... 2Error! Bookmark not defined. Indian River Lagoon .......................................................................................................................... 25

Model Parameterization .......................................................................................................... 27


1

Project Background The SLAMM 4.1 model was applied to nine sites within Florida, comprising over 1.7 million hectares (Figure 1). Funding for this model application was provided by the National Wildlife Federation. Extensive data processing that made this application possible was provided by Brad Nunley, NWF’s GIS expert.

Figure 1: Map of Sites Modeled within Florida

SLAMM Version 4.1 is the latest version of the SLAMM Model, developed in 2005 and based on SLAMM 4.0. SLAMM 4.1 provides additional sea level rise scenarios based on the latest IPCC findings (IPCC 2001) and additional data examination tools to ensure that data quality is acceptable.


2

Model flexibility has been improved with respect to accretion rates, and the model now accepts data from the USGS seamless data distribution tool (seamless.usgs.gov). To accurately model erosion in larger sites, maximum fetch is now calculated on a cell-by-cell basis rather than being input as a site characteristic. For more information on the development of the SLAMM model, please see the model’s technical documentation (Clough and Park, 2005).

Model Summary Within SLAMM, there are four primary processes that affect wetland fate under different scenarios of sea level rise:

Inundation: The rise of water levels and the salt boundary is tracked by reducing elevations of each cell as sea levels rise, thus keeping MTL constant at zero. The effects on each cell are calculated based on the minimum elevation and slope of that cell.

Erosion: Erosion is triggered based on a threshold of maximum fetch and the proximity of the marsh to estuarine water or open ocean. When these conditions are met, horizontal erosion occurs at a rate based on site specific parameters.

Overwash: Barrier islands of under 500 meter width are assumed to undergo overwash during each 25 year time-step due to storms encountered. Beach migration and transport of sediments are calculated.

Saturation: Coastal swamps and fresh marshes can migrate onto adjacent uplands as a response of the water table to rising sea level close to the coast.

For a thorough accounting of each of these processes and the underlying assumptions and equations, please see the model’s technical documentation.

Sea Level Rise Scenarios The model was run given the minimum, mean, and maximum estimates of each of the SRES scenarios. A brief description of each of these scenarios can be found in the SLAMM 4.1 technical documentation, more extensive descriptions are in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC 2001). For simplicity, this report will focus on the A1 scenario in which the future world includes very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. In particular, the A1B scenario assumes that energy sources will be balanced across all sources.


3

Figure 2: Summary of SRES Scenarios

Global average sea level rise for the SRES scenarios

Mean Estimates

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110

mm

(m

ean

) A1B

A1T

A1FI

A2

B1

B2

Global average sea level rise for the SRES scenarios

Minimum and Maximum Estimates

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1990 2040 2090

mm

A1B MIN

A1T MIN

A1FI MIN

A2 MIN

B1 MIN

B2 MIN

A1B MAX

A1T MAX

A1FI MAX

A2 MAX

B1 MAX

B2 MAX


4

Initial Condition Year 2100Dry Land

Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh

Transitional Salt Marsh

Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal

Estuarine Open Water

Open Ocean

Model Results

All of Florida Looking at the combined results of all modeled sites can be informative. At present we will focus on the mean results of sea level rise for Scenario A1B. By the year 2100, dry land is predicted to decrease by 14 percent over all sites, due to the processes of inundation and saturation. Hardwood swamp loss is predicted to be 12%. Nearly 50% of salt marsh is predicted to be lost over all sites by the year 2100. Due to the inundation of dry land, transitional salt marsh (brackish marsh) is predicted to increase dramatically. The model also predicts roughly a 40% loss of ocean beaches and that two thirds of estuarine beaches will disappear (primarily to erosion, but also due to overwash, and inundation). As sea levels rise, open ocean and estuarine water is predicted to increase. Mangroves are also expected to thrive under these conditions, gaining by 33%. SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for all Sites Modeled in Florida

Init. Cond.

(ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 496,043 425,363 29% 14% 22%

Hardwood Swamp 175,319 156,699 10% 11% 20%

Cypress Swamp 2,955 2,287 0% 23% 41%

Inland Fresh Marsh 56,129 53,505 3% 5% 24%

Tidal Fresh Marsh 1,915 1,745 0% 9% 11%

Transitional Salt Marsh 684 30,520 0% -4364% -3690%

Saltmarsh 19,328 10,034 1% 48% -75%

Mangrove 104,462 141,928 6% -36% -68%

Estuarine Beach 3,530 1,150 0% 67% 72%

Tidal Flat 80,458 13,020 5% 84% 86%

Ocean Beach 1,292 887 0% 31% -8%

Rocky Intertidal 21 21 0% 0% 0%

Inland Open Water 15,055 12,609 1% 16% 21%

Riverine Tidal 493 179 0% 64% 71%

Estuarine Open Water 508,769 602,246 29% -18% -21%

Open Ocean 261,355 275,615 15% -5% -6%

Sum of Categories (ha) 1,727,807 1,727,807


5

If we run the model using the “maximum” estimates for scenario A1B, loss of dry land increases to 22% (from 14%), but salt marsh actually increases by 75% as dry land is converted beyond transitional marsh into pure salt marsh due to continuing inundation. Mangroves do even better under scenarios of higher sea level rise, gaining by over 60% under the maximum scenario.

Pensacola: Relatively steep slopes of dry land around Pensacola, FL result in a relatively low loss rate for dry land (6-7%), the majority of dry-land loss is predicted due to saturation (increase of height of water table leading to fresh marsh expansion) rather than inundation. Some migration of the barrier islands are predicted with a two thirds loss of ocean beach under the mean scenario. Salt marsh in this region is predicted to be quite vulnerable, however, with a loss of over 70% in both the mean and maximum parameter set.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Pensacola, FL

Init. Cond. (ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 64,476 60,580 42% 6% 7%

Hardwood Swamp 16,697 17,240 11% -3% 1%

Cypress Swamp 128 122 0% 5% 5%

Inland Fresh Marsh 2,814 2,931 2% -4% -1%

Tidal Fresh Marsh 19 19 0% 0% 0%

Transitional Salt Marsh 70 536 0% -668% -1268%

Saltmarsh 2,785 753 2% 73% 77%

Mangrove 54 54 0% 0% 0%

Estuarine Beach 59 38 0% 36% -77%

Tidal Flat 470 449 0% 4% 23%

Ocean Beach 45 15 0% 67% 28%

Rocky Intertidal - - 0% NA NA

Inland Open Water 917 761 1% 17% 18%

Riverine Tidal - - 0% NA NA


Open Ocean 17,471 17,778 11% -2% -2%

Sum of Categories (ha) 152,261 152,261


6

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Pensacola, FL


Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean

Legend for All SLAMM Screen-Capture Maps:


7

Pensacola, FL Current Condition

Pensacola, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


8

Detail of Elevational Map for Pensacola, FL Barrier Islands


9


Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean

Apalachicola Significant loss of hardwood swamp is predicted, particularly along the Apalachicola river where swamp elevations are low relative to sea level. SLAMM predicts that 13-16 percent of these swamps will convert to brackish (transitional) salt marsh. Inundation and saturation is also predicted to convert over a quarter of the dry land on this site, again, particularly along the river basin. Overwash is predicted to have significant effects on the barrier islands to the south of this site.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Apalachicola FL

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Apalachicola , FL

Init. Cond. (ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 34,921 25,218 12% 28% 33%

Hardwood Swamp 126,599 110,640 43% 13% 16%

Cypress Swamp 64 38 0% 41% 56%




Saltmarsh 7,164 2,828 2% 61% -234%

Mangrove 60 60 0% 0% 6%

Estuarine Beach 1,739 222 1% 87% 89%

Tidal Flat 531 3,787 0% -613% -382%

Ocean Beach 1 131 0% -8978% -10597%



Riverine Tidal 396 103 0% 74% 82%


Open Ocean 51,387 53,150 18% -3% -4%



10

Apalachicola, FL Current Condition

Apalachicola, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


11

Tampa Bay Tidal flats around Tampa bay are predicted to nearly disappear by the year 2100. The barrier islands around Tampa bay are also predicted to be hit hard, with a resulting loss of 10% to 16% of dry lands for the site. Some cypress swamp saturation is also predicted to occur. Mangroves are predicted to roughly double or triple at the site depending on whether the mean or maximum scenario is evaluated.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Tampa Bay, FL

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Tampa Bay, FL

Init. Cond. (ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 147,401 133,362 46% 10% 16%

Hardwood Swamp 8,882 8,264 3% 7% 15%

Cypress Swamp 897 969 0% -8% -9%



Transitional Salt Marsh 59 81 0% -36% -186%

Saltmarsh 1,200 167 0% 86% 90%

Mangrove 7,533 20,055 2% -166% -294%

Estuarine Beach 331 317 0% 4% 37%

Tidal Flat 17,973 690 6% 96% 98%

Ocean Beach 59 125 0% -112% -148%



Riverine Tidal 23 3 0% 87% 92%


Open Ocean 49,557 52,421 15% -6% -7%



Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean


12

Tampa Bay, FL Current Condition

Tampa Bay, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


13

Charlotte Like Tampa Bay, significant overwash is predicted for the barrier islands around Charlotte resulting in much dry land loss. Saturation and inundation also take their toll with dry land predicted to drop a whopping 35-55% depending on whether the mean or maximum scenario is run. Tidal flats are also predicted to be decimated by sea level rise. Mangroves thrive under these scenarios, though, increasing by 75% to 120%. Results in this region are similar to Tampa Bay, though lower elevations of dry land result in more significant predicted impacts here.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Charlotte, FL

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Charlotte, FL

Init. Cond.

(ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 37,805 24,468 23% 35% 55%

Hardwood Swamp 5,000 3,196 3% 36% 51%

Cypress Swamp 31 32 0% -5% -5%


Tidal Fresh Marsh - - 0% NA NA

Transitional Salt Marsh 73 15 0% 80% -167%

Saltmarsh 1,384 151 1% 89% 98%

Mangrove 18,577 32,535 11% -75% -119%


Tidal Flat 22,835 612 14% 97% 99%

Ocean Beach 97 70 0% 27% -133%





Open Ocean 22,691 24,711 14% -9% -11%



Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean


14

Charlotte, FL Current Condition Charlotte, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


15


16


17

Ten Thousand Islands What little dry land is at this site is predicted to be lost under these sea level rise scenarios (or at least 80-90% of it). Tidal flats are predicted to migrate further inland while Mangroves, which are already dominant at this site increase from 16% to 26%. Mangrove migration takes its toll on inland fresh marsh which decreases by 44% to 79% depending on the scenario evaluated. Over half of salt marsh also is lost in both scenarios. Some fresh marsh is also predicted to be converted to transitional (brackish) salt marsh, which was not initially present at the site.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Ten Thousand Islands, FL

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Ten Thousand Islands, FL

Init. Cond. (ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 3,274 654 3% 80% 90%

Hardwood Swamp 5,744 3,963 5% 31% 83%

Cypress Swamp 1,198 988 1% 18% 56%



Transitional Salt Marsh - 1,946 0% NA NA

Saltmarsh 3,667 898 3% 76% 51%

Mangrove 32,500 37,857 31% -16% -26%


Tidal Flat 2,337 3,117 2% -33% -18%

Ocean Beach 10 53 0% -424% -408%





Open Ocean 33,073 35,133 31% -6% -7%



Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean


18

Ten Thousand Islands, Current Condition

Ten Thousand Islands, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


19

Florida Bay In Florida Bay, the most significant prediction is the loss of tidal flats which are currently dominant. Under both scenarios, 99% of tidal flats are predicted to be lost. Mangroves, on the other hand, hang tough with losses of only 3% to 6% due to inundation. At least half of the small amount of dry land at this site is predicted to be lost under the A1B mean and maximum scenarios.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Florida Bay, FL

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Florida Bay, FL

Init. Cond. (ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 1,269 616 1% 51% 70%

Hardwood Swamp 8 5 0% 34% 50%

Cypress Swamp - - 0% NA NA

Inland Fresh Marsh - - 0% NA NA


Transitional Salt Marsh 13 9 0% 30% 100%

Saltmarsh 1,232 839 1% 32% 100%

Mangrove 33,402 32,294 17% 3% 6%


Tidal Flat 32,561 484 17% 99% 99%

Ocean Beach 226 54 0% 76% 71%


Inland Open Water - - 0% NA NA



Open Ocean 3,959 4,660 2% -18% -19%



Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean


20

Florida Bay, Current Condition

Florida Bay, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


21

Biscayne Bay In Biscayne Bay, the most heavily developed areas in the northwest portion of the study map are not predicted to suffer extensive losses from sea level rise as these developments are built on relatively high land elevations. Further south, however, lesser developed low lying dry land and freshwater wetlands are predicted to suffer significant inundation effects. The barrier islands at the south of the map are also predicted to undergo inundation and subsequent mangrove expansion, especially under the maximum scenario. The resulting prediction is a loss of dry-land that ranges from 13-30% depending on whether the mean or maximum scenario is evaluated. Given land elevations at this site, a potential exists for expansion of hardwood swamps as the overall water-table rises. However, this potential is likely to be thwarted due to the extent of developed land. The model also predicts that such potential would be short-lived; as the salt level rises, these freshwater swamps are converted into transitional salt marsh under the maximum scenario. Fresh water marshes suffer a 33% to 89% loss under the two scenarios. As is often the case, transitional salt marsh and mangrove stands have the potential to increase significantly under these two scenarios of sea level rise as dry lands and fresh marshes undergo inundation. Beach erosion is predicted to claim roughly one third of existing beaches on these sites.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Biscayne Bay, FL

Init. Cond. (ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 57,841 50,278 34% 13% 30%

Hardwood Swamp 3,993 5,656 2% -42% 86%

Cypress Swamp 589 86 0% 85% 100%




Saltmarsh 1,387 639 1% 54% -32%

Mangrove 8,556 14,654 5% -71% -230%


Tidal Flat 3,340 702 2% 79% 87%

Ocean Beach - 94 0% NA NA





Open Ocean 5,794 8,828 3% -52% -54%



22


Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Biscayne Bay, FL

Biscayne Bay, Current Condition Biscayne Bay, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


23

Saint Lucie The two dominant processes predicted to affect Saint Lucie are overwash of the barrier islands and saturation of dry land. Inland elevations of dry land are low, especially in relation to the inland fresh marsh that occurs close to the bay. This results in significant predictions of saturation and a loss of 10 to 12% of dry land (which is comprises more than 50% of this site). Because this part of Saint Lucie is heavily developed, this prediction should probably be considered the “potential” for saturation as this process is likely to be offset by landowners bringing in fill when required. Beach erosion and overwash is predicted to result in the loss of roughly half of the ocean beach at this site.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Saint Lucie, FL

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Saint Lucie, FL

Init. Cond.

(ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 74,677 67,169 54% 10% 12%

Hardwood Swamp 2,275 2,312 2% -2% 5%

Cypress Swamp - - 0% NA NA

Inland Fresh Marsh 8,425 13,465 6% -60% -66%


Transitional Salt Marsh - 0 0% NA NA

Saltmarsh 405 3 0% 99% 100%

Mangrove 3,231 3,871 2% -20% -43%

Estuarine Beach 97 232 0% -139% -88%

Tidal Flat 216 252 0% -16% 32%

Ocean Beach 301 62 0% 80% 47%


Inland Open Water 1,025 1,048 1% -2% -2%

Riverine Tidal 73 73 0% 0% 3%


Open Ocean 30,738 31,706 22% -3% -3%



Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean


24

Saint Lucie, FL Current Condition Saint Lucie, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


25

Indian River Lagoon As was the case in Saint Lucie, saturation is again an important process at this east coast site resulting in a loss of 15% to 25% of dry land (depending on scenario). Again, as this is a heavily developed site this may be more a prediction of costs to be imposed on landowners rather than an actual loss of dry land. Under the maximum scenario, some of the fresh marsh at the site is converted into transitional salt marsh by the year 2100. Overwash is not predicted to be important at this site, but beach erosion does claim roughly 50% of ocean beach under both scenarios.

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean (Max) for Indian River Lagoon, FL

SLAMM Predictions of Marsh Fate under Scenario A1B, Mean for Indian River Lagoon, FL

Init. Cond. (ha)

Year 2100

(ha)

Percent of

Init. Cond.

Percent Loss

(mean)

Percent

Loss (max)

Dry Land 74,380 63,019 39% 15% 25%

Hardwood Swamp 6,121 5,422 3% 11% 25%

Cypress Swamp 48 53 0% -9% -8%

Inland Fresh Marsh 16,784 17,764 9% -6% 11%

Tidal Fresh Marsh 1,720 1,681 1% 2% 3%


Saltmarsh 104 3,755 0% -3512% -5135%

Mangrove 549 548 0% 0% 0%

Estuarine Beach 18 41 0% -128% -264%

Tidal Flat 195 2,927 0% -1398% -2117%

Ocean Beach 554 284 0% 49% 50%





Open Ocean 46,685 47,229 24% -1% -2%



Hardwood Swamp

Cypress Swamp

Inland Fresh Marsh

Tidal Fresh Marsh


Saltmarsh

Mangrove

Estuarine Beach

Tidal Flat

Ocean Beach

Rocky Intertidal

Inland Open Water

Riverine Tidal


Open Ocean


26

Indian River Lagoon, FL Current Condition Indian River Lagoon, FL Year 2100, A1B Mean


27

Model Parameterization

Digital Elevation Maps were downloaded using the USGS seamless data distribution tool (http://seamless.usgs.gov).

NWI maps were downloaded as polygons and converted to rasters with the appropriate SLAMM category (http://www.nwi.fws.gov/).

NOAA data were gathered from 35 sites (Figure 1) to parameterize the model for tidal range, inland tidal range, and “NGVD88 to Mean Tide Level” corrections. See the table below for a summary of NOAA data used to derive parameters.

NOAA Stations, Tide Range, and MTL Corrections

8729840 PENSACOLA, PENSACOLA BAY , FL 0.383 towards water BG1732 0.094

8729824 FLORIDATOWN, ESCAMBIA BAY , FL 0.442 most inland

8729831 FERRY PASS, ESCAMBIA BAY , FL 0.421 inland

8729808 LITTLE SABINE BAY , FL 0.392 most ocean

8728711 APALACHICOLA RIVER , FL 0.412 inland NA

8728694 WHITE BEACH, EAST BAY , FL 0.601 inland NA

8728690 APALACHICOLA, AP. RIVER , FL 0.492 most ocean AS0240 0.061

8726364 MULLET KEY, TAMPA BAY , FL 0.634 ocean

8726428 TIERRA VERDE, FL 0.659 ocean AG7403 -0.131

8726277 FORT HAMER, FL 0.686 inland

8726573 GADSDEN POINT, TAMPA BAY , FL 0.75 inland AG7535 -0.098

8725781 SHELL CREEK, PEACE RIVER, FL 0.668 inland

8725685 CUTOFF SOUTH 0.454 ocean

8725665 LITTLE GASPARILLA ISLAND 0.464 ocean

8725366 ESTERO ISLAND AD7844 -0.225

8724992 ADDISON BAY, FL 0.884 inland

8724951 PANTHER KEY, FL 1.286 ocean8724919 CHOKOLOSKEE , FL 0.968 inland AC3180 -0.18

8724919 CHOKOLOSKEE , FL 0.968 AC3180 -0.18

8723797 ISLAMORADA 0.462 ocean AA0428 -0.213

8724008 KNIGHT KEY CHANNEL , FL 0.322 AA0300 -0.308

8722371 SEWALL POINT. ST. LUCIE RIVER , FL 0.353 inland AF3181 -0.311

8722334 NORTH FORK, ST. LUCIE RIVER , FL 0.367 most inland

8722212 FORT PIERCE, SOUTH JETTY , FL 0.908 inland

8722357 STUART, ST. LUCIE RIVER , FL 0.329 inland AF3186 -0.253

8722414 GOMEZ , FL 0.476 ocean AF6971 -0.298

8721604 TRIDENT PIER, PORT CANAVERAL , FL 1.209 ocean

8721804 CANOVA, FL 1.214 ocean AK3003 -0.326

8721649 COCOA BEACH, ATLANTIC OCEAN , FL 1.211 ocean

8723165 MIAMI, BISCAYNE BAY , FL 0.723 estuarine AC2177 -0.271

8723232 KEY BISCAYNE YACHT CLUB , FL 0.654 ocean

8723289 CUTLER, BISCAYNE BAY , FL 0.649 most inland AC2055 -0.256

8723355 RAGGED KEY NO. 5, BISCAYNE BAY , FL 0.511 ocean

8723393 ELLIOTT KEY (OUTSIDE) , FL 0.77 ocean

8723423 TURKEY POINT, BISCAYNE BAY , FL 0.543 inland AC1173 -0.256

http://seamless.usgs.gov/

http://www.nwi.fws.gov/


28

Historic sea level rise trend data were downloaded from NOAA and spatially interpolated as necessary. Variation in historic trends were relatively minor (figure below)

Historic Sea Level Rise Trends Measured at NOAA Stations

.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Pe

nsa

co

la, F

lori

da

Ap

ala

ch

ico

la,

Flo

rid

a

St. P

ete

rsb

urg

,

Flo

rid

a

Fo

rt M

ye

rs, F

lori

da

Na

ple

s, F

lori

da

Ke

y W

est, F

lori

da

Mia

mi B

ea

ch

,

Flo

rid

a

Ma

yp

ort

, F

lori

da

Va

ca

Ke

y, F

lori

da

mm

pe

r y

ea

r


29

Erosion rates were set to SLAMM defaults. Default erosion rates are 2.0 horizontal meters per year for marshes, 1.0 meter per year for swamps, and 0.5 meters per year for tidal flats. These rates are based on a combination of professional judgment and a brief literature survey. (Note also that these erosion rates presume that a threshold for erosion has been exceeded prior to the incidence of horizontal erosion. See the technical documentation for more information.)

Accretion rates were set to 2.25 mm/year for salt marshes, 3.75 mm/year for brackish marsh, and 4.0 mm/year for tidal flats. These data were based on measurements from the Altamaha River in Georgia (Personal Communication, Dr. Christopher Craft.) However a literature review of accretion rates, including several measurements from Florida sites, indicate that the above rates are comfortably in-line with measurements taken throughout Florida (D. R. Cahoon, J. W. Day, Jr., and D. J. Reed, 1999. The influence of surface and shallow subsurface soil processes on wetland elevation: A synthesis. Current Topics in Wetland Biogeochemistry, 3, 72-88. ) (D. R. Cahoon, D. J. Reed, J. W. Day, Jr., 1995. Estimating shallow subsidence in microtidal salt marshes of the southeastern United States: Kaye and Barghoorn revisited. Marine Geology, 128, 1-9.)

application of slamm 4.1 to nine sites in...

Documents