1 Adaptation Actions to reduce impairment of Indian River Lagoon water quality caused by

2 climate change, Florida, U.S.A. (5857 words)

3 Randall W. Parkinson (corresponding author), Sea Level Solutions Center, Institute of

4 Environment, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, 33199, rparkins@fiu.edu, 321

5 373-0976

6 Valerie Seidel, The Balmoral Group, Winter Park, Florida, 32789

7 Clay Henderson, Stetson University, Deland, Florida, 32723

8 Duane De Freese, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Sebastian, Florida 32958

9 Abstract

10 Results of a vulnerability assessment of the Indian River Lagoon to climate change indicate

11 future risks to water quality can be mitigated through adaptation actions targeting anticipated

12 increases in pollutant loads from wastewater treatment plants, on site treatment and disposal

13 systems, and surface water storage and conveyance infrastructure. Nine adaption actions are

14 recommended and if successfully implemented could reduce risks caused by climate change by

15 fifty percent. The mitigating benefits of these actions are expected to cascade into other elements

16 of the Lagoon, like living resources and habitats, and therefore no additional actions need be

17 recommended at this time. The next challenge is to implement, monitor, and revise each

18 adaptation action as warranted. This will require a substantial increase in funding dedicated to

19 the Lagoon’s restoration and coherently managed for decades. Strengthened collaboration

20 between local, state, and federal programs is necessary to enhance the probability of successfully

21 reducing future climate-related water quality impairments and facilitating the emergence of a

22 more resilient, climate-ready estuary.

1
23 Keywords: Indian River Lagoon, climate ready estuary, vulnerability assessment, adaptation

24 action plan, water quality impairment, Florida

25 Introduction

26 The Earth’s climate is changing. Temperatures are rising. Snow, rainfall, and river flow patterns

27 are shifting and more extreme climate events—like heavy rainstorms and record-high

28 temperatures—are already taking place (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

29 Medicine, 2016). Estuaries are especially sensitive to these changes because they are located at

30 the land-sea interface and therefore attributes of water quality, habitat value, and ecosystem

31 function are largely determined by what is being inputted to the basin from the adjacent

32 terrestrial and marine environments. As the climate changes, so too will both of these

33 environments, which will ultimately compromise an estuary’s resiliency as upland rainfall and

34 river flow patterns change, air and water temperature rises, the intensity and frequency of

35 tropical storm and hurricane landfall increases, sea-level rises, and pH declines (Gillanders et al.,

36 2011; Statham, 2012; James et al., 2013; Robins et al., 2016; Gregg et al., 2017). The resilience

37 of an estuary under conditions of a changing climate may be further stressed if the system is

38 currently impaired by the effects of coastal urbanization and concomitant water quality

39 degradation due to elevated pollutant (i.e., sediment, nitrogen, phosphorous) loadings (Lotze et

40 al., 2006; Sherwood, 2016; Robins et al., 2016; Lefcheck et al., 2018).

41

42 In recognition of these challenges, the National Estuary Program (NEP) established the Climate

43 Ready Estuaries Program (CRE) in 2008. This program was established as a partnership between

44 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NEPs to address the impact

45 of climate change on Estuaries of National Significance (ENS). The CRE mission is to support

2
46 NEPs and their coastal communities in becoming “climate ready” by providing tools and

47 assistance to (1) conduct a risk-based assessment of their vulnerability to climate change and (2)

48 develop and implement adaptation actions to reduce those risks. However, by 2011 none of the

49 NEPs had undertaken efforts to become climate ready. So, in 2014 the EPA published a

50 ‘Workbook’ (EPA, 2014) to assist organizations that manage NEPs to become climate ready. By

51 the time the project described herein was initiated in 2017, eight of the 28 NEPs had undertaken

52 a risk-based vulnerability assessment following workbook guidelines and one has completed an

53 adaptation action plan (Bauza-Ortega, 2015).

54

55 The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) is contains 27% of Florida’s eastern coastal wetlands and is

56 home to more species than any other estuary in North America, including some 4,300 plant and

57 animal species (St. Johns River Water Management District, 2007). To facilitate the protection

58 and restoration of water quality and ecological integrity, the IRL was recognized by the EPA as

59 an ENS in 1990. Thereafter, research designed to enhance the knowledgebase from which to

60 formulate and implement a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)

61 quickly expanded. What followed was growing evidence that the ecological and biological

62 integrity of the lagoon had degraded over the past 50 years due to a decline in water quality

63 caused by: (1) pollution from point and nonpoint sources, (2) disruption in the natural patterns of

64 water circulation in the lagoon, and (3) alterations in freshwater inflows, especially during wet

65 season discharges (Sigua et al., 2000). The current IRL CCMP (Indian River Lagoon National

66 Estuary Program, 2019) was designed to reduce water quality impairment caused by historical

67 urbanization within the watershed. It did not specifically address future conditions (i.e., climate

68 change) that may exert additional stress on the system. This was by design, as the IRLNEP had

3
69 already committed to becoming a CRE by completing the tasks outlined in the EPA workbook

70 and adopting an adaptation action plan that specifically addressed new conservation and

71 management challenges arising as a consequence of climate change. This paper reports on the

72 results that effort.

73 Materials and methods

74 Study Location

75 The Indian River Lagoon (IRL)(Figure 1) covers an area of 353 km2 and is composed of three

76 distinct and connected estuaries: the Indian River, Banana River, and Mosquito Lagoon. It is

77 present along 156 miles coastline and encompasses almost 40% of Florida east coast. Its 2,284

78 km2 watershed sprawls over five counties and spans three climate zones: temperate, and tropical.

79 An additional two counties (Okeechobee, Palm Beach) were integrated into the natural

80 watershed upon the construction of surface water storage and conveyance infrastructure in the

81 early part of the 20th Century. Thirty-eight incorporated cities and approximately 1.6 million

82 residents live within the boundaries of the IRLNEP. It’s total economic contribution to the region

83 is estimated to be about ten billion dollars (East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and

84 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 2016).

85 Part 1. Vulnerability assessment

86 The vulnerability assessment was conducted in a succession of steps, described in the following

87 sections, that ultimately yielded a prioritized matrix of risks to the IRL caused by the most

88 significant climate change stressors. This part of the project was conducted while the IRLNEP

89 was operating under the 2008 CCMP (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 2008).

90 The results of each step were vetted by members of the Indian River Lagoon Management

4
91 Conference, all of whom are practitioners in the fields of science, policy, and resource

92 management, and other watershed stakeholders contacted by the project team.

93 Step 1 – Risk identification

94 The objective of Step 1 was to assemble a list of the program goals and corresponding action plans

95 most likely at risk to climate change. This began by identifying the climate change stressors that

96 should be considered. To accomplish this task, the project team (1) reviewed all Risk-Based

97 Vulnerability Assessments conducted for NEPs located within the state of Florida (i.e., Charlotte

98 Harbor National Estuary Program, 2010; Shafer et al., 2017; Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 2017)

99 and beyond (Bauza-Ortega, 2015; Grubbs et al., 2016), (2) solicited stakeholder and practitioner

100 input, and (3) conducted a literature of relevant, climate-related investigations (Ingram et al., 2;

101 NOAA, 2010; Beever III et al., 2012; Pachauri et al., 2014; Sweet et al., 2017; Chassignet et al.,

102 2017; USGCRP, 2018; The National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society, 2020).

103

104 The second task in completing Step 1 was to conduct a preliminary review of the IRLNEP 2008

105 CCMP to identify action plans, associated with each goal, that might be at risk to climate change.

106 Each action plan was evaluated with regards to whether it could be compromised by any of the

107 climate change stressors. Those identified as vulnerable to the effects of climate change where

108 then subject to risk analysis.

109 Step 2 - Risk analysis

110 Each of the at-risk action plans identified in Step 1 was evaluated with regards to the following

111 parameters: consequence, likelihood, spatial scale, and timeline (Table 1). Each parameter was

112 assigned a value of between 1 (minimal threat) and 3 (maximum threat) and the corresponding

113 at-risk action plan scored based upon the sum of those values. The results of this step, generated

5
114 by the project team, were then vetted by stakeholders and practitioners familiar with the subject

115 matter.

116 Step 3 – Risk prioritization

117 The prioritization of risks was facilitated by the construction of a consequence/probability

118 matrix. The matrix was populated by a listing of the specific risks to each vulnerable action plan

119 caused by the climate change and the corresponding risk analysis scores. Risk prioritization was

120 achieved by reconfiguring the matrix based upon the risk analysis scores and grouped into one of

121 three categories: highest (9 – 12), high (8 – 7), and low (<7). The results of this step were then

122 subject to review revision by third party professionals as described in Step 2

123 Part 2. Adaption Action Plans

124 Part 2 of the investigation entailed the formulation of specific action plans to reduce climate-

125 related risks to the IRLNEP mission.

126 Step 4 – Adaptation actions

127 The objective of this step was to identify adaptation actions to reduce priority risks. This was

128 accomplished by reviewing Step 3 results and then generating the fewest number of adaption

129 actions that could reduce the largest number of the highest-level risks. For example, if it was

130 determined that two action plans (i.e., impaired waters, wastewater) were consistently scored at

131 the highest level of risk to the same climate change stressor (i.e., sea-level rise) and those risks

132 represented a majority of the total number of risks, then an effort would be made to develop a

133 single adaption action that could mitigate all of them.

134 Step 5 – Action Plans

6
135 The objective of this step was to prepare one or more action plan that could be implemented to

136 achieve the goal of each adaptation action.

137 Results

138 Part 1 – Vulnerability assessment

139 The vulnerability assessment, as described in the following sections, benefited from the

140 constructive comments and recommendations of 40 stakeholders and practitioners, as well as

141 those in attendance of nearly a dozen professional meetings and workshops during which the

142 project results were presented at various stages of completion.

143 Step 1 – Risk identification

144 Five climate change stressors were identified as most relevant to the IRLNEP risk-based

145 vulnerability assessment.

146 Warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures are one of the most obvious signs of climate

147 change. Concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are increasing in the Earth’s

148 atmosphere. In response, average temperatures at the Earth’s surface are increasing and expected

149 to continue rising. In IRL watershed, the average annual temperature has risen by 1 Co since

150 1895 (c.f., Parkinson and Seidel, 2018). Robbins and Lisle (2017) found no significant change in

151 monthly averages of IRL water temperature collected over the past 15 years, however it can be

152 expected that rising atmospheric temperatures will ultimately result in an increase in IRL water

153 temperatures. Rising temperatures will trigger changes in water quality and clarity (i.e., salinity,

154 DO, Ch a).

155 Changes in precipitation. As the average temperature at the Earth’s surface rises more

156 evaporation occurs, which in turn can locally increase or decrease rainfall patterns (i.e., timing,

7
157 rate, duration). In Florida, a decline in average precipitation has been observed over the last

158 decade (Runkle et al. 2017). Historically, the number of high-intensity rain events (greater than 4

159 inches/day) in Florida has been highly variable; however, the highest number of days with more

160 than 4 inches of rain occurred during the current decade (2010–2014) (Runkle et al. 2017). In the

161 IRL watershed, analysis of historical data indicate a tendency towards drier spring and fall

162 conditions and wetter winters (Easterling et al., 2017). In a study by Dourte et al. (2015), rain-

163 gauge stations in the IRL watershed showed a substantial increase in extreme rains (>6 in/day)

164 over the last 30 years when compared to the previous 30-year period. These observations suggest

165 high-intensity rain events are becoming more common and will continue to rise under conditions

166 of a changing climate. The combination of extended intervals of drier conditions punctuated by

167 more frequent cloud bursts may lead to changing temporal and spatial salinity patterns and a

168 significant reduction in water quality as pollutants amassed during weeks to months of drier

169 weather are discharged into the IRL watershed over a short (hours) period of time.

170 Increasing storminess. This stressor category includes hurricanes, tropical storms, and other

171 intense rotating storms. Recent modeling suggests storms will become more intense over the 21st

172 century (Knutson et al., 2010; Dow et al., 2013; US EPA, 2016). The combined and most

173 relevant effects of increased storminess on the IRL will be an increase in the flux of freshwater

174 (rainfall), erosion (waves and currents), flooding (storm surge), and destruction (rainfall, wind,

175 waves, currents, storm surge) during event conditions.

176 Acidification. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is predicted to increase throughout this century and

177 so too is ocean acidity as more of this greenhouse gas is absorbed at the air-sea interface. Over

178 the past 13 years, Robbins and Lisle (2017) reported a significant increase in IRL acidification.

179 The increase in acidity can harm or kill juvenile fish (Baumann et al., 2012; Frommel et al.,

8
180 2012) and makes it more difficult for calcifying taxa to produce and maintain their shells or

181 exoskeletons (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2009).

182 Sea level rise. As the temperature of the Earth changes, so too does the elevation of global

183 eustatic sea level. This is because rising temperatures cause an increase in the flux of glacial and

184 ice sheet meltwater into the ocean, causing sea level to rise. Second, as sea water warms, it

185 expands causing an increase in the height of sea level. The most recent global eustatic sea-level

186 rise scenarios (USACE, 2013; Sweet et al., 2017) suggest it will reach elevations of between 0.2

187 and 0.6 m above present by 2050 and 0.3 to 2.5 m by the end of this century. This will lead to the

188 inundation of low-lying coastal areas, shoreline erosion, and saltwater intrusion. Higher sea level

189 elevations are also expected to increase the frequency and extent of flooding during storm

190 events.

191

192 The second task in Step 1 was to conduct a preliminary review of the 2008 CCMP to identify

193 action plans, associated with each of the program goals, that would likely be at risk to the five

194 climate change stressors. A total of 85 action plans were evaluated and of those, more than 50%

195 were at risk or possibly at risk to climate change (Table 2).

196 Step 2 - Risk analysis

197 All NEPs are required to update (minor changes) or revise (significant changes) the CCMP every

198 ten years based upon a program evaluation (National Estuary Program, 2016). This includes a

199 review of the goals, objectives, and associated action plans and may result in the removal,

200 replacement, or addition of new content based upon the activities, actions, and new information

201 acquired during the previous ten years. By the time Step 2 was initiated (2018), the IRLNEP had

202 revised the 2008 CCMP and was operating under a newly approved CCMP (Indian River Lagoon

9
203 National Estuary Program, 2019). Some of the action plans contained in the 2008 document were

204 removed, either because they had been completed or were no longer relevant, and new action

205 plans were added as determined by the program evaluation committee. These differences were

206 reconciled in this step.

207

208 Central to the revised 2019 CCMP is the vital signs wheel (Figure 2). It includes three missions

209 (i.e., One Lagoon), five categories (formally goals, i.e., Water Quality), and 32 vital signs (i.e.,

210 Impaired Waters) central to the success of the program. The vital signs were created as critical

211 indices to measure progress in each category. Associated with each vital sign is one or more

212 action plan formulated to promote specific activities to facilitate category progress. During Step

213 2, it was determined that two of the three program missions (i.e., One Community and One

214 Voice) and associated ten vital signs could not be subject to risk analysis either because they

215 were not included in the 2008 CCMP or it was determined they were not at risk to climate

216 change (Table 3). Eight new vital signs and corresponding action plans (n = 26) in the One

217 Lagoon mission were not evaluated because they too were not included in the 2008 CCMP or at

218 risk. As a result, the risk analysis was conducted on 48 of the 102 action plans contained in the

219 revised CCMP. Of those, 31 were determined to be at risk to one or more of the five climate

220 change stressors. And because each of the climate change stressors could result in more than one

221 risk to an action plan or impact multiple action plans, the number of stress-related risks was

222 always greater than the number of action plans being stressed. For example, warmer temperature

223 was determined to put the Impaired Waters vital sign at risk to five stresses: (1) increasing Ch a

224 concentrations due to more frequent algal blooms, (2) decreasing DO solubility due to warmer

225 water temperatures, (3) decreasing DO availability due to more frequent algal blooms, (4)

10
226 decreasing DO availability due to an acceleration in the decomposition of organic matter, and (5)

227 decreasing water clarity due to increased growth rates and survival of algae and related taxa. A

228 total of 472 risks were identified. Of those, fifty percent were associated with three vital signs:

229 Impaired Waters, Wastewater, and Surface Water. Ninety-seven percent of these risks were

230 induced by three climate change stressors: change in precipitation, increasing storminess, and

231 sea-level rise.

232 Step 3 – Risk prioritization

233 Step 3 results (Table 3) indicate 370 of the 472 risks were scored at the highest level of risk,

234 followed by higher (n = 63), and high (n = 2). It was determined that 37 risks would have to be

235 accepted because they could not be mitigated. For example, rising water temperature will reduce

236 the solubility of DO, but there are no action plans that could be successfully implemented to

237 mitigate the level of risk caused by this climate change stressor. Fifty-eight percent of the

238 remaining risks scored as highest were associated with the same three water quality vital signs

239 mentioned is Step 2: Impaired Waters, Wastewater, and Surface Water.

240 Part 2. Adaption action plans

241 Step 4 – Adaptation actions

242 Based upon the results of Part 1, the adaption actions developed during this step focused on

243 improving water quality by mitigating risks to Impaired Waters, Wastewater, and Surface Water

244 caused by the three dominant climate change stressors: precipitation, increased storminess, and

245 sea-level rise. The proposed adaption actions were constructed to target the principle sources of

246 elevated pollutant loadings anticipated to accompany climate change and further degrade water

247 quality: wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), on site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS),

248 and surface water storage and conveyance infrastructure (SWSC) (Table 4). In so doing, a

11
249 majority of the highest at-risk vital signs could be mitigated by a limited number of Adaptation

250 Actions. Support for this decision was also based on the recognition that the remaining vital

251 signs, though not specifically targeted, would likely benefit and certainly not be harmed by this

252 approach. Nine Adaptation Actions were recommended to accomplish these objectives (Table 5).

253 Step 5– Action Plans

254 A single five-step action plan was established to successfully complete each of the nine

255 adaptation actions:

256 1. Construct a georeferenced map of all wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), on site treatment

257 and disposal systems (OSTDS), and surface water storage and conveyance infrastructure

258 (SWSC), including (invert)elevations, proximity to groundwater table and IRL shoreline,

259 and service area.

260 2. Evaluate integrity of all WWTP, OSTDS, and SWSC infrastructure (age, design life, service

261 history).

262 3. Evaluate the vulnerability of all WWTP, OSTDS, and SWSC infrastructure to the three

263 predominant climate change stressors.

264 4. Prioritize risks to all WWTP, OSTDS, SWSC infrastructure based upon information generated

265 in Steps 1 - 3. This should be based upon a numerical score as was done in Step 2 of this

266 investigation.

267 5. Prepare and implement a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (CCAS) containing a

268 comprehensive set of goals and objectives to mitigate the risks to priority at risk WWTP,

269 OSTDS, SWSC infrastructure.

270 Discussion

12
271 The goal of this investigation was to assist the IRLNEP in becoming “climate ready” by (1)

272 conducting a risk-based assessment of the program’s vulnerability to climate change and (2)

273 developing and implementing adaptation actions to reduce those risks. Results of the

274 vulnerability assessment indicated there were 370 highest-level risks to the newly revised

275 CCMP. Fifty-eight percent of those risks were associated with three water quality vital signs:

276 Impaired Waters, Wastewater, and Surface Water. Ninety percent of those risks were induced by

277 three climate change stressors: change in precipitation, increasing storminess, and sea-level rise.

278 Rather than generate myriad adaptation actions to address the specific risks to each category, it

279 was decided to focus on the three most critical vital signs and climate stressors. In so doing, the

280 goal of optimizing risk reduction using the smallest number of requisite adaptation actions was

281 achieved. The remaining vital signs that were not specifically targeted by these adaptation

282 actions will likely benefit and certainly not be harmed by this approach. This is because any

283 improvements in water quality resulting from a reduction in pollutant loadings will cascade

284 through the ecosystem, stimulating improvements in habitat value and ecosystem function.

285

286 The next challenge to the IRLNEP will be to implement and monitor the progress of the nine

287 CCAS. The successful restoration of other large estuaries required a commitment of billions of

288 dollars to identify and fund projects over half a century (c.f. Sherwood, 2016; Lefcheck et al.,

289 2018; Beck et al., 2019). While the IRLNEP program has consistently supported projects

290 designed to improve water quality, habitat value, and ecosystem function since inception, it’s

291 funds are limited (~$500,000 yr-1) as the programwas not created as a stand-alone means with

292 which to restore the lagoon. Over the past few years, new funding has become available through

293 local, state, and federal initiatives (i.e., Save our Indian River Lagoon, Brevard County; various

13
294 Florida House of Representative bills; The Protect and Restore America’s Estuaries Act, US

295 House of Representatives) that now exceeds $0.5 billion, but more will be required. Equally

296 important will be the ability to track implementation, progress, and success of of the adaptation

297 actions within a 2,284 km2 watershed that spans the jurisdictional boundaries of five counties,

298 two water management districts and several state agencies (i.e. Florida Department of

299 Environmental Protection, Florida Agricultural and Consumer Services). To meet these

300 challenges, a path forward is proposed (Figure 3) that relies on the existing partnership between

301 the state of Florida and the IRLNEP. The efficacy of this partnership is favorable given both

302 programs have a dedicated leadership structure, common goals, an established stakeholder

303 network, funding stream, and monitoring / reporting protocol. By working together over the

304 decades ahead and following the guidelines of adaptive management, is seems possible to

305 improve the IRL’s water quality, reduce impairment, and stimulate the emergence of a more

306 resilient, climate-ready estuary.

307 Acknowledgments - This work was supported by the Indian River Lagoon Council under Grants

308 IRL2017-01 (Risk-based Vulnerability Assessment) and IRL2017-12 (Adaptation Planning).

309 Thanks to Charles (Chuck) Jacoby (St. John’s River Water Management District), Kathy Hill

310 (Indian River National Estuary Program), and all the practitioners and stakeholders who

311 provided constructive input throughout the duration of this three-year project. This is publication

312 ??? of Florida International University Sea Level Solutions Center.

313 Declaration of interest statement - This is to acknowledge there exists no financial interest or

314 benefit arising from the direct applications of this research.

315 References

14
316 Baumann, H., Talmage, S.C., and Gobler, C.J., 2012, Reduced early life growth and survival in a
317 fish in direct response to increased carbon dioxide: Nature Climate Change, v. 2, p. 38–
318 41, doi:10.1038/nclimate1291.

319 Bauza-Ortega, J., 2015, San Juan Bay Estuary Climate Change Adaptation Plan: San Juan Bay
320 Estuary Program, 62 p.

321 Beck, M.W., Sherwood, E.T., Henkel, J.R., Dorans, K., Ireland, K., and Varela, P., 2019,
322 Assessment of the Cumulative Effects of Restoration Activities on Water Quality in
323 Tampa Bay, Florida: Estuaries and Coasts, v. 42, p. 1774–1791, doi:10.1007/s12237-019-
324 00619-w.

325 Beever III, J., Council, S.F.R.P., Gray, W., Cobb, D., and Walker, T., 2012, Climate Change
326 Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Opportunities for Salt Marsh Types in
327 Southwest Florida: Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Fort Myers, Florida,
328 http://www.academia.edu/download/33753304/Salt_Marsh_Study_2012_FINAL_reduce
329 d.pdf (accessed July 2017).

330 Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, 2010, Charlotte Harbor Regional Climate Change
331 Vulnerability Assessment:

332 Chassignet, E., Jones, J., Misra, V., and Obeysekera, J., 2017, Executive Summary, in Florida’s
333 Climate: Changes, Variations, & Impacts, Florida Climate Institute,
334 doi:10.17125/fci2017.exsum.

335 Dourte, D.R., Fraisse, C.W., and Bartels, W.-L., 2015, Exploring changes in rainfall intensity
336 and seasonal variability in the Southeastern U.S.: Stakeholder engagement, observations,
337 and adaptation: Climate Risk Management, v. 7, p. 11–19,
338 doi:10.1016/j.crm.2015.02.001.

339 Dow, K. et al., 2013, Chapter 13. Climate Adaptations in the Southeast USA, in Ingram, K.T.
340 ed., Climate of the Southeast United States - Variability, Change, Impacts, and
341 Vulnerability, Washington, DC, Southeast Climate Consortium, p. 295–320,
342 doi:10.5822/978-1-61091-509-0_13.

343 East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,
344 2016, Indian River Lagoon Economic valuation update 2016: Florida Department of
345 Economic Opportunity Final 08-26–2016, 69 p.

346 Easterling, D.R., Kunkel, K.F., Arnold, J.R., Knutson, T., LeGrande, A.N., Leung, L.R., Vose,
347 R.S., Waliser, D.E., and Wehner, M.F., 2017, Precipitation change in the United States,
348 in Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, D.J., Stewart, B.C., and
349 Maycock, T.K. eds., Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate
350 Assessment, Volume I, Washington, D.C., U.S. Global Change Research Program, p.
351 207–0230.

352 EPA, 2014, Being Prepared for Climate Change A Workbook for Developing Risk-Based
353 Adaptation Plans: EPA Climate Ready Estuaries, 128 p.

15
354 Frommel, A.Y., Maneja, R., Lowe, D., Malzahn, A.M., Geffen, A.J., Folkvord, A., Piatkowski,
355 U., Reusch, T.B.H., and Clemmesen, C., 2012, Severe tissue damage in Atlantic cod
356 larvae under increasing ocean acidification: Nature Climate Change, v. 2, p. 42–46,
357 doi:10.1038/nclimate1324.

358 Gillanders, B.M., Elsdon, T.S., Halliday, I.A., Jenkins, G.P., Robins, J.B., and Valesini, F.J.,
359 2011, Potential effects of climate change on Australian estuaries and fish utilising
360 estuaries: a review: Marine and Freshwater Research, v. 62, p. 1115,
361 doi:10.1071/MF11047.

362 Gregg, R.M., Reynier, A.S., and Hilberg, L., 2017, The state of climate adaptation in water
363 resources management: Southeastern United States and the U.S. Caribbean: EcoAdapt,
364 216 p.

365 Grubbs, M.W., Johnston, K.K., Wang, G., and Ford, T., 2016, Climate Change Vulnerability
366 Assessment of the Santa Monica Bay Estuary Program Bay Restoration Plan: Santa
367 Monica National Estuary Program, 184 p.

368 Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al., 2007, Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean
369 Acidification: Science, v. 318, p. 1737–1742, doi:10.1126/science.1152509.

370 Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 2008, Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive
371 Conservation and Management Plan Update 2008: Indian River Lagoon National Estuary
372 Program, 120 p.

373 Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 2019, Looking ahead to 2030 - A 10-year
374 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Indian River Lagoon: Indian
375 River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 90 p.,
376 http://www.irlcouncil.com/uploads/7/9/2/7/79276172/irlnep_preliminary_final_draft_cc
377 mp_revision_2018-11-01_low.pdf (accessed November 2018).

378 Ingram, K.T., Dow, K., Carter, L., Anderson, J., and Sommer, E.K., 2, Climate of the Southeast
379 United States: variability, change, impacts, and vulnerability: Springer,
380 http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.5822/978-1-61091-509-0.pdf (accessed July
381 2017).

382 James, N., van Niekerk, L., Whitfield, A., Potts, W., Götz, A., and Paterson, A., 2013, Effects of
383 climate change on South African estuaries and associated fish species: Climate Research,
384 v. 57, p. 233–248, doi:10.3354/cr01178.

385 Knutson, T.R., McBride, J.L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea, C., Held, I., Kossin,
386 J.P., Srivastava, A.K., and Sugi, M., 2010, Tropical cyclones and climate change: Nature
387 Geoscience, v. 3, p. 157–163, doi:10.1038/ngeo779.

388 Lefcheck, J.S. et al., 2018, Long-term nutrient reductions lead to the unprecedented recovery of a
389 temperate coastal region: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 115, p.
390 3658–3662, doi:10.1073/pnas.1715798115.

16
391 Lotze, H.K., Lenihan, H.S., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R.G., Kay, M.C., Kidwell,
392 S.M., Kirby, M.X., Peterson, C.H., and Jackson, J.B., 2006, Depletion, Degradation, and
393 Recovery Potential of Estuaries and Coastal Seas: Science, v. 312, p. 1806–1809,
394 doi:10.1126/science.1128035.

395 Miller, A.W., Reynolds, A.C., Sobrino, C., and Riedel, G.F., 2009, Shellfish Face Uncertain
396 Future in High CO2 World: Influence of Acidification on Oyster Larvae Calcification
397 and Growth in Estuaries: PLoS ONE, v. 4, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005661.

398 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016, Attribution of Extreme
399 Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change: Washington, D.C., National
400 Academies Press, p. 21852, doi:10.17226/21852.

401 National Estuary Program, 2016, National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and
402 Management Plan Revision and Update Guidelines:,
403 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
404 02/documents/nep_ccmp_revision_and_update_guidelines_final_5-3-16_1.pdf (accessed
405 April 2020).

406 NOAA, 2010, Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers.:

407 Pachauri, R.K. et al., 2014, Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working
408 Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
409 Climate Change: IPCC, https://epic.awi.de/37530/ (accessed July 2017).

410 Parkinson, R.W., and Seidel, V., 2018, Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of the Indian
411 River Lagoon National Estuary Program’s Comprehensive Conservation and
412 Management Plan: Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Final Report, 110 p.

413 Robbins, L.L., and Lisle, J.T., 2017, Regional Acidification Trends in Florida Shellfish
414 Estuaries: a 20+ Year Look at pH, Oxygen, Temperature, and Salinity: Estuaries and
415 Coasts, doi:10.1007/s12237-017-0353-8.

416 Robins, P.E. et al., 2016, Impact of climate change on UK estuaries: A review of past trends and
417 potential projections: Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 169, p. 119–135,
418 doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.016.

419 Shafer, D., Shafer, J., and Quigley, C., 2017, Embracing Our Future - Sarasota Bay Estuary
420 Program Climate Vulnerability Assessment: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, 50 p.

421 Sherwood, E.T., 2016, Tampa Bay estuary: Monitoring long-term recovery through regional
422 partnerships: Regional Studies in Marine Science, p. 11.

423 St. Johns River Water Management District, 2007, Indian River Lagoon - an introduction to a
424 national treasure:, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
425 01/documents/58692_an_river_lagoon_an_introduction_to_a_natural_treasure_2007.pdf
426 (accessed April 2020).

17
427 Statham, P.J., 2012, Nutrients in estuaries — An overview and the potential impacts of climate
428 change: Science of The Total Environment, v. 434, p. 213–227,
429 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.088.

430 Sweet, W., Kopp, R., Weaver, C., Obeysekera, J., Horton, R.M., Thieler, E.R., and Zervas, C.E.,
431 2017, Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United States: National Oceanic
432 and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083, 75 p.

433 Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 2017, Assessing the vulnerability of Tampa Bay Comprehensive
434 Conservation and Management Plan Goal to the Effects of Climate Change: Tampa Bay
435 Estuary Program Technical Report 10B-17, 21 p.

436 The National Academy of Sciences, and The Royal Society, 2020, Climate Change: Evidence
437 and Causes: Update 2020: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, p. 25733,
438 doi:10.17226/25733.

439 US EPA, 2016, Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2016:,
440 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators.

441 USACE, 2013, Incorporating sea level change in civil works programs: ER 1100-2-8162,
442 https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/Ers/ER_1100-2-8162.pdf (accessed July
443 2017).

444 USGCRP, 2018, Fourth National Climate Assessment:, https://nca2018.globalchange.gov

445 (accessed November 2018).

446

18
 Consequence Spatial extent of impact
1. Low (could adjust, life will go on) 1. Site (bridge, stormwater outflow)
2. Medium 2. Area (community, wildlife refuge)
3. High (catastrophic, major disruption) 3. Region (watershed)
Likelihood Time horizon
1. Low (unlikely) 1. >10 years
2. Medium 2. 5 – 10 years
3. High (very likely, predictable) 3. Already occurring or <5 years
447 Table 1. Parameters and corresponding numeric values used in Risk Analysis to score and rank

448 threats to CCMP caused by climate change stressors.

19
 Goal Action Plans Relevant Possibly Not Relevant
Point source discharge 0 0 5
On-site sewage treatment 0 2 1
Water and Sediment
Fresh and storm water discharges 2 7 4
Quality Improvements
Atmospheric Deposition 1 0 0
TMDLs 1 0 2
Sum 4 13 15
Biodiversity 1 1 1
Seagrass 1 0 0
Wetlands 6 1 1
Impounded marsh restoration and management 0 0 0
Land acquisition and protection 0 2 2
Living Resources Endangered and threatened species 3 1 1
Fisheries 3 0 0
Biotoxins and Health 1 2 0
Climate Change 3 0 0
Invasive Fauna and Flora 1 1 2
Sum 19 8 7
Public involvement and education 1 0 3
IRL CCMP Implementation 0 0 2
Data and information management strategy 0 0 3
Public and Government
Monitoring 1 0 2
Support and Involvement
IRL scientific research 0 0 3
Environmental incident assessment and response 0 0 3
Sum 2 0 16
Financing Economic analysis 0 0 1
Grand total 25 21 39
449 Table 2. Results of risk identification based upon goals and action plans contained in the 2008 CCMP (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary

450 Program, 2008).

20
 Category Vital Sign Action Plans Stressor Level of Risk
Total Vulnerable Temp PPt Storms pH SLR Sum Highest Higher High Accept Sum
Impaired waters 3 3 5 54 57 0 55 171 162 4 0 5 171
Wastewater 6 6 1 10 10 1 10 32 30 0 0 2 32
Surface water 5 4 5 8 8 1 9 31 24 2 2 3 31
Hydrology and 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 9 3 6 0 0 9
Water
Legacy loads 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Quality
Atmospheric deposition 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3
Contaminants of Concern 2 na DNE
Sum 24 17 15 76 77 2 77 247 219 13 2 13 247
Seagrass 4 3 6 16 15 1 14 52 47 0 0 5 52
Filter feeders 3 na DNE
Living shorelines 5 5 1 1 2 1 2 7 0 4 0 3 7
Wetlands 4 1 3 1 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 5 6
Habitats Watersheds 4 na DNE
Spoil islands 2 na DNE
Land conservation 5 na DNE
Connected waters 5 na DNE
Sum 32 9 10 18 17 2 18 65 48 4 0 13 65
Biodiversity 3 3 3 16 11 1 17 48 33 10 0 5 48
Species of concern 4 1 10 15 18 1 19 63 47 12 0 4 63
Invasive species 2 0 2 15 14 0 14 45 14 28 0 3 45
Living
Forage fishes 2 na DNE
Resources
Commercial and 4 1 3 15 19 1 14 52 42 6 0 4 52
Harmful algal blooms 3 na DNE
Climate ready estuaries 2 na herein
Sum 20 5 15 45 51 2 47 160 103 46 0 11 160
n= 5 13 na DNE

n= 5 13 na DNE
451 Grand Total 102 31 40 139 145 6 142 472 370 63 2 37 472

452 Table 3. Summary of climate change stressors and risks to revised CCMP Vital Signs and associated Action Plans

21
 Wastewater
Climate Stressor WWTP OSTDS SWSC
Temporary increased Temporary saturation Temporary failure of
infiltration and inflow of drain field. WWTP and OSTDS
Precipitation from aging residential within domain
and commercial
parcels.
Temporary flooding Temporary saturation Temporary failure of
and physical damage of drain field and WWTP and OSTDS
Storminess (wind, waves) to physical damage within domain
plant. (wind, waves) to
infrastructure.
Permanent reduction Permanent saturation Permanent failure of
in hydraulic head. of drain field and WWTP and OSTDS
physical damage within domain.
(erosion) to
infrastructure.

Permanent flooding Permanent Permanent reduction

Sea-level rise and physical damage compromised in hydraulic head.
(wind, waves) to performance due to
sanitary sewer lines saltwater intrusion.
and plant.
Permanent
compromised
performance due to
saltwater intrusion
453 Table 4. Risks to water quality mitigated by the successful implementation of the nine

454 adaptation actions. WWTP = wastewater treatment plant, OSTDS = on-site treatment and

455 disposal system, SWSC = surface water storage and conveyance system.

22
 Stressor Adaptation Action
1. Reduce pollutant loadings from WWTP during high
rainfall events
2. Reduce pollutant loadings from OSTDS during high
Changes in precipitation
rainfall events
3. Reduce pollutant loadings from SWSC infrastructure
during high rainfall events
4. Reduce pollutant loadings from WWTP due to more
frequent and intense storms
5. Reduce pollutant loadings from OSTDS due to more
Increasing storminess
frequent and intense storms
6. Reduce pollutant loadings from SWSC infrastructure
due to more frequent and intense storms
7. Reduce pollutant loadings from WWTP caused by
rising water table and sea level (inundation, erosion)
8. Reduce pollutant loadings from OSTDS caused by
Sea-level rise rising water table and sea level (inundation, erosion)
9. Reduce pollutant loadings from SWSC infrastructure
caused by rising water table and sea level (inundation,
erosion)
456 Table 5. Adaptation Actions proposed to reduce risks to the IRL CCMP (Indian River Lagoon

457 National Estuary Program, 2019) caused by climate change. WWTP = wastewater treatment

458 plant, OSTDS = on site treatment and disposal system, SWSC = surface water storage and

459 conveyance infrastructure.

23
460

461 Figure 1

24
462
463 Figure 2

25
464
465 Figure 3

26
466 Figure captions

467 Figure 1. Location map of Indian River Watershed that includes five coastal counties and two

468 upland counties (Okeechobee, Palm Beach) integrated into the natural watershed upon

469 construction of surface water conveyance and storage infrastructure in the early 20th century.

470 Figure 2. Vital Signs Wheel created by IRLNEP to communicate the program’s mission. Of

471 relevance to this investigation are the five categories and 32 vital signs located in the outer two

472 layers.

473 Figure 3. Integrated delivery system for a climate ready Indian River Lagoon. IRL BMAP = IRL

474 basin management action plan, CCMP = Comprehensive conservation and management plan,

475 CRE-VA = Climate ready estuary - vulnerability assessment, CRE-AP = Climate ready estuary -

476 action plan, IRL NEP = Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, ML RAP = Mosquito

477 Lagoon reasonable assurance plan, TMDL = total maximum daily loads.

27