Skip to main content

Ecosystem Evaluation, Climate Change and Water Resources Planning

  • Chapter
Climate Change and Water Resources Planning Criteria

Abstract

This paper considers ecosystem evaluation under conditions of climate change in the context both of the U.S. Water Resources Council’s Principles and Guidelines (P&G) and the more general Federal regulations governing environmental evaluation. Federal water agencies have responsibilities for protecting aquatic ecosystems through their regulatory programs and operations and planning missions. The primary concern of water resources and aquatic ecosystems planning in the United States is on the riparian or floodplain corridors of river systems. In the context of climate change, planning for these systems focusses on adaptation options both for current climate variability and for that engendered by potential climate change.

Ecosystems appear to be highly vulnerable to climate change, as described in IPCC reports. Aquatic ecosystems are likely to be doubly affected, first by thermally induced changes of global warming and second by changes in the hydrologic regime. Perhaps as much as any of the issues dealt with in this issue, the evaluation of ecosystems is linked to fundamental questions of criteria as well as to the details of the Federal environmental planning system. That system is a densely woven, interlocking system of environmental protection legislation, criteria and regulations that includes a self-contained evaluation system driven by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedural guidelines (United States Council on Environmental Quality, 1978) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements. The Corps of Engineers must use both the P&G and the NEPA/EIS system in discharging its responsibilities.

If U.S. Federal agencies are to take the lead in formulating and evaluating adaptation options, there needs to be a reexamination of existing evaluation approaches. Among the elements of the P&G that may require rethinking in view of the prospects of global climate change are those relating to risk and uncertainty, nonstationarity, interest rates, and multiple objectives. Within the government planning process, efforts must be made to resolve inconsistencies and constraints in order to permit the optimal evaluation of water-based ecosystems under global climate change. The interrelationships of the two systems are described in this paper, and alternative ways of viewing the planning process are discussed. Strategic planning and management at the watershed level provides an effective approach to many of the issues. Current NEPA/EIS impact analysis does not provide a suitable framework for environmental impact analysis under climate uncertainty, and site-specific water resources evaluation relating to climate change appears difficult at current levels of knowledge about climate change. The IPCC Technical Guidelines, however, provide a useful beginning for assessing the impacts of future climate states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Band, L., Mackay, D.S., Creed, I.F., Seinkin, R., and Jeffries, D.: 1996, “Ecosystem Processes at the Watershed Scale: Sensitivity to Potential Climate Change,” Limnology and Oceanography 41, (5) 928–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brumbaugh, R. and Reppert, R.: 1994, National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study, First Phase Report,Alexandria, Va: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Report 94-WRPS-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, T. R., Parry, M.L., Harasawa, H., and Nishioka, S.: 1994, IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change impacts and Adaptations, IPCC Special Report, Working Group II. University College London and Center for Global Environmental Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coastal America: 1995, Toward a Watershed Approach: A Framework for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Protection and Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, P. and Fisher, S.G. eds.: 1992, Global Climate Change and Freshwater Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, K.D., and Major, D.C.: `Climate Change and Water Resources’, Climatic Change,37, (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, K.D. and Rosenberg, N. J., eds.: 1994, Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on Natural Resource Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 1996a, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 1996b, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation: Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 1996c, Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group Ill to the Second Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavesley, G.: 1994, “Modeling the Effects of Climate Change on Water Resources: A Review,” in Frederick, K.D., and Rosenberg, N.J., eds., Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on Natural Resource Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 159–177.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, R.C.: `Intertemporal Equity, Discounting, and Economic Efficiency in Water Policy Evaluation’, Climatic Change,37 (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lins, H., Wolock, D., and McCabe, G.J.: `Scale and Modeling Issues in Water Resources Planning’, Climatic Change,37 (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A., Hufschmidt, M., Dorfman, R., Thomas, H., Marglin, S. and Fair, G.: 1962, Design of Water-Resource Systems, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, D.C. and Frederick, K.D.: `Water Resources Planning and Climate Change Assessment Methods’, Climatic Change,37 (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, D.C.: 1977, Multiobjective Water Resource Planning, Water Resources Monograph 4, American Geophysical Union, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, D.C., and Schwarz, H.E.: 1990, Large-Scale Regional Water Resources Planning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matalas, N.: `Stochastic Hydrology in the Context of Climate Change’, Climatic Change,37, (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, K.E.: `Nonmarket Valuation and the Estimation of Damages from Global Warming’, Climatic Change,37 (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marglin, S.A.: 1967, Public Investment Criteria, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D., Brakke, D.F., and Mulholland, P.J., eds.: 1996, Freshwater Ecosystems and Climate Change in North America,published as a Symposium Special Issue of Limnology and Oceanography 41 (5), 815–1109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelsohn, R. and Rosenberg, N. J.: 1994, `Framework for Integrated Assessments of Global Warming Impacts,’ Climatic Change, 28, no. 1–2, 15–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, G., O’Neal, K., Humphrey, J., Bell, K., Camacho, R., and Funk, R.: 1995, Ecological Impacts from Climate Change: An Economic Analysis of Freshwater Recreational Fishing, EPA-230-R-95–004, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D.R., Grant, G.E., and Sullivan, K.: 1995, “Watershed Analysis as a Framework for Implementing Ecosystem Management,” Water Resources Bulletin, 31 (3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 1969, Public Law 91–190, 42 U.S.C. 43214347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M.: 1995, “Natural Hazards and Environmental Risk Analysis: Some Policy Issues,” presented at the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Conference on Risk Assessment and Decision-Making on Natural Hazards, Proceedings, 2–3 November 1995, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T.C.: 1993, “Some Economics of Global Warming,” in Dorfman, R., and Dorfman, N.S., eds., 1993, Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings, 3rd ed.,W.W. Norton, New York, ch. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stakhiv, E. Z.: 1996a. “Return to the Future: Watershed Planning-The Quest for a New Paradigm,” Proceedings, Watershed ’86–Moving Ahead Together, Baltimore, MD, June 8–12, 1996, pp 246–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stakhiv, E.Z.: 1996b, “Managing Water Resources for Climate Change Adaptation,” Smith, J.B., et al., eds., Adapting to Climate Change: An International Perspective, NewYork: Springer Veriag, pp. 243–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toman, M.A.: 1994, “Economics and Sustainability,” Land Economics 70 (4), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 1995a, Implementing Ecosystem Restoration Projects in Connection with Dredging, EC 1105–2–209, 3 Apr 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 1995b, Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment, EC 1105–2–206, 27 Apr 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 1995c, Ecosystem Restoration in the Civil Works Program, EC 11052–210, 1 Jun 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources (IWR): 1995, Evaluation of Environmental Investments Procedures Manual - Interim: Cost-Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses, IWR Report 95-R-1, Fort Belvoir, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources (IWR): 1996a, Civil Works Environmental Desk Reference, IWR Report 96-PS-3, Fort Belvoir, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources (IWR): 1996b, “Federal Environmental Legislation,” Briefing sheet, Fort Belvoir, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources (IWR): 1996c, An Introduction to Risk and Uncertainty in the Evaluation of Environmental! Investments. IWR Report 96-R-8, Fort Belvoir, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): 1978. “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Quality Act,” Federal Register 43, 55978–56007, November 29, 1978–40 CFR Parts 1500–1508.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1995. “Draft Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment.” External Review Draft, EPA Risk Assessment Forum, EPA /630/R-95/002. Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Government. 1995. Federal Guidelines for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks, Federal Register Document 95–29023, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Water Resources Council: 1973, “Water and Related Land Resources: Establishment of Principles and Standards for Planning,” Federal Register 38. (174), 24,778–27,869.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Water Resources Council: 1983, Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, March 10, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. White House Office of Environmental Policy: 1993, Protecting America’s Wetlands: A Fair, Flexible and Effective Approach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R.T., et al.: 1995, Global Biodiversity Assessment: Summary for Policy Makers,Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Kenneth D. Frederick David C. Major Eugene Z. Stakhiv

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stakhiv, E.Z., Major, D.C. (1997). Ecosystem Evaluation, Climate Change and Water Resources Planning. In: Frederick, K.D., Major, D.C., Stakhiv, E.Z. (eds) Climate Change and Water Resources Planning Criteria. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1051-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1051-0_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4912-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1051-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics