Manomet is a non-profit organization committed to environmental problem solving through science-based solutions. The presentation discusses climate change impacts on ecosystems and adaptation planning, focusing on the Taunton River Watershed in Massachusetts. Environmental justice issues are highlighted as lower-income communities face greater vulnerability. Adaptation challenges are compared between a managed forest site and a sensitive bog site requiring extensive restoration. Cost-benefit analyses are important to determine if and how to adapt different sites.
Planning for Climate Change Adaptation in Massachusetts
1. Planning for Tomorrow's
Climate Today
Eric Walberg, AICP
Senior Program Leader
Climate Change
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences
2. Manomet Overview
Manomet is a non-profit based in Massachusetts,
and our work takes us all over the hemisphere
We are committed to building science-based,
cooperative solutions to environmental
problems.
Our focus areas include-
preparing America for climate change,
creating a sustainable relationship between our
economy and the natural world,
restoring and maintaining shorebird populations in
the western hemisphere, and
3. Presentation Overview
Climate Change, Ecosystem Services and
Adaptation
Taunton River Watershed Adaptation Plan
• Green Infrastructure
• Environmental Justice
• GIS
Comparison of Challenges Presented by Two
Sites
Group Discussion
4. Global Climate Change
Two factors differentiate the current
situation with global warming from
previous cycles
The rate of change is significantly greater
than in the past
The changes are occurring against the
backdrop of unprecedented stress on
ecosystems and the services that they
provide
5. Vostok (Antarctica) Ice Core
Data
in 2050
470
ppm
Today
2,400 yrs ago
Image Credit: Source: IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The
Scientific Basis
5
6. Climate Change in New England
The climate in New England is warming
rapidly
New England is getting wetter and
extreme precipitation events are
becoming more common and severe
Projections are for both of these trends
to continue, setting the stage for
increased incidence of extreme heat and
flooding
7. Image Credit: New England Integrated Sciences and Assessment, http://inhale.unh.edu/Climate/index.html
8. Image Credit: New England Integrated Sciences and Assessment,
http://inhale.unh.edu/Climate/index.html
9. What will
Massachusetts be
like in 2100?
A: either Maryland or South
Carolina
n of Concerned Scientists. 2007. Confronting Climate Change in the Northeas t.
://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/pdf/confronting-climate-change-in-the-u-s-northeast.pdf
10. Sea Level Rise in New England
Image Credit: New England Integrated Sciences and Assessment, http://inhale.unh.edu/Climate/index.html
12. Ecosystem Services
Those services that intact, healthy
ecosystems provide to man
Ecosystem services are adversely
impacted by multiple stressors including
urbanization, pollution, resource
extraction, agriculture
Climate change is an increasingly
important stresor
13. Goal to identify ecosystem service impacts of
climate change and adaptation measures that
address Climate Change Adaptation Project
Manomet those impacts
Vulnerability assessment followed by
adaptation recommendations
Working at a set of sites in Massachusetts and
Maine
Two geographic scales: landowner and
landscape
14. Landscape Scale Sites
Three landscape scale sites:
Taunton River Watershed in Massachusetts
Sebago Lake Watershed in Maine
Sagadahoc County in Maine
15. Landowner Scale Sites
Landowner sites include forestry,
agriculture, conservation lands and
residential development sectors
Massachusetts sites: Century Bog, River
Run residential development and
Tidmarsh Farms
Maine sites: Allen Whitney Forest, a
private woodlot, a cattle farm and an
apple orchard
16. Taunton River Watershed Overview
Located in southern Massachusetts
One of three main tributary watersheds
to Narragansett Bay
562 square miles
43 cities and towns
National Wild and Scenic Designation
22.
Behind the state in indicators of economic
strength
2012: New Bedford and Fall River ranked as the
Population ofhighest unemployment rates in the
3rd and 4th Southeastern Massachusetts
state
Very diverse
2009: 25% of the population reported Portuguese
as their primary ancestry; nearly 3% reported
Cape Verdean heritage
Other fast growing racial Regional
Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Southeastern and ethnic minority
Planning & Economic Development District (SRPEDD)
groups include African Americans (+60%) and
23. “All people have a right to be protected from
environmental pollution and to live in and
enjoy a clean and healthful environment.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Environmental Justice (EJ)
Massachusetts EJ policy established 2002
Median annual household income
% minority residents
% foreign born residents
English language proficiency
108 EJ communities within the state; 12
within the watershed (2000 Census data)
24.
Directs state resources to serve EJ
communities across the state
Support for public participation/outreach
Environmental Justice (EJ)
Enforcement of environmental rules and
regulations
Investments in economic growth
Technical assistance, grants, audits, etc.
26.
Per capita income
% families below the poverty line
% population not in the laborAnalysis
Social Vulnerability force
% population with less than a high school
diploma
% population that speaks a language other
than English at home
% population greater than or equal to age 65
27. Location
Per
Capita
Incomea
% Families % Not in
% Less
below
Labor than High
Poverty
Forceb
Schoolc
U.S.
$27,334
20.12
12.74
Massachusetts
13.54
Bristol County
$33,966
7.45
32.30
21.05
Social Vulnerability11.31
Analysis
$27,736
8.77
32.29
19.90
20.77
Fall River
$20,337
15.30
10.08
17.78
a. Average income in 2010 dollars
b. For population ≥ 16 years
c. For population ≥ 25 years
d. Spoken at home for population ≥ 5 years
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey
35.01
38.59
14.97
32.45
% Language
other than
Englishd
% ≥ 65
years
33.47
13.85
28.
Results for Fall River
14 Census Block Groups met 5/6 criteria
4 Census Block Groups met 6/6 criteria
Social Vulnerability Analysis
No overlap between EJ Census Block Groups (2000
Census data)
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey and 2010 Census Block Groups
29.
30.
Results for Fall River
6 Census Block Groups prone to flooding
4 Census Block Groups at risk to storm surge
Social Vulnerability Analysis
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey and 2010 Census Block Groups
31.
32.
33. Incorporation and analysis of
geospatial information
GIS played primarily a support role
Data selection, map creation, and
ecosystem service ID an iterative,
feedback-driven process
34. Incorporation and analysis of
Example of a
geospatial information
map and
data that did
not make the
final cut.
35. Incorporation and analysis of
Summary
geospatial information overlay
Highlights “hot spots” of
co-occurrence
Tradeoff between
simplicity and transparency
of process
compared to…
Individual maps
Allow focus to be drawn to
appropriate area, resource,
and scale
Allow local experts to use
data as necessary and
appropriate to enact change
36. Incorporation and analysis of
geospatial information
Data sources:
International •
Academic
National
•
Local
State •
NGOs
Private sector
Different services are of different
relative importance at different sites.
The identification and analysis of
ecosystem services is not a one-size
37. TO ADAPT OR NOT – A
TALE OF TWO SITES
Hector Galbraith, PhD
EcoSolutions
October 2013
38. WHY ADAPT?
Track record on mitigation is not great!
Conserve threatened and sensitive
resources
Need to deal with changes that are
already occurring
Locked into another couple of decades of
change
39. WHERE SHOULD WE ADAPT - A TALE
OF TWO SITES
Allen-Whitney Forest, ME
•700 acre parcel
•Mainly northern hardwood forest
•Managed for forest products by NEFF
•Supports diverse wildlife community
40. A TALE OF TWO SITES
•Invasive species
•Pests
•Motorized recreation
42. ADAPTATION AT ALLENWHITNEY
Already managed
landscape
Already control other
stressors
Foundational species not
vulnerable
To do: modify age structure
of forest
Big $$$/time investment
not required
Yes we can!
48. CENTURY BOG
Major restoration – how?
We are attempting to safeguard extremely
sensitive species and thermal habitat
Can it be done?
Is it worth it?
53. SHOULD WE ADAPT: COSTBENEFIT ANALYSIS
“value” of targets versus:
$$$ costs and competing uses for funding
Likelihood of success
• Sensitivity of targets and magnitude of projected
change
• Technical feasibility
• Guarantee of long-term funding?
• Complication of other stressors?
Alternative success measures
Vulnerability analysis
54. SHOULD WE ADAPT?
Yes, adaptation is essential, but:
Depends on site and feasibility of proposed
actions
Depends on future climate scenarios
Depends on resource sensitivities
Depends on investments required
Depends on other uses for $$$ and time
Notas do Editor
Source: IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#last
In many projects, a complicated, expert-weighted GIS overlay can often drive much of the process. GIS has many strengths like being able to overlay and summarize many disparate data sources and identify spatial patterns and processes, but that can often mask more subtle nuances of the data sources that are important. The GIS component of this project primarily supported – not drove – the results. For example, the identification of geospatial data sets early on in the project occurred in collaboration with both project principals and stakeholders. This occurred in tandem with preliminary identification of a broad suite of ecosystem services that the site both depended on and provided. Subsequent analysis, mapping, and discussion helped to winnow down those services – and datasets – to those that were most important.
The data displayed in this map, for example, highlighted a key resource: prime agricultural soils – of which no more are being created and are at risk of being used to grow boring colonials rather than crops. It’s important for planners and resource managers to know this dataset exists; however, because of limitations of the data, the resolution of this data and the scale of the analysis, and the nature of the analytic process, maps depicting this dataset did not make the final cut into the report. That’s not to say that agricultural soils are not important – quite the contrary – but ultimately, the use of the map providing data in a spatial context did little above and beyond what identification of the resource in the text of the report accomplished.
In another one of the project’s landscape sites, participants opted for an overlay approach. In this area, they had the benefit of being able to rely on not just one, but several frameworks developed in neighboring areas to help identify data sources. These other frameworks relied on expert weighting schemes, which were ultimately discarded in favor of straightforward linear combination in our plan. In the Taunton River watershed plan, we instead opted for individual maps that highlight the appropriate resource – identified by that iterative process mentioned earlier – at the appropriate scale.
Data sources that proved particular useful came from:
International sources like Statistics Canada, which provided cartographic boundary datasets good for large-scale locus mapping. At the national level, datasets like coastal boundaries for cartographic purposes came from the National Ocean Service. The U.S. Census Bureau provided both cartographic and statistical datasets, and the National Map provided additional cartographic boundary data. The National Land Cover Database was used. LandSat 5, and now the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, provided data we relied on. The National Highway Planning Network helped to provide good transportation network data which crossed state lines seamlessly for cartographic purposes. The results of the SLOSH model, provided in part by the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, were used for our coastal sites. NOAA’s Coastal Climate Adaptation program also provided useful data, as did the Environmental Protection Agency, relating to issues like sea level rise and storm surge. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer and older Q3 data were useful as well. At the state level, geospatial repositories are constantly updating existing datasets and adding new ones, particularly LiDAR data but also environmental, infrastructure, hydrologic, and social datasets. Sometimes these repositories are very centralized like Massachusetts, while in other states – like Maine, and Connecticut, different agencies maintain their own datasets. In any case, it definitely pays to make contacts within various agencies as these can be helpful in procuring unique and valuable datasets. Many researchers at different universities are working on interesting ways to capture data and model various ecological and social processes that can prove useful. Local land trusts often keep data – as time and capital permit – at a local level which greatly supplements datasets at other scales. NGOs, like The Nature Conservancy, helped us and in general are often willing to share data, as are individuals within private sector like engineering firms and environmental consultancies.
Ultimately, an important lesson learned in this project was that even for sites separated by relatively short distances, the ecosystem services these sites both provide and depend upon were of different relative importance. Also, because of various characteristics of project – either social fabric of a site or simply funding levels – the identification and analysis of those services cannot be made into a one-size-fits-all approach.